David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, next after this amendment is my amendment. It would return TARP funds not already out the door, except for the $100 billion set aside for buying toxic assets, which is exactly what TARP was supposed to be about. But it ends everything else and invites the Obama administration to come back to us regarding other programs. The Reed amendment reaffirms TARP as it has been executed. So if you like everything that has been done under TARP and how it has been done, that model and program changing every other week, vote for the Reed amendment and reaffirm TARP as it is. If you think a change and focus needs to be brought to TARP, vote for the Vitter amendment, which is next.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to present two amendments to the budget resolution. They will be made in order and voted on tomorrow. The first is amendment No. 751. The idea behind that is very simple but important. It is to protect against what many of us fear, which is significant energy tax increases that will hit consumers, manufacturers, farmers, many others in our economy and hurt them as we are trying to recover from this crippling recession. Specifically, my amendment would add language to what is currently in the budget resolution in the area of the deficit-neutral reserve fund to invest in clean energy and preserve the environment. In that section of the budget resolution, my amendment would simply insert language that it 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 industry, and would not enhance foreign competitiveness against U.S. businesses.'' No one in this body--in fact, no one across America I know of--has a problem with efforts to invest in clean energy and to preserve the environment. There is no debate there. What we have a problem with is when we come up to Washington and get in this stale either/or debate--either it is that or it is traditional oil and gas, as if the two have to be at constant loggerheads and as if we do not have to produce under both of those headings very aggressively to get out of the energy deficit we are in. I believe in new alternative renewable energy. I believe in new technology. But I also believe in traditional energy sources as an absolutely necessary bridge to get us to that future. That gives rise to my amendment. I think it is crucial that we reject those aspects of the Obama budget which would tax traditional energy such as oil and gas, put an enormous burden on those providers in Louisiana and many other places around the country--folks who provide good, reliable energy domestically for our Nation right now--and I believe it would be a similar mistake to adopt whole hog in its present form the President's climate change proposals which would also place heavy taxes and heavy cost increases on energy consumers. Now, where am I pulling this from? I am pulling it from the President's own budget proposals, his concrete, specific proposals on climate change and taxing domestic energy, and I am pulling it specifically from what he has laid out in terms of movement in that direction. Perhaps the single clearest expression we have in that regard is a statement the President made about his cap-and-trade proposals in January of 2008 as he was in the midst of his Presidential campaign. He was speaking about cap and trade. He was very straightforward, very clear, and said: Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket regardless of what I say . . . that will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers. Electricity costs, energy costs, not just increasing at the margin but skyrocketing. Unfortunately, the President has followed through on that promise with regard to his specific climate change and energy proposals. When you look at his budget, they, in fact, ensure this sort of skyrocketing, both in terms of climate change proposals, which this quote directly refers to, but also in terms of producing traditional energy here in this country in areas of oil and gas. The President of the United States has laid out significant tax increases on domestic energy. This would cost real jobs here and now. It would be a significant antistimulus, and it would hamper domestic production exactly when we need it the most. Let me repeat--let me back up and repeat--I support investment in new technology. I support development of new alternative and particularly renewable forms of energy, and I have cast many votes in support, in furtherance of that goal. But it is not either/or. It has to be all of the above because we need to build that new energy future based on new renewable sources and new technology, but we also need to get there, and we also need the bridge to get there, which includes traditional energy, produced in this country, particularly natural gas, also oil, so we can cross that bridge, get to the future, without bankrupting ourselves in the process. It is interesting, just as we are still apparently caught up in this stale either/or debate and we are attacking and taxing and burdening domestic oil and gas production, it is interesting that our neighbor to the north, Canada, is doing exactly the opposite. They are doing exactly the positive thing I am talking about by encouraging both--by encouraging new renewable forms of energy and at the same time encouraging domestic production of oil and gas. Specifically, in early March of this year, March 3, the government of Alberta announced a new three-point incentive program specifically designed to help keep Albertans working in the province's energy sector during the current global economic slowdown. The highlights of the three-point plan include a drilling royalty credit for new conventional oil and natural gas wells; a new well incentive program, which offers a maximum 5-percent royalty rate for the first year of production from new oil or gas wells; and to encourage the cleanup of inactive oil and gas wells, the province will invest $30 million in a fund committed to abandoning and reclaiming old well sites. Those are exactly the sort of incentives in present law that the President would get rid of. Those are exactly the sort of areas where President Obama proposes moving in the opposite direction with tax increases which are disincentives for much needed domestic production. To quote the Canadian Energy Minister, Mel Knight, on this announcement of their policy: While we cannot make up for the impact that global financial markets are having on Alberta, we are doing what we can. This short-term incentive program introduces innovative ways to help spur activity in our energy drilling and service sector during this economic downturn. That is exactly the sort of approach we should be taking here in this country. Yes, let's invest in new technology. Yes, let's develop new sources of energy, new and renewable. But at the