Thread: From trains to immigration, Senator Durbin weighs in

http://www.rrstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art ... /107090022

Published: July 9, 2006

Opinion
From trains to immigration, senator weighs in


U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the Democratic whip, was in Rockford last Monday to lead a meeting about returning passenger rail service to northwest Illinois. While here, he had a 30- minute conversation with Rockford Register Star Political Editor Chuck Sweeny. The following is a transcript of that interview, edited for space and clarity.

Sweeny: In Europe, rail transportation isn’t a political football. Amtrak has to fight every year for survival. The Bush administration keeps trying to kill Amtrak. What ought we be doing to develop a more rational transportation system?

Durbin: Amtrak literally fights for survival every year. There has been no commitment from this administration to either make Amtrak a permanent entity or to expand it with necessary capital investment. So they just struggle to survive each year. … Congress has a different view from the White House. Each year we appropriate more funds than the administration requests, because many of us from states like Illinois appreciate its importance.

The national discussion about energy and the environment will draw us back into this Amtrak issue. You can’t deal with energy and the environment without talking about transportation. Sixty percent of the oil we import goes into cars and trucks. If we are going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and find ways to be more fuel efficient, passenger rail is an important part of our future. It reduces congestion, reduces pollution and gives people affordable options to travel. This is a good illustration today. The level of community interest in this has been amazing. We asked Amtrak to come out here to know of our interest, and we contacted surrounding communities. All of them tell me there is a real interest and appetite for this conversation.

We have to take this local sentiment and interest and channel it into options we can pursue in Washington and Springfield.

Sweeny: There’s a couple different things going on, the commuter rail initiative, the Winnebago County initiative, which has a freight component, and the Amtrak initiative. What’s viable? It indicates to me there’s a growing interest in revival of rail in this area.

Durbin: We are at a stage where we are considering alternatives. … The money I came up with a few years ago, $200,000, got us started with that conversation. Now we’re getting to a much more serious phase, the $2 million I got and the $1 million Congressman Manzullo came up with is now going to move into a professional analysis of alternatives. And I said to (Winnebago County Board Chairman) Scott Christiansen; put them all on the table. This is the time we should consider all the options and see what’s best for the future. The important thing is that we emerge with a consensus. If there’s one thing that will diminish our chances of success it’s division. … There are hundreds of alternatives to be funded in Washington. I’ve been on transportation appropriations subcommittees for years, in the House and in the Senate, and when they bring them all before you, the first question you ask is, now, is there any controversy, has this been resolved locally? And if they’re still fighting over it, you push it aside and you say, let’s go on to something people agree on. We have to get it together and have a plan.

I use an analogy of Peotone. How long has that airport at Peotone been debated? A long time. You have two factions at war. Congressman Jesse Jackson, who says he wants a different form of governance and financing, and others who disagree. And as a result, nothing’s happening. And it is exhibit A in this discussion. Until that fundamental political question is resolved, Peotone is not likely to move forward.

I don’t want this rail transportation issue in northern Illinois to have the same fate. … Where we’ve expanded rail service in our state and region, it changes the economy, and so we ought to be thinking ahead about sensible economic growth, that it’s planned with a vision toward quality of life and economic success. I think we can do it.

Sweeny: There’s interest in this all the way to Dubuque now. So that’s a different component.

Durbin: That’s a positive thing. Where I go to work, when you can bring in another state, you bring in two more senators, and it becomes a regional issue. And even Wisconsin might want to be part of this conversation. At this point, everybody’s welcome. Bring your ideas to the table.

Sweeny: If we could shift gears, we have a critical election coming up. What do you think the prospects are for the Democrats?

Durbin: Historically, the party out of power does increase its seats in the House and Senate, with very few exceptions. The off-year election is a referendum on the president, and if there is dissatisfaction with the president, whoever he might be, people express it in electing congressmen and senators from the other party.

The numbers the president faces are historically very low. …. To give you an idea of where we are, (CNN said today) the latest poll shows the president at 35 percent approval rating; it’s come down from 38, 37 to 35. And so I say to people, the numbers sound low but they don’t mean much until you put them in historical perspective. When Lyndon Baines Johnson announced he wasn’t running for re-election, his disapproval number was 56 percent; when Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency, his disapproval number was 66. President George W. Bush’s disapproval numbers are in the mid-60s.

There’s clearly a strong national sentiment against the policies of this administration. And people say in the most general terms, we want change. And 71 percent want significant change. And (according to CNN) there is a 12 percentage-point preference for Democrats in Congress over Republicans ... which is an indication there will be some change in November.

Now, I’m not predicting majorities in either chamber. I am predicting an increase in Democratic numbers; if they reach majorities, that depends on a lot of things I can’t predict in the next four months … what happens in Iraq, what happens with the economy … but I see change coming.

