David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I stand to join with a bipartisan group of colleagues supporting the Sanders amendment and also in support of the Vitter side-by-side amendment. These are not mutually exclusive alternatives. Both Senator Sanders and myself and many others will strongly support both. I urge all my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to do the same. Particularly since the financial crisis, the American people have been demanding several things. One of them clearly has been openness and transparency about U.S. economic policy, including at the Federal Reserve. That has been a major theme, particularly since the financial crisis. That has been a clear demand of the American people, certainly of Louisianans, particularly since the financial crisis. Most of us have voted and spoken in strong support of that. If we truly want to make it happen and if we truly want to preserve that record, we need to vote for the Sanders amendment and the Vitter amendment today to get that done. If we want to continue to support the same push as in the stand-alone Sanders Senate bill, we need to vote for both amendments. If Members want to continue to support their position, if they voted for the Sanders budget amendment a few months ago--and a strong majority of this body did--they need to vote for both amendments. If they want to support the position of the House which, in a bipartisan way, supported exactly the same language as contained in my amendment through an amendment in the Banking Committee, a strong bipartisan vote, they need to support both amendments. Supporting one, walking on the other, is not good enough and will surely be recognized as not good enough. I urge all my colleagues to support both amendments, to have full openness and accountability and transparency, with all the protections included against politicizing individual Fed decisions. In many ways, I think it comes down to this one quote by Alan Greenspan from 2004: We run the risk, by laying out the pros and cons of a particular argument, of inducing people to join in on the debate, and in this regard, it is possible to lose control of a process that only we fully understand. Imagine, Congress, the American people joining in on the debate. God forbid. Imagine the moneyed elites losing complete control of the process. God forbid. If Members share that Alan Greenspan view of democracy, vote against my amendment. But if they share a very different view, which I believe is embodied in this institution and our Constitution, please support both the Sanders and Vitter amendments. I yield my time.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask that the Chair notify me after 15 minutes has been used.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I have called up Vitter amendment No. 3760, which is verbatim, word for word, the Ron Paul language that was added to the House bill in committee by a strong bipartisan vote. In doing so, I also ask unanimous consent to add the following Senators as cosponsors: Senators DeMint, Grassley, Hatch, McCain, Bunning, Crapo, and Risch.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, on the Senate side, I have been a strong cosponsor and supporter of S. 604 and Senator Sanders' amendment on this bill. I present this different amendment because Senator Sanders decided to modify his amendment late last week, and I thought there was a continuing need to have this language exactly as it now appears in the House bill, as it was included in the House bill by a strong bipartisan vote in the house committee. First, let me say I support the Sanders amendment. I will vote for it. It is a very important and useful look in the rearview mirror, if you will, a one-time audit of significant Federal Reserve activity, particularly in 2008 and 2009. I welcome that. That should not be the end of the matter, and it should not be recognized as all we need because it clearly is not. We need to look in the rearview mirror at those important events. That was a very significant period. But we also need to look forward because these events and these debates and these opportunities for bailouts and other actions absolutely continue. The Vitter amendment addresses that--a look forward as well as that important one-time look back. If we needed any reason to think we need this ability to continue to look forward and look at the detailed provisions of Fed activity, it is in the news right now--absolutely right now--in terms of the Greek and European economic crisis. Although Chairman Bernanke assured Congress in recent testimony that ``we have no plans to be involved in any foreign bailouts or anything of that sort,'' very recently, in the last few days, the Fed has announced the opening of significant facilities to central banks in Europe that certainly involve it, at least at the margin, in that activity. I do not know enough about those recent deals and currency exchange swaps to comment on whether they are a good idea or a bad idea, or to comment a clear conclusion about the extent to which they put U.S. taxpayers at risk. But clearly they are a significant event. Clearly, there is significant action of the Fed. And clearly, they are a perfect and very recent example of why we need to look in detail at what the Fed is doing on an ongoing basis. With Greece, Portugal, and Spain, all possibly on the cusp of financial crisis, with this significant decision of the Fed, we must go beyond the Sanders amendment. We must look forward and not just one time back to ensure the American people that we all know what our Federal Reserve is doing and exactly why it is doing it. This Vitter amendment does that. It will bring real reform and accountability to the Federal Reserve. That is essential, given the historic, major actions the Fed has undertaken in the last few years and continues to announce, even as we speak, activities that would not be covered by the Sanders amendment. There has been a lot of rhetoric about all of the evil and dangerous things my amendment would do at the Fed. Let me directly address and dispel these notions. First, there has been a lot of suggestion that this will politicize individual monetary policy decisions; that this will have individual Members of Congress bringing undue influence on those decisions. I truly think there are enormous protections in this amendment that will clearly avoid that situation. Let's start with the clear language of the amendment: Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as interference in or dictation of monetary policy to the Federal Reserve System by the Congress or the Government Accountability Office. It is a very clear, very broad, very strong statement. The amendment goes even farther. The other specific language of the amendment is very careful to ensure the audits that the amendment will require will not include unreleased transcripts or minutes of meetings of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors or of the Federal Open Markets Committee. In addition to the extent any audit deals with an individual market action, such as a change in interest rates, the audit will only be released 180 days after the action occurs. If this is an attempt for any Members of Congress, any individuals to control individual decisions, to have a direct impact on an individual decision, such as an interest rate decision, it is a pretty dumb, ineffective way to do it because the audit will not be out for half a year. Clearly, it will have no impact on that decision. Under these protections, the Federal Reserve will still operate monetary policy independently, but it is reasonable that those actions, after an appropriate lag of time in some cases will be transparent, will be fully understandable and fully open to the American people and to Congress. Again, I think it is very important to dispel these