same time, let's maintain and expand the domestic production of oil and gas as that bridge to the future, as that bridge to that new energy future that will take some time to build. Unfortunately, our President is moving in the opposite direction. He is proposing to levy significant tax increases on domestic oil and gas production. That is bad for our energy security, and it is a major antistimulus which will keep us in recession even longer. So, again, my amendment No. 751 is very simple. It would simply add to the relevant part of the budget resolution the following language, that it: 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. . . . I commend that amendment to all of my colleagues, Democratic and Republican. Secondly, Madam President, I will also formally present and have a vote on a second amendment tomorrow, amendment No. 787. Amendment No. 787 has to do with the TARP program, the so-called Troubled Asset Relief Program. Again, it is very simple. It would simply say, except for the TARP money which is already out the door and except for the $100 billion that is committed to the Treasury's newest plan to buy up toxic assets--which was the original point all along--with those two exceptions, the remainder of the TARP money will be returned to the taxpayer and bring down the debt, will reduce the debt. That is a significant amount of money. The entire TARP program, of course, is $750 billion. So far, approximately $371 billion is out the door. It would also create an exception under my amendment for $100 billion for this newly announced program of troubled assets. The remainder would go to buy down debt, not increase as much this horrendous debt we are on the road to doubling and tripling under this budget. That would save literally hundreds of billions of dollars. I daresay, of all of the myriad dozens and dozens of budget amendments we will be asked to consider and vote on, this probably saves the most money, reduces debt the most. If it is not No. 1, it is very close to that. CBO says they would expect us to never recoup all of that TARP money we are sending out the door. They are guesstimating we will only recoup half of that. So building that into the formula, this amendment will save hundreds of billions of dollars. But there is another even more important reason to adopt this amendment; that is, to get back to the original intent of the TARP program and not allow it to continue to be used for a slush fund--first by the Bush administration, now by the Obama administration--for every random idea they develop every other week. As we know, that is exactly the history of this fund and this program. It was proposed specifically to allow the Treasury to buy up troubled assets, to get those off the books of the troubled banks, and that is how it was sold to the Congress, 100 percent lock, stock, and barrel. In fact, Secretary Paulson, at the time, specifically said he did not want to, did not think it was a good idea to invest directly in troubled institutions and get preferred stock. Congress, without my vote, passed the program. Then, within a few weeks, literally within a few weeks of that passage, everything changed. The original troubled asset program model was thrown out the window and the Treasury started doing exactly what Secretary Paulson said it should not do, exactly what he had previously rejected by directly infusing capital into banks and taking preferred stock. Since then, there have been at least five other uses of the TARP program which have been imagined and instituted by, really, executive fiat because the underlying legislation has not changed at all. Then we finally came around full circle this past month under the new Obama administration. Secretary Geithner said: Gee, why don't we use TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, to actually buy up troubled assets? What a novel idea. It was the original idea. I guess if you go round and round often enough, you will eventually come back to where you started. And that is the new program that the Secretary said would take $100 billion. My amendment, again, is simple. It says the money that is out the door is out the door. We cannot do anything about that, unfortunately. And we will reserve the $100 billion for that newly announced program, which was the original intent, sole intent of TARP. But everything else--everything else that was imagined and that TARP was used and abused to authorize since it was first passed--everything else has to stop. If the new administration thinks some of these things are necessary ideas, great; they should come back to Congress and get real and proper and appropriate authority for that activity, which TARP never was. In doing so, in adopting this sort of amendment, we will save the taxpayer and reduce the debt several hundred billion dollars, well over $150 billion by any estimate. If we want to get serious about the debt, if we want to heed the call of the American people to control that runaway deficit and debt, this is the single biggest thing we can do in sight to do that to begin to turn the corner. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. In contrast, voting against this amendment will essentially be a vote for everything Treasury has done and continues to do outside the original stated intent of the TARP program. I believe that is a very bad vote, both on the substance and in terms of where the American people rightly are. I commend both of these amendments to all my colleagues. I look forward to further debate and voting on them as we proceed on the budget resolution tomorrow. I thank the Chair. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, my amendment is very simple and straightforward. While it may on the face of it appear narrow, it actually goes to the center of this debate and to a central concern a lot of folks sincerely have about this bill. What does my amendment do? My amendment simply states that no money in this program can go to ACORN or any of its affiliate organizations in any way. As I say, on the face of it, that seems like a very specific, very focused amendment, and it is. We are talking about one organization that has done an enormous amount of suspect political activity in the past about which many people in this Chamber--more importantly, many people around the country--have deep reservations. The amendment also goes to the heart of this debate, and the heart of this debate is whether this new Federal bureaucracy would, in effect, politicize charitable activity around the country, which we certainly do not want. I believe this is a very simple test about that central question, and I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment--Democrats and Republicans--to pass this simple test and to say: No, this is more proof that we are not going to allow this program to politicize charitable giving