Departments Of Transportation And Housing And Urban Development, And Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 - Conference Report

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me congratulate my colleague from Oklahoma on 50 years of marriage. Your wife must be a saint.

Mr. INHOFE. Indeed, she is.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, H.R. 3288 is a consolidated appropriations bill which contains almost all of the remaining spending bills for the fiscal year 2010. This is a process we had not anticipated. We had hoped we could take each bill individually and consider them on the floor and bring them to conclusion. Unfortunately, we ran out of time.

We had over 90 different efforts made to stop debate on the Senate floor on a variety of measures. It took us literally 4 weeks to extend unemployment benefits. This is something usually done routinely on a bipartisan basis, but unfortunately, because of delays and threats of filibusters, it took us 4 weeks to finally come to a vote to extend unemployment benefits in the midst of the worst recession the United States has experienced in over 75 years. It is unthinkable, at a time people were sending us e-mails and letters saying: I can't believe the Senate won't provide a helping hand. It isn't as if the bill itself was controversial. When it finally came to a vote, it passed 97 to nothing. There was no controversy associated with it. The controversy was manufactured on the floor of the Senate to delay consideration of such a very basic bill for 4 weeks.

Those 4 weeks could have been spent calling up these appropriations bills so we could have had what was needed--a healthy, open debate on the bills. Instead, we were forced to wait until toward the end of the session and consolidate the unpassed bills in one measure and bring it to the floor of the Senate today.

I will tell Members of the Senate who wonder if these bills have been carefully reviewed that each and every one of them passed overwhelmingly from the Appropriations Committee. There was one dissenting vote on two or three of these measures, but by and large they passed unanimously. There was little controversy in the Appropriations Committee from either side of the aisle.

The Senate Appropriations Committee, on which I am honored to serve, had been working spring and summer to pass all 12 appropriations bills. Chairman Danny Inouye is not only a great America hero, he is a great American chairman. As the Senate Appropriations Committee chairman, this man has taken up a responsibility which few would shoulder and has done it with an extraordinary amount of talent and dedication. At his side has been Senator Thad Cochran, Republican of Mississippi, who works just as hard to try to make sure what we produce is a great credit to this institution and meets the needs of this great country.

There is one bill remaining after these six pass. It may be one of the most important--the Defense appropriations bill. It was passed by the committee in September and represents the only remaining bill left for us to pass this year, which we certainly want to do before we adjourn at the end of this period before Christmas.

These bills were reported out of committee with overwhelming bipartisan votes. Nine of the 12 were reported unanimously. However, when we moved these bills to the floor, we ran into these obstacles. At one point when we were considering, for example, the question of extending unemployment benefits to millions of Americans who have lost their jobs, exhausted their savings, lost their health insurance, and stand to lose their homes, there was an argument made by one Senator on the other side of the aisle that he didn't want us to call this bill until he had a chance to offer another amendment--another amendment on the ACORN organization. We have had a series of these amendments. We have flogged this group mercilessly for month after weary month. Yet they were going to hold up unemployment benefits for this Senator to have one more chance, one more swing at this organization. That, to me, is not responsible. The responsible thing to do is to recognize all of these families who were counting on us.

Time was lost that could have been used not only to provide unemployment benefits in a more expeditious manner but also to consider these appropriations bills. Appropriations bills in the past, and not too distant past, used to take 1 or 2 days before the Senate. Members would come to the floor, amendments would be offered, debated, end of story. We would have a final vote, and we would move on. Now even routine bills with no controversy take weeks because of amendments to be offered which, frankly, have little or no relevance to the nature of the bill before us.

We brought up the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill on October 6. We didn't finish that bill until November 5. This is a critically important one, one for which most Members would gladly endorse its mission.

These appropriations bills have taken longer because, unfortunately, the minority will not agree to reasonable time limits to consider amendments and finish debate. Instead, we find ourselves consistently sidetracked.

So here we are. We have 21 days before the end of the calendar year, and we need to finish the business of the Congress. To do so, we engaged Republican Members of the Appropriations Committee and worked on reasonable compromises on the differing bills in the House and Senate. I am troubled that some of the very Republican Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee--not all of them; three of them stood up and voted to move this process forward--some of the very Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee who have sat through the subcommittee hearings, the full committee deliberations, have made valuable contributions to the bills themselves, now want to stop the process. It makes no sense. If we are going to do this in an orderly fashion, we should do it in a bipartisan fashion. I hope that is what will happen today.

