David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, reclaiming the floor and reclaiming my time, let me say that is very unfortunate. I am sure the American people are excited to hear that Congress might get to it someday. The problem is, they have been straining under these record-high prices for months and they have been looking at Congress and they have been seeing a lot of hot air and no action. Now what they see is the Senate taking up a bill to more than triple foreign aid that we send overseas for HIV/AIDS relief rather than taking up what is the most important challenge and crisis they face every day: High gasoline prices and our energy situation. In my mind, nothing could underscore more clearly how out of touch the distinguished majority leader is from the concerns of the American people. We need to turn to this--not sometime, not in the future--we need to turn to this now. We need to recognize--not sometime in the future--that this is an issue. We need to recognize now that this is the top issue, bar none, of the American people, and we need to act. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to talk about the very serious energy situation. There is a crisis focused around gasoline prices that we face in our country. I want to start by complimenting the distinguished Senator from Iowa for doing the same, for focusing on this crucial priority that every American is facing, is struggling with in terms of dealing with the family budget. I certainly agree with my colleague, this is the No. 1 concern of every American I talk to. Literally everyone I talk to says this is the top priority. This is a true crisis. This isn't just hitting me in the pocketbook every day, every week, every month. This is threatening our future. This is threatening our economy. Given that, there is an obvious question that those same Louisianans and Americans are also asking. The question is, why isn't Congress acting? They hear us talking and making speeches and squabbling back and forth, but the obvious question they are asking is, why isn't Congress acting on this crisis that all of us face every day, every week, every month, that threatens our families' futures, that threatens our economy? I don't have a good answer. Congress should not only talk and make speeches and jabber about this, but Congress must come together in a bipartisan way and act. Congress must take the advice of the distinguished Senator from Iowa and not do either/or, this or that, no just this, no just that. We need to do all of the above. Our energy situation is so dire, we need to use less and find more right here at home. And we have the ability to do that. So, once again, why aren't we acting? Unfortunately, right now this question could not be clearer because while Americans in every State of the Union face this challenge every time they go to the gas station, every time they look at their family budget, the Senate is doing something very different. The distinguished majority leader is planning to turn from the legislation on the Senate floor now regarding housing and next take up not energy, not gasoline prices, but a bill that would triple the level of foreign aid that we send overseas in terms of AIDS relief. AIDS is a very serious worldwide problem. But let me say two things. First, under President Bush's leadership, the United States has led the world in addressing that issue, particularly in Africa, in a very aggressive way. I support that. President Bush has led that, with others in the private sector such as Bono. But we are doing that. The question I am bringing up is, is it really appropriate now at this moment to take up a bill to more than triple that foreign aid rather than taking up a bill to address energy and gasoline prices by using less and finding more right here at home? I can tell you what the American people would say. Everyone in the State of Louisiana, everyone I know across the country would say: that is not a close call. That is not a close call. Global AIDS is a huge problem, and we have acted aggressively to help address it. The United States has led in that effort. But what is hurting us every day, every week, every month, every time we go to the gas station, every time we have ever more painful discussions at the family kitchen table about the budget, what is impacting us is gasoline prices and energy. They would say that is not a close call. In this context, I urge the majority leader to turn to what is clearly the top priority of the American people. It is real simple. They elect us to come to the Senate, to come to the House and act together as grown-ups in a bipartisan way to solve real problems. It is also real simple: The biggest very real problem they face is gasoline prices and energy. Why aren't we acting? They are asking that over and over. Yes, we talk and speechify and jabber and often finger point, but why aren't we acting? I believe the solution is simple. As soon as we finish the matter which we will hopefully wrap up today, the housing bill, we should turn to what is by far the top priority, worry, concern of the American people. We should turn to legislation to directly address gasoline prices, the energy situation, by both using less at home and finding more right here at home to lessen our dependence on foreign sources. Again, that is a pretty clear choice. What do we go to next? The distinguished majority leader's suggestion is a bill to more than triple the foreign aid we already send overseas for