David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, in closing, let me say that I think it is unfortunate we don't take up this serious matter next after the Defense authorization bill and that we don't take it up in plenty of time to look at all of the reasonable alternatives. I hope when we finally take it up, it isn't in a mad dash to the August recess; that it isn't under all of the normal artificial pressure that is built up where we must act in the next few hours and we have one choice and one choice only. We have heard all that before. We have heard it before when we were forced into quick consideration of the bailouts. We heard it about the stimulus. Now we are hearing it about health care. Let's try to do some things right and not just quick. This has to be done before the August recess because the highway trust fund will run out of money during the August recess. So let's take this up sooner rather than later. Let's take this up right after the current Defense authorization bill on the floor is dealt with and look at all the available alternatives, including using stimulus funds already appropriated so we don't raise taxes in the middle of a recession, so we don't increase the debt and so that we don't borrow more money from the Chinese and print more dollar bills. The American people are very fearful of that growing trend. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Well, in light of the objection, I would ask the distinguished Senator from Michigan, if the Senator would at least agree to a unanimous consent request to allow this bill to be the next order of business after the current Defense authorization bill is fully dealt with which would provide for limited time agreements and relevant germane amendments?

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, in September of this year, just a couple of months away, the highway bill--the program under which we build bridges and roads and highways around the country--is set to expire. Even more worrisome, in August of this year--next month--the highway trust fund, which funds all of that activity, is scheduled to run out of money. So I think--I hope--there is a broad consensus here that we need to act to continue the ongoing highway program. To not act--to allow the highway trust fund to run out of money, to allow the highway program to end--would be an enormous antistimulus for the economy because a lot of significant, productive infrastructure spending and activity would just stop overnight. So we must act, and I believe everyone acknowledges that. What I am concerned about is that we are going to go right up to the eleventh hour, to the precipice, and then we are going to be given one choice, and one choice only, here on the floor of the Senate, rather than have a calm and reasoned debate about the best way to act and the best way to pay for that. So I strongly urge the Senate to take up this matter sooner rather than later and to consider all of the reasonable and all of the available options. As I understand it, the Obama administration will propose an 18-month extension of the current highway program, and I have absolutely no problem with that. I plan to support that. The key issue in my mind is how we pay for that extension, how we replenish the trust fund, at least for the next 18 months. We faced this shortfall late last year, and unfortunately there was no good idea, no option presented except to spend more money--borrowed money--and increase the debt to keep that trust fund going. I suggest that with our debt rising so dramatically, with all of the actions this Congress has taken--the stimulus, the budget that doubles the debt in 5 years and triples it in 10--we need a better solution than merely to print more money or borrow more money from the Chinese. That is why I have introduced my proposal, S. 1344. That bill specifically is called the Highway Investment Protection Act. It would extend and reauthorize the highway program for an initial 18 months, and it would fund that out of existing stimulus dollars which have already been appropriated. Some may ask: What is the point of that? The point is real simple. If we use existing, already appropriated stimulus dollars, we are not borrowing more money, we are not printing more money, we are not borrowing more money from the Chinese, and we are not yet again increasing the deficit and increasing the debt. That is very important. We are also not increasing taxes, which is a horrible thing to do, particularly in the middle of a very serious recession. One of the clear lessons from the Great Depression is the things you don't do, which, unfortunately, leaders back then did, in some cases. One of the things you don't do is to increase taxes, which made the Depression far worse and far longer in duration than it otherwise needed to be. So this program doesn't print more money, it doesn't borrow yet more from the Chinese, and it doesn't raise taxes. That is the great advantage of it. In addition, it is specifically structured to give maximum flexibility to the Obama administration in terms of where to find those stimulus dollars. So we don't say specifically take it from this account, which they may favor; take it from that account, which they may prefer. We give the Obama administration maximum flexibility. And I think virtually everyone acknowledges that at the end of the day, when the entire $800-plus billion stimulus program is worked through, there will be over this amount of money that remains unspent and unobligated. There will be more than what is required for the next 18 months for the highway trust fund--about $20 billion--which cannot be spent out of the stimulus anyway. So this is simply capturing that money and using