and charitable activity around the country. As I say, this is a very simple, basic test of that question. The proponents of this bill say this is about furthering charitable activity, this is about leveraging charitable activity, expanding that, not politicizing it, not bringing it under Government control. Surely, if we are serious about that, if we are serious about having mainstream consensus support for that, surely ACORN cannot be part of the picture. Surely none of ACORN's affiliate organizations can be part of this funding given recent history. Some proponents of this bill will immediately jump up and say we don't need this amendment because there cannot be political activity funded in this program. For me, just speaking for myself, that isn't good enough. That assurance does not nearly cover the waterfront of my concerns with regard to ACORN because ACORN has always done both hyperpolitical activity, such as their fraudulent voter registration drives last fall, and has also done what they characterize as pure charitable activity. To fund the latter, to pour millions or even tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer funding into ACORN so-called charitable activity is certainly to underwrite the organization and certainly to support indirectly, if not directly, their very politicized activity with which so many folks in this Chamber and around the country have deep problems. This is not a theoretical concern. This is proven out in practice that it is a legitimate concern. First of all, this bill authorizes major Federal spending--$5.7 billion over 5 years. Second, we know from practice, from history, from clear concrete example that ACORN is in the business of trying to get lots of taxpayer money to underwrite its activity, including through so-called nonpolitical projects. ACORN has received significant funding directly from the Federal Government. Their so-called charitable affiliates have received conservatively over $31 million of taxpayer dollars from 1998 to 2007. In 2008 alone, the next year, ACORN affiliates received almost $10 million in Federal taxpayer funding. This includes numerous subgrants, indirect funding to ACORN from the Federal Government. Over $7 million was awarded to the ACORN Housing Corporation, AHC, in 2008, from the National Foreclosure Mitigation Program administered by NeighborWorks America. Almost $800,000 was awarded to ACORN by the Fannie Mae Foundation from 1992 to 2004. And, of course, these are just two examples. There are many more. Just speaking for myself, for proponents of the bill to say this is not an issue, this is not a problem because we prohibit political activity in this pot of money, in this Federal program, that is not nearly enough reassurance for me. We have seen from actual practice, from actual history that ACORN can reap millions, tens of millions of taxpayer dollars through their so-called charitable affiliates. Why do I have a problem with that? Because clearly that money underwrites ACORN in general and supports all of their activities, including their very political and, in many cases, fraudulent voter registration activities. We all know the stories from the past campaign, the registering of thousands of voters who were either asked to register multiple times by ACORN or who were voters being registered without their knowledge or registering voters who outright did not exist. That was a common and documented practice of this organization. For instance, the St. Petersburg Times in Florida reported that ACORN tried to register Mickey Mouse in that jurisdiction. In July 2008, at least three ACORN workers were convicted of voter fraud in Kansas City. One is awaiting trial. These ACORN workers in Kansas City flooded voter registration rolls with over 35,000 false or questionable registration forms. In March 2008, an ACORN worker was sentenced in Berks County, PA, to 146 days to 23 months for making 29 phony voter registration forms in order to collect a cash bonus. And in Washington, felony charges were filed against several paid employees and supervisors of ACORN. Over 1,700 fraudulent registrations turned in by the employees were revoked in one of the largest instances of voting fraud in the United States. This is documented. This happened. If we caught these instances, if we prevented these instances of fraud, how many more slipped through the cracks and proceeded on to the voter registration rolls? The question is very simple: Are we going to create this new Federal program, $5.7 billion of authorization, that could either directly or indirectly fund organizations such as ACORN? Right now, under the current version of this bill, that could absolutely happen. If this bill passes into law, my prediction is it would absolutely happen. My amendment with regard to ACORN would stop that because it is very simple, it is very direct. There are no ifs, ands, or buts. None of the money could go to ACORN or any of its affiliate organizations. None of the money could support ACORN activities directly or indirectly. That is the reassurance a lot of us need, that this is not an attempt to politicize volunteer activity, this is not an attempt to put the Federal Government and whoever its political masters are at the time in charge of directing volunteer activity across our Nation. In the 19th century, a Frenchman visited America and wrote a very significant book about it. That was de Tocqueville, and the book was ``Democracy in America.'' The fundamental thing he observed in all of his travels, as documented in that important book, was that America is great because America is good. In saying that, he wasn't talking about Government and he wasn't talking about what we do in Congress or what any level of government does around the country. He was talking about individual citizens banding together in local communities across our land to address real needs to help neighbors, to help feed hungry people, to help meet important community priorities in a purely voluntary way, the civic-mindedness of individual Americans creating these purely voluntary organizations. He said that was the most significant reason for America's greatness, which had to do with the goodness of its people and that activity which is more vital here than in any other country in the world. I am concerned about putting Government more in charge of that activity. I am concerned about politicizing that aspect of our country which is so fundamental to our historic greatness. My amendment is a very simple but I think important test about whether this bill could threaten that. If we are serious about avoiding that at all costs, then surely a large majority of this body--Democrats and Republicans--will come together, adopt this amendment, and take that threat with regard to ACORN off the table. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 705.

