David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor once again to ask all of my colleagues to come together, Democrats and Republicans, as Americans to do something we should have done weeks ago: reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program. The National Flood Insurance Program is a vital, necessary program to provide flood insurance to our citizens around the country to help protect their homes and property. Yet it was allowed to expire on June 1. So for almost a month, we have not had a national flood insurance program. What does that mean? That means there have been thousands of real estate closings that have been held up, unable to move forward. There are thousands of first-time and other home buyers who want to go to their closings, who are excited about everything that means, but because of politics up here, because of that getting stuck in the mud-- even though substantively it should be completely noncontroversial-- they cannot go to their closings, and all of this in the midst of an extremely serious recession. We should never allow this sort of lapse in the program, but when unemployment nationally is almost 10 percent, when we need every real estate closing we can get our hands on to help move the economy along and to try to get it to a better place, this is the last moment we should allow this program to expire. As we all know, this reauthorization has been held hostage, and there is no more accurate way to describe what has been going on. It is completely noncontroversial. It is completely motherhood and apple pie. For that reason, it was taken hostage and put in the so-called extenders bill, which, overall, was very controversial and which had a lot of objectors, particularly because it balloons deficit and debt significantly--by tens of billions of dollars. I have asked several times over the last several weeks for that gamesmanship to stop, for the hostage to be released and for us to pass on a bipartisan basis the extension of the National Flood Insurance Program on its own. That was rejected. Over those several weeks, one version of extenders after another was also rejected. There were four, maybe five different versions of that bill which came to the Senate floor, and none of them achieved the required 60 votes to move forward. So the necessary extension of the National Flood Insurance Program languished for days and then weeks and now almost a month. With so many versions of the so-called extenders bill failing, let's just get back to doing the right thing on this vital program. Let's take this specific measure--the reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program--and pass it into law. The House has already done that. The Democratically controlled House has done exactly that--passed a full reauthorization through the end of the fiscal year. So let's take their bill and pass it and solve this problem and allow these closings to happen, give a little boost to the economy when we need every boost we can get. Certainly, people in the real world across America support that. As evidence of that, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter of strong support that the Senate take immediate action on H.R. 5569, which is signed by many different real estate and related business organizations that want to see those crucial real estate closings resume again.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, here we go again--the same old gamesmanship. Through the Chair, let me correct my distinguished colleague from Illinois. The reason that bill was objected to by all Republicans, as well as some Democrats, was not the extension of unemployment insurance. If that is his understanding, let me explain to him, through the Chair, that his understanding is completely wrong. In fact, I have stood here on the Senate floor and suggested a UC to separate that part of the bill as well and to pass it. But the objection of many Senators, including mine, is the ballooning of the deficit and the debt, which every single version of that bill did by tens of billions of dollars, the original version by approximately $180 billion. So, Mr. President, my distinguished colleague's understanding is exactly wrong, and here we go again. My distinguished colleague and his leadership on the Democratic side have had multiple opportunities to attempt to pass a version of this bill--four or five versions; I have lost count. Each and every time, they did not get the necessary votes, including not getting certain Democratic votes. So can we finally, after going through that exercise, after allowing the National Flood Insurance Program to lapse for almost a month now, can we finally do the right thing and pass this noncontroversial program on its own, as Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic majority in the House have done?

Mr. VITTER. Certainly.

