[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 116 (Friday, July 29, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5062-S5065]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ESTABLISHING THE COMMISSION ON FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT PROCESSING
DELAYS
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate a
message from the House with respect to S. 627.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair lays before the Senate a message
from the House which, the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Resolved, that the bill from the Senate (S. 627) entitled
``An Act to establish the Commission on Freedom of
Information Act Processing Delays'' do pass with an
amendment.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment to
that legislative matter, and I move to table the motion to concur and
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. McCONNELL. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
Mr. REID. Yes, without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL. Is it the majority leader's intention, after we have
the vote on tabling the proposal that came over from the House, to file
cloture on the Reid budget?
Mr. REID. Yes.
Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend, we would be happy to have that
vote tonight. And I will also mention to my friend that the House of
Representatives intends to vote on the Reid amendment tomorrow
afternoon at 1 o'clock. In order to accommodate the schedules of
Senators, we would be more than happy to accommodate the majority and
have the vote on the Reid budget tonight.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, through the Chair, I say to my friend, the
distinguished Republican leader, let's hope they are more timely on
their 1 o'clock vote than they have been in the last few days.
I would say this very directly: We would be happy to have a vote on
the Reid amendment just like the House did today, a majority vote. We
have gotten into a situation that is untoward. Everything that moves is
a supermajority. That isn't the way it should be. So we are happy to
have a vote anytime. But it should be a majority vote just like the
House had. They had a majority vote today, and they had an overwhelming
extra vote of none. So we would be happy to have a simple majority vote
on the Democratic proposal that we are putting forward.
Mr. McCONNELL. Is that a consent?
Mr. REID. That is a consent that we will be happy to have a vote if
it is a simple majority vote.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me
say that this is almost an out-of-body experience to have someone
suggest a 50-vote threshold on a matter of this magnitude in the
Senate. I am perplexed, Mr. President--genuinely perplexed--that my
friend, the majority leader doesn't want to vote on his proposal as
soon as possible. I object.
Mr. REID. Let's have order. Let the Republican leader be heard.
Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
Mr. REID. So it is obvious to the world that in the Senate this is
now another filibuster. That is what this is; it is a filibuster to
stop us from moving forward on legislation. This is a filibuster in any
name that you want.
I am disappointed. I asked for a rollcall vote on the tabling motion.
I ask that we move forward.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table the motion to concur.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 41, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 120 Leg.]
YEAS--59
Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Coons
DeMint
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--41
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Enzi
Grassley
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Kyl
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Toomey
Wicker
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I oppose the motion to table the motion to
concur in the House amendment to S. 627, the Budget Control Act of
2011. Although I do not support the bill as written, I believe that the
Senate should proceed to it in an effort to amend the bill to include
greater spending cuts, caps, and provisions which will boost our
economy like progrowth tax and regulatory reform.
I strongly oppose the proposal put forth by Senate Majority Leader
Reid. The bill is filled with accounting gimmicks and does nothing to
encourage enactment of a constitutional balanced budget amendment--an
essential step towards ending our unsustainable deficits and debt that
enjoys bipartisan support in both Chambers of Congress. Amazingly, as
our economy continues to struggle, the Reid proposal appears to assume
a tax hike upwards of $3 trillion, which would kill jobs and impede
efforts to grow the economy and reduce our staggering debt in the
process.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Motion to Concur With Amendment No. 589
(Purpose: To cut spending, maintain existing commitments, and for other
purposes)
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment to
S. 627 with an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 589 to the House amendment to S. 627.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a cloture motion which is at the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Reid motion to
concur in the House amendment to S. 627, with amendment No.
589.
Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Barbara Boxer, Carl Levin, Tom
Harkin, Benjamin L.
[[Page S5063]]
Cardin, Charles E. Schumer, Richard J. Durbin, Patrick
J. Leahy, Mark R. Warner, Patty Murray, Christopher A.
Coons, Richard Blumenthal, Sherrod Brown (OH), Kent
Conrad, Mark Begich, John F. Kerry, Debbie Stabenow.
