[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12629-12631]
[From the U.S. 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 assistant 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. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me say a word about the leadership in 
the Senate. I have the good fortune of working with Senator Harry Reid, 
our majority leader. In my role as whip, or assistant leader, I have 
been close at hand when most of the major decisions have been made. I 
have come to take the measure of this man from Searchlight, NV, and I 
have found him to be an extraordinary leader.
  At first blush, most people would not choose him for his ringing 
oratory or a commanding presence. But I will tell you that he has 
created a leadership style in the Senate that is exceptional. I have 
watched him during the span of the last 2\1/2\ years, particularly as 
he has faced a myriad of challenges: a new President of his own party; 
passing the stimulus bill, when we didn't have 60 votes on the 
Democratic side and had to rely on a cross-over vote from three 
Republican Senators; dealing with the TARP crisis; the recession and 
what needed to be done to save financial institutions from dissolution; 
his efforts, as well, on the Health Care Reform Act, which might have 
been the mightiest political battle I have ever been engaged in; the 
Financial Reform Act--the list goes on and on.
  Then comes this year with the new Congress--divided, with a 
Republican leadership in the House. He has had to face passage of 
appropriations bills, continuing resolutions, and now the most recent 
crisis over the extension of the debt ceiling. He is an exceptional 
leader.
  I think the majority leader is such an exception because of his 
humility. He is not the first to the camera nor the loudest in speech. 
He is a person whose word is trusted and who works night and day until 
we reach our goal. I admire him so much as a friend, and I am proud to 
be part of his leadership team and Democratic caucus.
  I would like to say a word, as well, about Senator McConnell, the 
Republican leader. He stepped forward several weeks ago with an 
exceptional show of political courage when he made a suggestion about 
how we could find our way through this crisis. It was not a welcome 
idea on his side of the aisle, and many of his critics took him to task 
for suggesting how we could get through the debt ceiling crisis. I 
admired the fact he stood up and understood his responsibility--our 
responsibility--to the Nation beyond any partisan consideration. 
Senator McConnell played a critical role in working out the agreement 
which will come before us and is now pending before the Senate--or will 
be pending before the Senate shortly. I thank him. I thanked him last 
night personally, and I thank him publicly for joining in this 
bipartisan effort on behalf of the Senate with Senator Reid and working 
directly with the President and Vice President.
  I am also happy the leaders in the House--Speaker Boehner and the 
minority leader, Congresswoman Pelosi--were able to work together to 
come up with this agreement.
  There are harsh critics of this idea because, as Senator Reid stated 
earlier, what we have come up with as an agreement is not what I would 
have written and certainly not what any Senator would have written. 
There are parts of it that I don't care for at all and other parts I 
think are very wise. That is the nature of compromise. I do not believe 
I have compromised my principles as a person or as an elected official 
in coming to this agreement.
  At some point, you have to sit at the table and look the other side 
in the eye and realize they feel just as strongly as you do, and the 
only common ground to be found between you is not when you give up or 
when the other side gives up.
  Let me tell you what I think are the pluses and minuses of what we 
are about to consider during the course of

[[Page 12630]]

