David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman for his comments and for his forbearance. I will be very brief on this amendment, which goes directly to the bill and is very germane. This amendment, again, is very simple and very straightforward but I also think very important. It would require that the Federal Housing Administration recognize as its first duty to maintain its own solvency. If the provisions of the underlying bill or any other existing requirement cause the FHA to be reasonably likely to need a credit subsidy from Congress, then it shall require the Commissioner, No. 1, to temporarily suspend any program that is threatening the solvency of the FHA; and No. 2, to recommend legislation to Congress to address those solvency issues. I commend the motives of the distinguished chairman and others with regard to this bill. Clearly, they are trying to help homeowners in dire need, and there sure as heck are many of them around the country, including my State. But as we walk down this path, I think we all want to be careful that we don't create a new crisis, a new solvency crisis at the FHA. I believe we need to be very aware of that so we don't create another crisis there as congressional and other action has in the past at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and elsewhere. Recently, on April 23 at a nomination hearing for Mr. David Stevens, who is the designate for housing and Federal Housing commissioner, the person whom President Obama has chosen to run the FHA, I asked how he viewed the health of the FHA mortgage insurance fund and if he anticipated having to ask Congress for a credit subsidy. His answer on April 23 was: At the present time, the FHA fund is solvent and meets actuarial requirements. Maintaining that solvency would be a top priority for me. I am glad to hear that it is solvent as of now but, quite frankly, I don't want that solvency to be a top priority for him; I think it should be the top priority for him. I think we should be very cautious about expanding programs under the FHA if it could lead to a crisis of solvency there which could be a further rattling of the financial markets, just as similar crises have been in the past. Unfortunately, there are significant signs that the FHA is a ticking timebomb now. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association National Delinquency Survey, for the fourth quarter of 2009 seasonally adjusted delinquency rate, 13.73 percent of FHA loans would present an increase of 81 basis points from the third quarter of 2008. Similarly, in a report from J.P. Morgan Securities issued in January of this year, it says 70 percent of Ginnie Mae borrowers, those who are FHA borrowers and VA borrowers, would be underwater if home prices drop another 10 percent. On March 8 of this year, a Washington Post investigation led many observers to view the FHA as a ticking timebomb. The article reports: There has been a spike in quick defaults that seem to follow the pattern that preceded the collapse of the subprime market as some of the same flawed lending practices that contributed to the mortgage crisis are now eroding one of the main Federal agencies charged with addressing it. Of course they were talking about the FHA. According to the same article: More than 9,200 of the loans insured by the FHA in the past 2 years have gone into default after no or only one payment. So already we see very troubling signs. On top of that, this bill, in some ways, erodes the stability of the FHA. It does things such as say that an individual receiving assistance under this program must verify their income, providing income tax return information but reducing the upfront fee for the program from 3 percent to 2 percent. It reduces the annual fee from 1.5 percent to 1 percent, and it adds incentives with $1,000 for each loan for folks to enter and service the program. So I am concerned, No. 1, that the FHA right now shows real signs of a possible future crisis, and No. 2, that this bill could unintentionally be making that worse and making that day come quicker. I am not proposing we scrap the provisions of the bill, but my amendment would simply say that the first duty of the FHA is to maintain solvency, and secondly, if the provisions of this bill or any other requirement causes the FHA to be reasonably likely to need a credit subsidy from Congress, the Commissioner has the power to, No. 1, temporarily suspend that program, and No. 2, recommend legislation to Congress to address the solvency problem. Let's not let the FHA be the next chapter in terms of this financial crisis. Let's not repeat the kinds of mistakes we have seen in other Federal Government or related entities. Let's be careful to avoid that, which would be an enormous rattling of the financial system and which would cause an enormous drop in confidence. With that, Madam President, I thank the Chair and the chairman for his forbearance, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, this amendment is very simple. In fact, it is identical to an amendment I offered to a different bill