HIV/AIDS relief. Again, that is a serious issue and a serious problem. We have been addressing it in a serious way: $15 billion for that program under President Bush's leadership. But the question is, what do we do next? Turn to a bill that would more than triple that or turn to a bill to address the top concern, bar none, of the American people, gasoline prices and energy? I would obviously suggest the latter. There are lots of ideas around about what we need to do on the energy front. The first consensus we should reach is that we should do a whole lot of these ideas. It is not either/or, one side or the other. It is not just conserve or just drill. It is, as the distinguished Senator from Iowa said, all of the above. We need to use less and find more and produce more right here at home. Many of us, well over 40 in this body, have come together around such a bill. That bill is S. 3202, the Gas Price Reduction Act. That bill is aimed to directly address this current gasoline price crisis and the current energy situation. It would do it in a broad-based way, not everything under the Sun. It is fairly focused, but it would do it in a broad-based way by both using less and finding more, producing more right here at home. It has four main components, each of which is important. First of all, let me mention the component I worked very hard on. I drafted this component as a stand-alone bill, but the main outline of the provisions was also adopted in the broader bill; and that would be to open our vast, significant resources of oil and natural gas that lie in our ocean bottoms off the coasts of the United States. When I explain this to most folks in Louisiana, they are stunned that we have major, significant untapped resources in our ocean bottoms well off our coasts, but Congress has acted in the past to take almost all that off the table. In fact, of all those oil and natural gas resources we have in our ocean bottoms off our coasts, Congress has said we cannot touch 85 percent of it. Fifteen percent, yes. That is mostly in my part of the world, in the Gulf of Mexico, and mostly the western gulf. But for 85 percent, Congress has said: No. Can't touch that. Can't get that. Yes, it will lessen our dependence. Yes, we can do it in an environmentally sensitive way. Yes, we have new technology. Yes, we have lateral drilling, horizontal drilling, and the like, but you can't touch that. Eighty-five percent of that is off limits. The first component of our bill, S. 3202, the Gas Price Reduction Act, would say we can go after those resources that are 50 miles or more off our coasts if the host State involved wants us to do that, and if we give a fair revenue share of 37.5 percent to that host State to compensate that host State for any difficulty and involvement and partnership involved. In so doing, that would be expanding on a very important precedent, a very important policy we set 2 years ago when we established that historic revenue sharing specifically--37.5 percent--in opening new areas of the gulf. So that is part 1 of the bill. Part 2 of the bill turns to the enormous resources we have on land in the United States. It turns to States in the Western part of the United States, where there are enormous shale resources, and says: We will allow production of energy in those shale deposits. If you think it is maybe the wrong policy to put 85 percent of our resources offshore off limits, in the instance of Western shale, it is worse. Congress has put 100 percent of that energy off limits because of a bar, a moratorium, Congress has set saying: We cannot use any of that energy. Once again, the American people are stunned. They do not get this. They face a real crisis in terms of energy. They know more supply, particularly here at home, can stabilize prices, can increase our independence, and yet a majority in Congress is saying: 100 percent of that is off limits. That does not make sense. So part 2 of this bill, S. 3202, the Gas Price Reduction Act, would allow exploration in those Western shale deposits. Part 3 turns to the demand side because it is not either/or. It is not just one thing or just another. It is not drill, drill, drill, and do nothing else. But we also need to conserve and use new sources of energy. So title III of the bill would create major new incentives to push forward technology and bring it to market more effectively in terms of electric and plug-in cars. That is a very exciting technological development that is progressing. But we can push it along. We can create tax and other incentives to hasten the development of larger batteries so these plug- in cars can be part of the answer in terms of our transportation issue, can lessen our use of gasoline, can lessen our reliance on dangerous foreign sources. The third part of the bill does that. It creates major incentives. It is a major push to the development of more plug-in, electric, and related technology cars that can lessen our demand. Then, the last part of the bill, part 4 of S. 3202, the Gas Price Reduction Act, would look at this very worrisome issue of speculation. It would give new power, new authority to the agency that has authority and a role in the regulation of speculators. It would put more policemen on the beat, if you will, to make sure there is not inappropriate, out-of-control speculation that may be running the price up even more than the normal forces of supply and demand. So that is part 4 of the bill, addressing legitimate concerns about