This package of appropriations bills is a result of a truly bicameral and bipartisan effort. It represents the priorities of our Nation. It invests in students, veterans, and law enforcement, just to name a few. It makes college education more affordable for students by increasing Pell grants to $5,500 a year. Is there a better time for us to do that, to say to children and families that don't have a lot of money: Now is the time to hone your skills, to create new talents in a more challenging economy. Go to school. If you will go to school, we will help you. This package of bills increases the amount of money available for the children in those families. I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will support it.

The conference report also helps local governments fight crime and put more police on our streets. Take a look at the budgets of cities and towns, of counties, of States, and you will realize they are in a death struggle to provide basic services. We have increased grants for local law enforcement by $480 million over last year. Many of the critics of our efforts say: You are spending more money. Yes, we are spending more money to keep cops on the street, to keep neighborhoods safe so that families feel secure. I think it is money well spent. Money spent to help our first responders, firefighters, and policemen is a critical investment. This bill makes that investment. That grant program was cut by almost $2 billion by the previous administration. We are trying to restore that money so we can put more people on the street protecting our citizens. This conference report sets the right priorities by helping States and local police departments fight crime. We also include $298 million for the COPS Program to put more cops on the beat. This funding will help hire and retain approximately 1,400 police officers. The COPS Program has helped train nearly 500,000 law enforcement personnel.

The conference report also helps veterans. It is not enough to give speeches on the floor about how much we love our men and women in uniform and honor our veterans. It is not enough to wear a lapel pin and participate in parades and then come to the floor and vote against the bills that provide the money for the Veterans' Administration.

What we provide here is increased funding to the Veterans Affairs Department of $5.3 billion over last year's level. Those who come and criticize the level of spending in this package of bills are criticizing the additional investment to help our veterans when we need to more than ever. Returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injuries, amputations, these men and women need our help. This package of bills provides that help. We will provide increased access to quality care for all of our veterans. The conference report increases discretionary spending at the VA by more than $5 billion to help them care for 6.1 million veterans they expect to see in 2010.

If I understood the unanimous consent order, we were equally dividing time between now and 9:30. I ask how much time I have remaining on the majority side.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to make a point of pulling out the calendar here and reading the membership on the Senate Appropriations Committee. I thought for sure there were Republicans serving on that committee, and it turns out there are 12 of them. They serve on the committee. They are on the subcommittees. They sat on the full committee deliberations, and they include the Republican minority leader.

Of the six appropriations bills which have come before us today for a vote, they were voted out of the Appropriations Committee by overwhelming votes. In fact, three of the bills were unanimous, meaning that at least the minority leader was counted as voting for the bills which the Senator from Arizona has just criticized, and three of them had a 29-to-1 vote, so I will not suppose what the minority leader's vote was.

But to come before us today and argue that the majority is cramming these votes and bills down the throats of Members without giving them opportunity is to ignore what came before it: the fact that there were subcommittee hearings, the fact that there was a vote in the Appropriations Committee on each of the bills, and they passed overwhelmingly.

So at least at an early stage, an important stage in this process, 11 or 12 Republican Senators signed on and approved the bills. To argue that we are bringing something before the Senate, pushing it through quickly without deliberation, on a partisan basis, does not stand up.

And to listen to the Senator from Arizona, I would tell you, bluntly, the increases in spending in this bill--some of them I hope the Senator from Arizona would not characterize as unwise. I know he feels as I do about veterans in this country. There is a substantial increase in money for veterans for their care. We want to do that. I will be honest with you, we need to pay the real cost of war, and that includes the commitment we have made to men and women who serve our country.

The same thing, I am sure, is true when it comes to law enforcement. I am sure the Senator from Arizona feels as I do.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority's time has expired.

Mr. DURBIN. I urge my colleagues--when this comes for a vote in a few moments--to support the cloture motion. Let's move this forward. Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. I wish to ask, as I understand it now, when it comes to--and let's set aside Crapo-Baucus and assume there is commonality in that. As I understand it now, the Dorgan amendment, which would allow for the importation of pharmaceuticals and drugs into the United States, has been offered on our side as well as a Lautenberg amendment, which has some history in the Senate. It was previously offered by Senator Cochran of Mississippi and establishes a standard for certification of safety of the drugs coming in.

Mr. McCONNELL. Well, fortunately, Senator McCain is on the floor at this time, and I will ask him to describe it.

Mr. McCAIN. I wish to say to my colleague, first of all, as is well known, side-by-sides have been one side of the aisle and the other side of the aisle. If the Lautenberg amendment were in order on the Dorgan amendment as a side-by-side, that would obviously be a change from what we have been doing.

