Bunning Fights For Taxpayer Money

By: Senator Jim Bunning

As Prepared For Delivery:

I rise to express my strong opposition to the Coleman Amendment - Number 2687.

The amendment requires the use of emergency federal funds paid by taxpayers for security at the 2008 presidential political party conventions in Minneapolis and Denver.

If the amendment passes, both the Republican and Democrat political party conventions will each receive $50 million in federal taxpayer dollars for state and local law enforcement costs associated with hosting the conventions.

And the $50 million for the Minneapolis political convention is on top of the $12.5 million in federal funding that the state also will receive in the current version of the CJS Appropriations Bill.

Spending $100 million in taxpayer funds for political conventions in Minneapolis and Denver is pretty outrageous to me.

States that bid to host political conventions know that winning the bid also means a high cost for security comes with it.

Sure the cost of security after September 11 has gone up. But the states that bid on the 2008 conventions knew that burden at the get go.

Plus, the states will receive an enormous benefit from hosting the conventions. I have not heard one person say that the states or cities hosting these conventions will go bankrupt from them.

One estimate shows that Minneapolis will receive more than $150 million from hosting the convention.

Denver will likely receive a similar financial benefit.

The millions of dollars in benefits is the main reason cities bid to host conventions in the first place. That is why every four years many cities bid to host each of the conventions.

This windfall comes from the thousands of people staying at the hotels, eating at the restaurants, and shopping in the stores in Denver and Minneapolis. That will result in a lot of sales tax revenue and hotel tax revenue that will stay in each of those states.

Paying for security definitely should not put the states in the red.

So if the states are receiving this huge benefit why are taxpayers footing $100 million in federal funding for the political party conventions?

And how did we determine that the figure of $50 million was needed for each state?

Was thorough research done on what exactly will be needed for security in Minneapolis?

What will be needed in Denver? Why has no member of this body made this case?

At the 2004 convention, New York spent about $58 million in security. Will Minneapolis and Denver, which are not as big as New York, and not major port cities, need the same amount of funding?

It seems like we are just throwing taxpayer money needlessly around without seriously looking at the situation.

The legislation before us today provides over $109 billion for veterans and for military construction projects.

This legislation is supposed to help support our troops who are risking their lives overseas and to help the veteran men and women who so bravely fought for our country.

With this in mind, I ask why are we funding political conventions in this VA / Military Construction Appropriations Bill?

What do political conventions have to do with the military?

This is a combination of oil and water the Coleman Amendment is trying to put together that definitely does not mix.

I also have extreme concerns with using emergency federal spending to pay for political party conventions.

This to me is just a budget gimmick to get around the need to offset the funding.

I feel like I keep saying this over and over but emergency spending should be only for just that – emergencies.

Usually emergency funding goes to things like the Iraq War or victims of Katrina or other disasters.

I think it should not go toward non-emergency funding like the conventions.

Come on. Everyone knew once the winning convention state bids were announced that security would have to be somehow funded.

Holding conventions takes advanced planning from states and the political parties.

All this does not add up to an emergency situation requiring federal emergency funds.

The fiscal year 2008 Budget Resolution allows for a point of order against amendments like this that are not true emergency spending.

It sets criteria for emergency spending which I do not think this amendment meets.

Emergency spending must be only be used for essential, sudden and urgent matters that are unforeseen and not permanent.

By my calculation this amendment only meets the temporary requirement and meets none of the other four requirements.

But because I think an overwhelming majority of the Senate will vote for this amendment I will not raise the point of order against it.

I have been to every Republican Convention since 1980. I want to make it clear that I think security is important for the Republican and Democrat Conventions.

But my objection to this amendment concerns who should foot the bill for the security.

And I believe those hosting the committees should provide that funding.

That means those planning the conventions, and those benefitting from the conventions, in Denver and Minneapolis should pick up the security tab.

Not federal taxpayers across the country.

For all these reasons I oppose the Coleman amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

This amendment will pass, but we need to reevaluate how we finance political conventions in the future.

When cities make bids to host these conventions, they should also make preparations to pay for security. And include this information in the bid.

This emergency funding method using federal taxpayer dollars for political conventions is not the best way to proceed and that’s why I will oppose this amendment.

Thank you Mr. President.