David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

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, how much time remains?

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up amendment No. 4312 to amendment No. 4301.

Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I stand to strongly support my amendment No. 4312, which I introduced today, along with Senators Gregg, Cornyn, Enzi, Alexander, and Hutchison, and I urge all of my colleagues, both sides of the aisle, to support this commonsense amendment. This is about something at issue in this present extenders bill on the floor now that is near and dear to my heart, because it is directly related to the ongoing oil disaster, the ongoing crisis in the gulf, and that is an increase in taxes to supposedly fund the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund but which does not do that at all, which is stolen from that trust fund, used for completely unrelated purposes. Put another way, it is double counted. It is used as a fraudulent offset to mask other spending, other deficit spending in the bill. We have a real crisis on our hands. Obviously it affects my State more than any other. But it is a national challenge and a national crisis. I have a pretty modest suggestion, in my opinion. Let's focus on the challenge. Let's meet the challenge, not use it and abuse it politically for other unrelated goals up here in Washington. But I am afraid the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund is being used and abused in this bill for those other completely unrelated goals. I am afraid it is a perfect example of Rahm Emanuel's now famous phrase from around February 2009, ``We are not going to let a good crisis go to waste.'' Well, this is a crisis. This is a whopper. But I take offense to not letting it go to waste, meaning to using and abusing it for other purposes. This bill proposes increasing the tax which ultimately is a consumer tax on energy products that is supposed to be for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. It increases that tax from 8 cents a barrel to 41 cents a barrel. That is an over fivefold increase. If that is necessary to clean up oilspills, to have it ready for the future, I am completely open to it. But that is not where the number came from. The number was pulled out of thin air. Because as soon as that money supposedly goes into the trust fund, it is stolen. It pays for completely unrelated spending items in the bill--for example, $15 billion over 10 years, and in this bill that is double-counted because it is used as an offset to mask deficit spending, to mask other spending items. That is wrong. Amendment No. 4312 is simple and straightforward. It says and does two things. No. 1, it says that the revenue supposedly going into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund can only be used to clean up oilspills. It is supposed to be there to clean up oilspills, it is supposed to be a trust fund, so it can only be used for that purpose. Secondly, it says that it cannot be double-counted. It is not be used as an offset under the Congressional Budget Act or pay-as-you-go or anything else, as an offset for unrelated spending, to hide other deficit spending. That is the amendment--two things, pure and simple. A number of the leadership of the majority have come to the floor concerned about this, as they should be, because it stinks, and the American people know it stinks, and have done gyrations and backflips to try to say they are not stealing the money, they are not double-counting, it will be there. If they really mean that, it is simple: No. 1, they should support my amendment. No. 2, they should publicly admit that the true deficit cost of this bill is not what they say it is. It is $15 billion more. It is not $79 billion; it is $94 billion. If they are sincere, if they mean it, great. Support my amendment and admit that the true deficit cost of the bill before us is $15 billion more. But don't steal from that trust fund. Don't use that money that is supposed to be there to clean up oilspills, such as the one that is hammering my State, for completely unrelated purposes. Don't double-count it. Don't use it as Enron accounting, a fraud to mask other spending, to artificially lower the deficit impact of this bill. That is wrong. That is using a crisis. That is ``not letting a crisis go to waste.'' We have a crisis. It is a heck of a crisis. It is a serious crisis. We should solve it. We should go at it. We should address it together as a national challenge. We should not use it and abuse it politically for an unrelated tax-and-spend agenda in Washington. I urge all colleagues to come together, support amendment 4312, protect the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, prevent it from being used and abused, double-counted--Enron accounting to mask deficit spending. Do the right thing by the people of Louisiana and by the people of this Nation. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER. With that, I relinquish the floor and thank my colleague for the courtesy of letting me call it up.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, tday I am proud to recognize the members of the Monroe, LA, Rotary Club who have served our country honorably during war. I would like to thank Charles C. Archibald, Raymond Armstrong, John Baker, Robert Barham, Ronald Blate, Reneau Breard, Lamar Buffington, Roy Cole, Jr., Barry Delcambre, Sam Donald, R.D. Farr, Leon Garfield, Hershal Gentry, James Greenlaw, William Guy, Harvey Hales, Robert Hammock, Howard John, Charles Johns, Barney Jones, Billy Lea, Earl Lingle, Miles Luke, Jim Myers, Ray Patron, Gregg Riley, Jack Tarver, Elbert L. Via and George Weaks for their courageous military service during wartime and for continued civic service in the greater Monroe area. With the motto ``Service Above Self,'' it is no surprise that these men would be inclined to be members of Rotary. Their lifetime of service is exhibited not only in service to their fellow citizens during a time of war but also in continued commitment to their community. Rotary's four-way test asks four questions of all things members think, say, and do. These questions are: Is it the truth? Is it fair to all concerned? Will it build goodwill and better friendships? Will it be beneficial to all concerned? These four simple questions have proven to be excellent guidelines for a life of service. We thank these men for serving the Monroe community with these principles. The Monroe Rotary Club has sponsored many local projects including Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, youth baseball, the Food Bank of Northeast Louisiana, and the Salvation Army, to name just a few. Thus, today, I honor these veterans for their distinguished service in the U.S. armed services during wartime, and for their continued service to the State of Louisiana in the Monroe Rotary Club.

