[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 37 (Tuesday, March 3, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2650-S2651]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I wish to address some of the comments 
made by the Republican leader.
  First, the bill that is being considered was on the official public 
Web site of the House of Representatives a week ago. It has been 
available for at least that period of time. As a member of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, most of the contents of what we are 
considering were passed by the committee last year in October and 
November. To argue that this is a surprise is wrong. It has been 
available for scrutiny, for review, for a long period. That is why many 
of us believe we should move forward with it as quickly as possible.
  Second, this argument that the stimulus, which was supposed to be 
additive, to put money into the economy that otherwise would not go 
into the economy, is a reason not to pass this bill is to ignore the 
obvious. This bill funds the Government. This bill makes certain that 
when it comes to the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, 
Energy, related issues, financial services, Interior, Labor, EPA, State 
Department, Transportation, Homeland Security, and so many others, we 
are going to provide for the basic appropriations and budgets for these 
agencies.
  I understand--I hope all Senators understand--that these agencies 
need to do their work, whether or not the economy is strong. We need to 
be putting this money into these agencies to continue their ordinary 
business. That is essential.
  I also am troubled every day to hear a chorus from the Republican 
side of the aisle about deficits. Let's remember the facts. When 
President Bill Clinton left office, he had managed to balance the 
budget each year for 3 years. He left to President George W. Bush a 
surplus. At that point, the debt of the United States, accumulated from 
the beginning of the Republic until that moment, was about $5 trillion. 
President George W. Bush was handed an economy that was strong, a 
budget surplus, and a national debt of $5 trillion. Eight years later, 
we all know the state of the economy. We certainly know that the 
national debt under George W. Bush doubled. It went from $5 to $10 
trillion in a matter of 8 years.
  We know what happened. When it came to the budgets, the Republicans 
and President Bush decided they would use a little sleight of hand. Do 
you know how much money was included in the budgets of President Bush 
for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? The answer is zero. Every year 
they would take the cost of these wars off the budget and say: It is 
emergency spending so we are not going to budget for it. So not only 
did they double the national debt, not only did they drive us deeply 
into deficit each year, they did it in a way that most of us would 
agree was at least concealment, instead of being honest and open with 
the people.
  Now comes President Obama, inherits an economic recession, the likes 
of which this country has not seen for 75 years. He says we have to 
move and move quickly with the stimulus package. In 3 weeks and 2 days 
after being sworn in as President, he passes it, thanks to three 
Republican Senators who finally would join with us in moving forward to 
do something about the economy rather than only complain. Then he says 
we need to pass the ordinary budget which was not passed under the 
previous administration. That is what this bill is.
  I urge colleagues to take a look at this as undone business from the 
previous administration and the previous Congress that we have to get 
done this week while the temporary spending measures for our Government 
continue.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. The minority leader indicated somehow or suggested that 
this is some new information, some large piece of legislation brought 
to the floor of the Senate without much scrutiny. Isn't it the case 
that the appropriations bills that are included in this omnibus were 
passed out of each individual subcommittee of the Appropriations 
Committee, most of them worked on for months, then passed out of the 
subcommittee, and then worked on in the full committee and, in most 
cases, passed unanimously by Republicans and Democrats? This is the 
normal funding of Federal agencies that should have been done last 
year. It wasn't, for a lot of reasons. It is now being packaged into an 
omnibus bill to get done. But the ingredients of that bill are not 
something new.
  Isn't it the case that most of these individual bills were passed in 
a bipartisan basis, many of them unanimously, after having been worked 
on for some months? There is nothing strange in here, is there?
  Mr. DURBIN. In response to the Senator from North Dakota through the 
Chair, he is a fellow member of the Appropriations Committee. He has 
described the process exactly. The small, relatively small 
appropriation which I manage in the Senate Appropriations Committee 
includes a plus up, an increase in the funding for several key 
agencies, one of which is the Securities and Exchange Commission. If 
one watched ``60 Minutes'' on Sunday night and heard about Bernard 
Madoff and criticisms of the SEC dropping the ball, not hearing the 
whistle being blown, we have to change that. We have to make sure the 
SEC is a regulatory agency that has the resources it needs to deal with 
an ever-expanding area of jurisdiction. The same thing is true for the 
Commodities Futures Trading Commission which also deals with futures 
and derivatives and the like. We have to make certain they have 
resources, and they have an increase in this budget to be the policemen 
on the beat. I put money in there as well for the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission. It was not that long ago we were frightened by the 
prospect of lead toys that might endanger our children. This agency is 
finally growing into the 21st century responsibility it has.
  These are areas where we have increased funding so that government 
can be vigilant and helpful and we can avoid economic disasters so that 
investors' and savers' money can be carefully reviewed.
  This was all debated in the subcommittee. It was brought forward in 
the full committee. In most cases it received full committee review 
months ago. Today we are trying to get the homework we should have done 
last year done and moved forward. We have so many important things to 
do.
  I will speak for a minute or two more, if I may, on a related issue.
  Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator from Illinois will excuse me and 
respond to an additional question.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to.
  Mr. DORGAN. The point that is going to be discussed on the floor 
today and this week on this appropriations bill is very important. I 
just received the votes on the individual bills that have now been 
packaged together. If I might read them, the appropriations bill for 
Agriculture, with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, nutrition 
programs, farm programs, and so on, passed 29 to

