[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 118 (Sunday, July 31, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5148-S5154]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ESTABLISHING THE COMMISSION ON FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT PROCESSING 
                                 DELAYS

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the House message to accompany S. 
627, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 627, an act 
     to establish the Commission on Freedom of Information Act 
     Processing Delays, with an amendment.

  Pending:

       Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House of 
     Representatives to the bill, with Reid amendment No. 589, to 
     cut spending, maintain existing commitments, and for other 
     purposes.
       Reid amendment No. 590 (to amendment No. 589), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid motion to refer the message of the House on the bill 
     to the Committee on the Budget, with instructions, Reid 
     amendment No. 591, to change the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 592 (to the instructions (amendment No. 
     591) on the motion to refer), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 593 (to amendment No. 592), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 1 p.m. shall be equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me first compliment the majority 
leader. I think he said it accurately; that is, we need to find a 
compromise between where we are, so we can move forward with increasing 
the debt limit, and a credible plan to reduce the deficit. I have heard 
many of my colleagues talk about that. But I want to point out that 
Leader Reid's proposal that we will be voting cloture on in a few 
moments is a compromise.
  It includes two major provisions that the Republicans have been 
asking about that, quite frankly, many Democrats disagree with. First, 
there will be a dollar for dollar reduction in spending for the 
increase in the debt ceiling.
  Let me tell you, there is no relationship between the debt ceiling 
and spending. The debt ceiling represents funds that have already been 
committed that we have an obligation to pay. We all understand what 
would happen if we violated the debt ceiling. It would affect the 
credit of America, its standing internationally, the dollar's global 
significance, it would affect our creditworthiness in America, increase 
the cost of government borrowing, increase the spending for all 
taxpayers in this country.
  It would have effects in my own State of Maryland. We have been told 
that the Maryland bond rating is very much tied to the Federal bond 
rating, and it could very well cause a downgrade for Maryland 
taxpayers, increase costs for mortgages, for credit cards. Every family 
would be affected.
  So the Reid bill yields to what the Republicans have asked. And 
although there is no relationship to the debt ceiling and the spending, 
because these are bills that have already been incurred, there is 
dollar for dollar reduction in spending for every dollar increase in 
the debt.
  The second major concession the Democrats have already made in the 
Reid proposal is that there is no revenue in this. We have been talking 
for a long time. If we are going to have a credible plan to reduce the 
deficit, we have to include all of the elements of Federal spending. We 
have a lot of what are called tax expenditures: moneys that are spent 
in our Tax Code.
  Some of these dollars are spent on shelters and loopholes that we 
should close. I have taken the floor several times to talk about 
several of these loopholes, the ethanol credit that we should not give 
for ethanol subsidies, the funds that go to gas and oil companies.
  There are a lot of loopholes in our Tax Code that we could close. The 
Reid proposal has made an accommodation to the Republicans to say: 
Okay, you said that is a deal killer. That is not in the Reid proposal.
  So the Reid proposal is the largest amount of deficit reduction--$2.4 
trillion of deficit reduction or $2.4 trillion of debt ceiling increase 
so we can get through March of next year, March of 2013, the year 
after. That gives us the stability we need. And we know what we have 
gone through already as far as the debt ceiling debate. It has already 
hurt our country. We don't want to go

[[Page S5149]]