Mr. VITTER

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about the ongoing oil disaster in the gulf. Being from Louisiana, we view this, correctly, as an ongoing disaster. This is not history. This is not a past event. This is not just some issue to debate in Washington. It is an ongoing crisis, an ongoing oil flow that continues to pollute the gulf and continues to devastate the region economically. So in that context, there is, perhaps, only one thing that is more frustrating than an inadequate response from BP or an inadequate Federal response. The only thing more frustrating than that--in fact, more infuriating--is when this ongoing crisis and disaster is used and abused politically for other purposes. I think that is exactly what is going on in this extenders bill. Because in this bill there is a huge increase in taxes that go to the Oil Pollution Act trust fund, but that money is not going to oil cleanup in the gulf. It is primarily being used to go into the trust fund to be stolen from it for unrelated spending to mask the deficit spending in this bill. Quite frankly, when we are going through an ongoing crisis in the gulf, that is not frustrating, it is outrageous. What am I talking about exactly? This is what I am talking about: Right now, under Federal law, there is a tax levied on petroleum products of 8 cents per barrel. That funds the Oil Pollution Act trust fund. In this extenders bill, that tax is proposed to be increased by the majority side from 8 cents to 41 cents--over a fivefold increase. If that were necessary and crucial to fund cleanup operations in the gulf, I would be completely open to it. We need to do whatever it takes. But that is not how that money is being used. It is being used as a cover to increase taxes and to offset other unrelated spending. Because in this bill that tax is increased from 8 cents to 41 cents, and then, just as quickly, that money is stolen from the trust fund to pay for other unrelated items in the bill. Put another way, it is double counted. It is used as an offset on other spending items in the bill that have nothing to do with the oil disaster, nothing to do with the cleanup. It is double counting. It is an unfair offset. It is stealing from the trust fund to mask other spending. Unfortunately, I think this is a classic example of the old Rahm Emanuel quote from early on during this administration. Around February of 2009, Rahm Emanuel, the White House Chief of Staff, said: We are not going to let a good crisis go to waste. At the time, he was talking about the financial crisis and harnessing that to push forward the Obama administration's unrelated, left-leaning agenda. Tragically, exactly the same thing is going on here: We are not going to let a good crisis go to waste. They are going to use the ongoing oil disaster in the gulf to help mask runaway Federal spending. Because, again, they are proposing to increase this tax from 8 cents to 41 cents--over a fivefold increase--but it does not go for gulf cleanup. It is stolen from there just as quickly as it is levied to pay for unrelated spending. It is double counted to mask the runaway spending also in the bill. Again, that is not just frustrating; as a Member from Louisiana, that is downright offensive. This is an ongoing crisis. It is an ongoing challenge and we need to meet it. We need to focus on it. We need to deal with it. We do not need to use it and abuse it politically to push forward a preexisting, leftist agenda up here to pay for runaway and unrelated Federal Government spending. I will have an amendment on the floor in this debate to address this issue. I will formally offer it and make it pending tomorrow. But my amendment, which will be cosponsored by Senator Judd Gregg, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, is real simple. It is going to say that whatever Congress does with this new revenue into the OPA trust fund, it cannot steal that revenue for unrelated spending. It cannot use that revenue, double count that revenue to mask other unrelated runaway deficit spending. That is what my amendment is going to say and that is what my amendment is going to do. We have a crisis in the gulf. It is ongoing. It is not over yet, unfortunately, by a long shot, because the flow is ongoing, the pollution is ongoing, and it is getting worse and worse. We need to meet that crisis. We need to meet that challenge and do whatever it takes. We don't need to use and abuse that crisis