Mr. VITTER. If that package is paid for. I will be happy to produce all of the pay-fors. I will be happy to produce ways to responsibly pay for that package. If that package is handled responsibly that way, absolutely yes.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge Reverend Gerald Archie ``G.A'' Mangun of Alexandria, LA, and to honor his memory as an important spiritual leader to the citizens of central Louisiana. I would like to take some time to make a few remarks about his legacy. Reverend Mangun passed away Thursday, June 17, 2010, at the age of 91. Reverend Mangun was born March 11, 1919, in LaPaz, IN. He was ordained a minister in 1942 and spent the years before coming to Alexandria preaching across the country. He then came to Alexandria and was elected pastor of the then-First United Pentecostal Church in 1950. Reverend Mangun relentlessly dedicated himself to reaching out to his community through his church. His church began small, with only 35 members, but with his unyielding dedication and inspiration it continued to grow. Today, the Pentecostal Church of Alexandria has a congregation numbering more than 3,000. This growth in itself shows his spiritual leadership and positive influence in the State of Louisiana. Through his leadership, the church grew to be an integral part of the city of Alexandria and the State of Louisiana. His leadership, however, reached far beyond his own State. For example, Reverend Mangun raised 1.13 million for mission work in 2009 alone. His impact in and outside of his own State and community have been remarkable. Reverend Mangun suffered a stroke on May 28, 2010, and passed away on June 17, 2010. His passing is a great loss to the State of Louisiana. However, his legacy will continue through the hearts and minds of people he touched and influenced through his ministry. His impact continues to be felt today throughout the country and around the world through his ministry and mission work. Thus today, I am proud to honor Reverend Gerald Archie Mangun for his service and leadership in his community and in the State of Louisiana.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I would like to recognize all Louisiana peach farmers, the festival's title sponsors: Squire Creek Country Club, the Ruston-Lincoln Chamber of Commerce, the city of Ruston, and all the other sponsors who partnered to celebrate the Diamond Anniversary of the Louisiana Peach Festival the weekend of June 25 to 27, 2010. In 1947, the area peach growers of Lincoln Parish organized the Louisiana Fruit Growers Association. In 1951, the association voted to promote their industry by spreading the word about the exceptional Lincoln Parish peaches throughout Louisiana. In June 1951, the president of the Louisiana Fruit Growers Association, J.E. Mitcham, and Walter Smith founded the Louisiana Peach Festival in Ruston. The association, with the cooperation of the city of Ruston, chamber of commerce, civic clubs, garden clubs, merchants, and many other individuals, worked tirelessly to prepare the city for the inaugural festival. Area merchants filled the Ruston Daily Leader with advertisements offering special sales and savings to honor the first Peach Festival. The program of the First Annual Louisiana Peach Festival, which was held on June 27 to 28, 1951, consisted of ``Peaches and Posies'' flower show, a peach cookery contest, an art show, and several athletic tournaments. The festival also crowned the First Queen Dixie Gem and Princess Peach. In the years following, the Louisiana Peach Festival grew in size and popularity. In 1952, the festival's activities doubled in number. By the third year, the festival won national attention when Queen Dixie Gem III, Dorothy Etta Goff, traveled to Washington, DC, to present then Vice President Richard Nixon a box of peaches. Over the past 60 years the festival has become an iconic event in the region. Thus, today I would like to recognize all the organizations, volunteers, and especially the farmers for continuing to put on the Louisiana Peach Festival. I would also like to thank them for their appetizing service to Lincoln Parish and to the State of Louisiana.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, again, I think it is a shame. If the distinguished Senator from Michigan wants to propound a UC to separate unemployment insurance, I will support that. I will not object. I think it is a good idea. I think we need to come together around things on which we agree. I think those things are and should be bipartisan and we should not bend over backwards to somehow make them partisan in this silly game. So I would support that unanimous consent request. I am sorry she cannot, at least on behalf of the leader, support mine. I understand it is part of the larger bill. It was 2\1/2\ weeks ago and that is exactly why the program lapsed on June 1--because it was part of the larger bill and that larger bill was not going to pass then, did not pass yesterday, probably is not going to pass today. In the meantime, it is not some theoretical bill that is being held hostage. It is American citizens who are being held hostage. It is first-time home buyers who are being held hostage. It is people in the real estate industry who need every darned closing that they can close who are being held hostage. It is not right. It is politics ahead of people, purely and simply. I am very sorry that again the majority leader has rejected this simple idea. I will keep making the request because this program has now lapsed. It has not existed since June 1 and that is hurting people and that is hurting the economy. I would like to move on to another aspect of this bill which is hurting people, which is particularly offensive to me, representing Louisiana. This is only getting worse in terms of this bill going from one version to another; that is, the aspect of this bill on the Senate floor that pertains to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. I represent Louisiana. More importantly, I live in Louisiana. I am all for oilspill cleanup. If there is anybody in the world who is for that, nobody is for it more than folks in Louisiana for obvious reasons. I am for a healthy and vibrant Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. That trust fund has to be increased and grown. And lots of things about the Oil Pollution Act are clearly outdated. I have put forward proposals to update those, but unfortunately that is not what is going on. In this bill, there was initially an increase in the tax