last week which unfortunately we did not get to vote on because cloture was passed. This amendment says that under the TARP, if a bank wants to repay its TARP money that it has taken from the taxpayer, with all of the penalties and interests that are relevant, it can do that immediately whenever it wants, as long as it remains perfectly sound and meets all of the liquidity, safety, and soundness requirements that the normal regulators impose on those sorts of institutions. I think that is very commonsensical and straightforward. If a bank wants to repay with interest, why shouldn't it be able to leave the program? That is the guarantee and the promise that was made to banks when TARP was originally instituted. Yet several banks are trying to do that now and are getting a different story: No, no, no, no. This isn't your decision alone. This is our decision, the Government's decision, even if it doesn't impact the safety and soundness of your institution. Several folks in this institution mirror the concerns of citizens around the country. We are very concerned about the Federal Government getting ever more involved in the business of private business and institutions, in particular, of banks and financial institutions. This is a steady trend that began last September, and it is a very steady trend that the Government is becoming first a junior partner and seemingly a senior partner in more and more significant institutions in our private market. Now we see that it is expanding beyond banks and financial institutions into auto companies, insurance companies, and who knows what next. Certainly, with all of these legitimate concerns we have about that trend, it should be an established principle of the TARP that if a bank wants to repay the money fully with interest and if that repayment does not impact its safety and soundness, if they meet all of the liquidity requirements put on them by the Federal regulators, they should be able to do that. Yet they are not. They have not been able to do that. Some have. I am very proud to say that IberiaBank, headquartered in Lafayette, LA, was the first bank to apply for repayment and to actually give all of its TARP money back. I am very happy to say that was successfully done. They were followed by six other smaller or regional banks: the Bank of Maine, Bancorp, Old National Bancorp, Signature Bank, Sun Bancorp, Shore Bancshares, and Centra Financial Holding, Inc. All of those banks followed Iberia's lead and gave that money back. But more recently, unfortunately, the Federal Government has been singing a different tune and has said, Wait, wait. You can't decide this on your own. We are your new partner and we get to decide this, and we are going to decide it on our criteria, even if it is a perfectly reasonable and safe thing to do with regard to your liquidity and your safety and soundness. That exemplifies what so many of us are concerned about, about expanding government authority. Let me quote directly from Secretary Geithner. The Wall Street Journal reported an interview recently where he: indicated that the health of individual banks won't be the sole criteria for whether financial firms will be allowed to repay bailout funds. He also testified before Congress in the last few weeks and the bottom line of his testimony was: Stay tuned. We will give you guidelines on how to repay TARP funds in the future. We are not there yet, and we are not--we are certainly not willing to allow banks to make that decision. We are going to make that decision. I have to say it sort of reminds me of the analogy of businesses that are infiltrated by the mob and they have as their new senior partner the mafia, and all of a sudden, if they want to get out, it is no longer their choice. Their new big brother partner is going to make the calls and is going to decide: No, no, no. We have our claws into you. That is not changing anytime soon. Is that the new rule we want to establish for private market capitalism? Is that the amount of power and authority we want to give to the Federal Government over private institutions in the private sector? Even when they can repay the money and remain perfectly liquid, perfectly solvent, meeting all of the relevant safety and soundness criteria, do we want to say no, no, no, big brother government says no. We know best. I am very disturbed by this policy that my amendment is counterpoised to. It does suggest that big government knows best and that big government is going to make the call, apart from the interests of that particular private firm. If that firm meets liquidity requirements, meets all the safety and soundness regulations in sight, then they should be able to do whatever the heck they want to determine their own future, and that includes repaying their TARP money to the government. I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense, reasonable, pro-free market amendment. Amendment No. 1017 to Amendment No. 1018 Madam President, at this point I ask unanimous consent to set aside that amendment and call up the Vitter amendment No. 1017 to the underlying bill.