through this again. That is what I think is critically important by 
moving forward to get this done.
  We are going to have a vote in about 45 minutes. That vote is on 
cloture. I want to explain that. Senator Levin talked about it 
yesterday. What the Republicans are doing is they are filibustering the 
debt limit bill. It is a filibuster. They are requiring us now to have 
60 votes rather than a simple majority. The Speaker of the House passed 
his proposal in the House with a majority of those voting. That is what 
democracy should be about. We are talking about the debt limit increase 
and whether it is a type of issue that should be filibustered by the 
Republicans. They are doing that--filibustering it--and their vote in a 
little while will determine whether we should be able to move forward 
without a 60-vote threshold.
  The majority leader pointed out that on previous occasions we have 
taken up the debt ceiling and we have not required a 60-vote threshold. 
I had my staff pull the information about the debt ceiling votes we had 
when George W. Bush was President. The Senate passed the debt ceiling 
increase by a 68-29 vote on June 11, 2002--with no requirement for a 
60-vote threshold. We had another vote on May 23, 2003, that passed the 
Senate by a 53-to-44 vote, and there was no filibuster of that by the 
Democrats. We had a vote on November 17, 2004, with a debt ceiling 
increase of $800 billion. The vote was 52 to 44 in the Senate. Again, 
there was no effort made to require a 60-vote threshold, and there was 
no effort made to filibuster that issue. Then again on September 27, 
2007, the debt ceiling was increased by $850 billion by a vote of 53 to 
42. On a fourth occasion--March 16, 2006--there was a 52-48 vote for a 
debt ceiling increase. Once again, there was no effort made to 
filibuster that issue.
  Webster's Dictionary defines ``filibuster'' as ``the use of extreme 
dilatory tactics to delay or prevent action by the majority in a 
legislative or deliberative assembly.'' That is exactly what the 
Republicans are doing if they vote against the cloture motion in a few 
moments. They are using extreme dilatory tactics to deny the majority 
the opportunity to take up an issue.
  I know we are close to working out an agreement. I certainly hope we 
work out an agreement. I have been saying on the floor of the Senate 
for a long time that Democrats and Republicans need to put the Nation's 
interests first.
  We have two goals: to increase the debt ceiling and have a credible 
plan to deal with the deficit. The Reid proposal offers solutions to 
both of those goals. I hope we have a bipartisan agreement before the 
day is out. We can move forward.
  I think it is critically important that the Members of the Senate 
express whether they believe we should be filibustering a debt limit 
increase. I believe that is not the right precedent for this body to 
set. We should always allow the debt ceiling to be increased by a 
majority vote. That is what they did in the House; that is what we 
should be doing in the Senate.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the cloture motion, but let's 
continue this discussion because in order to get a bill to the 
President's desk, we know we are going to have to reach further 
compromises. We understand that. We have had, I think, some discussions 
among our colleagues here, and I am hopeful we will be able to reach 
that type of a compromise.
  We have a chance, in a few minutes, to move forward so that we can 
express ourselves that we should be doing this in the Senate by 
majority vote. I urge my colleagues to support cloture and support the 
Reid proposal.
  I ask unanimous consent that during the quorum call, the time be 
equally divided between the Democrats and the Republicans.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CARDIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I wish to join others of my colleagues 
in thanking and commending the majority leader, Senator Reid, for his 