Sweeny: We have so many districts drawn so that they kind of lock in incumbents of either party. … There’s not too many bellwethers. What are there, 30, 40, 50 seats that are competitive this year?

Durbin: What’s happened since I was elected in 1982, when 50 new congressmen came in, is that districts have been more carefully drawn to be much more Democratic or Republican, so there’s very few swing districts left. It happened in our state. The last time we had reapportionment (in 2001) we lost a House seat. And so (Republican Congressman) Denny Hastert sat down with (Democratic Congressman) Bill Lipinski, and they drew a map with 19 districts instead of 20, and the object was that they would make them as safe as they could for each of the parties’ representatives.

Having said that, I’ve lived through this. In 1994, I’d been (a congressman for) 12 years; I was standing for re-election against a (Republican) who never raised the $5,000 you need to file a federal election report. He made no public appearances, did not want to debate me, and had no campaign. And three weeks before the election, we did a poll, and he was beating me. And so the final two weeks, we spent all the money we were going to save on television and getting out a mailing, and I beat him 52-48, a man who had no advertising whatsoever.

My point is, when there’s a political tsunami, a lot of sturdy boats are going to sink. On Wednesday after the election, people are going to read the results and say, I never dreamed he was in trouble. Even though most Republican incumbents have been forewarned and are campaigning, there will be some surprises.

That year, what I did is what Republican congressmen are doing this year. They are saying, this is not a national election, it’s a local election, and it’s about my service to you, it’s about issues important to your home that I fight for in Washington, and it’s about the fact that I have skills to continue that fight. Now, the other side will always try to go the other direction, make it a national election.

If we can nationalize the election, and say it really is about the Bush-Cheney policies and whether you want them to continue, that favors the Democrats.

Sweeny: I think there’s a sense out there, that if we throw out the Republicans, what are the Democrats going to do?

Durbin: Also, I think that Senate Republicans squandered the month of June, trying to invigorate their base. The gay marriage amendment, which did not even receive a majority of the elected senators, the flag burning amendment, which failed by one vote, and the estate tax. … (Republican strategist) Karl Rove looks at the base of the Republican Party, and says first we have the theocrats, the religious wing of the party. What do we do to energize them? Gay marriage amendment, abortion, judicial nominees related to abortion, all those things energize that base.

Then we have that wing of the party that we Democrats refer to as economic royalists; people who are very well off and want more tax breaks. Capital gains and dividends for them, (ending the) estate tax for them.

Then you have the nativist wing of the Republican Party ... and they give them the flag amendment and immigration. So, (Rove) is clearly is playing to strengthen that base. Then he throws in the Iraq question, and says we’re not going to be defensive on this, the choice is between cutting and running and finishing the job.

Our pollsters say that argument falls on its face. If you’re going to finish the job the way it’s been going, when will it be over, and when will American soldiers come home? People are overwhelmingly frustrated by that.

Now, what do they do about traditional fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party, who say, I’m for balancing budgets, which Republicans have always been for, and look at this. (We have) the biggest deficits in history, the biggest national debts in our history. And so they’re taking a page out of the Reagan playbook – during the Reagan presidency we ran into the largest deficits in our history. … The antidote to it was the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Ignore the deficits, let’s talk about the process.

And so this time, with the biggest deficits in history and biggest national debt, they want to talk about process, the line-item veto. This president has not vetoed one single bill. Rove’s strategy is fairly obvious. It’s all about motivation of the base.

Sweeny: Rove looks at everything as different blocs of voters and the percentages he needs to get to the polls on election day. ... What do you do, then? What are Democrats offering me?

Durbin: We’re looking for win-win issues. They energize your base, but they also energize independents to your side. What are those issues? Clearly the idea of bringing our troops home in a reasonable way, in a reasonable period of time, is one of those issues. It’s strong with the Democratic base, strong with independent voters. ... We think there’s an alternative between cutting and running and staying indefinitely, and that’s what we’re looking for.

The second issue that is a huge energizer is stem cell research. It is a majority of support on that issue on the Republican side, overwhelming support among Democrats and strong among independents. And we’re going to that issue. If that issue becomes the issue du jour, and if President Bush vetoes it, it would be his first veto, which would be a huge issue for us to take into November.

The third issue that resonates well among Democrats is the minimum wage. … It’s been $5.15 at the federal level for nine years, one of the longest periods we’ve gone without raising the minimum wage. The Republicans have resisted it. So, we said last week, no increase in the minimum wage, no increase in congressional pay this year. In nine years, the salary of members of Congress has gone up $31,000 and we have not increased the $5.15 minimum wage. We’re drawing the line. It’s the right thing to do, and it’s an issue that resonates well with independent and swing voters. They think it’s unfair that people who work these jobs don’t get paid more. Those are win-win issues for us.

When we talk about energy, this administration has no plan. The president announces an addiction to oil in his State of the Union address, and no follow-up. There hasn’t been a single proposal from the White House about what to do about it. And people know, they face (high gas prices.)