Amendment No. 590 to Amendment No. 589
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment which is at
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 590 to amendment No. 589.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end, add the following new section:
SECTION __
This Act shall become effective 5 days after enactment.
Motion to Refer With Amendment No. 591
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a motion to refer the House message
to the Budget Committee with instructions to report back forthwith with
an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] moves to refer the House
message to the Senate Budget Committee with instructions to
report back forthwith with an amendment No. 591.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end, add the following new section:
SECTION __
This Act shall become effective 3 days after enactment.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on that motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 592
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an amendment to my instructions,
which is also at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 592 to the instructions on the motion to refer the
House message on S. 627.
The amendment is as follows:
In the amendment, strike ``3 days'' and insert ``2 days''.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 593 to Amendment No. 592
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment to my
instructions, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 593 to amendment No. 592.
The amendment is as follows:
In the amendment, strike ``2 days'' and insert ``1 day''.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Would the Senator withhold?
Mr. REID. If my friend the Republican leader wishes to speak, I, of
course, would withhold.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the majority leader.
I wish to commend the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, for his
determination and perseverance.
It wasn't easy, but Speaker Boehner has been working tirelessly over
the past few months and especially over these past few days to build
consensus within his party and to pass a bill through the House that
would end this crisis and take an important step toward getting our
fiscal house in order.
While Democrats in the Senate have been over here plotting about how
they can prevent a solution to this crisis, Speaker Boehner rolled up
his sleeves and did the hard work needed to prevent the crisis. So I
thank him for taking his responsibilities as a legislator, as a leader,
and as a citizen so seriously and getting the job done. He and the
other Republicans in the House have now passed two bills that would not
only end this crisis, but would actually do something about its root
cause.
They know as well as I do that Washington cannot continue to borrow
40 cents of every dollar it spends and not expect a reckoning. It may
not be this Tuesday. But unless we do something to rein in our spending
and our debt an even bigger crisis will come. That is why House
Republicans have insisted on including a provision in the legislation
they just passed that would only allow Congress to raise the debt
ceiling if it also passes a law that requires Washington to balance its
books.
This isn't exactly a radical proposal.
If Congress's inability to live within its means is the reason for
this crisis, then why not pass a law that requires it? It makes perfect
sense to almost everybody in America except a few hundred Democrats in
Washington.
But that has been the story of this whole summer.
A lot of people look at Washington right now and say what they are
seeing is a dysfunctional government. This isn't dysfunction. What you
see in Washington right now is Democrats refusing to admit they've got
a spending problem, and fighting any attempt to get it under control.
That is what this is all about.
Just take a look at what has been happening here in the Senate over
the past 48 hours.
Rather than do their duty and come up with a bill that can pass,
Senate Democrats have been busy ginning up opposition to everything
else. Senate Democrats have not offered a single solution to this
crisis that has a chance of passing either Chamber in Congress. Think
about that: we have been staring at this deadline for months. And the
majority party in the Senate hasn't even made the effort to come up
with a solution that could pass a Chamber they control!
They have put all their energy into defeating everything else.
The majority leader claims he has a plan.
Well, here is what it does.
It asks Congress to make the largest debt ceiling increase in
history, without paying for it.
It creates a committee that has no real power to generate more
savings down the road.
And it doesn't require us to balance our books.
Until yesterday, the only reason Senate Democrats had for opposing
the House bill was that it didn't raise the debt limit beyond the next
Presidential election.
Yesterday, they came up with another excuse. They said the debt limit
increase doesn't last long enough to provide certainty to the markets.
Leave aside the fact that Democrats have spent the last 2\1/2\ years
perfecting the art of creating economic uncertainty.
Leave that aside.
The fact is, of the 31 times the debt limit has been raised over the
past 25 years, 22 lasted less than a year. And I don't recall any of
the Democrats who voted for those increases expressing any concern
about economic uncertainty.
The simple truth is this: Senate Democrats have no good reason
whatsoever for opposing the bill the House just passed.
This bill was actually negotiated in direct consultation with the
Democrat leaders who now claim to oppose it.
You want proof? Well, ask yourself this: why does the Reid bill have
the same title as the bill the House just passed? Coincidence? Why do
the two bills contain pages of identical text? Coincidence? Look
through it yourself.
