Replies

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do not have a better friend than my colleague from Oklahoma, but it does not mean we always agree with each other. I have had a policy in voting for amendments on bills that I have adhered to for a long time, and it is if a Senator has a bill or an amendment that takes authority from an elected official and places it in the hands of an unelected bureaucrat and it does not save money, then I think it is not good policy. Unfortunately, I think that is what this does.
My good friend Senator Coburn and I have talked about this. I know it is a difficult thing for a lot of people to understand. Many people are watching this. I happen to be the person with the No. 1 most conservative rating in the Senate and yet I am not about to put myself in a position where I am going to take authority away from someone who has to stand for election in a particular State and give it to someone who does not have to stand for election, period.
I do not think that is a good idea. If it were something that saved money, I would have a different position on it, but in that respect I will oppose this. ...
Mr. COBURN. I would say to my friend, whom I love dearly as a friend and a brother, this amendment is about changing the priorities in this country. We can reject that or we can accept it. I gave a speech this morning about the rumble that is out there in this country. We need to listen to that rumble. The rumble is the American people want us to start doing a better job of prioritizing how we spend money. I respect his position on this. I have no ill feelings that he will oppose me on this amendment.
This is an amendment that is good for the country. ...
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma who has just spoken, who is the author of this amendment, has indicated we need to be making sacrifices. I do not think anyone in the State of Alaska feels we should not be contributing, but we do not feel in the State of Alaska that it should be coming entirely from one State. This amendment puts the sacrifice on one State.
I urge rejection of this amendment. ...
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would add to my colleague's comment to say this concept is a concept that every State should think about because if it can be done on a bridge, why not do it on any type of event where a Senator would like to have money for their State, but they say take it from another State because they do not need it. I made a statement earlier today that in my 37 years I have never seen this. I have never seen a request that money for a disaster be taken solely from a project in one State to help a disaster in other States.
We are a disaster-prone State. We have more disasters than any other State in the Union. Remember our 1964 earthquake. We have tsunamis. We have all types of disasters. But we have never tried to take moneys from other States to meet our costs.
I urge the Senate not to start this process.
I yield back the time.
Mr. BOND. I ask for the yeas and nays. ...
     YEAS--15
  
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Burr
     Coburn
     Conrad
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Feingold
     Graham
     Kyl
     Landrieu  
     Sessions
     Sununu
     Vitter

     NOT VOTING--3
                                          
     Corzine                              
     McCain 
     Schumer
Roll Call Vote 00262 | On the Amendment S.Amdt. 2165 | Oct 20, 2005
Mash here -> 109th Congress - Senate - October 20, 2005
Navigate to: 9 . TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, THE JUDICIARY, HOUSING ...