to push forward other unrelated agendas here in Washington, DC. This provision in the extenders package is doing just that. It is using and abusing that crisis to put money in the OPA trust fund just to take it out, to steal it for unrelated programs, to double count it, to mask runaway deficit spending completely unrelated to the oil disaster. As a Senator from Louisiana, I am crying foul. I am saying that is not only wrong, it is offensive. We shouldn't use and abuse an ongoing crisis in the gulf for other unrelated political purposes. So, again, I will have a very clear amendment. It will say whatever we do with the OPA trust fund, that money can't be stolen from the trust fund and used for unrelated purposes. That money can't be double counted to help mask runaway government spending having nothing to do with the ongoing crisis in the gulf. If it is a trust fund, let's treat it as a trust fund, and that means we take the revenue and we truly preserve it for that use and that use alone and it can't be stolen for anything else, and it can't be double counted to mask other deficit spending. I think it comes down to a pretty fundamental decision: Are we here in the Senate going to meet the ongoing crisis in the gulf? Are we going to meet that challenge? Are we going to come together across party lines and do the right thing? Or, are some folks here going to use it and abuse it to advance an unrelated political agenda; to steal that money for unrelated spending; to double count it and help mask unrelated, runaway Federal Government spending? We shouldn't do that. That is rubbing salt in the wound of gulf coast residents. That is truly offensive and truly wrong. I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to support this amendment. I will formally introduce it and make it pending tomorrow. Again, the idea is very simple. Whatever we do with the OPA trust fund, it should be to deal with the crisis in the gulf. It should be to preserve that and protect that in a true trust fund; not to steal it out of the trust fund to pay for unrelated spending; not to double count it to mask soaring Federal Government deficits having nothing to do with our response in the gulf. Thank you, Mr. President. I look forward to continuing this debate. I look forward to filing, introducing, and making this amendment pending tomorrow, and I look forward to a positive vote. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Yes. I renew my unanimous-consent request.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, reclaiming my time, I am obviously disappointed. I think we are seeing that maybe there is a difference when your State is in the nexus of this and your State is under attack from this oil. I want to fix a problem, not just make a speech. We are not going to pass by unanimous consent a permanent change to the liability cap. I have a version that I think should pass, and I am going to keep fighting for it. Senator Menendez has a different version, and I am sure he will keep doing the same. I think mine is superior, but we can have that debate. But as oil continues to gush from this well, as heavy oil continues to get behind the barrier islands of Louisiana and starts to infiltrate our marsh--which is an ecosystem issue 100 times worse than simply hitting our barrier islands and beaches--I would actually like to solve the problem and not just come here to the floor and give a speech. My bill does that by focusing on this event and this company, BP, in a way that we should all be able to agree on. I commend the details of the bill to my colleagues. It does not depend on the language of any BP letter. It takes that as a starting point, and it removes all caps on economic damages for this event for this company. Why don't we do that by UC? We should be able to. In addition, it fixes a real ongoing problem by establishing an expedited claims process. That is necessary too. Because it is great to tell these fishermen that your full claim will be paid eventually in the long run, but as the old saying goes: We are all dead in the long run. And they are looking to their next month's boat payment, their next month's house payment. So I commend this serious legislation, which we should pass immediately, to my colleagues. Let's solve a problem. It is an ongoing problem. It is an ongoing crisis that sure as heck affects my State. Let's just not make a speech. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Certainly.