tireless and relentless work in extraordinarily difficult 
circumstances. He has been a model for me as a new Member of the Senate 
in leading this body, along with many of my other Democratic colleagues 
in the leadership and some of our Republican colleagues as well.
  Senator Johnny Isakson, of Georgia, who spoke to this Chamber 
yesterday morning, demonstrated his determination, as others on the 
other side of the aisle have done, to work together in reaching an 
agreement. As the majority leader said moments ago, the words of the 
day must be ``cooperation'' and ``compromise.'' Those are the words we 
are hearing from countless Americans, including my fellow citizens of 
Connecticut, day after day: We want you to get the job done, put aside 
the partisan differences. America is speaking with one voice, and 
Washington must listen.
  I am new to Washington. I haven't been here for long. I have just 
marked my first 6 months in the Senate. But I understand more and more 
why my fellow Connecticut citizens and other Americans are so 
frustrated and often appalled by what goes on here. This situation is 
outrageous. We have an impending crisis--self-created--and devastating 
possible wounds--self-inflicted--and Washington has been deadlocked.
  There is a glimmer of hope, a reason to be cautiously optimistic. The 
solution is in sight, but still work needs to be done. Washington needs 
to end the gridlock, the straitjacket that has been self-imposed, and 
take action to protect citizens from financial catastrophe. Our Nation 
is really at a crossroads. We need to rein in spending, cut the debt 
and deficits, make the tough choices necessary to get our fiscal house 
in order, and we need to do it now.
  The fiscal news in the last few days--the anemic and fragile measures 
of recovery--shows more than ever why we need certainty now, certainty 
that ending this deadlock will produce. Uncertainty is the enemy--enemy 
for businesses that are deciding whether to hire, for banks wanting to 
loan money to those businesses, and for larger corporations sitting on 
mountains of cash waiting to invest and create jobs.
  Jobs and our economy are the main reasons to make these tough choices 
literally today, to make these tough choices now. We have a historic 
moment, and we must seize it. We cannot keep kicking these decisions 
down the road. Families in Connecticut and across the country make 
these tough choices every day. They rightfully expect nothing less from 
us. Tough choices are necessary to help get our debt and our deficit 
under control.
  I have heard as late as this morning, Sunday morning, from hundreds 
of Connecticut residents who are frustrated and appalled at what is 
going on here, what they see in Washington, DC.
  Bernice, from Tolland, CT, cannot believe we don't have an agreement. 
She is worried she won't receive her Social Security check next month.
  Jane, from West Hartford, is wondering why we are protecting 
sweetheart deals instead of ensuring Social Security is protected and 
strengthened.
  Rod, from New Milford, just wants us to compromise and to get 
something done and end this nightmare.
  I agree with them and hundreds of others from Connecticut and around 
the country who want to make sure that the troops in Afghanistan are 
paid, that their families are taken care of. I thank the citizens from 
Connecticut for calling or writing to me.
  I agree that the immediate solution is not only to raise the debt 
ceiling but also to cut spending, as the Reid proposal makes clear, 
dollar for dollar to match that increase in that debt ceiling, without 
tax increases--none--without any cuts in Medicare or Medicare--none. 
Those basic principles in the Reid proposal are what should be embodied 
in what the outcome is of this debate.
  The markets need a real solution, not a short-term fix, to 
demonstrate that we are dedicated to achieving real results in cutting 
spending.
  Anne, from Hamden, CT, makes this point. She just called yesterday to 
say