it to extend this vital highway program and this important infrastructure spending. Several months ago, when we debated the stimulus here on the floor of the Senate, there were many of us--Democrats and Republicans alike--who wanted more infrastructure spending, more highway spending in the stimulus. It is very clear from every poll that was published that the American people felt that way. One of the absolute top categories of stimulus spending money the American people supported was highway construction--roads, bridges, highways. So this is very consistent with the idea of a broad-based stimulus program. It is not inconsistent with that at all. Again, the alternatives are to simply move money from the general fund. That means we are borrowing more money from the Chinese or whomever--in a sense, printing more money--or there may be a proposal to increase taxes to pay for it, which I believe, no matter what the source, is a very bad idea in the middle of a serious recession. That is very antigrowth. My fear is that given our very constricted busy schedule between now and the August recess, this matter is going to be pushed to the very end, right before we are set to leave for the August recess, and there will be one alternative and one alternative only: Just print more money. Just borrow more from the Chinese. My fear is there is going to be an attempt to rush that through the Senate, and I don't think that is the way to get the best result and the most consensual result on this important issue. I propose we think about this now, sooner rather than later. I propose we discuss all the reasonable alternatives and certainly look at the very commonsense alternative of using already appropriated stimulus dollars--again, no new debt, no new spending; use what has already been appropriated in the stimulus; give the administration maximum flexibility in terms of how to do that. Finally, I would also point out that the bill is drafted very carefully, so that within these 18 months, if the Congress were to enact a new highway reauthorization program, a new multiyear program, this extension would automatically dissolve and go away and this money from the stimulus would automatically stop and whatever the provisions of that new multiyear highway bill would be would come into full force and effect. I urge all my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--to consider this commonsense approach. In that vein, I would like to propound a unanimous consent request. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1344 I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1344, a bill to use stimulus funds to protect the solvency of the highway trust fund; and I ask unanimous consent that the technical amendment at the desk be agreed to; the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to oppose cloture on the nomination of Robert Groves to be Census Director. As we all know, the 2010 Census is right around the corner. This is a very important process that should not be taken lightly. The census, of course, is an official count of the country's population mandated by the U.S. Constitution, and it is used to determine distribution of taxpayer money through grants and appropriations and the apportionment of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives. Every U.S. household unit, including those occupied by noncitizens and illegal immigrants, must be counted. We must take every effort to make this a fair and accurate census that is not skewed in any way by political influence or using poor statistical material. With that in mind, I have very serious concerns about some of the administration's plans for the census, particularly with regard to ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. ACORN signed up in February 2009 to assist the U.S. Census Bureau as a national partner, and they signed up specifically to help recruit 1.4 million temporary workers needed to go door-to-door to count every person in the United States. So they are a ``2010 census partner''--an official census partner given this delineation by the U.S. Census Bureau. There was a very full report on this by the Wall Street Journal just last month, in June of this year. I have very serious concerns about this. As did Senator Shelby, I wrote the administration asking for assurances that ACORN would have no role whatsoever in the Census. I believe Senator Shelby originally wrote his letter in March. I sent my letter in early June. Today we have gotten absolutely no response. Let me remind my colleagues why this should be a very serious concern for all of us. And we don't have to look far in terms of history to understand these concerns; the last election cycle will do. In May 2009, Nevada filed charges against ACORN. The complaint includes 26 counts of voter fraud and 13 counts for compensating those registering voters, both felonies. From July 27 through October 2 of 2008, ACORN in Nevada also provided additional compensation under a bonus program called Blackjack or 21-Plus that was based on the total number of voters a person registered. A canvasser who brought in 21 or more completed voter registration forms per shift would be paid a bonus of $5. There are other serious complaints that have been made against ACORN. In March 2008, an ACORN worker in Pennsylvania was sentenced for making 29 phony voter registration forms. In 2007, Washington State filed felony charges against several paid ACORN employees and supervisors for more than 1,700 fraudulent voter registrations. I think it is fair to say the American public does have strong concerns about ACORN because of this long history of voter registration and voter fraud. So why should this organization be signed up as an official 2010 