Establishing the Commission on Freedom of Information Act Processing Delays

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source