[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3739-3740]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            STIMULUS PACKAGE

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, before I make some remarks about the 
bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth, I wish to respond to the 
Republican leader's comments about the ongoing negotiations that have 
been inspired by President Obama's request that we pass a stimulus 
package, a spending bill and tax cut package that will reinvigorate 
this economy and try to stop the loss of jobs in America.
  It is troubling to hear the frequent criticism from the Republican 
side that this is going to add to our deficit. No one doubts that. We 
are talking about the need to spend money immediately to stop the 
downward spiral of our economy. It will surely add to the deficit. But 
doing nothing, taking the approach that has been espoused by many on 
the other side of the aisle, will lead to even greater deficits and 
more suffering.
  What we are trying to do is to step in with this tourniquet and try 
to stop the bleeding in this economy so we can turn it around for the 
families and businesses that are suffering today.
  It troubles me, as I hear the Republican leader come and tell us of 
their concerns about deficits. I think, frankly, the air in the Senate 
Chamber leads to political amnesia, because many of the critics of our 
current efforts have forgotten that when President Bush came to office 
8 years ago, he inherited a surplus from the Clinton administration--a 
surplus. We were giving longevity to the Social Security Program 
because we had a surplus in the Treasury. What happened to that 
surplus? I will tell you what happened. President Bush, George W. Bush, 
inherited the debt of the United States, the accumulated debt of every 
President from George Washington to George W. Bush, which was $5 
trillion.

[[Page 3740]]

  At the end of his 8 years we had more than doubled the national debt 
of America. His decisions to double that debt by a war he did not pay 
for and tax cuts for wealthy people at a time when we should not have 
had tax cuts were endorsed by that side of the aisle. They stood in 
approval of President Bush's policies that doubled the national debt 
from $5 trillion to $10 trillion.
  President Obama, 3 weeks ago, inherited the worst economic crisis 
since Franklin Roosevelt came to office in 1933 with the Great 
Depression. He is doing everything in his power to turn this around and 
he knows we need to spend money into this economy to create and save 3 
to 4 million jobs. The criticism from the other side of the aisle is it 
is going to add to the national debt. Where have these tears been for 
the last 8 years when their President doubled the national debt?
  I am also troubled by the fact that when this package came before the 
Congress, many Republican Senators who refused to vote for it added 
costs to the package. A Senator from Iowa in the Finance Committee 
added an amendment that cost $70 billion to the package and then said 
he couldn't vote for the package because it costs too much. A Senator 
from Georgia added anywhere from $11 to $30 billion, depending on the 
best estimate, to the cost of the package and then said he couldn't 
vote for the package because it costs too much.
  I have to tell you, I do not believe that the message from the other 
side of the aisle is consistent.
  Three Republican Senators have had the courage to step up and say we 
will work with you, we will come together and try to solve this 
problem. I salute them--Senators Snowe and Collins of Maine and Senator 
Specter of Pennsylvania. But, they said, if you are going to do that we 
want to reduce the cost of the package.
  I did not happen to agree with that approach, but I am prepared to 
compromise. I am prepared to work with them. It took $100 billion out 
of this package, this recovery and reinvestment package. Frankly, I do 
not, as I said, agree with that--at a time we had to basically come 
together if we were going to have any agreement.
  Now the Senate Republican leader comes to the floor and criticizes 
the cuts in the package. Why did the amount of tax cuts for families go 
from $500 to $400? It was because the Republican Senators said we want 
to bring down the cost and that was one of the ways we did it. I can't 
follow the logic, if there is any, on the other side of the aisle--
criticizing adding to the deficit after they doubled it over the last 8 
years, then criticizing cuts in the package, reducing its spending when 
in fact they say it costs too much, and offering amendments on that 
side of the aisle to add cost to the package and then arguing that it 
is too expensive. It is completely inconsistent. Their arguments are 
completely inconsistent and I think the American people know it.
  They want Congress to come together and find solutions. They want 
partnership, not partisanship. They want us to stop squabbling and 
start working together. That is what we are trying to do, even today. 
It is hard. It is difficult. We are trying to find the votes to make 
this happen. It is essential that we do.

                          ____________________