Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010
Floor Speech
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010 -- (Senate - December 16, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield for a question?
Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I am interested in the parliamentary situation that took place earlier whereby one of our Members was actually obliged to withdraw an amendment that was going to be voted on by all of us because of an insistence on the part of the other side that 800 pages be read by our poor clerk before that vote should take place.
I have also heard the other side say that we want to get going, we want to move toward votes.
I would be interested in the reflections of the distinguished majority whip on the extent to which a procedural objection to force the clerk to read 800 pages of an amendment, and deny one of our colleagues his vote, fairly represents a desire to move forward and get through our votes.
Mr. DURBIN. I would say in response to the Senator from Rhode Island, we have heard repeatedly that people want amendment, debate, and a vote. What happened on the floor today, when Senator Coburn of Oklahoma refused to give consent to suspending the reading of the amendment, is that the clerk--clerks, I should say--were forced to start reading. As good as they are at reading, the fact is, it was going to take up to 10 hours to read this amendment. During that 10-hour period of time, nothing could happen--no debate, no amendments--nothing other than listening to the clerks' melodious voices. Fortunately for us, the Senator from Vermont stepped up and said: I withdraw the amendment. But if there was a true interest in debate and amendments on health care, it is inconsistent to say we are going to take a day out of the whole affair and read an amendment.
I can tell you, as I said to the Senator from Oklahoma, I can't believe there is a person in America who sat glued to the C-SPAN television listening to this amendment so they would understand it. It is a very complicated amendment page by page but, in general, understandable. The Senator from Vermont was seeking a single-payer health care system. It was not likely to pass, but it is something he believes in fervently and he wanted to offer it. So I would say the strategy on the floor today belies any request that we have more debate and more amendments.
Before the Senator from Rhode Island continues, I think this has been cleared on both sides, but I ask unanimous consent that the time until 6:15 p.m. be equally divided between the two sides, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. If the Senator from Illinois would yield for another question.
I was elected just about 3 years ago, and I came in with the new majority, so I did not have a chance to serve in this body when there was a Republican President and a Republican majority. I wonder if the Senator, who was here at that time, would reflect on how the other side viewed Defense appropriations for our troops during the Iraq war when they were in the majority. Were they desirous of delay and obstruction and debate and procedural maneuver on Defense appropriations at that time or is this a new strategy of theirs?
Mr. DURBIN. I would say to my colleague from Rhode Island that exactly the opposite was true. They wanted to move quickly to pass any appropriations bill to make certain there was no question in the minds of our men and women in uniform that we were standing with them, and we did. I don't believe even those of us who voted against the invasion of Iraq tried to stop the proceedings from funding the troops, regardless of what our votes might be.
So I think it would be consistent now for our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us, in a bipartisan fashion, to say whatever differences on other issues, such as health care, let's let the troops know this holiday season we stand behind them--Republicans and Democrats--and let's do it in an efficient and effective way.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source