into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund from 8 cents a barrel to 41 cents a barrel. That is over a five-times increase. Now, if that was needed for oilspill cleanup and was going to be used for oilspill cleanup, I would be the first to say, great. The problem is, it was stuck in this bill not for that reason at all but to be stolen--that money to be stolen and used for other spending. As soon as that money went into this so- called trust fund, it was going to be grabbed out and used for completely unrelated spending, nothing to do with any oilspill. I had an amendment on the floor, and the amendment was very simple. It did not disrupt the tax increase--did not touch that. It simply said that anything going into the oil fund has to be used to clean up oilspills--radical idea--and No. 2, anything going into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund cannot be used as an offset, double-counted--Enron accounting to mask, to hide other deficit spending, which is going on in this bill. Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated. But we had a good vote, quite frankly. I want to note and thank the Democratic majority chairman of the Budget Committee for voting yes on that. I think he voted yes because of the simple reality of what I am saying. That money should only be used to clean up oilspills. That money should not be double-counted, should not be used in Enron accounting to offset, to mask other completely unrelated deficit spending. In the new version of this so-called extenders bill recently unveiled, unfortunately we are going from bad to worse because they just increased the tax from 41 cents to 49 cents. Originally, it was 8 cents, and it jumped to 41 cents--that is over a fivefold increase--and now to 49 cents. Between those two versions of the bill, we actually had President Obama meet with BP and set up a huge escrow fund to make sure BP, as the responsible party of the ongoing spill, pays for everything, as they absolutely should do. So in between the 41-cent version of the bill and the 49-cent version of this bill, we set up this escrow fund to ensure, as we should, that BP pays for everything. So the increase has nothing to do with the real crisis in the gulf; the increase has to do with politics in Washington because that first version of the bill did not get the votes because it had too much deficit spending. So what do we do? We are going to steal more. We are going to offset more out of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. And that is why it went up again, from 41 cents to 49 cents. Well, I have to say that I find all of that pretty darn offensive. We have a real crisis in the gulf. It is an ongoing crisis because the flow is not stopped. Rather than deal with that real crisis through action, some folks up here are using and abusing that crisis to advance their own agenda--deficit spending, unrelated spending--through politics. I think that is wrong. I think it is wrong in a pretty raw way, and I find it offensive. And I say that on the Senate floor. It is going from bad to worse. We are now, under the current proposal, stealing even more from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, using it even more to mask other unrelated spending. We have a real crisis on our hands. Let's address it. Let's not use and abuse it politically. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I welcome following my distinguished colleague from Michigan and her impassioned plea against obstructionism. I have been facing the same challenges in particular with certain programs that are absolutely crucial for Louisiana but more broadly for the country. One that is absolutely important for all of us in Louisiana is the National Flood Insurance Program. It is a national program. It is important for our economy. It is important for the real estate industry. It is important for homeowners and closings around the country, for economic activity to move forward, particularly when we need every bit of economic activity in these tough times of recession. But it is really important in Louisiana. We face enormous flood threats so it is important there. Unfortunately, the extension of the present National Flood Insurance Program--which everyone, as far as I know, supports--is being held hostage, essentially, in this extenders bill. I have been trying to pry it loose from that so we can extend the program, not let it expire as it has expired--it expired June 1; it is not in operation today--get it back in place, get it fully extended through the rest of the calendar year. I would have thought this would be a ``no brainer,'' this would be consensus, this would not be partisan. It should not be. This is a simple extension of the National Flood Insurance Program. What is more, this extension does not create any additional deficit. Obviously, a big part of this debate about this larger bill on the floor is about increasing deficit spending. Lots of folks, including me, have real concern about that. I think that is a legitimate concern that all of us have at some level. This extension does not increase the deficit at all. I came to the floor before the Memorial Day recess because I saw this train wreck coming. I asked unanimous consent to simply extend that National Flood Insurance Program with no deficit impact, extend it by unanimous consent until the end of the year. The distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, objected. I tried to engage in a meaningful debate, because I think the American people deserve it, about what is wrong with the program, what is wrong with the extension, what is wrong with the proposal. It has no deficit impact. The silence from the distinguished majority leader was deafening. He objected because he could object. That is his right--no explanation, no justification. The result has been the train wreck I was trying to avoid. The program expired on June 1. The program is not in place today. That is stopping and making a lot more complicated real estate closings--people trying to buy their first home, people trying to buy another home. Lord knows we need every real estate closing we can get to happen in this economy. We cannot create unnecessary barriers to that when we are trying to come out of this real-estate-led recession. Yet this majority, this Senate, this Congress let that absolutely crucial National Flood Insurance Program expire June 1. So here we are again. My plea is the same. Everyone, as far as I know, supports the extension of the National Flood Insurance Program which is now expired. Everyone, as far as I know, says, rightfully, that it is a necessary program. We need to reinstate it to get the economy humming again, to make these real estate closings easier and not harder, to help recovery, not hinder it. And everybody admits, including the Congressional Budget Office, there is zero deficit impact with this extension. It is a clean extension. It does not increase the deficit in any way. Let's do the right thing. Let's extend that. Let's not make something partisan which should not be. It is not an ideological difference. Many members of our community--homeowners, folks in the real estate sector-- strongly support this effort. In that vein, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter from 22 trade associations, including the National Association of Realtors and many others strongly in support of this sort of stand-alone extension of the program.