Sweeny: We know what we need to do, develop alternatives to oil. And you’ve been promoting ethanol, so that’s one thing. That puts people to work here, and it takes power away from people like the Saudis.

Durbin: Ethanol. Biodiesel. And fuel economy of vehicles. That’s another thing we have to do. If 60 percent of our oil goes into our cars and trucks, they’re just not efficient enough. The technology’s within our grasp. But you need to really move the Big Three in Detroit. I buy American cars out of loyalty.

Sweeny: A lot of your voters make American cars.

Durbin: And God bless them for doing it. But when I sit down with the heads of (Daimler)Chrysler, Ford and GM, and I ask questions, I say, are you familiar with Consumer Reports? And they say, yes. And I say, why is it for 20 years now the Japanese have been building higher-quality vehicles with better resale value? Why, for 20 years? Well, they say, we’re getting better.

Sweeny: When I’m out and about, I still hear a lot of nervousness about job security. Now, the auto situation here is really good because DaimlerChrysler’s commitment to Belvidere is strong.

Durbin: Boy, that helped, even though the new shift workers are coming in under different terms, they are at least jobs. I wish they were better. ... I read that for several months they don’t have health protection.

Sweeny: But they were still lined up to get those jobs.

Durbin: Absolutely. And that tells you a story, doesn’t it?

Sweeny: Well, if you talk about nativists, I don’t think people are against Mexicans. I think they worry about this economic dislocation that’s occurring and wonder if they’re going to have a job.

Durbin: I do, too. I have serious reservations about the guest-worker provisions. This idea about bringing in 400,000 new workers every single year, many of us have said, slow down, we do not want to displace American workers who would take these jobs by having this flow of 30,000 people a month, 1,000 every day coming in to the U.S. to take up jobs. The first thing we need to do is get Americans back to work, get them skilled, ready to go, looking for jobs, get them working.

Sweeny: But I don’t see an anti-Mexican bias. What are these people? They’re Catholics, Pentecostals, and they work hard. Oh, OK.

Durbin: And inherently they’re people with good family values.

Sweeny: If Mexico could clean up its economy, (it would help solve the illegal immigration situation). Don Manzullo has told me there’s more wealth in the ground in Mexico than there is here, as far as natural resources.

Durbin: Well, in energy. They are very, very protective of that energy. They don’t want private industry coming in, taking the place of Pemex, their national oil company.

Sweeny: But Pemex is very inefficient.

Durbin: Oh yeah, it’s terrible. But they have the oil and gas there. They could be a powerhouse, but they covet it. It’s like their national symbol and treasure.

Sweeny: There’s some agreement among Canada, the U.S. and Mexico that commits us to a future of open borders and moving back and forth. I’ve read about it on several government Web sites.

Durbin: I would oppose just opening borders at this point. We now have between 400,000 and 800,000 coming across our southern border illegally each year. That number would increase. It would become the venue for anyone coming into the U.S. right now. It’s not just Mexicans; its Central Americans, South Americans, many others, Caribbean natives, come through Mexico into the U.S. The first thing we have to do is bring the border under control. That means not only border enforcement, but also workplace enforcement. What draws them here is jobs. We need to say to employers across the U.S. we’re going to be serious now.

People have to show up with a tamper-proof ID card we can check on a computer, so we know really who they are. … So, if you work the border enforcement, and the workplace enforcement, that’s part of it. Then you have to deal with the reality of the 10 to 12 million people who are here. What do you do with them?

First we need to know who they are, they have to be put in the system, and we have to know where they’re living and where they’re working. And then I think the comprehensive approach is the right approach. If you’ve been here longer than two years, you’ve got a chance. Over the next 10 to 15 years you can prove something to us. Prove to us you’ve learned English, you have a job, you pay your taxes, you’re not a criminal, you have no medical conditions that should disqualify you, you know the history of this country, and if you’ll stick with it for this period of time, we’ll give you a chance to be a citizen. But it’s not automatic; you’re going to have to work for it.

Sweeny: If Democrats take over the Senate, you would become what? You’re minority whip right now. You’d be majority whip? Would you get a bigger whip then?

Durbin: Ha. I’d have more people to whip.

Sweeny: You’re predicting a Democratic pickup, but you’re not predicting a takeover?

Durbin: No, no. Let me tell you what. In order for the Democrats to take over in the Senate, we have to keep the Democrats we have and win six Republican seats. I can tell you five I think are in play right now ... Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri and Montana. … The three (longer shots) that are then the deciding possibilities are Tennessee, Arizona and Virginia.

Political Editor Chuck Sweeny can be reached at 815-987-1372 or csweeny@rrstar.com.

I really don't like this guy. He votes for the illegals. He tries to sound good.........but nicht.

Just like a politican. Say what the people want to hear and then do what I want to do.