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

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, my amendment is very simple. It says no money under this program could go to ACORN or any of its affiliates. Although it is about that one organization, I think the amendment goes to the heart of this debate. A lot of us are concerned this bill could politicize and put too much Government involvement in charitable work across the country. Some folks may like ACORN, other folks may not, but nobody can argue that ACORN isn't at its core political and ideological. It should not get money under this program. The language in the bill that says you can't do political activity with the money clearly isn't good enough, because ACORN and other very political and ideological groups would simply have charitable offshoots that could accept the money and be underwritten indirectly in that way. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. VITTER

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

Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent the majority's remaining time be preserved and I be allowed to proceed with remarks under the minority time.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise again to discuss the issue of automatic pay raises for Members of Congress. As I said in our debate on the omnibus spending bill last week, I think this system of automatic pay raises--pay raises for Members of Congress on autopilot, without the need for any legislation, any debate, any vote--is truly wrong and truly offensive. I believe it is in the best of times, but I believe it is triply wrong and offensive right now as Americans all over our country, who have to work hard in the real world, face dire economic challenges and conditions. I rise again to urge us to act, to do the right thing, to rebuild confidence among the American people by changing this system and no longer having automatic pay raises for Members of Congress. I proposed doing this as an amendment on the Omnibus appropriations bill. After some difficulty in getting my amendment even recognized and debated and voted on, I finally was able to do that and we had a meaningful debate. We had a vote. It was a close vote. Unfortunately, from my perspective, I fell a little bit short in terms of agreeing to the amendment. It was defeated 52 to 45. But in that process we did have an important debate and several other Members came forward and expressed support for the concept--most notably the majority leader, Senator Reid. In fact, the very day after I finally secured a debate and a vote on my amendment, the day after that Senator Reid introduced his own freestanding bill to get rid of automatic pay raises, at least after the next one scheduled, and to do away with that process. Obviously, I completely agree with that concept. That is the whole impetus for my work, along with Senator Feingold of Wisconsin and my other coauthors, Senator Ensign and Senator Grassley. During the debate on this issue, Senator Reid went further. He spoke on the floor in support of this effort. He said several things: I agree with Senator Vitter that cost-of-living adjustments for Members of Congress should not be automatic. That is why I introduced a freestanding bill last week that would do just that. In addition, in the same time on the floor, Senator Reid said: If there are people who don't want to agree to this tonight, assuming the Senator from Louisiana is that person, I will bring it up some other time. I am committed to doing this. Again: I will bring it up some other time. I am committed to doing this. I objected to bringing that freestanding bill up then because it clearly would have drained votes in support of my amendment away from my amendment and helped defeat it. In fact, we saw how close that vote was. But now that that vote is over, I applaud Senator Reid for his offer: I will bring it up some other time. I am committed to doing this. I am here to say that this time, right now, these next 2 weeks, is a perfect ``some other time.'' We are clearly in a bit of a lull in terms of floor activity, this week and next week, before we begin an important debate on the budget. The majority leader is looking for things to take up our floor time. We are clearly in a light period. So what better ``some other time'' than right here, right now? In that spirit, and in the spirit of cooperation to move forward, I sent the majority leader a letter last Thursday and I expressed these thoughts and I asked him to bring up his freestanding bill, or mine, or any freestanding bill to end pay raises for Members of Congress being on autopilot on the Senate floor as soon as possible. As I pointed out, this clearly has support to move this through the process, through the Senate in the near future. It does not have unanimous support. Any issue such as this never would have unanimous support. But it has the support of over 60 Members of this body. Why do I say that? It is simple math. On the vote on my amendment I obtained 45 ``yes'' votes. In addition to those 45 votes, there were 20 Members, including the distinguished majority leader, who voted against my amendment, saying that the only reason they were doing that was to not burden the omnibus spending bill with the amendment. They said on the record, they are for the concept and Senator Reid introduced a freestanding bill in this body and he has coauthors to that freestanding bill in that number--20. It is simple math. If you add 45 and 20 you come up with 65, well over a filibuster-proof number, well over the 60 votes required to not only move this bill