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I stand today to commend Governor Bobby Jindal, Louisiana State senator A. G. Crowe, and Louisiana resident Cindy Collins for their efforts in making April ``Abortion Recovery Awareness Month'' in Louisiana. I would like to take a few moments to remark on this important issue. I would also like to thank the following organizations for their efforts in helping to reduce abortions and fighting for the unborn. I thank Abortion Recovery International, Louisiana Abortion Recovery Alliance, Post Abortion Helpline of Louisiana, Rachel's Vineyard Louisiana, Pregnancy Resource Centers of Louisiana, National Abortion Recovery Helpline, Operation Outcry Louisiana, and Silent No More Awareness Louisiana. All human life is sacred, and I have worked hard in Congress to advance a culture of life, including banning partial-birth abortions, outlawing abortion drugs, fighting against taxpayer funding of abortions, and strongly supporting adoption and crisis pregnancy centers. I have always been adamant in my support of pro-life and pro- family measures in Congress, and groups and individuals like these are instrumental to these and other advances we have made in promoting a culture of life. Thus, today, I applaud Governor Bobby Jindal, State senator A. G. Crowe, Cindy Collins, and the many great organizations listed above for their efforts in making April ``Abortion Recovery Awareness Month'' in Louisiana.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending motion be set aside and that my motion be sent to the desk.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, a few weeks ago, when we debated the budget here on floor of the Senate, I passed language contained in section 202(a) of that budget resolution. This motion to instruct conferees is very simple. It says that we will fight to keep that language in the final budget resolution. What does that language do? Well, it is very simple. It says that this budget legislation `` . . . would not increase the cost of producing energy from domestic sources, including oil and gas from the Outer Continental Shelf or other areas; would not increase the cost of energy for American families; would not increase the cost of energy for domestic manufacturers, farmers, fishermen, or other domestic industries; and would not enhance foreign competitiveness against U.S. businesses.'' That is a pretty simple, straightforward plea, and it is one we should keep in this budget resolution--fight and demand to retain that language in our budget. That is why I ask all my colleagues to join me in supporting this motion to instruct. At a gut level, this is very simple. New taxes kill jobs. New taxes kill jobs. According to a preliminary estimate based on the Center for American Progress data, 271,000 oil and gas jobs would be destroyed by the administration's proposed new taxes and fees on energy. That would be a bad idea, in my opinion, at any time. But now, as we are in the midst of a horrible recession, which is still getting worse, it is a horrendous idea. Now is not the time to impose these new taxes on the economy, including the oil and gas industry. New taxes would hurt workers by extending the recession and by depressing job creation just as, hopefully, an economic recovery in the next several months starts to gain a foothold. The oil and gas industry is significant to our economy and employs more than 6 million fellow Americans. Attacking that industry in the midst of a horrible recession is attacking those 6 million of our fellow citizens. Right now, they feed their families, put a roof over their kids' heads because of good, solid jobs in the energy sector producing good, affordable energy for Americans. These proposed taxes would kill those jobs in the midst of a horrible recession. This is not brain surgery. We know from history, from practice, that higher taxes in this sector result directly in less domestic energy, and restrained supplies lead to higher energy costs for consumers too. So in today's economy, that would stifle recovery and make Americans more dependent on foreign oil and natural gas. New taxes will make it more expensive for oil and natural gas companies to expand or initiate new exploration and development programs, and that would mean fewer jobs for American workers. New taxes hurt businesses, threaten jobs, and they are then passed on to consumers as higher prices. And higher taxes are a burden felt throughout the economy. They discourage business expansion, investment, and job creation. Again, this is a very simple, basic, but important notion. This is no time to increase taxes on domestic energy production. This is no time to stifle what will hopefully soon become the beginnings of a recovery. In terms of our energy picture, this is no time to lessen domestic production when we should be moving in the opposite direction and increasing domestic production and independence from foreign sources. All of these energy tax proposals would do exactly that. Let's be clear about it. These proposals have been made. They are there in black and white. They are concrete. They are real proposals from the Obama administration and some liberal Members of Congress, and they fall into two big categories: No. 1, a very aggressive, ambitious cap-and-trade program, which is a tax on so many forms of energy and activity in our country; and No. 2, direct tax increase proposals on domestic oil and gas production. I don't believe any time is a good time to push that policy, but I would hope we can all agree that now, in the midst of a severe recession, which unfortunately is still getting worse, is really not the time to increase taxes on the domestic energy sector. It will cost us jobs, it will stifle a recovery, it will increase costs on consumers, and it will hurt American businesses and consumers. Madam President, let's all join in support of this language in the Senate version of the budget resolution. In our previous debate of a few weeks ago, it was adopted by unanimous consent. Let's make sure it is fought for and preserved in the final version of the budget resolution. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, in our original Senate debate on the budget, we passed by unanimous consent language that is in section 202(a) that we would not raise taxes on domestic energy production. That language says that our budget legislation ``would not increase the cost of producing energy from domestic sources, including oil and gas from the Outer Continental Shelf or other areas; it would not increase the cost of energy for American families; it would not increase the cost of energy for domestic manufacturers, farmers, fishermen or other domestic industries; and it would not enhance foreign competitiveness against U.S. businesses.'' This motion to instruct would say we need to keep that mandate in the final version of the budget. This is important because, unfortunately, the President has proposed tax increases in all those areas, and all those significant increases in domestic energy production are part of his budget proposal. It would be tremendously wrongheaded and would hurt Americans to increase taxes on energy, particularly now in the midst of a deep recession. I ask all my colleagues to support this motion to instruct, and I respectfully ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. VITTER

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

Mr. VITTER. Certainly.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It is regarding the TARP program, and it simply allows banks that want to repay taxpayer dollars back to the Government, back into the program, to do so. It is a pretty simple idea. It only allows it if the bank is going to be financially stable and meet all the applicable capital requirements without the money. Again, it is a pretty simple idea. Yet this amendment is clearly necessary in order to allow banks to do that without having Washington bureaucrats veto that decision, which should rest with those private financial institutions. As this body knows, I have been a cynic and critic of TARP from the very beginning. I voted against it last year under President Bush. Unfortunately, many of my greatest fears about its weaknesses and how it would develop have come to pass. But there is one recent trend with regard to the program that I find enormously promising, and that trend is that more and more banks that got the taxpayer money want to pay it back, want to exit the program and have nothing more to do with it as soon as possible. I am happy to say that positive trend was begun in Louisiana. It was begun by a significant Louisiana bank named Iberia Bank of Lafayette which became the first bank in the country to try to repay its TARP money. Of course, the Iberia Bank did eventually get to repay that money. The bank said that being a recipient of TARP funds, it realized, after some experience, placed it at an ``unacceptable competitive disadvantage.'' I think it is very important to underscore that this was not an issue of executive compensation or bonuses. Iberia Bank is in Lafayette, LA, not Wall Street, New York City, NY. It had nobody in its structure that would have been limited in terms of compensation by the rules Congress placed with regard to that. Executive compensation wasn't the issue with them at all. However, they feared a couple of things. They saw the increasing role of government in the boardroom of banks that had accepted TARP money, they saw what they considered a contract with regard to the TARP money between the bank and the taxpayer being unilaterally changed by Federal bureaucrats every week, and they saw that as a very clear building trend. So they decided they wanted out because they feared they were going to be more and more hamstrung by Federal bureaucrats and the government growing to become their senior partner, rather than as the original role of a junior partner. They saw the government becoming more and more involved in how their bank was run, and they wanted out. And as they said very directly, they then considered having the TARP funds as an ``unacceptable competitive disadvantage.'' Seven banks in all have reached that same conclusion and have been able to repay TARP funds to the program. That repayment has totaled about half a trillion. Iberia Bank of Lafayette, LA, was the first to start this trend, but they were followed by Bank of Maine Bankcorp, Old National Bankcorp, Signature Bank, Sun Bankcorp, Shore Bancshares, and Centra Financial Holding, Inc. All of these banks said: We want out. We think this is a real problem. The government is getting more and more into how we run our business. We want to repay and get out of the program. And these banks were allowed to repay TARP funds back to the government and withdraw from TARP. Mr. President, you might say: Well, if these banks were allowed to do