[[Page S2651]]

0 by the full Appropriations Committee. That passed on July 18 of last 
year. Commerce, Justice, and Science passed, on June 19, 29 to 0, funds 
for Justice programs and so on. Energy and Water, which is the 
subcommittee I chair, passed 29 to 0. Financial Services passed, 29 to 
0. Homeland Security passed 29 to 0. Virtually all of them passed 
unanimously.

  To give you an example, in my subcommittee--that passed it 
unanimously, with Republicans and Democrats, by the subcommittee and 
the full Appropriations Committee--I, for example, in one account cut 
$100 million. Why? Because I felt that was not needed. I cut from 
previous years' expenditures $100 million. Now, if this piece of 
legislation fails, that extra $100 million is going to be spent by that 
account. It shouldn't be, in my judgment, but will be.
  I used some of that money to increase carbon capture so we can 
protect the environment and continue to use coal. We have to find a way 
to capture carbon and decarbonize the use of coal. I invested some of 
that money in carbon capture research and technology. But these are the 
kinds of things that if we defeat this legislation--we have what is 
called a continuing resolution. That will be the first amendment this 
morning. That continuing resolution means we are effectively on 
autopilot, and the things that have been cut, the spending that has 
been cut in these subcommittees, and the spending that has been added 
because things need doing, that will be voided and we will instead be 
on an autopilot with previous years' judgments having prevailed when, 
in fact, all these bills passed the subcommittee, with the exception, I 
believe, of two of them. One was 28 ``yes'' and 1 ``no'' by the full 
Appropriations Committee, and the other was 26 ``yes'' and 3 ``no.'' 
With those two exceptions, every other piece of legislation that is 
included in this omnibus was passed unanimously by Republicans and 
Democrats in the full Appropriations Committee of the Senate.
  Isn't it the case that to suggest somehow this is some mysterious 
bill that has not been seen, has not been considered, has not been 
heard, has not been reviewed--that is just not the case. This has been 
available since last June and July, and most of it passed unanimously 
on a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. DURBIN. In response to the Senator from North Dakota, through the 
Chair, what has changed? To have the Republican leader come before us 
today and say: Well, this has not been on the Web site of the Senate 
for the requisite 5 days, when I mentioned it has been on the House Web 
site for 7 days, it has passed the House in its entirety.
  As the Senator from North Dakota indicated, it has been debated at 
length and passed unanimously, for the most part--Democrats and 
Republicans--without objection, voting for all the contents. And now 
there is objection from the Republican side of the aisle.
  The obvious question is, What has changed? What is different? Well, 
there is only one thing different. We have a new President, a new 
President and a new administration, facing an economic struggle, a 
President who is asking for help from both sides of the aisle that we 
should give. We need to work together. He was not successful in finding 
House Republicans to support him in the efforts for the stimulus 
package. Only a handful voted for this measure when it came up in the 
House on the Republican side. We are hoping that at least some will 
finally step forward on the Republican side to pass this bill to keep 
the Government operating.
  What good does it do for us to shortchange the Securities and 
Exchange Commission at this moment in history, when we all know our 
savings, our retirement investments, 401(k)s, IRAs, are in peril 
because of a descending stock market, where there is question about the 
confidence that consumers, investors have in this agency? I put 
additional funds in there, through my appropriation, to make certain we 
have the integrity which we deserve in this marketplace; the same for 
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
  Those who would argue, as Senator McCain does in his continuing 
resolution amendment, that we do not need additional resources in these 
key agencies that protect investors and savers, they are just plain 
wrong. A vote for the McCain amendment is a vote to go back further to 
those days when these agencies were not up to the challenges they face. 
Some of that was conscious, where they ignored demands and warnings 
related to Mr. Madoff and others. Some was inadvertent in the CFTC, 
where they did not have the people and the equipment and the computers 
and the technology to follow these trades.
  How in the world can we, in good conscience, say we are not going to 
adequately fund these agencies, while millions of American families 
count on us to do that? They make the choice on investments. They trust 
us to make certain those investments are transparent and there is 
accountability.
  I would say to my friend from North Dakota, when we went through 
this, month after month, week after week, day after day in the 
committee, we had bipartisan support all the way. Now that we have a 
new President of a different political party, the other side of the 
aisle is raising questions--questions they did not raise for 8 months. 
Now they are being raised. That is unfortunate. But we are prepared to 
answer those questions.

                          ____________________