through the Senate but move it through in a fairly expedited, efficient, quick process. The perfect time is now. We are clearly in 2 weeks of relative lull before the debate on the budget. The majority leader clearly is looking for important business to bring to the floor, particularly since cram- down and other issues are not being brought to the floor this week as planned. What better time to come together in a bipartisan way, to rebuild the confidence of the American people and to get this done, passing it through the Senate. Again: I will bring it up some other time. I am committed to doing this. The distinguished majority leader. Again I ask the majority leader in a spirit of bipartisanship, of cooperation, of reestablishing the confidence of the American people in Congress by doing away with this offensive practice--pay raises on autopilot without debate, without legislation, without a vote, without even a line item in an appropriations bill which we can try to change through amendment--let's change that wrong and offensive practice. I urge the distinguished majority leader to look at my letter of last Thursday, to consider it carefully, to understand that we have established through his bill, through my vote, 65 votes in support of doing away with this on the Senate floor. So let's act. With 65 votes we can act, we can be successful, and we can do it in a very efficient manner. What better time to do it than right now? I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to applaud the action the Senate took by unanimous consent, passing my language to get rid of the automatic pay raises for Members of Congress through the Senate. I thank Senator Reid for joining in this effort after my amendment was made in order on the Omnibus appropriations bill. I thank everyone who cooperated in passing this by unanimous consent. I was happy to give that consent for my part since my vote on an amendment on another bill was no longer at stake, so it wouldn't drain votes away from my amendment. We did come together to do that, and we did pass this through the Senate. Obviously, this is a bicameral legislature so the story is not over. I encourage everyone to come together and encourage--no, do more than encourage--pressure the House of Representatives to do the right thing and pass this reform. The last week has proven what can be changed when we come together and listen to the voice of the people. A week ago this wasn't on radar. This was not a possibility. Today it has passed the Senate. How did that happen? It happened because we brought up the issue. We came together. I joined with Senator Feingold, who has been an advocate of this issue for some time. We had an open debate. The people's voices from around the country were heard, and we reacted to that in a positive way. I say that because it proves what can happen in the House. The House leadership has made clear they don't want to bring up this matter. They certainly don't want to pass this bill into law. But we can change that, even more than that, the American people can change that and call their House Members and demand that the leadership have a fair vote and pass this into law. I thank Senator Reid for changing his language from last week and adopting mine so there would be no further automatic pay raises in the near future, if this bill is adopted. Under his standalone bill filed last week, there would have been at least one more autopilot automatic pay raise to go into effect. Under my original language, which he adopted in this latest version which just passed through the Senate by unanimous consent, that is not the case. It would change the autopilot automatic pay raise system immediately. That was an important and necessary correction on his part. I thank him for making that correction. We are on a bipartisan roll. Let's keep it up. Let's bring that spirit, that public debate, let's bring that public pressure to the House of Representatives. When the people are involved and when their voice is heard, it is amazing what can change around here and what can get done. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the St. Catherine of Siena girls' varsity cheerleaders for being named the 2009 National Champions at the National High School Cheerleading Championship held in Orlando, FL, on February 8. I would like to take a few moments to congratulate them on their tireless efforts to bring their school and our State success. The event was held at the Walt Disney World Resort and is produced by the Universal Cheerleaders Association. It is the most prestigious event for cheerleaders. Close to 8,000 of the Nations top cheerleaders from 400 teams in 33 States were invited to participate in the competition, including St. Catherine of Siena. The St. Catherine squad is under the direction of Sandy Spitale and Debra L'Hoste and includes 22 students from the fifth, sixth, and seventh grades. Its members are Lauren Artigues, Ashley Barbier, Brooke Caldwell, Caroline Caldwell, Kaitlyn Coman, Elizabeth Cousins, Claire Crumb, Elise Delahoussaye, Rachel Douglass, Tiffany Forest, Callie Frey, Thia Le, Krista Liljeberg, Kelli Murphy, Allie Nicaud, Tessa Norris, Rachael Poissenot, Jessica Pottinger, Sophia Serpas, Kelsey Singletary, Kyla Szubinski, and Victoria Varisco. They were the only team from Louisiana to take home the title this year. In addition to their impressive competitive skills, the SCS cheerleading squad also actively participates in community events through the year and represents the youth of the Greater New Orleans Area proudly. They have received numerous Leadership and Community Service Awards for their involvement in various volunteer programs. Thus, today I congratulate these young ladies on their accomplishments as a competitive team and also as young leaders in their community.