[[Page S5150]]

that a short-term plan would not provide the certainty the markets are 
desperately seeking. I agree that no short-term plan can provide that 
kind of certainty. It risks a credit rating downgrade and ensures we 
will be back here in another 6 months.
  As much as we may criticize the rating agencies--and I have been one 
to criticize them most vehemently as an attorney general of Connecticut 
and now as a Member of this body--we must deal with that reality at 
this moment and take action down the road to address the need for 
reform. Credit ratings agencies' downgrades seem abstract and 
intangible, but they are hugely consequential. A downgrade in our 
credit rating would likely cause, in effect, an automatic tax increase 
in the form of higher interest rates for every American who has a 
mortgage, a car loan, student debt, or a credit card.
  The American people deserve better. Coming together in a compromise 
is essential now. Majority Leader Reid has proposed a solution to meet 
all of the criteria House Republicans have demanded for weeks. It 
doesn't raise taxes or revenues, and it includes enough spending to 
meet the debt ceiling increase dollar for dollar, and it includes 
spending cuts that are the very same as our Republican colleagues, our 
friends across the aisle, have previously voted for and supported over 
these past weeks.
  Most important, Senator Reid's plan makes tough spending cuts, but it 
doesn't balance the budget on the backs of our seniors and our most 
vulnerable. It protects vital programs and doesn't make cuts to 
benefits, to Medicare and Social Security. Again, as I have said 
repeatedly, I will oppose cuts in Medicare or Social Security.
  Time and again, Democrats have shown we are willing to compromise to 
avert catastrophe and default. Unfortunately, at every turn Republicans 
in the House have blocked any chance for progress and continue to put 
us on a very dangerous path.
  I am hopeful that the deadline will produce a compromise, that the 
talks will be productive. But today's filibuster of our efforts to 
prevent a default is indeed unprecedented. As my colleague, the 
distinguished Senator from Maryland, pointed out a few moments ago on 
the floor, since March of 1962, Congress has raised the debt limit 74 
times--18 times under President Reagan. During George Bush's 
administration, Congress passed five stand-alone debt limit increases 
without a filibuster or delay. And until this point, debt limit 
increases were routine, usually passed by a simple 51-vote majority 
without the procedural hurdles my Republican colleagues are using 
today.
  Hopefully, they will come to the table to work with us to find a 
compromise for the good of the country and for our economic recovery. I 
hope my Republican colleagues will join us in achieving that result for 
the sake of millions of Connecticut families, who are watching and 
listening, as are hundreds of millions of other Americans, and for the 
sake of our economy moving in the right direction. It is about jobs, 
jobs, jobs, the certainty our economy needs at this point in history, 
affordable interest rates, and moving our economy forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois, the assistant 
majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for 
his comments and for his focus on jobs. If we ask the American people 
what the most important thing we face is, it is jobs, creating good-
paying jobs right here in the United States so families can succeed and 
so our economy can grow.
  I noted this morning that the President's economic adviser Gene 
Sperling said in the first 3 months after President Obama was sworn 
into office we lost 2.3 million jobs. That is what he faced walking in 
the door, and we have been trying to dig out of that hole ever since. I 
would say that, symbolically, this agreement we are working on is 
moving us to the point where we are having the final interment of John 
Maynard Keynes. He nominally died in 1946, but it appears now we are 
going to put him to his final rest with this agreement.
  Keynes was a British economist who turned the world upside down when 
he started arguing that just the force of the markets is not enough to 
resolve problems when we face recession and depression. We need to play 
a more active role, a more assertive role in increasing aggregate 
demands by programs. One of the great disciples of that point of view 
was Franklin Roosevelt, who, when he came to the Presidency in the 
midst of the Great Depression, believed we needed to create jobs and 
work, infrastructure work across America to put more money into our 
economy. That was a positive force that helped to bring us out of the 
depression.
  Some argue it was only a halting effort until World War II started, 
but the fact is, that was accepted economic theory in America for many 
decades. But now, take a look at where we are today. We have an obvious 
problem with unemployment being too high, a lack of consumer demand and 
confidence, and a reluctance by many Americans to make purchases of 
goods and services that would create a demand for more work, more jobs, 
and more economic growth.
  The President came to office and said: Well, the first thing we need 
to do is to move this economy forward, and he passed a stimulus 
package, which I supported. I believe 40 percent of that stimulus 
package went into tax cuts for families so they would have more 
spending power, particularly lower- and middle-income families. He also 
put money in infrastructure, trying to make sure we move forward 
building in America for our future, and money to help State and local 
governments that were clearly struggling with a cutback in revenue. 
That was the President's stimulus package. It was helpful, but it 
clearly did not turn the economy around as we had hoped. We are moving 
in the right direction.
  The next thing the President did, last December, was reach a 
bipartisan agreement--a controversial one--to extend tax cuts in this 
country. The obvious belief was if we continue to put spending power in 
the hands of working families who have a lower propensity to save with 
every marginal dollar, they will spend it and help the economy get back 
on its feet. So that was the second phase of the stimulus.
  What we are talking about now, in terms of our future--the next 10 
years, and what we will do specifically for the next year and a half--
is to do the opposite. It is to take money out of the economy by 
reducing government spending. That is a way to reduce the deficit--at 
least it appears to be--but yet it flies in the face of this notion 
that we can increase aggregate demand, increase demand for goods and 
services, and create jobs.
  I was a member of the deficit commission--the Bowles-Simpson 
Commission--and that commission was very careful not to put in place 
the spending cuts for at least a year, until we were back on our feet 
and the economy was moving forward. Their fear--and the fear I share--
is that if we make spending cuts at this point, it will not help 
economic recovery. In fact, many would agree. I think Paul Krugman 
regularly reports that point of view in the New York Times, and I think 
he is right.
  So here we are, on the horns of a dilemma. In order to avoid the 
disaster that would occur August 2 if the United States defaulted on 
its debt for the first time in its history, we are being told we have 
to cut back on government spending. By cutting back on spending, we may 
also have a negative impact on our economy. I am afraid this dilemma is 
not going to serve our purposes very well. I am not sure this is clear 
thinking. I think, in many respects, it is ideological thinking.
  The Republican point of view has always been to reduce the size of 
government at any cost to the economy. They believe in their heart of 
hearts in the pre-Keynesian view of the world: the market will work 
this all out if we just get out of the way. Well, that may be possible, 
but it is going to be a very costly experience and a costly experiment 
as people find themselves struggling through this recession without a 
helping hand.
  For example, will we extend unemployment benefits as part of this 
conversation about what we will do with the economy for the next year 
and a half? I, for one, would argue we should. My understanding is they 
expire at the end of this year, and if that is the case,