Look at the Democrat priorities that are in there. How do you think
they got in there?
I will tell you how: because they put them in there.
So it is an absolute mystery to me why any Democrat in the Senate
would have opposed that bill.
There isn't an argument against it that is left standing. And we
would all be voting to approve it right now if President Obama hadn't
told Democrats to oppose it last weekend. The only reason--the only
reason--we are
[[Page S5064]]
even still talking about this crisis is because the President of the
United States doesn't want to have another debate about his own fiscal
recklessness before his next election.
One more thing.
Just so there is no doubt that Democrats in Congress have abdicated
their responsibility by failing to produce a solution of their own, I
have a suggestion. Let's test out the Reid bill. Let's call it up and
vote on it tonight. See how it does. Let's see the fruits of the
Democrats' labors. Let's see what they came up with as this crisis
approached.
The Speaker has sent over two bills that could end this crisis now.
Let's call up the majority leader's bill and see if it will fly. And if
it doesn't, then let's take up the House bill, pass it, and end this
crisis now.
But Republicans have done our job.
Mr. President, I just wanted to ask my friend one more time. We have
here a situation where the Senate has voted to table, in effect, the
House-passed measure and the majority leader has filled up the tree and
filed cloture on his proposal. As I indicated earlier, every single
member of my conference here in the Senate would be happy to move up
that vote.
As we all know, the markets are waiting to see if we are going to
act. It strikes me that it might make sense for all of us on a
bipartisan basis to go on and act as rapidly as possible. I believe
every Member of the Senate has pretty well determined how they would
vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to my friend's measure.
Therefore, I would again ask consent that we immediately proceed to a
vote on invoking cloture on the Reid amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is very obvious there should be a vote on
my amendment and it should be with a simple majority. That is the way
it has traditionally been in this body until the Republicans have tried
to establish a supermajority, which doesn't work. This is a filibuster.
This is something that should not be filibustered. They should back off
the filibuster and let us vote. Let us vote. That is where we are. We
feel very strongly on this side that if the House can pass something
with a simple majority, so can we.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is noted.
The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I don't want to belabor this. I would
just finally point out that we are in the rather curious position that
the House of Representatives tomorrow at 1 p.m. will vote on the Reid
proposal before my friend and his conference are willing to let us vote
on his proposal.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we know that if the legislation in the House
of Representatives had required a supermajority, we would not be
dealing with the Boehner--I am trying to say a nice word--the Boehner
legislation. We wouldn't be doing that.
We are here now. We have tried our utmost to come up with a fair
proposal that deserves an up-or-down vote. It is fair. It reduces the
debt by $2.4 trillion. In fact, most every bit of it includes material
that the House has voted on before, the Senators have voted on before.
It is something we should do. It is fair.
We have tried to compromise. That is not a bad word. I had a
tentative meeting set with some Republican Senators this afternoon. The
meeting didn't come to be. I have asked my friend the Republican leader
to negotiate, and he has chosen not to do that. That is too bad.
I want to move forward. And if my friend wants to negotiate with
others, fine. My door has been open all day. But we are doing the right
thing. We will not agree to a 6-month extension, putting our country in
jeopardy in just a few weeks. The Ryan budget has been out there
whacking Medicare, whacking Medicare fraud. The cut, cap, and whatever
it was does the same thing.
What I have put forward is a fair proposal. It is something we should
do. It would get rid of the disaster that is facing us. It is the right
thing to do.
The American people want us to work this out, and we have tried. We
have given. We have compromised. There has just been no give on the
other side. In fact, Mr. President, it has been quite the opposite.
We had a wonderful agreement set up here between the two people who
ran the Budget Committee for years, Senators Conrad and Gregg, a
wonderful proposal to move forward expedited procedures. What happened?
When we moved to it, seven Republicans who sponsored the legislation
didn't vote for it. Then we moved forward with the Biden group. What
happened with that? The Republicans walked out of that meeting. We had
a situation where meetings were going on with the President. Leader
Cantor from the House walked out on that meeting. Speaker Boehner
walked out on the President twice. The Gang of 6, trying to work
something out, one of the leaders--the most vocal leader of that group
took a sabbatical leave and stepped back in just a few days ago.
