David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, to wrap up, my amendment says none of that. My amendment does not prevent this climate change czar from informing and assisting the President. My amendment does not prevent her from convening multiagency and multidepartment meetings. My amendment doesn't say any of that and doesn't prevent any of that. It simply prevents her from ordering the EPA, headed by a Senate-confirmed appointee, to do certain things. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. I would be happy to explain through the Chair what it means. The agency I have in mind, which is funded by this act and led by a Senate-confirmed position, is EPA. So it simply means that EPA cannot use any of its funds to implement orders, policies, from Carol Browner--the White House czar's policies. If the President wants to direct them, obviously the President outranks the head of EPA. But a White House czar, in a position not created by Congress, not confirmed by the Senate, never existing prior to this administration, should not be giving orders to a Senate-confirmed Cabinet Member.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I want to very briefly rebut some of the arguments of the distinguished Senator from California. First of all, in her last sentence she characterized the amendment as an amendment to eliminate the position. Of course it does not eliminate the position in any way. She said earlier that Carol Browner does not tell EPA what to do. If that is the case, then this amendment will not have to change anything she does or how she operates and we should all come together to support the amendment to help allay concerns of the public. The amendment does not prohibit her from advising the President. The amendment does not prohibit her from coordinating multiagency meetings. The amendment is very clear, and it simply prohibits her from ordering around the EPA, which has its own Senate-confirmed head. Again, I underscore the fact that this amendment is very carefully and narrowly written and does not prevent any of the legitimate advisory responsibilities that Senator Feinstein has discussed. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I did just waive reading of the amendment, but I am going to read it. It is very short and very to the point, and I think simply reading the language is the best way to introduce the concept. The language is very clear: None of the funds made available by this Act may be obligated for the purpose of departments or agencies funded by this Act and led by Senate-confirmed appointees implementing policies of the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change (commonly known as the ``White House Climate Change Czar''). That is the entire amendment, and the amendment is, again, very simple and straightforward. The point it is making is that we have Cabinet-level appointees. They come before the Senate for vetting and they come before the Senate for confirmation. After they are confirmed, they come before the House and Senate on a regular basis as part of our oversight responsibilities. This constitutional structure should not be superceded by these so-called czars which have grown enormously under this administration. In making this argument, let me say that this argument has nothing to do with Carol Browner and her qualifications. It is not an attack on her. It is an attack, quite frankly, on the concept of these multitude of czars and the fact that they are an end run around the constitutional process by which top Cabinet and other officials of any administration are confirmed by the Senate and regularly come before the House and Senate as part of our oversight process. We all know this particular administration has developed an unprecedented number of these so-called czars. We have seen a dramatic increase in this phenomenon. Politico wrote that President Obama ``is taking the notion of a powerful White House staff to new heights'' and that he is creating ``perhaps the most powerful staff in modern history.'' Specifically, the President has created 18 new czar positions, and I want to focus on those 18 positions. This czar concept is obviously very general and somewhat undefined. What I am talking about are those 18 positions because none of those positions are established by statute. Congress has not authorized or established any of those positions, No. 1; No. 2, none of those individuals have come before the Senate for confirmation; and No. 3, none of those positions preexisted this administration. As I said a while ago, this has raised concerns among a number of Senators and certainly among the American people. As I began my remarks, I added as coauthors of this amendment Senators Grassley, Bunning, Roberts, and Brownback. In addition, the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, who chairs the relevant authorization committee, has expressed grave concern about this same phenomenon and, in fact, has another amendment about this very issue. Unfortunately, that amendment is going to be struck down as legislating on an appropriations bill. But she has expressed concern. She spearheaded a letter signed by herself and Senator Alexander and others which she sent to the President. In addition, and this is very important, this has been a bipartisan concern. Going back to February of this year, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, wrote the administration expressing strong and grave concern about the constitutional implications of all of these czars. Again, the 18 I am talking about are not created by statute, have not been confirmed by the Senate, and never existed prior to this administration. Also, within the last 2 weeks, Senator Feingold, in addition, has expressed strong and serious concern about exactly the same issue and has written to the administration. The purpose of my amendment is to say quite simply that when we have an agency, when we have a department