Military Construction, Veterans Affairs And Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 - Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Oklahoma, is the Senator suggesting we should open this up to caregivers for veterans of all wars?

Mr. COBURN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator from Oklahoma join me in that endeavor?

Mr. COBURN. If we are going to do this bill, yes, I would.

Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator from Oklahoma also agree that this bill was on the calendar long before Veterans Day?

Mr. COBURN. Absolutely, but when was the hold? Less than 3 weeks ago. It wasn't brought to the floor before then.

Mr. DURBIN. It was brought to the floor on September 25.

Mr. COBURN. Okay, 5 weeks. Pardon me.

Mr. DURBIN. Also, I would ask the Senator if he is suggesting we should have included the appropriations for this bill before we authorized it?

Mr. COBURN. I would answer my colleague that we do that 280 billion times a year.

Mr. DURBIN. The Senator would endorse that, and wants us to include the appropriations before we set up authorizing language?

Mr. COBURN. What I would tell my colleague is you do it routinely on the appropriations bill. So why is this any different?

My question to my colleague is: If in fact this is so important to get done today, knowing there is no money in this bill for this--my colleague would agree with that, would he not, that there is no money in this appropriations bill for this act? Is that a correct statement?

Mr. DURBIN. To my knowledge, there is not.

Mr. COBURN. There is not. So we are going to say we are going to authorize something in the hopes that we have to do it right now, knowing that unless we have an omnibus or a supplemental this won't actually happen until we get to this bill again next year.

Mr. DURBIN. So is the Senator from Oklahoma conceding an authorizing bill does not spend money, since the passage of this authorizing bill, as you said, would not spend a penny?

Mr. COBURN. No, I will not concede that. Because what it does is it causes us--and I enjoy debating my colleague from Illinois. Here is my point on authorization bills. We can authorize and authorize and authorize, and when we do, we are telling veterans they are going to get this. That is what we are telling them. We are communicating to every veterans organization and we are telling them we are going to do this. So if we are going to tell them we are going to do it, we ought to put in process the way to do it. And if we are saying it has to happen right now, then where is the money? Show me the money to make it happen right now.

The fact is--and I will reclaim my time--we play games, and the game we are playing is that we can authorize and send out a press release but then we are not held accountable to do what we have authorized. There are a lot of good key components in this bill. My objection is twofold: One, it discriminates against previous veterans, which I think is uncalled for; and two, we don't eliminate any of the waste in terms of authorizations so that we more focus the Appropriations Committee.

There is no question the Appropriations Committee has the power to fund money anywhere they want and they do it whether the bills are authorized or not authorized. I will be glad to give the Senator from Illinois a list of the $280 billion we spend every year that is not authorized. It is a spurious argument to state that we should not have fiscal accountability when we authorize programs. We should have and we ought to make the tough choices. The problem is, we do not do any oversight, to speak of, to cause us to know the programs that are not working that we could eliminate so we will not have duplicate funding and so we will not spend it.

The question veterans ask me is what is our priority with our money. The first priority has to be defending the country. The second priority ought to be about taking care of veterans. What we do is we have $300 billion a year in waste, fraud, and duplication on things that do not do either of those and that are extremely wasteful. Nobody with common sense would say they ought to continue. Yet we continue down the process.

I have taken more than my time and I know my colleagues are going to vote. I would tell my colleague from Illinois we have had this debate a large number of times. We have a frank disagreement about the fiscal discipline that should be required of us as Senators. The fact is, we are going to authorize a bill and we are not going to make any tough choices about anything else and we are not going to take away any options from the Appropriations Committee when it comes to funding. To me, that abrogates our responsibility to be good authorizers. I will stand by that conviction as long as I am in the Senate. We had that debate on the bridge to nowhere, which my colleague supported, which was in an authorizing bill--and multiple times.

With that, I yield the floor and I am prepared to listen to my colleague from Illinois.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I know we have a standing order for a trigger to move to the Executive Calendar, but I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request, a short statement, and then to ask two other amendments which I have introduced to this bill be called and be pending.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I will speak briefly to the Senator from Oklahoma. This is not my bill. This was a bill introduced by Senator Hillary Clinton. It has been around for a long time. It is an effort to provide some help to the 6,800 families who have in their homes today a disabled veteran who needs a caregiver, someone who helps that veteran change the dressings on their wounds, provides an IV change if necessary, injections if necessary, move them from bed to chair and back again. For many of our veterans, that is their lifeline. It is a wife who is giving her life to her husband who has returned injured from a war. It is a mother, a father, a son, a daughter, a loved one in the family. These people are as much a part of our veterans medical system as the great people who serve us at the veterans hospitals and veterans centers across America.

What Senator Clinton wanted to do and what I want to help her do is provide some help for these caregivers. Many of them are giving their lives to this veteran. It is not too much to ask that we help them with a small stipend each month, with training so they know how to do the things that are necessary so they can provide the medical help these veterans need, with 2 weeks of respite so they can have a little time off by themselves and have someone else, such as a visiting nurse, step in for the veteran during that period of time.

We reported the bill out of the Veterans' Committee and brought it to the floor. By custom in the Senate, regardless of what you just heard, we first pass a bill authorizing a program and, if it is passed, we appropriate money to the program. I am trying to follow that regular order.

The Senator from Oklahoma has objected. He is the only person objecting. Because of his objection 6,800 veterans, those who served Iraq and Afghanistan, are unable to get this additional care. I know we cannot give it to every caregiver. I know it will be limited, and we will have to make that decision as part of our deliberation as to what we can do. But to say we should do nothing for these people is to make a mockery of this Veterans Day. If we truly care for these veterans, let us care for these families who are giving their lives to help them.

I hope the Senator from Oklahoma will lift the hold on this bill, give us a chance to debate it, offer his amendments. That is what we are here for. But to merely stand and say: No, stop, I will not allow it, I don't think is what the Senate should be about. Let us debate his point of view, my point of view, other points of view, and try to reach some conclusion.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source