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. People do need our help and the people are watching. So if you want to change the law that puts our pay raises on autopilot while they suffer, that system, not pass on it one year but change that law, vote for this amendment. If you want to kill that concept, vote against the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. VITTER. Well, certainly I agree with the distinguished majority leader on one point: there is movement on this issue. Just 12 hours after I was finally able to secure a vote on my amendment, after being blocked at every turn for a week, the majority leader himself adopted the cause and introduced, out of the blue, a stand-alone amendment. I wish he had been with his colleague, Senator Feingold, on this issue since at least the year 2000, when Senator Feingold has had legislation on the topic. I applaud Senator Feingold for that. But, again, I renew my objection because I think this stand-alone bill is nothing more than cover, nothing more than something to point to, when it will not be taken up on the floor of the House. I would be happy to lift my objection to the majority leader's stand-alone bill if the Speaker of the House publicly commits to a vote of his bill on the House floor in the very near future.

Mr. VITTER. Reserving the right to object, again, unfortunately, the same game is at work. I would object. I would also be happy to lift my objection if the Speaker of the House would offer a public commitment to give Senator Reid's bill a vote on the House floor in the near future.

Mr. VITTER. There is objection.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, in this economy there are millions of Americans who are seeing their savings dwindle to nothing, who are losing their jobs, their homes. Yet they also see, as recently as last January 1, Members of Congress getting an automatic pay raise, in that instance $4,700. It is wrong. The system that has these pay raises on autopilot is wrong. We should have full, open debates and votes. That is what my amendment would ensure. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I believe the way to actually get this done, to actually pass this into law, is to include it in a must-pass bill, such as the appropriations bill before us, not to point to a stand-alone to give people cover for votes; a bill that would not be taken up on the floor of the House. So in that regard I would simply ask the majority leader, does he have a commitment from the Speaker of the House that his bill will be given a vote on the House floor in the near future?

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I take the floor to give a little background, important background on the amendment I will call up later today. That Vitter amendment would do away with the system that is now in place under the law whereby Members of Congress get automatic pay increases annually without any open debate and without any open, clear rollcall vote. Madam President, I have to say, Americans--certainly Louisianans in my State--are frustrated about a lot that is going on in Washington and in Congress. They are frustrated about the direction of the country, about runaway spending, about bailouts, but they are also frustrated with how we in Congress often seem to do our business. They are not frustrated so much with disagreement. People can have legitimate disagreements, vast differences in points of view and philosophy and approaches to issues. What they are most frustrated about is pure partisanship for partisanship's sake, political games, and a cynical approach to doing what should be the people's business in the Halls of Congress. Unfortunately, a lot of voters and citizens in Louisiana and across the country are going to view some of the maneuvering and some of the political strategizing over attempts to defeat my amendment in that light, and they are certainly going to consider it more of the same. What am I talking about? Well, we have a big omnibus spending bill on the floor of the Senate, and last week the majority leader took great pains to say--including from his spot on the floor several times--we are going to have an open amendment process; that the floor is open for business, it is open for amendments. He invited Members to come on down. We will consider them. We are moving forward and taking care of amendments, having votes, and getting back to the proper procedure of the Senate. I was excited to hear that because I had an amendment I very much wanted to call up for debate and a vote. The problem is, when I tried to do that, both through staff and individually, we were blocked every step of the way. At every turn, my amendment would never be put in order. It was never allowed to be called up, and I was never allowed to get that vote on this pay raise amendment. Thursday night, that changed, and it changed for one simple reason: The majority leader needed to cancel a vote. He needed 60 votes for cloture. He didn't have the votes, as he explained from his podium. To cancel that vote, under the rules of the Senate, he needed unanimous consent--the consent of each and every Member of this body. Well, I took the opportunity--after a week of being frustrated and blocked and hemmed in at every turn from getting a vote on my amendment--to say very simply, in a straightforward way: I will be happy to grant that unanimous consent request with regard to