[[Page S5151]]

the extension of unemployment benefits will cut off direct payments to 
people we know are the first dollars spent. Families on unemployment 
spend it all because that is what they live on. So that stimulus to the 
economy may be cut off.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. Let me complete one thought. Then I will be happy to 
yield.
  Secondly, the President has put in a payroll tax cut. What that means 
is, working families will get about 2 percent more each pay period. The 
belief of the President--and I share it--is that kind of helping hand 
ends up with dollars in the hands of many families spent into the 
economy. I hope we extend the payroll tax cut as part of this 
agreement. It doesn't serve specifically the need for deficit 
reduction, but it certainly serves the need for us to stimulate the 
economy and have people buy more.
  Right now we have a crisis of consumer confidence, and I think it is 
brought on by the bad news out of Washington--we have to share some of 
this blame--and it is brought on by the fact that many people 
overborrowed before the recession set in, many times going deeply into 
debt. For example, in the 1990s, the average indebtedness of a family 
was 84 percent of their annual income. By the year 2007, it had reached 
about 125 percent, a 15-percent increase in indebtedness. Now families 
facing that indebtedness are retrenching, holding back, not making 
commitments, and it is coming down to 112 percent and slowly back to 
where it should be.
  What we are trying to do is to give people some spending power to 
create more consumer and aggregate demand for goods and services for 
business growth in this country.
  So I hope as we look at this deficit-reduction package, as important 
as it is, we understand we are doing it in an economically dangerous 
time, when this recession still threatens us, and when many people are 
still holding back because of their reluctance to spend. If we do not 
provide a helping hand in this situation, I am afraid the economic 
recovery may be even slower.
  The political realities tell us we are faced with this dilemma: 
either default on the debt ceiling or cut back in spending, either one 
of which would be harmful to the economy. I hope we can find a way 
through this that is sensible, not just from an economical point of 
view but a political point of view.
  I yield to my colleague for a question.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have a few questions because what my colleague is doing 
right now is stepping back and looking at the bigger economic view of 
where we are. Having come out of the 2010 election, where, frankly, the 
only issue I faced day after day was job creation, I think my friend is 
right to talk about that. But here we are in a crisis that is made up.
  We have raised the debt ceiling 89 times, and I know my friend has 
looked at all of this. But isn't it true that never before have we been 
in a circumstance where one political party has held the full faith and 
credit of the United States hostage to some agenda they want to bring 
to the country? Is that my friend's understanding?
  Mr. DURBIN. I would answer my colleague that there has never been an 
instance, since 1939, in the 89 times we have extended the debt 
ceiling--except for one technical period in 1979 for a few days--when 
we have used the debt ceiling as a political bargaining chip, and there 
has never been a time when we were this close to defaulting on the debt 
causing a true concern across the country and the world that the United 
States would not keep its promise to pay its bills, which, as the 
Senator knows, could result in a loss of confidence in our economy and 
an increase in interest rates not just for the government but for 
businesses and families everywhere at exactly the wrong time.
  Mrs. BOXER. OK. So what we have now established is that at a time of 
economic uncertainty, what the Republicans have done, as a party, is 
hold this whole economy hostage. We have established that. It has never 
been done before. It is a made-up crisis. They know under Ronald Reagan 
the debt ceiling was raised 18 times, under George Bush it was 7, 8 or 
9 times, and they never said a word. But now, in the midst of this 
economic crisis we have had going on, this recession, they add this 
horrific crisis which they have made up.
  I have one more question I would like to ask my friend for his 
comment. I was thinking the other day how things are stalling--the 
economic growth and our recovery. I have looked back on this and have 
asked: Why has this happened.
  One of the great reasons, I believe, as someone who did study 
economics a long time ago, is uncertainty and this whole nightmare we 
are going through, this unnecessary nightmare.
  Here we are on a Sunday--we know talks are going on--but this is 
unnecessary that we are in this mess. The Republicans want us to be in 
this mess again in 3, 4, or 5 months. I hope we have finally gotten rid 
of that notion. We are not going to agree to a short-term extension. 
But here is what I see as the bigger picture.
  As soon as the Republicans took over, they stopped working on this 
economy. Not only did they stop working on the FAA conference--the 
Federal Aviation Administration--but they now have shut down the FAA. 
They refuse to allow an extension, and there are job losses all over my 
State--I assume all over my colleague's State.
  At this time they have stopped completely any work on patent reform, 
which Chairman Leahy says is hundreds of thousands of jobs. They have 
put forward a highway bill and a budget that cuts highways by one-
third, which is 600,000 jobs that will be lost. They voted down, with a 
filibuster, Mary Landrieu's small business bill and my economic 
development bill--hundreds of thousands of jobs between those two. Now 
we have this made-up crisis. How long have they been in? Let's see: 
January, February, March, April, May, June, July--7 months, and we are 
in a mess.
  So I say to my friend, as he puts forward this notion that we have to 
be concerned, it is not only that we have this made-up crisis, it is 
also that they have put the brakes on anything the Senate and the House 
can do to stimulate jobs. Does my friend agree that it is a very 
discouraging time?
  Mr. DURBIN. Well, of course, it is. I think what is most discouraging 
is the average person is asking themselves: Why do we inflict this pain 
on ourselves in the midst of a recession? Why do we have the fear of 
defaulting on America's debt for the first time in our history? Why 
would we lose our credit rating, the best in the world--AAA--because of 
a manufactured political debate in Washington?
  We will pay for this for a long time to come. For every 1 percent 
interest rates go up, our national debt goes up $130 billion a year--
$1.3 trillion over 10 years. So as we talk about all the spending cuts 
we want, the fact is, we end up in a position where we can't keep up 
with increases in the interest rate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority time has expired.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority has 14 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McCAIN. Well, I will tell you what. I will be glad to engage in a 
short colloquy with the Senator from Illinois, if he would like.
  Does the Senator from Illinois believe we are close to an agreement?
  Mr. DURBIN. I hope so.
  Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator from Illinois agree that, most likely, 
that agreement will not have an increase in taxes associated with it, 
at least in the short term?
  Mr. DURBIN. I hope not.
  Mr. McCAIN. You hope so?
  Mr. DURBIN. I hope there is revenue included in any agreement.
  Mr. McCAIN. Well, everything I have heard is that the agreement does 
not