that is led by a Senate-confirmed appointee, we shouldn't have a so-called White House czar ordering that appointee or ordering that agency or that department to do things, particularly when that White House czar is not an office created by law through Congress, is not a Senate-confirmed position, and did not exist in any form or fashion prior to this administration. In terms of my specific amendment, I have chosen to focus on the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, commonly known as the White House climate change czar, for one simple reason: First, she is among this 18 never created by statute, never confirmed by the Senate, never existing prior to this administration, and she is clearly in a very powerful position--apparently giving orders to Senate-confirmed appointees such as the head of EPA. Of course, the EPA is governed by this appropriations bill now on the floor, so that is why I chose to focus on this particular czar position. Clearly, this particular czar meets all of those criteria which give rise to my concerns. The President himself, when he appointed this czar, said, ``She will be indispensable in implementing an ambitious and complex energy policy.'' In addition, there have been several media reports about her dominant stature and dominant role in these sorts of considerations. The Wall Street Journal, for instance, on September 11 of this year, reported: Ms. Browner helped broker a fuel-standards deal between the administration and automakers earlier this year and has been a conspicuous presence in climate negotiations with Congress. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, meanwhile, has been largely tied up administering billions of dollars in stimulus projects. Ms. Browner, through a spokesman, declined to comment. Also, Mary Nichols, the head of the California Air Resources Board, and Carol Browner were key in crafting a plan to impose the first-ever national carbon limits on cars and trucks. On May 20, the New York Times reported the following: In an interview yesterday, Nichols said Browner quietly orchestrated private discussions from the White House with auto industry officials. The obvious question this gives rise to is, What about the head of the Senate-confirmed Energy Department? What about the head of the EPA, Senate confirmed? Those folks seem to be shoved to the side, and this new super agency head, a super Cabinet Member seems to be playing a far more dominant role in key issues that are clearly under the purview of the Energy Department and the EPA. Again, this gives rise to serious constitutional concerns. A number of Senators, Republicans and Democrats, have expressed these concerns--Senator Collins, Senator Byrd, Senator Feinstein, Senator Alexander. So this is a germane limitation amendment that goes absolutely to the heart of the matter: Should these czars, positions never created by Congress or by statute, never confirmed by the Senate, never existing prior to this administration--should these czars have a role that is more significant than Senate-confirmed Cabinet Secretaries or agency heads? Again, I have very carefully crafted an amendment to go specifically to this point. Let me read it word for word. It is not long. None of the funds made available by this Act may be obligated for the purpose of departments or agencies funded by this Act and led by Senate-confirmed appointees implementing policies of the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change (commonly known as the ``White House Climate Change Czar''). It does not say you cannot implement policies of the President of the United States. Obviously, the President is elected by the people and the President obviously ranks higher than the head of EPA or anyone else. But it does say the head of EPA, a Senate-confirmed position, should not be ranked below some so-called czar, a position never before created by Congress, never confirmed by the Senate, never existing prior to this administration. I encourage all my colleagues to stand up for the rights and the proper constitutional role of the Senate. We play a vital role, particularly with regard to Presidential appointments because only the Senate has advice and consent powers. I urge my colleagues to stand up for that constitutional role, to preserve that vital constitutional role, and not to allow so-called White House czars to be an end-run around it and to minimize that role in a significant way. This is a significant constitutional issue, it is a significant bipartisan issue, and I urge support of my amendment. I yield the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, at this point, I call up amendment No. 2549.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I stand to briefly discuss my amendment, No. 2549, which is about the so-called czar issue that has a number of Members on both sides of the aisle very concerned. As I introduce this amendment, Mr. President, let me ask unanimous consent to add Senators Grassley, Bunning, Roberts, and Brownback as coauthors of the amendment.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, of course, nothing in my amendment prevents the Interior Department from reading all those comments, from digesting them. My amendment is simple and straightforward. It says: Remember last summer where almost all of America said this is ridiculous, drill here, drill now, let's use our own resources and not be held captive to foreign interests. Remember that. My amendment is about whether we listen to that or whether we will ignore it. Right now this administration and this Interior Department have pledged to ignore that and have pledged to forestall and put off the OCS development plan previously developed that is on the books and about to move forward. This question is simple: Did we listen to the American people when they spoke so loudly, so clearly, or is Congress going to ignore the clear will of the American people yet again?