my role in this if--if and only if--I will finally be guaranteed a vote on my amendment. The majority leader had to agree, and he did agree. So here we are today, the following week, debating the Vitter pay raise amendment to stop pay raises on autopilot. This will finally lead to a vote. But as soon as that vote was scheduled, a sort of funny thing happened. The next day the majority leader introduced his own bill, coauthored by the entire Democratic leadership, which would do the same thing. Now, if I thought I had gained that many enthusiastic converts to the cause, I would be excited. But even though I was born at night, I wasn't born last night. I know--and every observer to the process knows--something else is going on. The something else is simple: The majority leader filed his own bill regarding automatic pay raises simply to be able to point to it and say: I am offering this bill, we can push this forward through this vehicle, and therefore you must vote against the Vitter amendment to the omnibus spending bill. Again, I think the American people are going to be frustrated by the maneuvering and the cynical political games. I think they want a full, straightforward open debate. I think they want to hear where people are coming from. If folks support this idea of changing and doing away with automatic pay raises--pay raises on autopilot and no debate, no votes, they just happen every year--then I think they are going to want to see those Members vote for the Vitter amendment on the floor of this body today. Quite frankly, I think it is a cynical maneuver to point to a bill that will never pass, that is controlled by individuals who don't want the measure to pass, in order to defeat an amendment that can pass and that can be the vehicle for this important change and reform. So I would encourage all Members to support the Vitter amendment, to support the idea in the form in which it can actually be passed into law. This is a must-pass bill. This is an appropriations bill--something to fund this part of the Government. Something has to pass within the next several days. In this bill--in the original version of this bill-- the pay raise issue is already there. It is a perfectly germane and natural amendment to the bill and agrees with my provision to do away with automatic pay raises. Nothing could be more natural than to debate the issue on this bill, to offer this amendment on this bill, and it is the legitimate and appropriate and effective way if we actually do want to pass this into law. The way to never pass it into law is to have a stand-alone straw man; to point to a separate bill that will never be passed, certainly in the House. Now, I expect what will happen is, the majority leader will not only point to this stand-alone bill, but he will actually ask unanimous consent that it be passed through the Senate and sent down the road to the House in the process. Well, that would be very promising if there was any hope whatsoever that the Speaker of the House and the House leadership would take up the matter and put it on the House floor. So I would ask the majority leader and the Speaker of the House if they have had those discussions. Is there a commitment to putting any stand- alone bill passed through the Senate on the House floor for a vote in the very near future? If there is that commitment, I would love to hear that expressed publicly, clearly, and in a straightforward way, and then that would rebut my argument that this is all a cynical, political game. I am afraid we are not going to hear those assurances. We are not going to hear that public commitment because I am afraid what is swirling around my amendment is a cynical political game. Let us treat the people's business the way it should be treated. Let us come to the floor, let us express our opinions. If we have legitimate differences of opinion, let us express them and let us debate them. But let us do it in that straightforward way and then let us have a vote on the Vitter amendment--the amendment that would do away with automatic pay raises-- which is the true effective way to pass this reform into law on a must- pass appropriations bill. I urge all my colleagues to come to the floor in that spirit. I urge all my colleagues to express themselves and wherever they are coming from in that straightforward way, in that straightforward spirit and not to drop in stand-alone bills the day after I was finally able to secure a vote on this matter, particularly when this proposal--thanks to my good friend, Senator Russ Feingold--has been around at least since the year 2000, 9 years. Neither the majority leader nor any of his Democratic leadership who are cosponsors to his brand new bill have ever reached out to Senator Feingold to express support and join him in supporting his bill, which, as I say, has been around since the year 2000. I am now happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Iowa.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I thank my colleague from Iowa. I thank him for all of his leadership on this issue for several years. I also recognize again the leadership of our cosponsors of the amendment, Senator Feingold and Senator Ensign. Others will join us, but I ask all colleagues to support this amendment when we present it and vote on it tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, is on his way to the floor to discuss the same issue I will be discussing, so in light of that, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following my remarks he be recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 20 minutes instead of my initial 15.