notions that are flying about that are untrue. I have talked with Chairman Bernanke several times about these proposals. Always, invariably, his stated concern is the opportunity for an audit to try to impact an individual decision, such as an interest rate decision. We have addressed that very directly in the way I explained. In addition, the GAO cannot review many actions such as discount window lending--direct loans to financial institutions--open market operations and any other transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee. GAO also, under the clear terms of this amendment, cannot look into the Fed's transactions with foreign governments. This, again, is plenty of protection against the concerns annunciated prior to this debate and vote. What this comes down to is: Do the American people deserve full information about Federal Reserve decisions or is somehow this beyond the capability of Congress and the American people to digest? In Federal Reserve Board minutes that were only recently released-- these minutes go back to 2004--Alan Greenspan said this: We run the risk, by laying out the pros and cons of a particular argument, of inducing people to join in on the debate, and in this regard it is possible to lose control of a process that only we fully understand. It is somewhat amazing to me, but that is a verbatim, direct quote. More than any statistic, more than any other quote, more than any fact, that direct quote is about what this debate and what this amendment is about. Is this an area of governance that affects all of our daily lives that we should leave purely up to the elites without ever having full transparency and a full opportunity for debate? Alternatively, is this still America, and do Congress and the American people deserve full openness? Let me read this quote again because it goes to the heart of the issue: We run the risk, by laying out the pros and cons of a particular argument, of inducing people to join in on the debate, and in this regard it is possible to lose control of a process that only we fully understand. If you adopt that offensive, in my opinion, elitist attitude, vote against the Vitter amendment. If you think we should have much greater openness and transparency and the opportunity for a full debate, with all of the protections of the individual, interest rate, and other decisions I have laid out, please vote for the Vitter amendment. Again, Madam President, I will support the Sanders amendment. It is an important and appropriate one-time look back, one-time look in the rearview mirror about a very important period of time, particularly 2008-2009 when the Fed was busier and more active with more aggressive policy than ever before. But the opportunity for that aggressive policy is not over. We see that this week, with the Fed participating with European national banks in the crisis in Europe. We need this opportunity on an ongoing basis. We need the Vitter amendment. In addition, we need a full audit, and with all of the protections included, we need that opportunity continuing for full openness and transparency. Madam President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, representing Louisiana in the Senate, along with my colleague, Senator Landrieu, you can image I have been focused exclusively on the ongoing oilspill, the leak, the ongoing flow that we and the country are battling. Because it has been almost a week since I have been in Washington and on the Senate floor, I wish to use the opportunity to briefly give an update from my perspective. Along with many other officials, industry folks, interested citizens, I have been all through and up and down the coast as well as offshore. I had the pleasure of traveling with several Cabinet Secretaries and other Members of our congressional delegation last Friday, going offshore to look at the site of the former rig, the site of the ongoing spill or leak, very closely. I also took another helicopter tour later that day. I have been in all the effected coastal communities, St. Bernard Parish, Plaquemines Parish, which encompasses the mouth of the Mississippi River and beyond, lower Jefferson. I reached out to folks daily--local elected officials and leaders, the industry, Federal agencies, the Coast Guard and others working on this ongoing crisis and the Governor in the State--who were extremely proactively engaged. Having done that, again, I wish to give a brief report to my colleagues and my fellow citizens. Obviously, I think we need to start in remembering that this is a great human tragedy and that started with the apparent loss of 11 lives. I think it is very important to start all our discussions and recollections about this incident with that human tragedy and with those families. As the media and others cover the environmental danger which is great, the economic impact which is enormous, I think sometimes those families, that enormous human loss is a little glossed over. So I certainly want to stop and reflect on that again and continue to offer my heartfelt thoughts and prayers to those 11 families who were the most impacted, who have suffered the most. I say a prayer for them every day, as do so many folks in Louisiana. We will continue to lift those families. Second, this is an ongoing challenge and crisis because, as I said a minute ago, this leak, this flow continues. It has not stopped yet. Of course, priority No. 1 of everyone involved is to stop the leak, to stop the flow. It is a little difficult to estimate exactly what that flow is, but the best guesstimate--and it is an art, not a science--is about 5,000 barrels a day. To put that in perspective, already, as of 4 or 5 days ago, that meant the product leaked surpassed all the spill, all the events combined from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. That was a big event, so this has already surpassed it 4 or 5 days ago. If that leak rate is constant and continues, 5,000 barrels a day, then in about another 35 days we will equal the volume leaked from the Exxon Valdez. That is a very real threat to equal or surpass that amount of oil. It is a huge event. There is lots of activity going on at the wellhead in that area to try to control and stop the leak. There are multiple plans. I guess plan A, if you will, is to close off the valves that should have been shut down automatically through the blowout preventer. Needless to say, there was a massive failure in terms of that automatic closedown, which is supposed to happen at multiple levels. But there is ongoing effort to send underwater robots down to the floor of the gulf and shut down those valves. Unfortunately, that has not worked yet. Plan B is to put out a large, constructed box or dome to cover the part of the gulf floor where the leak is coming from and then to pipe up the material, to vacuum the material in a controlled way from there to the surface and store it. That box or dome has been constructed. It will be sent out to the site in the next 48 hours. So that attempt will start. This technology has been used before in other spills but never in anything similar to this depth of water, 5,000 feet. It has been used in 400 feet, 500 feet, not 5,000. That is a big difference, which brings up all sorts of engineering challenges because of the enormous pressures at that depth of water. Plan C, if you will, is to drill a relief well--in fact, two relief wells. That work has already begun, to relieve the pressure on this well and to bottle it, to put mud and cement down there to stop the flow from the existing well. That can work and that will work. The problem is that will take 60-plus days, 60 to even 90 days. That work has begun. In addition to that work to stop the leak in the immediate area of the leak, the Coast Guard and BP and others in the industry are using dispersants and other methods of trying to mitigate the ongoing flow. That