this day. First, we have averted an economic crisis--if both House and 
Senate should approve this measure. The notion we would default on our 
national debt for the first time in our history--as of midnight 
tomorrow night--would be devastating to a weakened economy with more 
than 9 million Americans out of work. It would have raised America's 
interest rate on its own debts, adding to our national debt.
  As I have said on the Senate floor many times, a 1-percent increase 
in the interest rate paid by America costs us $130 billion more on our 
deficit. So the idea of interest rates going up would add to our debt, 
not solve our debt crisis.
  In addition, it would force interest rates up all over America. 
Individuals, businesses, and families would feel it in their credit 
card bills, student loan debts, automobile loans, and home loans. 
Businesses trying to engage in borrowing to expand the size of their 
business for the developments they are undertaking would feel it. That 
is exactly the wrong thing to do, as the Federal Reserve strives to 
keep interest rates low to promote growth, for us on Capitol Hill to do 
something which would have the opposite impact. So averting this crisis 
was the No. 1 achievement of any agreement we reached among our 
leadership.
  The fact we don't have to revisit this crisis on a weekly or monthly 
basis is also a positive step forward. There was a feeling on both 
sides of the aisle--though not as clearly spoken on one side--that to 
come back and do this over and over could not help but weaken the role 
and reputation of the United States and the global economy. So we now 
have an agreement which will take us to February 2013, beyond the next 
Presidential election, giving whoever is elected or reelected an 
opportunity to govern and to manage the economy in a responsible way. I 
think those are the major achievements.
  Secondly, we make a downpayment on the deficit. I think that cuts 
both ways. We need to address our deficit. This Nation cannot be great, 
cannot continue to grow while borrowing 40 cents for every dollar the 
government spends. That is an unacceptable approach, and we need to 
reduce that dependency on borrowing and reduce the debts we are 
creating. Reducing spending is the starting point.
  I would question whether this is the right moment to do that. I 
happen to believe, as others do, when we are in a recession and trying 
to create economic growth, pulling back on spending on such things as 
training and education and the building of infrastructure makes the 
situation worse, not better. I didn't prevail in that point of view, 
and this does not reflect it. But the fact that we will be putting some 
money down toward reducing our deficit is a positive.
  I am also glad that included in this agreement, when it comes to 
spending cuts, is protection for the most vulnerable people in America. 
I can't get over how many times Members of the House and Senate get up 
and make glowing speeches about cutting spending when those projects 
and programs they are cutting are safety nets for the most vulnerable 
people in America. We are talking about those who are unemployed and 
looking for work. We are talking about those who are elderly and poor. 
We are talking about those who are suffering from physical and mental 
disabilities. We are a great and caring nation. We have created a 
safety net of programs so we don't see the homeless on our streets any 
more than necessary because of the inadequacy of our programs, and we 
don't turn a blind eye when it comes to the suffering many families are 
going through.
  I am sorry we are making some cuts, but we are protecting most of the 
safety net programs, such as Medicaid, the health insurance program for 
the lower income people in America. Who counts on Medicaid? One-third 
of the children in America have their health insurance through 
Medicaid. Almost 50 percent of the live births in America are paid for 
by Medicaid. In addition, many elderly people, even those on Social 
Security and Medicare, have to turn to Medicaid to sustain them in 
their nursing home and convalescent home settings. So protecting 
Medicaid as part of this package is very important as far as I am 
concerned.
  I would also add, the approach we are using is more balanced than 
some. I want America to be strong and safe. Everyone does. It is part 
of our Constitution that we swear to uphold. But there is money being 
wasted in the Department of Defense. There are contracts that are 
overrun, money overspent, and there is a lack of oversight. We can save 
money in the Department of Defense to reduce our deficit and not 
compromise by one penny the safety and security of the United States.
  This agreement before us says both the Department of Defense and all 
other departments of the government have to look for savings and 
reduction in spending to move us toward our deficit-reduction goal. I 
think that is good.
  What is missing in this package? What is missing is obvious. At its 
best, this package will reduce our deficit by $2.1 trillion, maybe a 
little more, when it comes to future spending. Most of us believe 
unless we can reduce our deficit by $4 trillion, which is almost twice 
as much, over a period of 10 years, we will not make the positive 
impact we need to make to spur economic growth and more confidence in 
the American economy. But Senator Reid suggested, as part of this 
program, we create a joint committee to try to find a way to increase 
the savings and reduction in deficit in the years to come.
  Some skeptics this morning have said that is a typical Washington 
cop-out; that we are going to create another joint committee. Haven't 
we had enough? One could make that argument, but I think it overlooks 
the obvious. We are committed to reducing our deficit. We are committed 
to creating a joint committee that comes up with specific programs that 
work. If we fail, there is a penalty. If the joint committee fails to 
produce a product enacted by the House and Senate, there is a penalty.
  Under our legislative language--it is known as a trigger--it says: If 
you should fail to reduce the spending and reduce the deficit through 
the joint committee, there will be a price paid--even deeper cuts in 
spending on both the defense and nondefense sides.
  I don't want to see it move in that direction. I hope we can find a 
more balanced approach and do it through the joint committee, working 
on a bipartisan basis with appreciation and respect for one another 
across the table, and we can reach that goal.
  Erskine Bowles, former Chief of Staff to President Clinton; Alan 
Simpson, former Senator, cochaired the commission on which I served. 
They sat down and created a template for us to reach meaningful deficit 
and debt reduction over 10 years of over $4 trillion. I took those 
ideas and with others--Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, Senator 
Chambliss of Georgia, Senator Crapo of Idaho, Senator Coburn of 
Oklahoma, and Senator Conrad of North Dakota--sat down with the Gang of 
6, and we turned those ideas into what we thought was a legislative 
approach that would work.
  I still think that has merit, and I still think it should be actively 
considered when we talk about the long-term reduction of debt. It is 
bipartisan, it is honest, it achieves real debt reduction, and it does 
it in the fairest possible way. It puts everything on the table--
everything. There are no sacred cows. Everything is on the table. It 
means it goes beyond spending cuts to the entitlement programs, which 
makes those of us on the Democratic side particularly nervous. But it 
also goes to revenue--new revenue--to reduce the deficit, which makes 
those on the other side of the aisle nervous. But what we should be 
nervous about is a continuing deficit and a weakening economy and a 
debt left to our children.
  I believe this proposal that is before us now--this agreement of the 
leaders--should be adopted in a timely fashion. I hope we can move to 
it today. We are working out with the Republicans a schedule when these 
matters will be considered. There will be those on the right and the 
left who will be critical, and I can understand their thinking. It 
doesn't serve either side

[[Page 12631]]

particularly well. But it is a compromise and a consensus.
  I think of all the people who contacted my office from Illinois and 
beyond during the last several weeks, begging us to do something, to 
not let this economy fail, to work together and compromise and find a 
way to resolve our differences. I think this is a reasonable attempt to 
do that. I will support it, with some misgivings. But I believe it 
gives us the way to get through this crisis and to move to a better 
place where we deal with this deficit and debt in a responsible, 
bipartisan manner, asking for shared sacrifice from all those across 
America who can make a sacrifice. That is the nature of our Nation. It 
is the nature of our history, where time and again we have rallied as a 
nation to face even more daunting challenges in the past.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________