Basically, what my amendment does is make some perfecting changes to the underlying Dorgan amendment. It has some sense-of-the-Senate provisions and several other provisions which I think would help make it more effective. I have to be very honest with my friend from Illinois, it doesn't undermine the Dorgan amendment. I think it supplements the Dorgan amendment, just as the Bennet amendment to Medicare costs supplemented the position we had that Medicare benefits wouldn't be cut.

So side-by-side amendments aren't necessarily in contrast with each other; sometimes they perfect, and I think my amendment makes it a better amendment--makes the Dorgan amendment a better proposal.

Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to expand the colloquy to include Senator McCain.

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

Mr. DURBIN. Does the amendment of the Senator from Arizona, No. 3200, include the existing language of the Dorgan amendment?

Mr. McCAIN. Yes, plus some perfecting language, as far as the Senate is concerned, about other procedures that would expedite the Dorgan amendment as well.

Mr. DURBIN. Is the Senator from Arizona prepared to offer the Lautenberg language in his amendment?

Mr. McCAIN. No, obviously not, because I don't agree with the Lautenberg language in my amendment, as you know. But what we are trying to do is, obviously, make the Dorgan amendment better, just as other amendments that are side-by-sides have tried to make amendments better. They do not necessarily cancel them out but make them better.

Mr. DURBIN. Is the Senator from Arizona a cosponsor of the Dorgan amendment?

Mr. McCAIN. Yes, a proud cosponsor.

Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator from Arizona consider offering whatever is different in 3200 as a separate amendment to the Dorgan amendment?

Mr. McCAIN. I guess what I am not sure--if I understand my friend, I am offering an amendment as a side-by-side in order to, in my view, improve the Dorgan amendment; again, in all candor, not to undermine but to make it better.

Mr. DURBIN. Well, Mr. President, I have an obligation to not only my leader but obviously to Senator Lautenberg, who is being dealt out of the picture here with this unanimous consent request, and he has been offering an amendment which is well known and has been offered previously by Senator Cochran of Mississippi, a Republican. At this point, if Senator Lautenberg is offering--I think at this point I am constrained to object based on this new McCain amendment, and we will discuss it with Senate leadership as to whether we can find a path through this.

This is the third day we have been struggling with this. It appears there is a lot of credence put in the belief that we have to have exactly the same number of Republican and Democratic amendments, and I understand that from the minority point of view.

Mr. McCONNELL. Maybe I have a solution to the problem. It actually involves my side agreeing to a procedure we have not followed throughout this bill, but let me suggest the following, which I think would get us out of this conundrum we seem to be in: that even though we have alternated from side to side, we would agree to both Dorgan and Lautenberg in conjunction, right after Crapo and Baucus; and then we get in the queue our next two--which I believe you are already familiar with, because they have been discussed on the floor--the Hutchison-Thune amendment, and then a Snowe amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. And I withdraw, with great reluctance and great anger, my amendment, because I think the Lautenberg amendment would be in violation of what we have agreed to.

Mr. McCONNELL. In other words, Mr. President, putting it another way, we are basically conceding to what the Senator had earlier proffered as a way to get moving on the bill, and then we would get back into our process of going side to side. And we want you to know that our next two--as we have been letting each side know what the other side was going to offer--our next two would be the Snowe amendment and the Hutchison-Thune amendment.

Mr. DURBIN. Let me suggest this. I will formally object to the original unanimous consent request, and I will then take what I consider to be a good-faith offer from your side as to the next two amendments to the majority leader. We will review the amendments, and I hope even today we will be back to Senators and suggest whether that is a path out of this.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I be clear with the Senator from Illinois that what this means is we would move forward with the side-by-side Dorgan and Lautenberg--we would agree to that--and then we would also expect agreement on following amendments so that we could lock those in for debate and votes?

Mr. DURBIN. May I ask whether the two amendments the minority leader mentioned, which would be Thune and Hutchison, and the other amendment, Snowe, we would be allowed to have side-by-sides to those?

Mr. McCONNELL. Of course.

Mr. DURBIN. If you would be kind enough----

Mr. McCONNELL. If you so chose.

Mr. DURBIN. If you are kind enough to give us time to review that proposal, we will be sure to get back to you.

Mr. McCONNELL. I understand capitulation when we do it, and we have essentially said to the majority we will go along with what you had earlier requested and we would like for you to take ``yes'' for an answer and for us to wrap this up and have a sense of where we are going from here.

Mr. DURBIN. I promise we will get back in a timely fashion.

I object to the initial unanimous consent request.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source