speculation, putting more cops on the beat, giving more authority to those regulatory bodies which are supposed to be looking after that issue. These four components of this bill are not the only four good ideas out there. There are plenty more good ideas. There are plenty of other things we do need to do. I would like to open up ANWR, the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. I would like to put additional incentives in place for fuel efficiency and conservation and new sources of energy. There are a lot of exciting possibilities in my own State of Louisiana for certain biofuels, including that produced from sugar, that produced from new crops with sorghum, and other very promising biofuels that do not have nearly the significant impact on food and commodity prices as ethanol does. So we need to do more. These four parts of this bill are not the only four good ideas out there. But we need to have this debate in a grownup, bipartisan way. We need to come together with all the good ideas out there and present them in the best tradition of the Senate, which is open debate and open amendments, and then--and this is the most important part--and then we need to act. We need to stop simply speechifying, simply posturing, simply talking, and act. So I believe we must turn to this top concern and priority of the American people next. I believe we should not move from this housing bill which we are on right now to a bill that would more than triple our foreign aid that currently goes overseas to combat the very serious problem of AIDS and HIV. But instead we should turn to the top priority of the American people: gasoline prices and energy. With that in mind, I offer a very simple and straightforward unanimous consent request. It would say: Yes, this is the top priority of the American people, so we are going to turn to it, and we are going to have an open debate, and we are going to let amendments come to the floor, we are going to have an open process and actually have debate and votes on all those amendments, and then we are going to act because that is what the American people want. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3202 So, Madam President, in that spirit, I ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of H.R. 3221, the housing legislation, the Senate immediately proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 854, which is S. 3202, the Gas Price Reduction Act, a bill to address record-high gas prices at the pump; and I further ask unanimous consent that there be 4 hours of general debate, equally divided, and upon the use of yielding back of that time, the Senate then proceed to consider amendments to the bill in a full and open amendment process, as is the tradition of the Senate.

Mr. VITTER. That would be the second part of my unanimous consent request which is very important for consideration of these issues, to involve a full, open amendment process on the floor of the Senate, rather than the distinguished majority leader doing what he has done every time in the recent past, which is filling up the tree and blocking amendments.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator. My only question, which I propose through the Chair to the distinguished Senator, is, I am excited to hear we might turn to all these issues sometime in the future. I would like to know what that timetable will be. Specifically, will the majority leader give us assurance that we will turn to this in a full way, in an open amendment process, before the August recess?

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the housing bill before this body now and to speak about an important omission from the managers' amendment that is before the Senate. This is just one piece, one narrow issue, but it is an important one that will affect many folks in the housing market and throughout America. I am talking about the need to provide a transition period for the implementation of the new GSE regulatory structure in the bill. A large part of this legislation on housing recovery is devoted to GSE regulatory reform. GSE means ``government-sponsored enterprises''-- regulatory reform regarding those entities. This is a huge undertaking, with wide-reaching consequences for the mortgage and housing industries and our economy generally. This GSE reform title would combine the regulatory authority and personnel of three distinct agencies--HUD, the FHLB, and the OFHEO--to create an entirely new GSE supervisor with broad, far-reaching powers over this $3 trillion part of our economy, the housing finance system. The effects of new regulatory powers would not be limited even to the housing industry, as big as it is. The vast global investment in GSE securities and the 8,000 member banks that obtain liquidity and other services from our Federal Home Loan Bank system would also be significantly affected. Given the far-reaching and very significant impact of this part of the bill--this very significant consolidation of three separate agencies--I think simple common sense would dictate that implementing that sort of measured change should be done with great care and over some reasonable time period. That is why the House in its legislation recognized the need for an orderly transition. Their bill included a uniform effective date of 6 months after enactment to allow the President to begin the appointment process immediately but to give that 6-month transition to a very new regulatory structure. Unfortunately, the