[[Page S5152]]

have tax increases in it. Has the Senator heard differently, being in 
the leadership?
  Mr. DURBIN. I honestly am not party to this. But I can tell the 
Senator, as the Gang of 6 and fiscal commission, we believe everything 
should be under consideration to reduce our national debt.
  Mr. McCAIN. So I assume that would also mean the Senator from 
Illinois would advocate another stimulus package?
  Mr. DURBIN. I wish to make sure we have some stimulus to the economy 
to create jobs and help those out of work find work with training and 
education.
  Mr. McCAIN. So one would have to assume that the Senator from 
Illinois believes the last stimulus package was successful, which was, 
counting interest, over $1 trillion. The Senator from Illinois and 
others who advocated the stimulus package and the administration said: 
If we pass this, unemployment will be a maximum of 8 percent. This will 
stimulate our economy and create jobs.
  Do you know what the Senator from Illinois and others are saying now? 
It was not enough, that it was not enough, that we didn't spend enough, 
that we didn't make the deficit larger. Because certainly nothing in 
the stimulus package was paid for. So I hope the Senator from Illinois 
understands--the American people understand--that just spending more 
money has failed and failed miserably.
  When we look at the latest news, on the front page of the Wall Street 
Journal and the Washington Post and the New York Times, that our 
economy is staggering back into a situation of stagnation, and the 
response--I will be glad to let the Senator respond. The answer on the 
other side is: Well, let's have some more spending and let's raise 
taxes. Let's take some more money out of the taxpayers' pockets in the 
form of spending more money--their money. It is not the 
administration's money. It is not the money of the Senator from 
Illinois. It is the people's money. Take some more money of theirs--and 
this is the Nobel Prize--well, I will not--anyway. Take more money and 
taxes and more out of the taxpayers' pockets, and that will be the 
answer to our problems.
  I will be glad to hear the response of the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. First, I wish to thank my colleague from Arizona. For 
those who are witnessing this, this is almost a debate in the Senate. 
It rarely happens. I thank the Senator for coming to the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. May I say that rather than having the Senator use all our 
time, I thought I would engage in a colloquy.
  Mr. DURBIN. Well, I enjoy doing this and I thank the Senator.
  Mr. McCAIN. Go ahead, please.
  Mr. DURBIN. First, during the course of the Senator's Presidential 
campaign, Mark Zandi, his economist, helped him formulate some 
positions. His opinion of President Obama's stimulus is, it stopped a 
precipitous decline in our economy. Did it achieve all we had hoped 
for? No.
  Mr. McCAIN. If I could interrupt on that particular point, Mr. Zandi 
was one of many advisers to my campaign. The key adviser was Douglas 
Holtz-Akin, who is, as you know, former head of the CBO--the Senator 
knows him well--who had no brief whatsoever for that proposal.
  Please go ahead.
  Mr. DURBIN. The second point I would like to ask the Senator from 
Arizona, I think one of the real bedrock beliefs among Republicans is 
that if we cut taxes, particularly on the wealthiest people in America, 
the economy will prosper. We hear that over and over.
  Didn't we try that experiment under President George W. Bush? Didn't 
the debt of the United States double under the President and he left a 
shambles behind him, 2.3 million jobs lost in the first 3 months of 
President Obama's administration because of this failed economic policy 
which the Senator continues to espouse; that if we cut taxes on the 
rich, America is going to get wealthier. Haven't we tried it? Where are 
the jobs?
  Mr. McCAIN. If I could take a little trip down memory lane with my 
friend from Illinois, whom I had the great privilege many years ago--I 
don't know if I should mention the 1982 election. He and I came to the 
House of Representatives together, and he might recall that one of his 
own, then a Democratic Congressman from Texas, got together with 
President Reagan and guess what we did. We cut taxes. Guess what. We 
had one of the strongest recoveries in recent history of this country 
because we didn't start spending and add spending without paying for 
them.
  I would say to the Senator from Illinois, he is correct; the spending 
that went on in the previous administration was not acceptable and led 
to the deficit. But I would also say, speaking for myself, I voted 
against the Medicare Part D because it was not paid for. I voted 
against the earmark and porkbarrel spendings which were abundant as 
every appropriations bill came to the floor and dramatically increased 
spending in the worst way, wasteful and corrupt way, I will say. I am 
proud that at least some of us said: If we don't stop this spending and 
get it under control, then we are going to face a serious problem.
  But I would also mention, and the Senator has seen the chart, it has 
gotten a lot worse--a lot worse--since the last election. You can't 
keep up B-I-O-B. You can't keep up Blame It On Bush.
  Go ahead.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to respond to my colleague from Arizona, 
through the Chair.
  Does he recall what happened with the Reagan tax cuts? Because what 
happened was we tripled the national debt during that period of time, 
and President Reagan came to Congress 18 times to extend the debt 
ceiling. He holds the record.
  So to argue the Reagan tax cuts led to great long-term prosperity is 
seriously in doubt, if we are going to use the deficit as a measure.
  Mr. McCAIN. If I could say we believed and Reagan believed that 
cutting tax cuts would restore our economy, which was in the tank, 
thanks to the practice of the previous administration before him. 
Reagan presided over probably one of the greatest job-creation periods 
in the history of this country. Those are numbers that I would be glad 
to insert into the Record.