Mr. VITTER. That is absolutely my intention. That is what this bill would do. Several Senators on the other side correctly pointed out that we should not depend on the goodwill of BP. So let's not depend on the goodwill of BP. Let's fix it here. Let's fix it now. BP has made this offer. They have even put it in writing. My bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to accept that offer and codify this in the law so that with regard to BP and with regard to this ongoing crisis, there is no cap on economic damages. The second half of the bill would set up an expedited claims process to ensure that the folks hurting on the ground in Louisiana and perhaps eventually elsewhere are helped in a timely way.

Mr. VITTER. I object.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I am overjoyed that I have been let into this discussion considering that heavy oil is now getting into Louisiana marshland and is impacting my State and the State of Senator Landrieu more than any other in the country. It is an ongoing crisis. I would like to spend a few minutes to get us out of Washington politics and back into focus on that real and ongoing crisis. Those fishermen from south Louisiana Senator Durbin talked about, that is what they are focused on, that is what they are dealing with. Their way of life and their livelihood is absolutely threatened. That is what I would like us to focus on and deal with in a constructive way. I agree with Senator Menendez and Senator Lautenberg and others that the liability cap for economic damages which was set decades ago is way outdated. I have offered a permanent change to that to go into the future. In fact, my bill would set a cap for BP in this instance of $20 billion because it is based on the last four quarters of the responsible party's profits. For this instance, that is double the liability cap of the Menendez original bill. Talking about UCing a permanent change of the law is, quite frankly, politics. That isn't going to pass the Senate by unanimous consent. I would like my version to pass by unanimous consent. I think it is a better approach, with all due respect, than the approach of the Senator from New Jersey. It would double the cap on BP than his original version would. But that is going to get objected to as well. In light of that, I have what I think is a constructive alternative which is to propose something to address this ongoing crisis. Oil is still flowing in the gulf, more and more heavy oil getting beyond the Louisiana barrier islands, infiltrating the Louisiana marsh. How about trying to deal with this ongoing crisis that the people of Louisiana face? With that in mind, I have introduced a liability proposal that is at the desk, that has been introduced, that could and should garner unanimous consent support. Let me outline what it is. Several of the speakers--Senators Durbin, Lautenberg, and others-- alleged that somehow there are folks in this Chamber who are being shrills for BP, who are defending BP. Personally, I didn't hear that. Certainly, that is not me. I represent the State of Louisiana, and we are dealing with this ongoing crisis and disaster much more than any other State in the Union. But let's attack this directly and try to address--and I think we could and should be able to do it by unanimous consent--this particular event. My bill, S. 3410, does that. My bill mandates that the cap on economic damages for BP for this event be lifted and that there be no cap. BP has said publicly that not once, not twice, but on numerous occasions, and has even put it in writing that they will disregard any cap. My bill would say: Fine, that is a contract offer, and we are going to accept it. That will be binding under legislation, under the law. Under S. 3410, we would remove any cap on BP for this incident. In addition, the other half of this bill establishes an expedited claims process because in this ongoing crisis in Louisiana, where people continue to hurt because of this ongoing spill, ongoing flow, they not only need their claim eventually paid in full, they need it to begin to be paid immediately. In this bill we establish an administrator to quickly and fairly resolve claims for economic damages. We establish an office of deepwater claims compensation to expedite that consideration. We set up offices within the gulf region to allow that claimant assistance, to advise people how to properly file their claim and expedite getting a claim. The other half of the bill, besides lifting the liability cap for economic damages on BP for this incident, expedites that claim process. With that in mind, in the spirit of actually trying to act with regard to this ongoing crisis in the gulf that certainly affects my State, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3410, my acceptance of liability and expedited claims bill; that the bill be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, with that introduction, I would now propound my underlying unanimous-consent request. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 372, which is the Vitter bill, S. 3347, a bill that extends the National Flood Insurance Program at no cost, deficit neutral, through December 31, 2010; that the bill be read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. VITTER. I rise to discuss flood insurance extension and our need to address that now, to get rid of uncertainty in the market and real concern that this will not be done in time, and the vital National Flood Insurance Program may be allowed to lapse yet again, as happened in the recent past. Obviously, the National Flood Insurance Program is basic; it is necessary. It is necessary for the entire country, for real estate transactions everywhere. But it is certainly necessary in my home State of Louisiana and in a hurricane and flood zone. As we sit here today, the National Flood Insurance Program will expire in the first few days of June, during the Memorial Day recess. So it is necessary and important that program be extended. I suggest we take up this noncontroversial matter now, do it now. There is no controversy. There is no objection on the substance of the program. This will accomplish two things. First of all, our taking it up now rather than at the last moment right when we are pushed up against the Memorial Day recess will take care of real uncertainty in the market and give everyone--homeowners, those who need these extensions, those who need these policies, everyone in real estate--the security that this will be extended properly through at least the end of the year. Secondly, I think it is reasonable to take it out of the context of the extenders package, which is otherwise very controversial. There are a lot of elements of the extenders package which will merit debate. There are a lot of elements of the extenders package which will be controversial and which will garner legitimate ``no'' votes. This flood insurance extension is not one of them. This flood insurance extension, on its merits, does not have controversy and does not have objection, including because of the fact that it does not cost us anything. It is completely budget neutral, this extension through the end of the year. This approach, which would erase uncertainty, which would calm the markets, which would remove it from other unrelated more controversial issues, is supported by everyone in the marketplace. In that regard, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter from the National Association of REALTORS in strong agreement with this approach and a similar letter from the National Association of Mortgage Brokers in strong agreement with this approach.

Mr. VITTER. Simply to make these letters a part of the Record.

Mr. VITTER. I would simply make the request that we have a brief conversation about it, in that case. I realize no one is compelled to respond.

Mr. VITTER. Well, it was a compelling argument. But, again, I am saddened by the fact that we cannot proceed in a straightforward way. There is no objection to the substance of this extension. This is a necessary program. It is a vital program. The extension, which my bill would accomplish through December 31, 2010, would be budget neutral and deficit neutral. We would take this out of a much more controversial debate. We would settle the issue well before the program would otherwise expire. We would give people confidence. We would settle the markets. We would help people in real estate. We would help people in the economy. I suppose they are all compelling reasons not to travel down that path up here in Washington. I think that is a shame. I think it is really sad because this should be, and is, on its substance noncontroversial. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, if I could inquire, through the Chair, what the basis of the objection is, I think that would further the debate.

Mr. VITTER. Well, again, I was inquiring through the Chair. I ask unanimous consent to inquire through the Chair and to propound the question, What is the nature of the objection?

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I call up the Vitter amendment which is at the desk.

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