bill before us in the Senate today does not include this transition period in this language. Under the Senate substitute amendment, the powers of the new agency would be effective immediately, potentially destabilizing our housing market, causing real concerns among many in that important market. I am very concerned about this. I think it is a significant omission, a significant problem, a significant issue. Making the powers of a new agency effective immediately, before the three existing agencies are combined and before expert personnel can be transferred and this new agency staffed is putting the cart before the horse. At a time of great instability in the mortgage and housing markets, we should use care to preserve consumer and market confidence by ensuring a smooth transition and regulatory stability. That is why I am strongly urging the adoption of the House approach with regard to this specific issue. It would ensure a gradual transition of no less than 6 months, allowing for careful and efficient consolidation. In our push to make the housing and mortgage markets stronger and more responsive to the American people, let's also make certain we don't break what we didn't need to fix in the first place. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to adopt this commonsense, reasonable, balanced House approach with regard to a 6-month transition. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, today I stand in recognition of Dr. Ed Renwick, who served as director of the Loyola University Institute of Politics for more than 30 years, until his recent retirement on June 1, 2008. I would like to take some time to make a few remarks on his accomplishments as director and recognize his contributions to the Louisiana community. As the director of this unique educational program, he served as a mentor to many future politicians and political experts. His keen ability to explain the nuances of Louisiana politics made him particularly extraordinary and provided his many students with a unique insight into our State's storied history. His teaching methods were groundbreaking as they focused on the empirical ends of Government rather than their theoretical origins. In particular, Dr. Renwick focused on the way in which political theory works in practice, how it actually affects the daily decisions of elected officials and political candidates. In addition to his service as director, he also served as a respected member of the political science faculty, which he will continue to serve following his retirement. As both an administrator and an educator, Dr. Renwick was well known for his insights that jumpstarted the political careers of many Louisianans. In choosing his fellows, he targeted individuals from diverse political, economic and social groups, in order to force bipartisan efforts to work through complex issues important to Louisiana. Thus, he taught them the importance of finding common ground rather than letting them crumble under their differences. I was fortunate enough to be a fellow under Renwick, and I can confidently say that I am still benefitting from the knowledge and experience I gained during the program. Dr. Renwick's innovative methods helped reveal the idiosyncrasies of Louisiana politics to his students. Thus, today, I am proud to honor a fellow Louisianan, Dr. Ed Renwick, for his distinguished service to the Loyola University community and the State of Louisiana.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish to honor the Monroe Rotary Club, which is celebrating its 90th anniversary this month, and I would like to take a few moments to publicly recognize their great history. The Rotary Club of Monroe was founded on April 29, 1918, with a membership of 31; however, they did not receive their charter until June of 1918. The stated purpose of the organization is to bring together business and professional leaders to provide humanitarian service, encourage high ethical standards in all vocations, and help build goodwill and peace in the world. In order to carry out its service programs, Rotary is structured in club, district, and international levels. In furtherance of the goals of Rotary, the Rotary Club of Monroe has sponsored many local projects including, scholarships at the University of Louisiana at Monroe, Goodfellows, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Monroe Youth Baseball, The Food Bank of Northeast Louisiana, Camp Quality, The Salvation Army, and Girl's and Boy's State, to name a few. In addition they also sponsor Interact Clubs at Neville High School and River Oaks High School and sponsor two students each year to attend District 6190's Camp RYLA--Rotary Youth Leadership Award, a program for young people intended to develop qualities of leadership, good citizenship, and personal development. Each year the members of the Rotary Club of Monroe also open their homes to members of the Rotary Foundation's Group Study Exchange program. They have proudly participated in this program for many years hosting teams from India, France, Norway, England, Brazil, Australia, Scotland, Belgium, Japan, Austria and several other countries. Additionally many of their members have traveled abroad as a part of the Friendship Exchange, where Rotarians seek opportunities to visit other districts throughout the world. Today, I applaud the Rotary Club of Monroe on their 90th anniversary and thank them for their continued service to the state of Louisiana and the rest of the world.

