On the recordJune 29, 2010
Mr. President, reclaiming my time, here we go again--the same old gamesmanship. Through the Chair, let me correct my distinguished colleague from Illinois. The reason that bill was objected to by all Republicans, as well as some Democrats, was not the extension of unemployment insurance. If that is his understanding, let me explain to him, through the Chair, that his understanding is completely wrong. In fact, I have stood here on the Senate floor and suggested a UC to separate that part of the bill as well and to pass it. But the objection of many Senators, including mine, is the ballooning of the deficit and the debt, which every single version of that bill did by tens of billions of dollars, the original version by approximately $180 billion. So, Mr. President, my distinguished colleague's understanding is exactly wrong, and here we go again. My distinguished colleague and his leadership on the Democratic side have had multiple opportunities to attempt to pass a version of this bill--four or five versions; I have lost count. Each and every time, they did not get the necessary votes, including not getting certain Democratic votes. So can we finally, after going through that exercise, after allowing the National Flood Insurance Program to lapse for almost a month now, can we finally do the right thing and pass this noncontroversial program on its own, as Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic majority in the House have done?





