[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12437-12441]
[From the U.S. 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.'')

[[Page 12438]]


  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. 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 numbered 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

[[Page 12439]]

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 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.
  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.

[[Page 12440]]


  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 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.

[[Page 12441]]



                          ____________________