Mr. VITTER

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I have townhall meetings all around Louisiana on a very regular basis. At these meetings we discuss a number of crucial issues facing all of us. Lately, of course, it has been dominated by sky-high gasoline prices and the need for a coherent energy policy. But what I hear more than anything else as I reach out to my constituents all around the State, the biggest, most important sentiment I hear is: When are most folks in Congress going to stop playing political games and actually act? When are most folks in Washington going to stop posturing and arguing just toward the next election and take care of the people's business? Unfortunately, I believe this exercise we have going on on the Senate floor is yet another example of the posturing and of the political gamesmanship that feeds that understandable frustration. We are going to have a vote coming up later today on the Democratic tax extenders bill. This is a pure political exercise and a pure waste of time. Whether you are for it or against it, whether you like most provisions in it or not, one thing is perfectly clear: This Democratic partisan bill is going nowhere. It doesn't have the support in the Senate. In addition to that, there is a veto threat--a very crystal- clear veto threat--from President Bush. That is for substantive reasons. There are significant objections to the bill--I share most of them--with what is included in this package, things such as a huge earmark to build a train in New York, a new tax break for trial lawyers, expansion of the Davis-Bacon Act, and $55 billion of taxes. The point isn't the substance. Whether you agree with the substance or not, the point is this bill is going nowhere, and therefore to call it up again and again and to posture and to make speeches is just a political exercise and a waste of time. It is perfectly clear from the vote we took last week that this package doesn't have near the 60 votes required in the Senate to pass it through the process. If that weren't enough, it is perfectly clear that President Bush will veto the bill. Of course, to override a veto doesn't simply take 60 votes, it takes two-thirds of the Senate--67. So it is perfectly clear that it is going nowhere, and here we are again posturing, making political speeches and political points on the floor. I have a radical idea. Let's come together in a bipartisan way. Let's come around a consensus bill and actually pass it through the process and get it signed by the President. I believe the Grassley bill, which has been introduced in the Senate, is the basis for that sort of bipartisan discussion and real work. This is particularly important for many of my constituents in Louisiana because many of those Louisianans, as well as folks in Mississippi and elsewhere, have been suffering from a very unfair situation. They are actually paying a tax penalty because of the enormous losses they suffered during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. What am I talking about? It is this: In 2005, Hurricane Katrina struck the gulf coast with enormous ferocity. A few weeks later, Hurricane Rita struck southwest Louisiana and southeast Texas. Of course, as we all know, many folks suffered enormous and tragic losses. Many folks I know personally lost their entire homes and virtually all of their belongings. Of course, folks in that situation legitimately could take a big loss on their next tax return. As a result, in 2005, people did what you would expect them to do: They filed loss deductions on their tax returns for that year because of these enormous and tragic losses. Push forward to 2007. The good news is that the American people responded to the enormous tragedy and Congress responded, representing the American people. One of the most important things the American people funded, one of the most important things Congress passed, was help for these folks I am describing who suffered uninsured losses. In Louisiana, it became known as the Road Home Program. In Mississippi, there was a similar program called the Housing Assistance Program-- grants, help from the American taxpayers to help cover uninsured losses. So what is the problem? The problem is that under present Federal law, the IRS says that you have to add that check many of these folks got in 2007 to their income and pay taxes on it because under present Federal law that is taxable income. If it was simply a matter of counteracting, equalizing the tax benefit these same individuals gained by claiming a huge loss deduction in 2005, that would be fair, but it went far beyond that in many cases. It increased many of these individuals to a higher marginal tax rate. Because of the size of the help, it pushed them into a whole other tax bracket. It subjected many taxpayers to the AMT, which they would not have been subjected to otherwise. It phased out certain deductions for them. It even subjected some individuals' Social Security benefits to additional taxation. It made many taxpayers ineligible for Federal student loans. So it didn't simply counteract and equalize the tax benefit some folks got in 2007 by claiming a very large loss deduction; it went beyond that in thousands upon thousands of cases. So on top of Katrina, on top of Rita, on top of unimaginable--to most of us--personal tragedy, what happened is these folks got a tax penalty. That is ridiculous. We need to fix that. There is a clear sentiment and a clear majority in Congress to fix that. That fix for the Road Home Program in Louisiana and for the Housing Assistance Program in Mississippi is included in this Grassley tax extenders bill, which can be a bipartisan product, which can garner bipartisan support, which can gain far more than 60 votes in the Senate, and which