We have tried our utmost to negotiate something in fairness. We are
where we are. We want an up-or-down vote on my proposal.
If the Republicans continue to filibuster this, they are going to
have to show at 1 o'clock Sunday morning or thereabouts that they are
going to continue the filibuster. We are not going to give up on this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I think we all agree it is fairly
routine to have the 60-vote threshold in the Senate, particularly on a
matter of enormous significance such as this. It is almost unheard of
to suggest that a matter of this magnitude would be dealt with at a 51-
vote threshold.
Where are we? It is an interesting history lesson my friend gives us
about various debates we have had in the past, but this is where we are
right now. Where we are right now is our good friends on the other side
do not want us to move forward with a vote on what they are advocating.
Mrs. BOXER. Yes, we do.
Mr. DURBIN. Majority vote.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S5064, July 29, 2011, the Record reads: Mr. DURBIN.
Majority veto.
The online Record has been corrected to read: Majority vote.
========================= END NOTE =========================
Mr. McCONNELL. We just heard the majority leader talk about--could we
have order in the Senate, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. McCONNELL. We just heard the majority leader making the arguments
on the merits for his proposal. That is what we wish to move forward
with. We would be happy to have the vote on cloture on his measure
tonight so we could move forward and finally get a resolution here. We
have the curious position the majority is in effect stopping action on
its own proposal and the House of Representatives tomorrow will vote on
the Reid proposal, apparently before the Senate will vote on the
proposal of the majority leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Finally, the Republican leader said we don't need to carry
this on forever. I agree with my friend. This legislation is of utmost
importance. It has great significance, as he said. All the more reason
there should not be a filibuster being conducted on this legislation.
Our country is in the throes of an economic disaster. To think that
they would filibuster this, they are not negotiating, and that is why
we are at the last--we waited as long as we could to come forward with
something that we would try to get through here. But we have not been
able to do it because they have not negotiated in good faith. All the
negotiation has been with ourselves.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this evening, the Senate is considering S.
627, as amended by the House of Representatives--the bill now called
the Budget Control Act of 2011. Earlier this week, the House Republican
Leadership used a procedural maneuver to strip from this bill
bipartisan provisions to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act,
FOIA, that unanimously passed the Senate. I urge the Senate to restore
the bipartisan Leahy-Cornyn Faster FOIA Act of 2011, as originally and
unanimously passed by the Senate in May, when the Senate considers its
budget bill.
The Faster FOIA Act enjoys broad bipartisan support from across the
political spectrum. The Senate unanimously passed this bill in May,
after the Judiciary Committee favorably reported the bill by voice
vote. Recently, more than 35 transparency organizations urged the House
Committee on
[[Page S5065]]
Oversight and Government Reform to act on this legislation. On Tuesday,
the Washington Post editorialized that the House should promptly enact
this bipartisan bill to improve the FOIA process.
Senator Cornyn and I first introduced the Faster FOIA Act in 2005, to
address the growing problem of excessive FOIA delays within our Federal
agencies. During the intervening years, the problem of excessive FOIA
delays has not gone away. We reintroduced this bill in 2010, and the
Senate unanimously passed it last year. The current bill is the most
recent product of our bipartisan work to help reinvigorate FOIA.
The Faster FOIA Act would establish a bipartisan Commission on
Freedom of Information Act Processing Delays to examine the root causes
of excessive FOIA delays. The Commission would recommend to Congress
and the President steps that should be taken to reduce these delays, so
that the administration of the FOIA is more equitable and efficient.
The Faster FOIA Act will help ensure the dissemination of government
information to the American people, so that our democracy remains
vibrant and free. This is a laudable goal that we all share. Neither
Chamber of Congress should allow partisan politics to obstruct the
important goal of this bill.