it, what is the problem? The problem is that Secretary Geithner and the Treasury Department have made it clear that while they allowed repayment in those cases, they may well not allow it in other cases, particularly in the case of much larger institutions. Again, this is very clear from recent discussion and recent testimony from Secretary Geithner. In the last few days, Secretary Geithner has testified on Capitol Hill, and the main message from that testimony with regard to the ever evolving TARP program and how precisely it is going to be operated in the future is that we are not sure. We are not sure about guidelines for repayment. Stay tuned. On the one hand, the Secretary indicated a willingness to allow banks to repay, but at the same time, on the other hand, he indicated clearly that it will largely depend on the credit needs of the broader economy and not simply the health of that individual bank. Yesterday's Wall Street Journal confirmed exactly this, because it reported an interview with Secretary Geithner where he indicated ``that the health of individual banks won't be the sole criterion for whether financial firms will be allowed to repay bailout funds.'' So in other words, the Secretary is taking the position that he wants to maintain a veto over any repayment beyond the issue of whether that single bank, that particular financial institution, would be perfectly sound and healthy without holding on to that TARP money. I think that is unacceptable. I think that is offensive, in fact. That is a government bureaucrat saying: No, no, no, no. I know this is your business, but we know best. I know you have decided this is best for you, but we have a veto over this because of our general concerns about the broader economy. That is unacceptable. So again, we come back to my amendment--Vitter amendment No. 991-- which is necessary in light of this stance of Secretary Geithner and the Treasury Department. Again, my amendment is very simple. It ensures the immediate repayment of TARP funds for banks that want to repay, but only in a few circumstances. First, the government must be repaid everything it is owed. The government has to be repaid everything it is owed, although it does prohibit the government from requiring a company to repurchase its warrants. My amendment also ensures that TARP recipients be well capitalized, meet all the soundness and safety and capitalization liquidity requirements after the repayment. So my amendment wouldn't allow a repayment if that repayment would sink a bank to a position of not being well capitalized, of not meeting the normal capitalization liquidity requirements to ensure safety and soundness. Those requirements are spelled out by the regulators, as they have always been. So my amendment does not threaten that at all. It requires that those capitalization requirements be adhered to and a repayment only happen if the bank meets those capitalization and liquidity requirements after the repayment. I hope this amendment not only passes but gets overwhelming bipartisan support. After all, why shouldn't it? This amendment is simply saying that a private business will be in control of its own destiny; that a private business can pay back TARP money, with interest, with everything that is required to the government, if it decides that is the best thing for that business to do, as long as that repayment does not affect the safety and soundness of the institution and make it dip below already established guidelines with regard to capitalization and liquidity. Again, I believe this idea and this amendment should not only pass, it should have overwhelming bipartisan support because it seems to me those who oppose this amendment--presumably including Secretary Geithner--have to be saying one of two things, or maybe both: No. 1, they have to be saying, in a very arrogant way: No, we know better. No, you may run your business, you may be aware of all aspects of it, but we know better so we have to have a veto, or they have to be saying and acting on the basis of: We are now involved in your business. You have the government as a dominant partner, and we are not going to let go because letting go means loss of power and control as well as your repaying the money. I encourage all of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to come together and support this very reasonable commonsense amendment. Banks that can afford to repay the TARP money and that want to repay the TARP money certainly should have the absolute unquestioned right to repay the TARP money. It is as simple as that. We shouldn't stand here on the Senate floor or in the Department of the Treasury and say: No, we know better. And we certainly shouldn't stand here on the Senate floor or in the Department of the Treasury and say: No, the government has now sunk its claws into you and we are not letting go. We like the control. We like the takeover. We like the authority and we are not giving that up. That is a very dangerous statement for the government to get out, and it is quite frankly what so many Americans are fearful of--that these emergency measures in the midst of the financial crisis are really a dramatic, long-term expansion of the authority and role of the Federal Government in the free market. With that, Mr. President, I look forward to further debate and a vote on this amendment tomorrow. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up the Vitter amendment No. 991.