can and would be signed into law by the President. This is enormously important for tens of thousands of Louisianans. This is enormously important for many folks in Mississippi. These aren't simply run-of-the-mill folks; these are by definition folks who suffered through some of the worst losses due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In that context--as they wait year after year simply for a fix so that they aren't penalized by the tax man on top of everything they suffered through because of the hurricanes--in that context, how dare anyone play political games. How dare anyone posture and make political speeches rather than simply trying to come together and do the people's business. But again, that is what is going on here on the floor. We have a tax extenders package which has provisions that many folks, including myself, have major objections to: A huge earmark to build a train in New York, a new tax break for trial lawyers, an expansion of the Davis-Bacon Act which would hurt our economy, and $55 billion of tax provisions. I cannot support that Baucus package because of those clearly objectionable items. More importantly, about half of the Senate can't support it for that reason, and therefore the Senate isn't near the 60 votes required to pass that on in the process. Even if it were, as I said before, President Bush has made it crystal-clear that because of these controversial provisions, he would veto the bill. So this package is going nowhere. To revote on this package is to waste time and play political games. I don't know why the majority leader is determined to do that, but he is doing that today. He has even talked about doing it a third time. I urge the majority leader and all of my colleagues to act for the good of the American people, to come around a consensus package that can be passed and be signed into law, not to simply try to score political points, make more speeches, and waste even more time on the Senate floor. All of the American people deserve that. But, surely, folks who suffered enormous losses because of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita deserve that even more. Surely, those folks deserve the relief contained in both bills, but also the relief that can actually be passed and signed into law in a bipartisan consensus package. Let's do the work of the American people. Let's put people before politics, and let's pass this important legislation by moving on to a consensus bill that can gain far more than 60 votes in the Senate and be signed into law by the President. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. If the Senator will yield, I appreciate his comments. I would be open for that path forward if there was assurance from the majority leader that there would be that full opportunity for amendments, particularly on the crucial objectionable items that I outlined. Unfortunately, to date, there has been absolutely no assurance in that regard. In fact, the majority leader, through his actions, has taken the opposite course time after time after time, as the Senator knows, by filling up the tree. So if we could take that path forward, with the assurance to have votes on amendments regarding those clearly objectionable matters, that might be productive. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the assurance the majority leader has offered to give, and it hasn't been his practice.

Mr. VITTER. I only say to the distinguished Senator, if the majority leader would come to the floor and guarantee amendments on the substance of the bill, on the train to New York and the Davis-Bacon provision and down the line in terms of all those highly objectionable issues I outlined a minute ago, which go to the substance of the bill, I will be all ears. Unfortunately, that has not been his practice on prior issues or in this situation.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I wish to acknowledge Councilman Leland Robichaux of Houma for his dedicated service to Louisiana and the United States of America. I would like to take some time to make a few remarks on his accomplishments. Mr. Robichaux started his career in oilfield services in 1964, traveling the world with his family as a result. He helped found the South Central Industrial Association 10 years ago, serving as the business organization's president from 2003 to 2004. Also active from the beginning in membership initiatives and infrastructure issues, he earned the SCIA's Tillman Esteve Award last year for his contributions. Outside his job as a salesman for Oil States, an offshore oil-and-gas manufacturer, he traveled annually with the Houma-Terrebonne Chamber of Commerce to Washington, DC, to lobby for hurricane protection for the past 8 years. Mr. Robichaux was elected to the Terrebonne Parish Council District 6 seat last fall. He represented the parishes of southwest Terrebonne, Donner, Gibson, parts of Bayou Black and neighborhoods between La. 311 and Bayou Black Drive. The week before he was sworn into office, Mr. Robichaux learned he had two tumors on his brain, caused by cancer that started in his lungs. Despite his illness, he continued to serve his constituents and was open about his cancer diagnosis, and when asked about his progress, he shared information about his treatments and his determination to press on. Leland Robichaux passed away Sunday, June 1. In his roughly 4 months on the council, he helped work on coastal-restoration and levee projects. He is survived by not only family members but also the grateful city of Houma and council who have lost a great man and great leader. Thus, today, I rise to honor a fellow Louisianan, Leland Robichaux, and thank him and his family for his dedicated service to our State and Nation.