is one category of very important work. There is a second category of extremely important work; that is, all the work that is underway to protect the Louisiana coastline and marshes, as well as similar work in neighboring States: Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. I have to say, last Friday, when I took that plane ride with the Cabinet Secretaries, I was extremely concerned that all that coastal protection planning and execution had to go through BP. It was very evident to me that challenge and that end of the endeavor was bigger than BP, and bigger than any single company. I was concerned that was a bottleneck. I was not arguing in any way that BP is the responsible party under Federal law, that BP had enormous monetary responsibility that flowed from that--nobody is arguing with that. But operationally, I didn't want all that crucial coastal protection, marsh protection activity to be stalled or delayed because it had to fit through that bottleneck. I think the good news from over the weekend is that old system was blown up and that bottleneck was relieved. I particularly wish to compliment and commend ADM Thad Allen, whom the President appointed on Saturday to be the Federal coordinator of this entire effort. I think he recognized, at my urging and that of many others, that having all that coastal planning and execution flow through BP was a problem and a mistake. So that has been corrected. As of Friday, detailed planning, in terms of coastal and marsh protection efforts, was not getting done by BP. Frankly, it was not getting done by the Federal authorities--the Coast Guard or anyone else. But local and State leaders stepped in, the folks who know that coastline and that marsh area the best stepped in and they have provided those detailed plans over the last several days. So over that time period, in particular from Friday on, individual parishes, in coordination with the State, in coordination with many experts, have developed parish-by-parish plans to protect the coastline and the marsh. That has been a very strong effort; again, pulling together many resources, many levels of leadership, folks who know the coast, the terrain and the marsh like the back of their hands. So that void has been filled, thanks to that leadership and vision by local leaders in strong coordination with Governor Jindal and the State. Now those individual parish-by-parish plans are ready. They are being tweaked, they are being improved, but they are ready. The next step is for the Coast Guard to formally approve those plans. That has been done on a preliminary basis, the first version of those plans, but most of those plans now have supplements. The Coast Guard needs to quickly and timely approve those supplemental plans. I talked to the Coast Guard leadership yesterday afternoon and urged them to do that in a very time-sensitive way, and they assured me that was happening. Once that happens, BP automatically is on the hook to pay for implementation of those plans. That takes no additional approval or signature from BP. That is automatic under Federal law. Then the plans need to be executed, either through BP or independently by using fishermen in the area, by using other contractors or otherwise. That is a decision of the locals and the State. I think that process is moving in a very good direction and is well underway. Let me close by focusing on another big category of concern that I share with so many others; that is, the concern about economic impact starting with the folks who have been hit and affected the most, the fishermen of Louisiana, oystermen, shrimpers, and the fishery industry. Already, as of at least Sunday and Monday, this is having devastating economic impact on those folks. Our hearts go out to them. Our prayers go out to them as well. I have been working with many others to try to get them the help and relief they need, in particular focusing on four categories of activity. First of all, when I talk to local fishermen in Saint Bernard and lower Jefferson and Plaquemines, all through Louisiana, they all say the same thing. They don't want handouts. They don't want a big Federal program. They want a job. They want a paycheck for hard work. That is their lives, that is their tradition, that is their spirit. They just want that to continue. So, first of all, all efforts are being made to hire them, in what is called the Vessels of Opportunity Program, to be the backbone of this coastal and marsh protection response. I have talked to both local and State leaders and BP, and we are all in agreement that a hyperaggressive effort needs to happen to hire as many of those fishermen as possible to man that coastal marsh protection effort. Second, that is not going to take care of all the immediate need. I am pushing strongly to make sure BP holds to its promises of setting up a hotline and a program of getting quick compensation into the hands of affected families who are suffering economic loss. I talked directly with the CEO of BP yesterday about this. He assured me that was being done. That would mean quick checks to people and families who needed it without any requirement that those folks sign their lives away or cap their claims or sign away future claims. I am going to work very hard to enforce that personal promise. In fact, today, I am setting up a hotline in my office. It will be advertised on my Web site, www.vitter.senate.gov, to ensure that program is developing as promised. If anybody out there, fishermen or others who are applying into that program, is treated differently, I urge them to call this hotline and we will get all over that immediately and try to correct that situation with BP. Third, in terms of helping that local industry, of course we are looking medium and long term in terms of full economic damages. BP is the responsible party. They are responsible for those economic damages. In addition, we have an OPA trust fund under Federal law which, at present, has a $1.6 billion balance, funded since the Exxon Valdez incident specifically to cover these sorts of direct economic impacts and balances. So I am very focused on that. Fourth, additionally, there is an outpouring of citizen private support to help these families. I am not directly involved, but I know several organizations under the umbrella of the United Way are leading fundraising efforts to directly help these families. But as this ongoing challenge and crisis continues, that will continue to be a prime focus of mine: the families directly impacted, the fishermen, the oystermen, the shrimpers, their families who, after suffering through so much with the Katrina and Rita, were sort of hit below the belt yet again. I will continue obviously, with Senator Landrieu and others, to stay very focused on this ongoing crisis to do all the sort of work I have described. I would ask my colleagues to be sensitive to that and to be aware of that. In particular, there is going to be, and there has to be, enormous discussion about policy, Federal and other policy, coming out of this disaster. We need to look at mandated technology. We need to look at procedures. We need to look at the current liability cap and the OPA trust fund. All of that is important. But as we begin to do that, my first request would be that we all realize that down in Louisiana off our coast in the gulf, in the real world, there is an ongoing crisis that still continues. The leak is unabated. The flow is unabated. I would ask all of us to be sensitive to that so we are not diverting attention or resources away from that ongoing crisis. The work needs to be there right now to shut down the flow of oil and to protect our coastline. Many Members, Democrats and Republicans, have offered their support to me and Senator Landrieu. We both deeply appreciate that and we look forward to working with everyone in this body on this ongoing situation. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to strongly agree with Chairman Levin that what we have heard in many of these hearings regarding Goldman Sachs' activity and others is extremely disturbing-- outrageous--and I don't support that activity in any way, shape, or form. I think I have a lot of credibility saying that, because back in the fall of 2008, I didn't support huge taxpayer bailouts to Goldman Sachs and the other megafirms. I opposed those taxpayer bailouts. I thought it was wrong and counterproductive and moving us in the wrong direction. But I have to disagree with the distinguished chairman that the present version of the Dodd bill fixes these key issues. I don't think it does. So I encourage us to have a true bipartisan bill that can come to the floor to address the problems that exist. I have three major sets of concerns about the Dodd bill in its present form. The first is very fundamental. It goes exactly to what I was talking about, having opposed all the bailouts. The Dodd bill expands too big to fail. It doesn't end it. The Dodd bill ensures future bailouts; it does not stop bailouts. That is a big problem to me and I believe to American taxpayers. It is not just me saying this. It is many educated folks. Take Time magazine, not exactly an arch-conservative publication. They have reported: Policy experts and economists from both ends of the political spectrum say the bill does little to end the problem of banks becoming so big that the Government is forced to bail them out when they stumble. Some say the proposed financial reform may even make the problem worse. Also, Jeffrey Lacker--he is the President of the Richmond Federal Reserve Board--agrees with that. In a CNBC interview, CNBC asked him: ``Doesn't the Dodd bill allow for winding down failed institutions?'' And Lacker said: ``It allows those things but it does not require them.'' Let me repeat that because that goes to the heart of the problem: It allows those things but it does not require them. Moreover, it provides tremendous discretion for the Treasury and FDIC to use that fund to buy assets from the failed firm, to guarantee liabilities of the failed firm, to buy liabilities of the failed firm. They can support creditors in the failed firm. They have a tremendous amount of discretion. Again, they have the ability for more bailouts, for continued pumping of taxpayer dollars into failed firms. William Isaac is a respected former Chairman of the FDIC. He agrees. Nearly all of our political leaders agree that we must banish the ``too big to fail'' doctrine in banking, but neither the financial reform bill approved in the House nor the bill promoted by the Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd will eliminate it. Simon Johnson, distinguished MIT professor, put it succinctly: Too big to fail is opposed by the right and the left, though not, apparently, by the people drafting legislation. These are specific ways the Dodd bill actually expands too big to fail, specific authorities, specific sections that clearly do that. A lot of the attention has been paid recently to the $50 billion prepaid fund, and that is problematic in my mind. But that is not the only, not even the most problematic section of the bill that expands too big to fail. All these sections go directly to that issue. My second main objection to the bill is, the bill also creates an all-powerful superbureaucracy that goes well beyond the need for targeted regulation to prevent what has happened in the last 5 years. Again, these are specific sections that create this huge, new, all- powerful superbureaucracy. One of the most worrisome is section 1081. That subjects anybody, any business that accepts four installment payments to the CFPB, the new superbureaucracy. That is not just Goldman Sachs. That is not just Citigroup, Bank of America. That is my family's orthodontist. That is my neighborhood store that sells electronic equipment. That is a huge coverage affecting millions of small businesses throughout America. Imagine, anybody who accepts four installment payments--is that the problem actor we are going after? This is a huge overreach, in terms of Federal regulation, and this is a fundamental problem with the bill. Finally, the third major problem with the bill is, the present version of the Dodd bill does nothing to fix certain key causes of the crisis. What do I mean by that? It does nothing on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; a 1,100-page bill, supposedly comprehensive financial regulatory reform. Yet the four words ``Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac'' are nowhere in those 1,100 pages. This was not the only cause of the crisis, but this clearly, admittedly, was a key cause of the crisis-- disastrous policy and administration at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As Lawrence White, distinguished economics professor, has said: The silence on Fannie and Freddie is deafening. How can they look at themselves in the mirror every morning thinking that they have a regulatory reform bill and they are totally silent on Fannie and Freddie? It just boggles my mind. It boggles my mind as well. Also, there is nothing on lending standards. Clearly, one of the fundamental problems that caused the financial crisis is institutions which lent money, subprime loans, with no meaningful standards. What are the new standards we are enacting, putting into this bill? Absolutely nothing--silence on lending standards, underwriting standards. Clearly, that was a huge part of the last crisis. Where is the change? These are the top firms that got bailout funds, including Goldman Sachs. I voted against all these bailouts. But these are the firms that got them. These are the billions of taxpayer dollars that they received. This is their old regulator, the Federal Reserve, and this is the brave new world this Dodd bill will be introducing--exactly, precisely the same regulator. Where is the change? We need meaningful financial reform, but we need it targeted on the problem. We need it to include all the causes of the problem. These are key principles that would mean permanently ending bailouts and too big to fail. I fought against the bailouts a few years ago. We cannot continue that policy. We need to end it. Ending all bailout authorities for the Federal Reserve and FDIC. It is not good enough to say we have a new resolution mechanism. If those bailout authorities continue as they do in the Dodd bill, they will be used again. Enhanced consumer protection without overreach, without creating this new all-powerful superbureaucracy. Greater transparency for derivatives, while allowing businesses to properly, legitimately manage risk. Begin addressing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Again, the current Dodd bill does not include four words, ``Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac.'' Establish minimum lending standards for mortgages. We had subprimes with no underwriting standards, no lending standards. This present Dodd bill does not change that. We must change that. Increase competition for credit rating agencies. They were clearly part of the last crisis. Improve coordination and communication among all financial Federal regulators. These are the principles of strong regulatory reform. I hope these are the principles around which we can come together in a bipartisan way. I certainly support that effort by Richard Shelby and Chairman Dodd. I encourage that effort. But those negotiations will not be meaningful unless we demand on the Senate floor that they be meaningful and demand that a bill moving to the Senate floor is true reform and a bipartisan approach. I urge that approach. I enthusiastically support that approach. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. I would expect to hold the floor for 14 minutes, at the least.