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, today I wish to recognize and pay tribute to the heroic men and women of the Police Social Services Section, PSS, of Lafourche Parish, LA, for their victim advocacy, courage, Federal leadership, and professional innovation in victim services. I would like to take some time to make a few remarks on their tireless efforts and work on behalf of crime victims. National Crime Victims' Rights Week will be observed from April 26 to May 2, 2009. This year marks the 25th anniversary of the passage of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, which created the Office for Victims of Crime and is responsible for nearly $7 billion in support for crime victim compensation, assistance, and other programs that serve victims. On Thursday, April 23, Attorney General Holder will preside over a national candlelight observance and will join victims, victim advocates, criminal justice professionals, and members of the public to remember crime victims and reflect on progress made in improving victims' rights. On Friday, April 24, the PSS of Lafourche Parish will receive the Award for Professional Innovation in Victim Services. Team members include: LT. Karla S. Beck, Ms. Deanna Dufrene, SGT. Valerie Day, Deputy Dale Savoie, Deputy Walter Tenney, Deputy Delaune Boudreaux, Advocate Tamera Joseph, Deputy Rebecca Shaver, Deputy Amy Guillot, Deputy Pam Guedry, and Reservist Bernard Lafaso. The team is unique in their innovative and significant efforts on behalf of victim services. The PSS Elderly Services Officer is a devoted, full-time, extensive case manager, visiting the local nursing home and community Council on Aging groups to provide assistance, services, and education to older victims, their family members and caregivers. They also implemented the Crime Victims with Disabilities Program to address victims with disabilities, and also developed a model curriculum, ``Beyond the Barriers: Crisis Intervention Training,'' that has been used to educate law enforcement personnel throughout Louisiana. They were also awarded a grant in 2007 to establish Supervised Visitation Centers--a safe space for children to transition from one parent to another. Due to PSS, the Sherriff's Office has received numerous awards and national and State recognition. PSS started with one full-time deputy and one volunteer. Today, PSS has 12 full-time deputies, two auxiliary deputies, two volunteers, and administrative support, all of whom work together to improve the lives of victims in the aftermath of crime. Today, I applaud the Lafourche Parish Sheriff's Office for being honored by the Department of Justice for their victim advocacy and thank them for their continued service to the people of Louisiana and the rest of the Nation.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, the program which Secretary Geithner has actually announced about toxic assets is protected even under my amendment. What my amendment says is that we are not any longer going to allow the Treasury to do other things on an ad hoc basis, making it up as they go along every week. In the process, we would reduce the debt of this country by at least $136 billion under this amendment. I urge support for the amendment.

Mr. VITTER. I offer the amendment at this point.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I now present the Vitter amendment. It is very simple. It says that the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, will actually be about troubled asset relief. It returns the other money not reserved for troubled asset relief to the Treasury for debt reduction, $136 billion of debt reduction. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 937.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the reading of the amendment.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I don't understand what is mean spirited about not giving tax money to folks who have drug problems and about trying to get them help, which is the first and most important thing we can do to actually help them. I urge broad bipartisan support for this commonsense amendment.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It advances the policy of drug testing for welfare or TANF recipients. If a recipient were to test positive, they would get treatment. If they tested positive again, then and only then would they be denied the benefit. Under no circumstances, would the children of that beneficiary be denied the children's benefit because they, of course, would not be a guilty party in any way. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 751.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the reading of the amendment.

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