  Compare that with what has happened since this administration took 
office, with the promise that if we passed ObamaCare, if we passed 
TARP, if we passed all these others, the economy would then be restored 
and grow.
  Again, it is hard for my dear friend from Illinois to refute the fact 
that it was categorically stated that if we passed the stimulus 
package, unemployment would be at a maximum of 8 percent.
  Unemployment today is 9.2 percent, and if we look at any indicator, 
whether it be housing starts, whether it be the deficit, whether it be 
unemployed, whatever it is, it has gotten worse since the stimulus 
package was passed rather than better.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator would yield for a question.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to just hear the Senator's comment.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am going to give the Senator a chance to speak again.
  Does the Senator believe that defaulting on our national debt for the 
first time in our history, which has been the threat looming over us 
from the House Republicans and others for a long period, is good for 
America's economy?
  One of his colleagues on the floor from the State of Pennsylvania has 
come in and said: Listen, defaulting on the debt is not that big a 
deal. It can be, in his words, ``easily managed.'' Does the Senator 
from Arizona agree with that thinking?
  Mr. McCAIN. As the Senator may know, I came to the floor a couple 
days ago and made the comment that the Senator from Illinois and I are 
in agreement.
  Point No. 1, we can prioritize--and every economist that I know 
literally would agree. We can prioritize for a while where we want what 
remaining money that is left. But the message we send to the world--not 
just our markets but to the world--that the United States of America is 
going to default on its debts is a totally unacceptable scenario and 
beneath a great nation. We are in agreement, No. 1.
  Mr. DURBIN. Amen.
  Mr. McCAIN. No. 2 is that to insist that any agreement is based on 
the

[[Page S5153]]