census partner to do exactly the sort of activity of listing people, signing up people as they did fraudulently with regard to voter registration? Again, this is very worrisome. What is even more worrisome is that for months, these clear concerns have been brought before the Obama administration, and the administration has done absolutely nothing to dispel these very deep and very legitimate concerns. Again, my colleague, Senator Shelby, who will be speaking in a moment, sent his letter in March of this year outlining these strong concerns, asking the administration to state categorically that ACORN would have nothing to do with the census. I sent a similar followup letter in June of this year. To date, we have gotten no response. As it stands now, we are going to sign up ACORN to do exactly the sort of activity they have done over and over and over again fraudulently, illegally, with regard to voter registration. It is outrageous when so much is on the line with this next very important census. For these reasons, I will strongly oppose this cloture vote for the census nominee. I continue to urge the administration to assure us that ACORN will have nothing to do with the process, after they have built up a long and storied record, unfortunately, of fraud with regard to similar activity in terms of voter registration. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Yes, I object.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, as the manager of this bill, who has been very cooperative, and others on the floor know, I have been working hard to get a vote on my reimportation amendment. It is a very simple, straightforward amendment. It is a limitation amendment--at least it will be once it is perfected and modified. In fact, it is an amendment that has passed the Senate before, in 2006. So it is not new. It has actually passed the Senate before. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the issue and, in fact, because of the powerful nature of the pharmaceutical interests who oppose this amendment, this is being blocked using every procedural tool in the book. That is unfortunate, but it seems as if that is going to be the case. If I cannot get a fair hearing and a fair vote on this amendment, I am going to use the procedural tools available to me to block votes on other nongermane amendments, on other amendments that are subject to points of order--which I think are most, if not all, of the other pending amendments. At this point, given the fairly certain nature of certain Members' fierce opposition to this reimportation provision, I simply suggest we move forward and not waste folks' time. I am certainly amenable to moving to dispense with any pending amendment which is germane, which does not have a point of order against it, move through those and then move to final passage of the bill as quickly as possible. I am certainly open to that and would encourage that and would like to move forward in that vein.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish to present my second-degree amendment. In a few minutes we will be voting on the Vitter second-degree amendment to the Dodd amendment. This is very straightforward and is something this body has considered very directly before. This amendment simply prohibits funds in the bill from being used by Customs and Border security to prevent the reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada only and for personal use only. So it is a reimportation amendment but only from Canada and only for personal use. It is very limited in that regard. Also, it only limits funds with regard to enforcement by Customs and Border security. There are numerous other agencies in the Federal Government, such as the Justice Department and many law enforcement agencies, which regularly are in the business of going after counterfeits and other problems in the drug trade. This amendment doesn't limit that activity in any way because it only impacts Customs and Border security. Finally, this exact amendment was considered and passed by the Senate in July of 2006. It was not only passed by the Senate, but that Vitter amendment, essentially identical, was adopted 68 to 32. A few months later, modified language passed the entire Congress. It was somewhat modified, but it passed the entire Congress and is law now. So based on all that history, I urge a strong bipartisan vote in favor of this amendment as we had in 2006. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish to briefly address some of the issues brought up by my distinguished colleague from Utah. First, this amendment is only about individuals, and you can look at the clear language of the amendment. It is about individuals, not corporations, not mega businesses, not anything else but individuals. Secondly, it is only about personal use. It is only about businesses not in the business of importing prescription drugs. So these individuals cannot be in that business, cannot be in that activity as a business. We specifically refer to the relevant portion of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, section 801(g). Third, it is for personal use because of that limitation. Fourth, we are only limiting funds that go through border security for this purpose, not any other law enforcement agency; and there are many that are involved in the fight against counterfeits and other things, including the Department of Justice. Fifth, and finally, this language was passed by this body in 2006 by a strong bipartisan vote of 68 to 32 and, as Senator Hatch said, a modified version was actually passed into law and has operated in law for 3 years, with no apparent safety problems that we are aware of. I yield back my time and look forward to the vote.