Mr. VITTER. I stand to discuss my amendment to the omnibus spending bill, No. 621. My amendment would do something very simple and straightforward but important. It would change the present system which has been on the books since 1989 that puts annual pay raises for Members of Congress on autopilot, so there never has to be any inconvenient debate, any inconvenient votes whatsoever. They happen automatically. No votes. In fact, there is not even a line item in the appropriations bills about it. My amendment would change that, would end that law to require that any pay raise for Members of Congress, House or Senate, would have to be debated in open before the public and then be followed by a rollcall vote. I am honored to be joined by several Senators who support this idea and who have long tried to advance it. Senator Feingold has a stand- alone bill, as do I. He has had it for several years. I certainly want to recognize his leadership and thank him for that. He is an original cosponsor of my amendment. Also Senators Grassley and Ensign are original cosponsors of my amendment and our stand-alone bill. This system of automatic, autopilot pay raises is offensive to the American people. Let me mention an experience I have had recently in Louisiana in the last several weeks. I have had well over a dozen townhall meetings, as I do on a regular basis all around the State. This past Friday I had two. The week before that during our recess week I had 12 all around the State. As I went to parishes all around the State, smaller communities, Hahnville and Lake Providence, and larger places such as Gonzales in the Greater Baton Rouge area, I was struck by a message that came across loudly and clearly. The message was not about any one narrow issue, the message was the tone of all of those meetings. Because without exception, meeting after meeting after meeting, folks expressed not just concern, not just anxiety, folks expressed real anger about what was going on in our country, to our country; what was going on here in the Halls of Congress in Washington, DC. If I had to summarize the tone I heard at these meetings, not directed at me because they knew my voting record, but directed at what is going on here in this city, the tone was, to quote that movie from several years ago, ``Network'': I am as mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore. That was the tone over and over and over again. And why was that? Well, it is pretty simple. People see their 401(k)s cut in half, people see their life savings dwindling every day. People are facing, in some cases, real crisis in their lives: losing jobs, losing homes, with it losing crucial things such as health care. And yet up here in Congress, a majority in Congress rolls along with policy they view as enormously irresponsible, and in some cases, downright offensive. One thing they point to as downright offensive is this system of pay raises for Members of Congress being on autopilot, happening every year without the need for any inconvenient debate, without the need for any inconvenient vote, the system that has been in place under the law since 1989. My amendment would change that. It would simply say: We want to have a raise, we need to talk about it, we need to justify it out in public, in the open, have that open debate, and then have an actual vote on the floor of the Senate, on the floor of the House, and have a full, open, recorded rollcall vote. That is the way we should do it whenever we debate the issue and consider the issue. That sure as heck is the way we should do it in the midst of a horrible recession, what will only surely be the worst recession we have faced as Americans since World War II. In this omnibus spending bill, we do have a provision to forgo the one raise coming next year, and I applaud the leadership of the House and Senate for at least agreeing to that and inserting that in the underlying bill. That is the least we could do. We should have done that last December as well. We have been suffering this horrible economy for several months. We have seen the financial collapse in September. The economy continued to go down and down and down and yet still under this system, Congress had a significant $4,700 raise. So we should have done it then too. But at least this bill does it next time. But, quite simply, that is not good enough. What is truly fair to the American people is to do away with this system altogether, to get these issues out in the open for public debate whenever we want them to come up and demand a rollcall vote on the issue. That is what my amendment would do, purely and simply. My amendment is supported by Senators Feingold, Grassley, and Ensign. I urge Members, Democrats and Republicans, to support this commonsense reasonable amendment that the American people surely support overwhelmingly. In closing, let me say, in supporting this amendment, be aware of a lot of diversions and a lot of distractions and a lot of tricks that will no doubt be put before us. On Thursday night here on the floor, I finally secured a vote on the amendment. I had been trying to get a vote all last week. It was a significant amendment to the omnibus spending bill. It is even germane. Trying to get a vote never could happen. I have to tell you, it was pretty frustrating. I would tune in my TV in my office and hear over and over the leadership say: Come on down. We are open for business. We are open for amendments. We want to make amendments in order. And then when I would try to do that, the door was inevitably shut. Well, finally on Thursday night I secured a vote on this amendment for the very simple reason that the distinguished majority leader needed unanimous consent in order to call off the vote that was scheduled for that evening and therefore had to agree to give me a vote to get that unanimous consent. I am happy that happened. Then the next day a funny thing happened. Out of the blue, after denigrating it, quite frankly, in our exchange on the floor, the concept of my amendment the night before, the distinguished majority leader, backed by his leadership on the majority side, introduced a stand-alone bill that was almost exactly my amendment. Well, don't get me wrong. I am delighted to get any converts, folks who have long supported the concept, recent converts. But let's not be fooled by how the stand-alone bill might be used and abused, pointed to saying, we will get to that. We will have a debate. We have this stand- alone bill. That is not the way to enact change in the law. We all know the way to enact this change into law, if we truly support it, is to support this amendment, to put it on a spending bill that must pass at the end of the day in some form, and to hold everyone's feet to the fire. If we truly want to pass it into law, I urge all of us to come together, particularly in this moment of enormous economic suffering across all of America, come together around this reasonable amendment and support amendment No. 621. With that, I yield for my distinguished colleague from Iowa.