i have pitched richard shelby comedy head of the appropriations committee, who has -- who would rather call it emergency spending, versus mitch mcconnell who would really like to make the cuts, who doesn't think we should alter the cap sort make would -- or mess with them in any way. the argument has been, if we can not cut the caps, we are also not going to raise them. that is going to be the big issue, to see how they square that. i think they will probably split the baby and sort of declare emergency spending on a small level and leave the bigger question about funding to next year. that is the source of the packages. another one involves the defense department, labor, and hhs. this is a very tricky thing because the house has passed a defense bill but has not passed the controversial labor, house and human services bill. it is controversial because it includes things like planned parenthood, abortion, funding of obamacare. it really divides the body. the senate has combined them and successfully passed that as a second package. it looks like paul ryan is willing to go to conference

and has been a big battle richard shelby, the head of the appropriations committee, would rather call it emergency spending. it pits them against mitch mcconnell which -- who prefers to make the cuts and things we should alter the caps. in opposingshelby the white house attempted to resend spending. rescind spending. that will be the big issue and they will see how they square that. declarel probably emergency spending on a small level for the first year and that will be the biggest issue of out year funding and push into next year. mini omnibusrst package. there's also the defense department and waiver hhs, health and human services. this is tricky because the house has passed a defense bill that is not pass the controversial labor health and human services bill. it involves issues like planned parenthood and abortion and funding to administer obamacare. it's a difficult thing for the house to pass typically because it really divides the body. the senate has combined them and successfully passed that as a second package. it looks like paul ryan is willing to go to conference with the

i think the joint effort by chairman richard shelby and senator patrick leahy has gotten a lot of these bills onto the floor and into conference. i was struck by his willingness to bring back your marks -- your marks when i asked him how or whether democrats might run things differently if they were in control. that follows along with what some republicans have been saying. minoritycrats, house came out in favor of this. it shows that as congress puts more efforts into the appropriations process just in terms of time that they have been devoting to this on the floor and committee, they have relies that in order to find the specific projects it is hard to do it without an earmark especially if you have a little water project in alabama or something, a water treatment to fundow are you going that through a grant program? sometimes an earmark is the way that you fun things more efficiently and that was the pitch that senator leahy was making. things like the pretty interesting moment for appropriations reporters as it was just in 2010 everyone was saying the hall -- earmarks were the hallm

so far david purdue called it troubling and tim scott is open for discussions and richard shelby who ussell saying he was awell respected senator. and so why the resistance and the republicans hesitating to replace a legacy with john mccain. >> look, i would go back to the statute's argument and people think that is a weird parallel, but a lot of republican voters at the base was really concerned particularly with republicans speaking too much as it relates to taking down the statues because they perceive it as a change of the culture, as trying to change history. i think the same argument would be applied to changing a russell building to the mccain building, despite the segregation has passed and as an african-american it -- would be against but for many republican voters they would more than likely demand the senators not change the name because the premise is in doing so you're attempting to alter history and we cannot do that and learn from it and move on. so republicans are extremely cautious with wanting to jump on the band wagon and some won't say he -- say i won't support thi

the majority and minority leaders of the united states senate but especially with the help of richard shelby, the chair of the appropriations committee and the vice chairman of the appropriations committee, the senator from vermont, mr. leahy in avoiding the usual contentious issues in appropriations bills that then cause this deadlock to occur with no result, no capability of moving appropriation bills and the end result has been way too often what we call a c.r., a continuing resolution that funds the federal government next year at the same level as it does last year, as it was funded in the previous year. or ultimately it could end up in an omnibus spending bill in which all the spending is combined together and the opportunity for us as members of the appropriations committee but equally or more importantly members of the united states senate, the u.s. house of representatives to have input into those spending items is greatly diminished and the amount of knowledge of what one can have about what's in that appropriation bill when it covers everything and results in trillions of dollars

i commend my friend, richard shelby, for his leadership, but i also thank senators alexander, feinstein, boozman, schatz, daines, and murphy for their final contributions. i'm hopeful the house will see how we do it. we have come together, actually the senators acting as senators. we have made more progress than we have in decades in appropriations. so let's continue. and lastly, i often say i am a constitutional impediment to my staff. if it wasn't for the staff here, as well as chairman shelby's staff, shannon heinz, david atkins, staff on both sides, they are important. so as i said, i ask unanimous consent my whole statement be part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and again, i commend the -- and i'm ready to vote. should we ask for the yeas and nays. go ahead. i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. all time is yielded back. the question is on the adoption of the conference report. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wi

shelbypitched richard would rather call it emergency spending against mitch mcconnell who prefers to make the cuts. he was with shelby in opposing a white house attempt to rescind spending. that decision died in the senate. and the decision was if we are not going to cut the caps on we are also not going to raise them. we will see how they square that. i think they could split the baby and declare emergency spending on a small level for the first year and leave the bigger question to later years. that is the source of the minibus packages. there is another one involving the defense department and waiver hhs. becausea tricky thing the house has passed a defense bill but has not passed the controversial labor health and human services bill. it is controversial because it involves abortion, obamacare. thes a difficult thing for house to pass because it really divides the body. and the senate has confined them and successfully passed the second package. it looks like paul ryan is willing to go to conference with the senate on the labor hhs package even though the house has not passed the version which could cause some co

richard gates. the "wall street journal" reporting the president's advisor shot down the idea and it never happened. joining me now shelbyay from the "wall street journal" and a former federal prosecutor, now special counsel at lowen stein sandal. let me start with you then you were explaining to me it's not out of the realm of possibility that this happens in court sometimes that there would be way to pay for somebody's legal fees. >> it happens sometimes whether you have a multidefendant case or multitarget case that one person will pay the other target or the other defendants' legal fees. they need to work it out and make sure there is no conflict of interest. and certainly can't get in the line of obstruction of justice. it does happen. it's not necessarily illegal. the concern in this case is to make a big payment for attorney fees right when man 40s and gates in particular on the brink of cooperating could have been construed as obstruction of justice. i would guess that's why the advice came to john dowd don't do this and i think he was probably well advised to heed that. >> dana: shelby, you would look at the sys