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, Senator Hatch and I have both spoken, and I am prepared to yield back the time.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded, just that I may speak for up to 5 minutes.

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

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I certainly share the desire to move forward and resolve these issues and go through these votes. In that vein, I send to the desk a second-degree amendment to the Dodd amendment. This is a straight limitation amendment. It is a germane amendment with no points of order against it, which would simply enact legislation that the Senate enacted in 2006 with regard to reimportation. I would be happy to explain the amendment more fully if it is appropriate to have a debate either now or in the near future on it. But again, it enacts language that was previously enacted by the Senate in 2006. It is a straight limitation amendment, which is germane, and does not have points of order against it.

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

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I call up Vitter amendment No. 1375.

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I send a modification of the amendment to the desk.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, originally my amendment dealt with two E- Verify issues: the no-match rule under Social Security, which I am about to talk about, and also ensuring that the E-Verify system is used for employers who operate under Federal contracts. Just a few minutes ago, we passed the Sessions amendment which deals with the second of those issues, Federal contracts, so the modification of my amendment simply takes that part of my amendment out and leaves a correction of the remaining issue, the Social Security no-match rule. That is the only thing the modification did. What is the no-match rule? In August 2007, the Department of Homeland Security introduced this no-match regulation which clarified the responsibility of employers who receive notice that their employees' names and Social Security numbers don't match the records of the Social Security Administration. Under the rule, employers receiving this sort of notice who did not take corrective action would be deemed to have constructive knowledge that they are employing unauthorized or illegal aliens. In other words, this rule provided clear guidance on the appropriate responsibility of the employer, the appropriate due diligence the employer should undertake if they receive a letter from the Social Security Administration informing them there is not a proper match under those records. DHS, GAO, and Social Security audits found that such discrepancies often arise when workers use false documents to illegally obtain employment in the United States. Going after these no-matches is absolutely imperative to attack the issue of illegal aliens in this country. Employers who receive no-match letters know they have a problem and a responsibility to do something about it. Either their record keeping needs to be improved or they have hired undocumented workers. This no-match rule is reasonable in telling the employers: You have a problem, and you have a responsibility to do something about it in a circumstance where there is a no-match. This no-match rule has been blocked by litigation filed by organized labor and business groups that have consistently opposed enforcement of many of our Federal immigration laws. But the administration has twice asked the court to delay ruling on the government's motion to throw out the lawsuit, thus voluntarily leaving the rule in legal limbo for more than 5 years. My amendment, as modified, would simply prevent any more delays on the no-match rule. It would allow the Social Security Administration and DHS to provide employers with notices of the problem in their workforce payroll records. This is not only thoroughly reasonable, but it is absolutely necessary--one of many necessary steps we must take to move forward with regard to the illegal immigration problem and productive enforcement. If there are situations where there isn't a match under Social Security records, we need to do something about it. The employer needs to look into it and do something about it or else our illegal immigration laws are going to continue to be made a farce and continue to be flagrantly violated in many cases. This is a reasonable approach. It puts a reasonable but not undue burden on the employer to do some appropriate due diligence when they get a no-match notice from Social Security. With that, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. I hope we will have a vote on it, probably later today. I look forward to any continuing debate and urge a ``yes'' vote. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. In summary, let me try to clarify and rebut a few points. First, to say that this bill is a 2.4-percent increase over last year's is complete fiction, because that assumes the stimulus into last year's number. In fact, last year's number, because of the stimulus--and the stimulus was a one-time bill, not a normal fiscal year bill. No. 2, last year's bill, as I mentioned, was an 11-percent increase over the previous year, three times the rate of inflation. No. 3, I wanted to give the committee maximum flexibility in making this modest cut. But there are plenty of suggestions I would have. I would be happy to offer specifics. I will offer one right now. The Open World Leadership Center Trust Fund, $14.5 million. That would be almost a quarter of the savings I am asking for. That is a program to bring governmental officials from Russia and Eastern European republics to tour the United States. I am sure it is a nice idea, but I think there would be a lot of American families in the middle of this recession who would ask, is that essential? Is that core to what we are doing in government in very tough economic times? Do we actually need to do this? We can find those savings. That program alone is a quarter of the savings my motion to commit would require. We can find those savings clearly without touching Capitol Police overtime, without touching cost-of-living increases for employees. Finally, there are millions of American families who are not dealing with any increase this year in their incomes. They are dealing with a huge decrease. They are dealing with a huge decrease in savings. So can't we simply live with the same dollar amount as we did in the legislative branch last year? I think the huge majority of Americans would find that a very reasonable and a very modest goal. I yield the reminder of my time.