Mr. VITTER. Yes, I will.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. VITTER. Let me explain why I object, as I have explained very openly, very clearly every step of the way. Michael Walsh is one of the top nine officers of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He is part of the key leadership. Senator Dorgan is a fierce, active, vocal defender of that bureaucracy, but before he continues and plunges into that fierce and vocal defense, I suggest he step back for just a minute and truly think about and understand what he is defending. Before he accepts every suggestion, every argument of the Corps of Engineers' bureaucracy, I suggest he step back and look at the history of the corps and look at the source he is accepting as gospel truth. Senator Dorgan mentioned Hurricane Katrina, called it a great natural disaster. It was a great natural disaster, a horrible natural disaster. It was also a horrible manmade disaster because if we want to talk about the greatest damage--not the only damage but the greatest damage--inflicted upon the country from Hurricane Katrina--the flooding of the city of New Orleans--that was manmade by the Corps of Engineers. That was due directly to the design flaws of the outfall canals in New Orleans by the Corps of Engineers. The Corps of Engineers has admitted this, and we have laid that out in congressional testimony since Katrina. The problem is, no one in that bureaucracy has ever been held accountable for that. I don't want to focus on looking back. The even greater problem is looking forward because that bureaucracy has not fundamentally changed. I challenge my distinguished colleague, Senator Dorgan, to spend half as much time working with others to change the truly broken bureaucracy of the Corps of Engineers, spend half as much time as he has spent as a fierce, active, and vocal defender of that broken bureaucracy. I am fighting for that change. I will continue to fight for that change. I will use every tool available to me as a Senator to do so. For instance, in the last WRDA bill, I worked very hard to craft language to include in the bill the Louisiana Water Resources Council, an outside peer review body, to bring outside, independent expertise and analysis to work with the corps on key projects following Hurricane Katrina. That was included in the 2007 WRDA bill. It passed into law. Do my colleagues know what the corps did to implement that? Nothing. Do they know how they acted to move that forward, an absolute, clear, statutory authorization from Congress? They did nothing. They said they are not going to do it. Finally, I got them to change their tune. Finally, they are committed to beginning to move forward 3 years later, but I had to get their attention through this scenario. Unfortunately, that is not the only item on which they have ignored mandates from Congress and ignored pressing needs all around the country, including my part of the country. I tried to pinpoint specific items where they were not living up to their mandate or to Congress's direction. I could have listed dozens. Instead, I focused on nine specific items. I worked closely with the corps, had several meetings discussing those items in an abundance of trying to work with them toward resolution. After that, I focused on three of the nine, rather than all nine. I laid out why they did have the authority to move forward in some positive way on all that. I am going to continue to do so until we get real, positive change at the corps and real, positive progress on these important issues. The Senator's main argument, apparently spoon-fed by the corps, is that the corps has no authority to do anything in these areas, no authorization language from Congress. That is flat wrong. Again, before the distinguished Senator simply accepts every little e-mail, every little memo the corps feeds him, perhaps he should consider the source of that information. If the corps was always right, New Orleans would have never flooded. If everything the corps said was good and true and gospel, we would never have had those billions of dollars of damage in terms of the catastrophic flooding of New Orleans caused solely by breaches in canals which were design flaws of the Corps of Engineers. Let me go through a few specifics and explain--I have done this with the corps over and over--the authority they do have. One of my top concerns--

Mr. VITTER. I will yield when I am through. One of my top concerns is the critical outfall canals in New Orleans. It was the breaches in those canals that led to 80 percent of the catastrophic flooding of New Orleans. It was those breaches that were caused by design flaws of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. All I am asking under this category is that the corps do a risk/cost analysis of the different options they have identified in terms of fixing the outfall canals. The reason I am concerned about the path they are moving down, which is their option 1, is that I truly believe it is much less safe and much less robust than their identified option 2. It is not only I who believes that. It is the corps who admits it. In the corps' report to Congress, which we mandated, the corps itself said: Option 2--that is the option they are rejecting--is generally more technically advantageous and may be more effective operationally over option 1 because it would have greater reliability and further reduces the risk of flooding. In addition, Chris Accardo, the corps' chief of operations in New Orleans, said he is in favor of option 2 over option 1, absolutely. In light of that, all I am asking, with the rest of the Louisiana delegation, with all the affected communities in southeast Louisiana, is that the corps perform a risk/cost analysis comparing these different options before they forge ahead building the option they themselves admit is less safe, less dependable. It is also important to note that the corps clearly has authorization from Congress to do this study. General Van Antwerp, in my office, clearly said they do. They have authorization. They have authority. They can do the study. They are not going to do it. Why don't we compare these options, the relative risk and the relative cost, before the Corps of Engineers plunges ahead to build the option they themselves say is less secure and less safe? The second key issue I have focused on in my letters to the corps is the mandated AGMAC project, including the buildup of protection banks in Vermilion Parish to give that parish greater protection from storm surge. They were devastated during Hurricane Rita, in particular, and also in significant events since then. Again, the corps has authority to do this project. This project is in the WRDA bill. The corps says: We have busted our spending limits. We have explained to them various ways they can solve that problem by using O&M funds, exactly as they have used O&M funds for bank buildup in the MRGO project. We have given them another route, to use the CWPPRA program in conjunction with the WRDA-mandated project. The corps' response has been pretty simple. Its response has been: No, we don't want to do it. Third and finally, the other big concern I have highlighted and the most obvious case of the Corps of Engineers ignoring the mandate of Congress, not having authorization, actively ignoring the mandate of Congress, is the critical Morganza to the gulf flood protection project. That project was initiated in 1992, 18 years ago. Senator Dorgan, the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, wants to say that the corps has no authority in this area. This project was included in three different water resources bills, once, then twice, and then a third time. Every step of the way, the corps has come up with excuses why they cannot move forward. Under their present plan, they are restudying the project, and that restudy is due in December 2012. There is one little problem with that. That will be after the next water resources bill, which we hope to pass in 2011. All the people of LaFourche and Terrebone Parishes who are going without adequate protection, who are in danger every additional hurricane season, having missed three WRDA trains because of the foot-dragging of the corps, now under the corps' present plan, they will miss a fourth. We wish to talk about authorization