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, the letter truthfully says--it is very simple: The frequent lapses in the National Flood Insurance Program are undermining homeowners and commercial property owner confidence in this vital system. Given the fragile state of residential and commercial real estate markets, Congress should take immediate action to restore confidence in the National Flood Insurance Program through a long-term, stand- alone extension. That is what my stand-alone bill is. It is not complicated. It is not controversial--should not be. Not partisan--should not be. It doesn't increase the deficit in any way, shape or form--not by a penny. Again, I will ask what I asked before the Memorial Day recess, trying to avoid this train wreck which has now happened for over a couple of weeks. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 372, which is my bill, S. 3347, a bill I introduced that extends the National Flood Insurance Program through December 31, 2010; that that bill be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I stand in strong support of my amendment No. 4312. I urge all colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to come together to pass this commonsense amendment. What is this amendment about? It is about something that is of great concern to me, representing the State of Louisiana. It is about the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. It is about the ongoing crisis in the gulf. I am afraid what it is about is an example of that now famous quote of the White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, who, around February 2009, said: We are not going to let a good crisis go to waste. He was talking about the financial crisis. I am afraid that same attitude, that same politicization of real crises is going on with the ongoing oil disaster in the gulf. This is a real crisis, an ongoing crisis, an ongoing disaster. The flow continues. It is so significant--even subtracting out the amount of oil BP is capturing, it is so significant that it is like a whole new major oilspill each and every day. It goes on and on and on. What is the provision in this bill in relation to that crisis? In this bill there is a dramatic increase in the tax to fund the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund from 8 cents per barrel to 41 cents, over a fivefold increase. If that were going into that liability trust fund, and if it were staying there for oil cleanup, we could come together and probably support that effort in a bipartisan way. But instead, what has happened? As soon as all of that new revenue goes into the trust fund, $15 billion over 10 years, it is stolen. It is spent on unrelated spending. It isn't a true trust fund. It is spent on other government deficit spending. It is used essentially to hide deficit spending elsewhere. It is double counting, what I call Enron accounting. If a private company were doing this and putting this in their prospectus, putting this in their SEC reports, they would be prosecuted for criminal fraud. My amendment is simple. It says two things: Anything that goes into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund can only be used to clean up oilspills. Pretty basic, pretty simple. Secondly, it cannot be double counted, used as an offset for other unrelated government deficit spending. That is pretty simple. I think it is a minimum requirement we should ask in the midst of this ongoing crisis in the gulf. Again, are we going to treat that as a real crisis and address the challenge that is there or are we going to use and abuse that crisis in Washington to advance preexisting agendas such as big government spending, additional deficit, trying to mask and hide those? I suggest the only responsible thing to do is to treat the crisis for what it is, to respect the people of the gulf and to pass this Vitter amendment that says, No. 1, money into that trust fund can only be used to clean up oilspills; and, No. 2, it cannot be double counted to mask other deficit spending. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time on all amendments be yielded back. I believe that is amenable to everyone.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, how much time remains?

Mr. VITTER. My good friend and colleague's argument is not sophistry, it is just statements that are not true. This amendment does not block the tax increase, period. It does not. It simply says the money has to be used to clean up oil spills, and it cannot be used as an offset for other spending. Please support this amendment.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. VITTER. Then, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, if everyone else is amenable, I am prepared to yield back--if everyone else is yielding back.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I want to ensure that the quorum call does not run down my time.

Mr. VITTER. Yes, that would be my request, Mr. President.

Mr. VITTER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I urge support for the Vitter amendment. It does two very simple things: It says any money coming into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund can only be used to clean up oilspills. It also says the money cannot be used as an offset for unrelated spending, as it is in this bill. It cannot be used to mask other deficit spending or as an offset for unrelated spending. The amendment specifically does not negate or block the tax increase of funds into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. I reserve the reminder of my time.