Establishing the Commission on Freedom of Information Act Processing Delays

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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, 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source