passage through the Senate of a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States, as I said before, is not fair to the 
American people because the terrible obstructionists on the Senator's 
side of the aisle, the terrible people, their flawed philosophical 
views about the future of America is not going to allow us to get 20 
additional votes from the Senator's side, assuming you get all 47, 
since it required 67 votes to pass a balanced budget amendment because 
of the Constitution.
  I think it was not only a wrong assessment; I think it is not fair to 
the American people to say we can pass a balanced budget amendment to 
the Constitution through the Senate at this time. Maybe after the 
Senator is defeated in the next election and we get rid of a lot of--
maybe that will happen. But certainly let's not tell the American 
people that is a possibility because I think it raises their 
expectations in a way that is not fair to them and, frankly, detracts 
from what I think is being done as we speak between the leaders, the 
President, Democratic leaders and Republican leaders, which is in a 
very short timeframe.
  Go ahead.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would just say it pains me to say I agree with the 
Senator from Arizona, but I do.
  We both feel threatening the debt ceiling is not in the best 
interests of the United States and both of us feel that holding out the 
threat that if we don't pass a constitutional amendment, we can't let 
the economy continue is not a good-faith bargain. I wish Senator Byrd 
were here to respond to that particular suggestion.
  As for my prospects in the next election, I thank the Senator from 
Arizona for campaigning against me last time. When he did, I almost got 
60 percent of the vote in Illinois. So I welcome the Senator back to 
the land of Lincoln anytime he would like to come.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would love to come out. As I saw, I did so well in the 
Presidential campaign in the land of Lincoln, I am not surprised I had 
such a dramatic impact on the election of the Senator from Illinois as 
well.
  Could I just say, I think this kind of discussion is important, No. 
1.
  No. 2 is, we should have this national debate on other forums besides 
just the Sunday show, and perhaps the floor of the Senate is the best 
place to do that. I wish to continue to engage with the Senator from 
Illinois, but I hope this agreement will assure the American people 
that we will meet our obligations, that we will meet our obligations 
not only physically but fiscally but also meet our obligations to them 
to govern--to govern--because they did send to us here to govern. I 
think the Senator from Illinois would agree with me.
  The last approval rating of Congress I saw, both sides of the aisle, 
was about 16 percent; and I have yet to encounter anyone in that 16-
percent category in my travels back to my State.
  By the way, I would like to note the presence of the Budget Committee 
chairman, Senator Conrad, who I think has made enormous good-faith 
efforts to reach an agreement on some of these issues, and I thank him 
for his work. I wish to assure him his reward will be in heaven, not 
here on Earth.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would also like to thank the Senator from Arizona for 
the few minutes we shared on the floor. I hope more Members would do 
this rather than just taking turns giving speeches. These exchanges, 
even when we disagree, are valuable.
  But I agree completely with the Senator from Arizona. At the end of 
the day, we cannot allow our economy to lapse into this default. It 
would be devastating to a lot of innocent families and businesses 
across America and will cost us dearly in terms of our national debt. 
So let us hope we can find this bipartisan agreement that people are 
working on, even at this moment, and I hope we can do that soon.
  Incidentally, I wanted to say for the Record former Senator Alan 
Simpson, whom I came to know even better on the Bowles-Simpson 
commission, said:

       Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration. 
     I was here. I was here. I knew him better than anybody in the 
     room. He was a dear friend and a total realist as to 
     politics.

  Mr. McCAIN. Could I remind the Senator from Illinois that, in 
retrospect, the one thing President Reagan said he regretted--and he 
regretted it--was the agreement that was made with the Democratic 
leadership that we would cut spending by $3 and increase taxes by $1 
for every cut in spending. That was the ironclad agreement. Guess what 
happened. We increased taxes. The fact is, we raised taxes and did not 
cut spending, and that was in direct violation of the commitment he got 
from the Democratic leadership.
  I yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Pursuant to rule XXII, the 
clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The bill 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. Cardin, Charles E. Schumer, Richard 
           J. Durbin, Patrick J. Leahy, Mark R. Warner, Patty 
           Murray, Christopher A. Coons, Richard Blumenthal, 
           Sherrod Brown, Kent Conrad, Mark Begich, John F. Kerry, 
           Debbie Stabenow.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 627 with amendment No. 
589, offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, shall be brought to 
a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 122 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Paul
     Portman
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Inhofe
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50 and the nays are 
49. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture 
was not invoked.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to reconsider is entered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 
4 p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or 
their designees, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes 
each during that period of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the matter now before the Senate is still 
the pending matter we have been working on for several days. It is 
extremely important that everyone understands we have a message from 
the House, and if we are going to work something out, which we are 
hopeful we can do, that

[[Page S5154]]

we have a piece of legislation by which we can do that and not require 
a bunch of cloture votes. So that is where we are now. We are seeing if 
something can be worked out.
  I have had, for the information of Senators, a number of 
conversations in the last hour with people downtown, and the 
arrangement that is being worked on with the Republican leader and the 
administration and others is not there yet. We are hopeful and 
confident it can be done. As soon as it is done, I will let my caucus 
know.
  I have had conversations with the Republican leader and other 
Senators. Senators should be aware that further rollcall votes are 
possible today. We will do everything we can to give Members adequate 
notice before additional rollcall votes are scheduled.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, would the majority leader yield on that 
point?
  Mr. REID. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If we were to vote, I assume we would have significant 
notice for our Members because many Members would like to leave the 
Capitol if we are not going to be voting.
  Mr. REID. I would say to my friend that is an appropriate thing to 
do. I would not suggest a ball game, though; maybe closer than that.
  We will give everyone adequate notice. As I indicated, we will do 
everything we can to give Members plenty of notice. As I indicated, we 
will have, on this side of the aisle, a caucus later today, whenever we 
are able to do that.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________