[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18578-18579]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            BUDGET AGREEMENT

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, 3 short weeks ago, many of us, many of my 
colleagues enthusiastically welcomed the budget agreement reached 
between the White House and congressional leaders of both parties. It 
was a budget agreement that put aside the short-term shutdown politics 
and gave us the opportunity to finally give American families and 
businesses the longer term economic certainty they need and deserve. It 
was a budget agreement that made balanced increases in both defense and 
nondefense discretionary spending--increases that were fully paid for. 
It was a budget agreement that was negotiated in good faith by 
Republican and Democratic leadership and the White House. It was a 
preview of what we might be able to accomplish if we put the politics 
of the moment, the partisan politics of the 2016 campaign, and other 
issues aside and actually focus on getting some things done.
  Barely 3 weeks later, barely 3 weeks since bipartisan majorities 
approved the agreement in both letter and spirit, here we are again 
staring down a potential government shutdown we all thought we had 
avoided because there was some insistence here--some colleagues who are 
insisting on poisoning the appropriations bills with policy riders 
which they know are opposed and which would undermine the ability of 
the Federal Government to function.

[[Page 18579]]

  Let's be clear. The policy riders we are discussing, the policy 
riders I am objecting to don't represent a good-faith policy debate. 
These are predominantly partisan political priorities that Republicans 
are otherwise unwilling to bring to the floor of this Chamber because 
they know they aren't popular with the American people. For example, in 
my view, we shouldn't be using the appropriations process to try to 
dismantle or sideline the Environmental Protection Agency and put clean 
air, clean water, and climate action at risk. If the majority chooses 
to make devesting cuts to Planned Parenthood, which more than 8,000 
residents of my home State of Delaware rely on for health care and 
family planning, I think my colleagues should bring it to the floor in 
a separate bill so the American people know that is the focus of the 
legislation.
  I join my colleagues today to make it clear that we are not going to 
use the appropriations process to pass narrow ideological riders that 
would not otherwise have been considered on this floor and have not 
made it through the appropriate process.
  As the ranking member of the Appropriations financial services 
subcommittee, I want to be clear that it is particularly unacceptable 
to me to use the appropriations process to roll back many of the 
critical Wall Street reforms put in place over 5 years ago in response 
to the financial crisis that was devastating to the economy, to 
families, and to businesses throughout Delaware and the country. If the 
majority wants to bring a bill to the floor that rolls back some of the 
key consumer protections put in place in the Dodd-Frank bill, then 
let's have that debate. Frankly, it is a debate we at times have been 
engaged in on large- and small-scale issues.
  The problem for my colleagues is that they don't have enough support 
in the Senate to pass these changes in a stand-alone bill. That is why 
they have taken the troubling step of jamming a 200-page bill--an 
entire banking bill loaded with controversial riders--right into a 
must-pass, last-minute government funding bill.
  I ask my colleagues--it is my hope and my expectation that many of my 
Republican colleagues would say that I give honest and thorough 
consideration to new policy proposals, even ones I am disinclined to 
agree with. I am open to discussing ways to improve existing reforms so 
we don't unfairly burden, for example, small community banks that 
weren't responsible for the financial crisis. No legislation is 
perfect, but compromising and improving is what authorizing bills and 
policymaking bills are all about. But the examples I referenced are a 
few of many areas that should not be jammed into an appropriations bill 
at the last minute without being fully and carefully vetted by the 
authorizing committee.
  It would be difficult for me today to address all the different 
policy riders that are in the various pieces of the appropriations 
bills currently under consideration. They range from education, to 
health, labor, natural resources, environment, civil rights, justice, 
housing, immigration, voting rights, telecommunications, to name just a 
few.
  Our budgets--how we spend the taxpayers' dollars--are a reflection of 
our priorities. But there is a substantial difference between using the 
appropriations process to support a specific program, department, or 
Federal activity and using it to sneak around the legislative process 
and to jam new, big changes into last-minute appropriations bills.
  Instead of manufacturing another crisis here in the days ahead, 
instead of having to look over the cliff of a government shutdown, 
let's get back to regular order, fulfill our responsibility to 
responsibly fund the government, and separately engage in positive 
discussions about how we can make the policy changes we need to ensure 
that our economy is competitive, that our country is innovative, and 
that our society continues to benefit from the work we all do here 
together.
  Paul Ryan has barely had time to set up his new office and settle 
into his new role and we are already back in crisis mode, walking back 
an agreement that, as I said at the outset, a majority of this Congress 
supported and a majority of America cheered.
  I urge my colleagues to put the middle class and the stability and 
future of our economy ahead of partisan politics. Let's negotiate a 
clean and honest, a clear omnibus spending bill that is free of poison 
pill policy riders that only serve to divide this body and to unite 
special interests who at times work against us.
  With that, I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________