Mr. VITTER. I have no objection to the modified request.

Mr. VITTER. Reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent to have equal time on the amendment.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I will be happy to explain the substance of this amendment. Again, I am forced to file this motion to recommit simply to have this germane, relevant amendment heard and voted on with regard to the bill. What does the amendment do? The amendment is very straightforward. It simply says: None of the funds made available by this Act shall be used to delay the Draft Proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program from 2010-2015 issued by the Secretary of the Interior under section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. We all know we face enormous energy needs in this country. That became particularly acute and particularly obvious last summer when the price at the pump went through the roof and rose to $4 a gallon for gasoline. At that time, people rightly became enraged that we were not doing more to control our own destiny and our own energy future. People started demanding that Congress act, that Congress do something with regard to oil and gas and other energy resources we have right here at home. That is when the petition began: Drill here, drill now. That is when every Member of this Congress was deluged with calls and e-mails and letters saying: Let's get ahold of our own destiny and produce that energy which we have right here at home. In that time period last year, Congress heard that message loudly and clearly. So for the first time in years, the moratorium on offshore oil and gas production was lifted by Congress, and President Bush similarly lifted a more limited executive moratorium on offshore production. So those barriers and those hurdles were finally lifted because of the demands of the American people, when the American people said very loudly, very clearly: This is ridiculous. We have resources here at home. We have domestic energy. Let's use that domestic energy rather than being held hostage by foreign powers. That was real progress. That was moving, certainly, in the right direction. The problem is, the new administration and the new Secretary of the Interior have made it clear that--despite all of those actions, despite all of that clear communication by the American people, despite Congress taking that historic action of lifting the moratorium, despite the previous administration lifting the executive moratorium--they are not in any hurry and they are not going to take any action in the near future to move forward with the 2010 to 2015 offshore planning area and lease sales. So what, unfortunately, Secretary Salazar has said pretty clearly is he is not going to take action in the foreseeable future to actually move forward with that going after domestic production and domestic resources. That is really a shame because, while the price at the pump has stabilized somewhat from last summer, and that is a good thing, the need--particularly the medium- and long-term need--is still there. Over the next 20 years, U.S. demand for energy is only going to grow. It is particularly going to grow as we get out of this recession and come back into a more normal economy. Overall, it is expected to grow at an annual rate of 1.4 percent. That is going to demand more energy. We need to conserve. We need to develop new technology. We need to develop new energy sources. But that need is still going to grow, so that short term we will have increased demand for the types of energy we use. We have enormous potential right here at home. The question which this amendment poses is, are we going to tap that potential or are we going to use the resources we have so that we cannot be held hostage any longer by hostile foreign powers. According to conservative estimates from MMS, there are about 288 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 52 billion barrels of oil in the OFC, off the lower 48 States. That is an enormous amount of energy as yet untapped. That is enough oil to maintain current production for 105 years. That is enough natural gas to maintain production for 71 years. That is enough oil to produce gasoline for 132 million cars and heating oil for 54 million homes for 15 years. It is enough natural gas to heat 72 million homes for 60 years or to supply current industrial and commercial needs for 28 years or to supply current electricity generating needs for 53 years. Further, the MMS reports that the waters off Alaska's coast hold about 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That is in addition to all of the potential, all of the resources I was just talking about. Make no mistake about it, we need to move to a new energy future. We need to develop new technology. We need to develop new sources of energy. But we need a bridge to get to that future, and certainly current fuels--oil and natural gas, particularly natural gas, which is a relatively clean-burning fuel--are an absolutely vital bridge to get to that future. The American people are scratching their heads. We have enormous needs, particularly the need to build an energy bridge to a new, exciting energy future. The good news is we have enormous domestic resources that can help get us there, particularly natural gas. So why are we not matching those two things that should match up so well? The American people demanded that last summer. Because of their loud and clear voice, they got dramatic action out of Congress, lifting the moratoria. The problem is, the new administration and the new Secretary of the Interior are simply saying: We are not in any hurry to get there. We are not going to lift a finger to actually move forward with the concrete work that needs to be done. That is really inappropriate. That is ignoring the clear clarion call of the American people. So, again, that brings us to my amendment, amendment No. 2454, which my motion to recommit would add to the bill. It simply says: None of the funds made available by this Act shall be used to delay the draft proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2010-2015 issued by the Secretary of the Interior under section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The American people have spoken: Drill here, drill now; build an important bridge to the future. No, it is not the future, but it is a necessary bridge to get us there. Let's adopt that common sense of the American people. Let's respond to that clear call of the American people dating back to last summer. Let's pass this clear limitation amendment, perfectly germane to this bill, so we can move forward with developing our domestic energy resources right here at home to build a more stable energy future. I yield my time.