from Congress. Is specific, full construction authorization in three WRDA bills not good enough? If that is not good enough, I don't know how to meet the corps' criteria. If those three particular concerns are not enough, we can expand the list. In an attempt to work with the corps, in an attempt to find resolution, I have narrowed the list. I have tried to compromise. I have offered to meet with them. I am offering to meet with them again, as I have done consistently throughout the process. But if narrowing the list is going to be held against me, we can expand the list. How about the final report of the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration effort, a comprehensive analysis mandated in Public Law, an emergency appropriations bill after Hurricane Katrina? It was due in December 2007. It is not finished. It is not delayed because of the State of Louisiana. It is delayed because of the corps. I know Senator Dorgan is anxious for a promotion of the corps leadership. I have to say, I am anxious for this critical report that was due in December 2007. We haven't seen it. Is that not good enough? How about the Louisiana Water Resources Council I talked about? That was mandated in the 2007 WRDA bill. The corps has not produced it yet. It wasn't just authorized; it was mandated. It is not up and running. Senator Dorgan is anxious for a promotion for the pristine corps leadership. I am anxious for that. How about the establishment of a Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Task Force? That was mandated in the 2007 WRDA. We haven't seen that yet. The integration team under that task force was a separate team mandated in the 2007 WRDA, 3 years ago. Nowhere to be seen. That is not being held up by the State. That is the corps. Clear authorization, clear mandate, nowhere to be seen. How about a comprehensive plan for protecting and preserving the Louisiana coast? That was due in November 2008. That was mandated in the 2007 WRDA. It is not being held up by the State, but it is nowhere to be seen. Senator Dorgan is anxious for promotion for the pristine corps leadership. I am anxious for this important work to protect Louisiana citizens. That is not the whole list. How about the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet Ecosystem Restoration Plan? That was due in May of 2008. We haven't seen it. It has not been submitted. It is a corps report, not a State of Louisiana report. Nowhere to be seen. How about section 707 of the WRDA? That actually mandates that the State can get credit from one project and it can be transferred to another project. It is in clear language. The corps says they are not going to do it. You want clear authorization? We have it. The corps is ignoring it. How about section 7006 in the same 2007 WRDA. That requires that five construction reports be submitted to Congress to move forward with key projects authorized in that WRDA, five critical projects. They are authorized in the WRDA bill. They can't move forward until those construction reports are submitted by the corps. We have not seen the first thing of any of those five reports. The State is not holding them up. We are waiting on the corps. The distinguished Senator is anxious about a promotion for the pristine corps leadership. Well, great. I am anxious to see that mandated report. We can go on and on. The point is----

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, as my colleague knows, I object. Let my say why I object.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, may I proceed?

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, just to close, I have said thank you many times, certainly to the American people, to these bodies in Washington representing the American people. The Senator is certainly right about that generosity and about a lot of the work of the corps. I do disagree with the Senator in sort of lightly tripping over as a minor mistake design flaws that caused 80 percent of the catastrophic flooding of the city of New Orleans. I wouldn't think that is a minor mistake to trip over. But I will continue to work with the corps to resolve these issues, and I will go through every one of those additional 11 items I outlined because we are waiting on that critical work and on those critical reports. That is not only authorized, but it is mandated in the 2007 WRDA bill and other bills, and we need that to move forward. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I am disappointed. I am disappointed. I am disappointed my distinguished colleague is continuing to simply blindly, in my opinion, be a fierce defender of a bureaucracy which is truly broken. Not a pawn in anything, a member of the leadership, one of the top nine officers of the leadership of this bureaucracy. For my part, I will continue to fight to change, to fundamentally change that bureaucracy and, for starters, to have them follow the law, to have them follow their mandates, their authorizations in the WRDA bill and the other legislation I have outlined. I have outlined the authorization clearly to the corps. I will outline it again. I have outlined these significant studies that are overdue, have never been produced, not because of the fault of anyone else, not because of the State of Louisiana. I will meet with them next week. I will continue to work on that. I invite the Senator to work on that sort of fundamental change, not just fiercely defending this, in my opinion, truly broken bureaucracy. I will also note, as the majority leader noted, one Senator cannot kill this nomination. One Senator cannot stop this promotion. The Senate can move on it, so I invite the Senate and the majority leader to do that. It is completely within the majority leader's--his party's power to move on that and to proceed with this nomination, and certainly one Senator cannot stop that. But this one Senator will continue to fight to hold the corps' feet to the fire to make them live by their mandates, to move forward on these critical protection issues for Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Stewart Enterprises, headquartered in Jefferson, LA. They will be celebrating their centennial anniversary on April 26, 2010. Stewart has been caring for Louisiana families since 1910 and is highly regarded for its ability to help families in times of critical need. It is also, with more than 5,000 employees, one of the largest publicly traded companies in Louisiana. Based on their purpose of ``caring for people, making a difference'' they have always done an outstanding job in helping people celebrate the lives of their lost loved ones and making sure they are memorialized as the families wish. In a family's time of need, Stewart Enterprises treats the family with dignity and respect while providing them with funeral operations, cemetery operations, and prearrangements. They are dedicated to making difficult times a little easier. Thus, today, I stand in recognition of Stewart Enterprises' centennial anniversary and thank them for their service and contributions not only to the State of Louisiana but also to families across our Nation.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Yes, Madam President, for the reasons I have clearly laid out, I again object.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I do object. General Walsh today, before any promotion, is one of nine leading officers of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He is part of that leadership. I am happy my two colleagues are satisfied with his leadership and the corps' leadership and how that agency is being run. I can tell them, as a Senator from Louisiana, I am absolutely not satisfied with their leadership and how that agency is being run at all. Since Hurricane Katrina, there were 14 major report deadlines put on the Corps of Engineers, required of the corps. The corps missed all 14 of those major deadlines. Today, as we speak, the corps is still actively missing and has failed to respond to 13 of the 14, having accomplished 1 many months late. I have brought nine significant issues before the Corps of Engineers in conversations with them, not minor projects, major issues with regard to hurricane recovery and hurricane and flood protection. I have outlined the authority they have to do constructive things under each of those categories. They have not responded in a positive or timely way on eight of those nine issues. One of those issues is a particularly good example. That is the Morganza to the gulf hurricane protection project. That is a vital hurricane protection project that would protect significant portions of south Louisiana that was originally proposed in 1992. The Senators want to talk about authority from Congress. That project has been authorized by Congress three different times in three different water resources bills. Yet the corps continues to drag its feet and is still not moving forward toward full implementation of that project, after three specific authorizations by Congress, 18 years later. I am sorry the corps leadership is frustrated with an 18-day delay or an 18-week delay. But I suggest they try 18 years on for size. That is how long the people of Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes, many folks throughout Louisiana, have been waiting on the Corps of Engineers. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I join my colleagues in urging the Senate to come together--Republicans and Democrats--around a strong bipartisan approach to financial regulatory reform. We need to address the critical causes behind the financial crisis of the last several years, and we need to do it right and in a bipartisan way. Unfortunately, we are not on that path yet. The Dodd bill, which the President and Chairman Dodd and others are trying to push to the floor, is a purely partisan approach and, unfortunately, it gets a lot of the bigger issues wrong. First, and perhaps most importantly, the Dodd bill expands too big to fail. It does not end it. The Dodd bill ensures more future bailouts. It does not get rid of the need for bailouts. It is not just me saying that. As conservative an authority as Time magazine wrote a few weeks ago: Policy experts and economists from both ends of the political spectrum say the bill does little to end the problem of banks' becoming so big that the government is forced to bail them out when they stumble. Some say the proposed financial reform may even make the problem worse. Another significant authority is Jeffrey Lacker. He is president of the Richmond Federal Reserve. He was interviewed by CNBC. The CNBC reporter said: Well, doesn't this bill allow all sorts of resolution? Isn't that ending too big to fail? He said, very clearly: It allows those things, but it does not require them. That is the heart of the problem here: It allows those things, but it does not require them. Moreover, it provides tremendous discretion for the Treasury and FDIC to use that fund to buy assets from the failed firm, to guarantee liabilities of the failed firm, to buy liabilities of the failed firm. They can support creditors in the failed firm. They have a tremendous amount of discretion. And if they have the discretion, they are likely to be forced to use it in a crisis. Exactly, precisely, what we saw in the last few years. William Isaac, former FDIC Chairman, has echoed exactly the same concern: Nearly all of our political leaders agree that we must banish the ``too big to fail'' doctrine in banking, but neither the financial reform bill approved in the House nor the bill promoted by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd will eliminate it. Finally, Simon Johnson, a respected MIT professor: Too big to fail is opposed by the right and the left, though not apparently by the people drafting legislation. The current financial reform bills are effectively a wash on the issue. There are multiple sections in the Dodd bill that expand too big to fail: sections 113 and 114 essentially creating a ``too big to fail'' club; other sections creating a new permanent bailout slush fund; other sections allowing the bailout of creditors and codifying backdoor bailouts. That is a significant flaw in the bill--and not the only one. My second big concern is that the Dodd bill creates a new all- powerful superbureaucracy with powers well beyond what is necessary to fix the problems that led to the last crisis. Again, there are several sections creating that new all-powerful bureaucracy. Perhaps the most significant one in my mind is one that subjects anybody who accepts four installment payments to the authority of this huge new bureaucracy. I have four kids. Three are teenagers with braces. That is their orthodontist. That is the electronic store down the street. None of these folks were part of the problem that led to the financial crisis, but they sure accept four installment payments. We cannot pay for three sets of braces otherwise. This is a huge new superbureaucracy with enormous authority. Finally, another big problem with the Dodd bill is it does nothing to fix other key causes of the crisis. For instance, it does nothing about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We have a so-called comprehensive bill, with multiple titles, thousands--tens of thousands--of words, hundreds of pages, and the words ``Fannie Mae'' and ``Freddie Mac'' are never included, nowhere to be found. As Lawrence White, an economics professor, said: The silence on Fannie and Freddie is deafening. How can they look at themselves in the mirror every morning thinking that they have a regulatory reform bill and they are totally silent on Fannie and Freddie? It just boggles my mind. And it boggles my mind as well. Finally, nothing on lending standards, underwriting standards-- exactly what Senator Isakson was talking about. The core fundamental problem behind the last financial crisis was that all sorts of loans were written that any reasonable person would know from the outset had no chance of making--the person getting the loan had no realistic chance of keeping up on that loan because there were no lending standards, no underwriting standards. An institution wanted to start the loan and sell it off and get it off its books and get quick profit for initiating the loan. The Dodd bill doesn't address that and doesn't create those lending standards we need to create. So where is the change? We need change. We need real reform, but where is the change? These are the top firms that got bailout funds from the taxpayers, hundreds of billions of dollars all told. This is the old regulator of those firms. This is the new regulator of those firms--exactly the same. The regulation of these entities doesn't change, doesn't move-- exactly the same. Again, we need regulatory reform, but we need it zeroed in on the real problems, and we need a strong bipartisan approach, not a highly partisan approach. Many of us think these are the basic principles of true regulatory reform: permanently ending bailouts and too big to fail, which the Dodd bill clearly does not do; ending all of the bailout authorities of the Federal Reserve and FDIC because if they still have those authorities, they will use them in the future; enhancing consumer protection without creating this huge new superbureaucracy that goes well beyond what is needed to address the causes of the crisis; creating greater transparency for derivatives while allowing businesses to manage risk, as Senator Judd Gregg explained. Begin to address Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those were key causes of the crisis. There is no excuse for those four words to be completely left out of a so-called comprehensive reform bill. Establish minimum lending standards for mortgages. That was a key cause of the crisis. It is ridiculous for that to not be addressed in a so-called comprehensive reform bill. Increase competition for credit rating agencies. We saw significant problems there. And dramatically improve coordination and communication among the regulators. This would be an approach targeted on the real problems, not a bill using the last financial crisis as an excuse to reach another preexisting agenda. This would be a bipartisan approach which the American people can support, and I hope this will become the outline of the approach the Senate adopts as we move forward. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I will be happy to do that in a version that is paid for, incorporating the very sensible, commonsense objections that have been offered to pay for all of this extension. So I would be happy to amend my request in that manner if the Senator would agree to it.