The ongoing debate in Congress about the national debt has made clear
that we must find ways to work together, across party lines and
ideologies, to address the many challenges facing our Nation. This
bipartisan spirit is at the core of the Faster FOIA Act. I have said
many times that open government is neither a Democratic issue, nor a
Republican issue it is truly an American value and virtue that we all
must uphold. I urge the Senate to include the Faster FOIA Act in its
budget bill, and I urge the Congress to promptly enact this good
government measure.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letters in
support of reinstating the Faster FOIA Act in the final debt ceiling
package.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Sunshine in Government Initiative,
Arlington, VA, July 29, 2011.
Hon. Harry Reid,
U.S. Senate.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
U.S. Senate.
Hon. John Boehner,
U.S. House of Representatives.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
U.S. House of Representatives.
Dear Majority Leader Reid, Minority Leader McConnell,
Speaker Boehner, and Minority Leader Pelosi: We urge the
Congress to reinstate the bipartisan, uncontroversial
language strengthening the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
that was removed from S. 627, the Faster FOIA Act, as it was
amended to address the unrelated issue surrounding the debt
limit. The original language would create a bipartisan
commission to recommend concrete ways to strengthen
transparency in the federal government and has broad,
bipartisan support.
The Sunshine in Government Initiative is a coalition of
media associations promoting government transparency,
especially focusing on FOIA. SGI members include the American
Society of News Editors, the Associated Press, Association of
Alternative Newsweeklies, National Newspaper Association,
Newspaper Association of America, Radio Television Digital
News Association, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the
Press and Society of Professional Journalists.
Especially in this fiscal environment, the Faster FOIA
Commission would help the public understand how taxpayer
dollars are being spent by bringing together experts inside
and outside the government to look ``under the hood'' of
agency FOIA operations and to propose within a year the most
realistic, effective and cost-efficient improvements to
improve government transparency.
The Freedom of Information Act is the vital law that helps
ensure the public can see what its government is up to while
protecting personal privacy, national security, trade secrets
and other important interests. The Commission's work should
provide timely insight to help inform next steps that
Congress with your leadership might undertake to strengthen
transparency in the federal government.
Sincerely,
Rick Blum,
Coordinator.
____
July 28, 2011.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, The Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, The Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader Reid, Minority Leader McConnell,
Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of the
undersigned organizations concerned with government openness
and accountability, we are writing to urge you to restore the
bipartisan Faster FOIA provisions in S. 627, now known as the
Budget Control Act of 2011.
This week, Speaker Boehner took S. 627 as a vehicle for his
budget bill. This procedural maneuver could shave a few days
off of Senate consideration, should the House pass the
Boehner budget control bill. However, in doing so, the
Speaker unnecessarily stripped the Faster FOIA Act from
S.627, completely replacing the language with the budget
bill. If the Faster FOIA language is not restored in S. 627,
the bipartisan progress made by the Senate on the legislation
will be wiped out. This is a setback for openness and
accountability in the executive branch, and bipartisan action
in Congress.
The Senate unanimously passed the Faster FOIA Act, authored
by Senator Leahy (D-VT) and Senator Cornyn (R-TX) in May. The
legislation would establish the Commission on Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) Processing Delays (the Commission) to
examine several thorny issues that create unreasonable bars
to public access under the FOIA and recommend to Congress and
the President steps that should be taken to reduce delays and
make the administration of the FOIA equitable and efficient
throughout the federal government.
The Faster FOIA Act enjoys strong support among a broad
range of non-governmental organizations. Recently, more than
35 organizations joined to urge the House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform to act on the legislation. A
recent editorial in the Washington Post also called on the
House to embrace the bill in the same bipartisan spirit as
the Senate in the interest of improving the FOIA process.
We urge you to advance openness and accountability to
restore the bipartisan Faster FOIA provisions in S. 627. We
thank you in advance for your consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
American Library Association, Citizens for Responsibility
and Ethics in Washington--CREW, Electronic Frontier
Foundation, Freedom of Information Center at the
Missouri School of Journalism, Fund for Constitutional
Government, National Freedom of Information Coalition,
National Security Archive, OMB Watch,
OpenTheGovernment.org, Project On Government
Oversight--POGO, Public Citizen, Reporters Committee
for Freedom of the Press.
____________________