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

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I find this very frustrating. As I understand it, the Chair who is handling the bill on the floor is not objecting personally but on behalf of Senator Nelson of Florida. I find it frustrating because this is a completely germane amendment to the bill. It is a limitation amendment which is completely germane to the bill. I don't think there is any reasonable argument that something so directly pertinent and germane should not be open for discussion and vote on the Senate floor. I think, quite frankly, it is unreasonable for Senator Nelson to block an amendment in this way. Having been forced to do this, I now send to the desk a motion to recommit with instructions so that this amendment can be considered and heard in that manner.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 2454.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, we are not talking about drug possession, we are talking about trafficking. HUD and the housing authority have the ability to negotiate for other family members to stay in public housing and not be penalized.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, this amendment is very simple and straightforward. It simply says that no public housing assistance will be granted to anyone who is convicted of a crime involving drug trafficking, not simple possession but distribution, et cetera, or being a member of a violent gang. These are serious adult offenders. I don't believe we should use taxpayer funds with housing assistance, particularly in public housing projects, in that manner. It specifically focuses on New Orleans, LA, only New Orleans, where we are pouring massive amounts of Federal dollars to rebuild public housing projects in a fundamentally different, better way after Katrina, ridding those projects of the crime problem which had previously been embedded there. It is very important in terms of that recovery. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. This amendment is very straightforward, and it is very narrowly drawn. First of all, it only affects public housing assistance in New Orleans, LA, nowhere else, and it prohibits funds in this bill from going to any housing assistance to benefit drug dealers or members of violent gangs, folks who have actually been convicted of these offenses--drug dealing, not simple possession, drug dealing, a conviction of that--or convicted of crimes that involve a member of a violent gang. After Hurricane Katrina, there was an enormous rebuilding effort in New Orleans that continues. Part of that effort involves public housing in New Orleans. Quite frankly, that system has been plagued for many years with tremendous problems, the biggest of which is crime in those projects. There has been an ongoing effort to rid those projects of violent crime. That effort continues and certainly that battle has not yet been won because, unfortunately, New Orleans continues to be a capital in the country for violent crime, with very high violent crime levels. As we are rebuilding these projects using a fundamentally different model--a mixed-income model, less density--certainly one of the changes we need to make is to ensure that drug dealers and members of violent gangs do not set up shop once again in those public housing projects and do not get other taxpayer assistance. In this bill is $7.25 billion for public housing assistance. Some of that will go to New Orleans. Certainly it is reasonable and productive and positive that we simply say we are not going to send this assistance to folks who have been convicted of being a violent gang member, have been convicted of drug dealing, not simple possession but drug dealing. This is very important policy, very important for the continued recovery of New Orleans coming out of Hurricane Katrina. I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment and support this amendment and pass it into law. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask that the modified version of the amendment be made pending.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask that any pending amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 2359 be called up.

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

Mr. VITTER. This excludes folks who have a work requirement under TANF.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, this should be a noncontroversial amendment. It simply retains in present law the current community service requirement which Congress passed into law for public housing tenants who are able-bodied over a decade ago. The House has tried to take out this requirement. It is a very modest 8 hours per month of community service for able-bodied tenants. Automatically exempted are folks over 62, folks who have a disability, caretakers, folks who meet the TANF work requirements, et cetera. It is a modest, reasonable work requirement which has been in the law for years. I urge all Members to retain it through this vote.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I yield my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER. I will be happy to consider that offer and get back to the distinguished Senator. My only concern is we have as much ammunition as possible to retain this provision in conference, which a very good rollcall vote could perhaps give us. That is my only concern, since the House version of the bill has taken this language out. I will be happy to consider that offer and personally follow up with the distinguished Senator.

Mr. VITTER. I will.