Mr. VITTER. Not if it increases the deficit and debt $108 billion a year. No, sir, I am not. And the American people are not. And the American people are getting fed up with it.

Mr. VITTER. Reclaiming my time, the suggestion was pretty simple. There is the one element of this bill which is a necessary program for all of the United States, particularly for flood-prone areas. It is 1 percent of the overall bill, but it is zero percent of the deficit and debt increase. It has no impact on deficit and debt. So the suggestion was pretty simple: Why don't we take that out? Why have that stalled because of this broader debate? Let's take that out and pass it. There should be no objection to that. Everybody is for the program. It does not increase the deficit and debt. Unfortunately, there is objection from the Democratic chairman. I hope we have given the chairman and other Members of the majority the detailed proposal. It is, as the chairman said, taking section 7 out and passing it separately because it has no deficit and debt impact. I would urge the chairman and others to look at that and to hopefully agree to that because--I heard the objection. I don't understand the basis for the objection, and I would be happy to hear the basis for the objection because I just don't understand it.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I stand in strong support of the comments of my distinguished colleague from Alabama. Of course I agree with virtually every single Member of the Senate that these programs need to be extended. But I also agree with many Members here, and the huge majority of the American people, that we need to pay for it. We cannot keep running up the deficit as though it had no consequence to us and our economy and our children and grandchildren. The American people get it. Certainly my constituents in Louisiana get it. They say of course you need to extend necessary programs and of course you cannot run up the deficit to do it every 2 months. Mr. President, $18 billion--the distinguished Senator from Alabama has used the figure over and over, and he is right, $18 billion, but it is $18 billion for 2 months of extension. So we are supposed to come back every 2 months and put another $18 billion on our kids' and grandkids' tab? It is $108 billion over a year of increasing deficit and debt that is already at historic levels. That is crazy. We can do better. We can meet both of those commonsense objectives of the American people. We can extend necessary programs and we can do it in a way that does not add to deficit and debt. We have several ways to do that. We have a menu of proposals. We will have votes a little later on about doing that. In fact, before the recess we had discussions on the floor of the Senate and we had come to agreement here in the Senate about an extension without increasing the deficit and debt. Unfortunately it was rejected by the Speaker of the House. So it is not as though this goal of achieving both of those important objectives is impossible. It is absolutely possible and many different Members have laid out how to get there. Let's follow the common sense of the American people. Let's follow the common sense of folks all across Louisiana who say of course you need to extend necessary programs and of course you cannot add to the deficit and debt every month, every 2 months that you need to do this, $18 billion a pop, $108 billion. That is a good part of $1 trillion over 1 year. I want to focus on a particular part of this package that is particularly galling, quite frankly, for someone such as me from Louisiana. A tiny part of this overall bill is extending the National Flood Insurance Program. Again, I hope everyone agrees we need to extend the National Flood Insurance Program. I certainly agree with that. I have certainly fought for that. It is about 1 percent of this bill. Do you know what percent it is of the debt increase, the deficit increase? It is zero percent of that because that extension does not even increase the deficit or debt in any way. So it should not be held up by this debate in any way, shape, or form--a necessary program, 1 percent of the bill in terms of dollar figures, zero deficit and debt increase, zero impact on that central issue. Why can't we at least come together and extend that necessary program immediately and not have that held up at all? It never should have been held up before the recess. It should not be held up now. There is a simple way to fix that and the simple way is to take that portion of the bill out; to extend it immediately. I do not think there is any opposition to the underlying extension of the program. It has zero impact on the deficit and debt so there is no reason for it to be caught up in this other debate. With that in mind, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3203. That is a bill I have introduced that extends the National Flood Insurance Program for the same amount of time as this underlying bill but does it separately. I ask that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken.) Is there objection?

Mr. VITTER. Sort of like the ``Louisiana purchase'' with health care reform. Let's put one sweetener in the bill to pass something really bad--a $108 billion debt increase over a year. Let's take one hostage, including folks who are held hostage who need this insurance, to pass a debt increase that big because otherwise that is a stinker. I get it. I have seen that deal played out over and over, including with the ``Louisiana purchase'' for health care reform. I am not taking that offer, no offense. I hope the Senator will reconsider my very reasonable proposal. I yield the floor.