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, today I stand to recognize Army SGT Eric Moser, the son of Ken and Karen Moser of Lake Charles, LA, and to commend his courage and service to our Nation and his brothers in arms. On May 22, 2008, Sergeant Moser was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, the U.S. Army's second highest military decoration, making him one of only nine soldiers to have received this decoration since September 11, 2001. Sergeant Moser, I know how proud your parents are of you, and all of Louisiana shares in their pride. Your actions truly exemplify patriotism, service to country, and spirit of the Army's famous 82nd Airborne Division, a unit that has distinguished itself on countless occasions from the beaches of Normandy, the jungles of Vietnam, to the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan. On August 26, 2007, while serving with the 82nd's Charlie Company, Sergeant Moser was attached to a sniper team that also included SGT Josh Morley of North Carolina, SP Tracy Willis of Texas, and SP Chris Corriveau from Maine. The team was tasked with securing a defensive perimeter around a block in Samarra, Iraq, while members of Charlie Company's 3rd Platoon conducted search operations on a location that was suspected of being used to manufacture improvised explosive devices. Soon after their arrival on their positions, Sergeant Moser and his team found themselves under attack, their presence having been alerted to by an al-Qaida informant. Pinned down from fire from multiple terrorists, Sergeants Moser and Morley held their positions and returned fire until Sergeant Morley was killed while crossing a building rooftop in search of the team's radio. Sergeant Moser and the remaining team members fought off the insurgents who were attempting to make off with Sergeant Morley's body. Despite struggling with a weapon that repeatedly jammed, Sergeant Moser was able to return fire and protect Sergeant Morley's body during a firefight that ultimately claimed the life of a second team member, SP Tracy Willis. The two remaining members of the sniper team, Sergeant Moser and Specialist Corriveau, continued to fight off the terrorists and were able to protect the bodies of their fallen comrades. As they established contact with another Airborne outpost, the insurgents fell back and began to retrieve their dead. Sergeant Moser and Specialist Corriveau then directed a GPS-guided bomb to the position where the surviving insurgents were hiding. It was later confirmed that more than 15 of an established 40 al-Qaida terrorists were killed during the fight. We honor Sergeant Morley and Specialist Willis for their ultimate sacrifice, and we pay tribute to their families. SGT Josh Morley is survived by his wife, his family, and a daughter whom he never had the chance to meet. And SP Tracy Willis leaves behind a loving family of his own. We also honor SP Chris Corriveau for his heroism. He was also awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his gallantry on August 26, 2007. His actions also exemplify that of a hero and a paratrooper. In the face of death and without regard to his personal safety, Sergeant Moser brought great distinction on himself, the U.S. Army, and the 82nd Airborne Division. I am sure he would be hesitant to acknowledge himself as a hero, and he does not need to do so. His actions distinguished him as such when on a rooftop in Iraq, he risked his own life to ensure that no man was left behind. Sergeant Moser, thank you for your service and heroism and God bless you and your entire family.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, in light of the comments of the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, I ask unanimous consent to use the remaining Republican time plus an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, in the year 64 A.D., there was a tremendous fire in Rome, and legend has it that the Emperor Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Well, I am afraid that if we continue to fiddle in the Congress while gas prices continue to go up and up and hurt all of our constituents in a deep abiding way, Nero will outpace us in terms of his legendary action compared to our inaction. We are truly fiddling while this enormous crisis of rising gasoline prices hits every family we purport to represent. We are doing nothing significant, nothing important to address this crisis. Why do I say that? Well, when this new Democratically led Congress took office a couple of Januaries ago, prices at the pump were about $2.33. That new leadership of the Congress--the Democratic leader in the Senate as well as the Democratic leadership in the House--said that this was unacceptable. They vowed that this was a major issue they would address, that they would attack in a focused, meaningful way. Well, a year and a half later, things have changed. The price at the pump is now about $4 a gallon. It has gone up and up, and this Congress has done little to nothing. To add insult to injury, the Democratic leadership in the Senate proposed legislation today that centered around major measures that can clearly change the price at the pump, such as a windfall profits tax and language to sue OPEC. I find this insulting, and I believe the American people do, because that sort of political demagoguery and posturing is no substitute for real energy policy. Yesterday, I was in my home State of Louisiana. I had two townhall meetings. About a week before that, I was all around the State; I had nine others. Folks asked again and again: When is Congress going to act? When is Congress going to do something meaningful about these escalating gasoline prices? I laid out my ideas. They were reacted to in a very positive way, particularly the need for us to do more for ourselves right here at home to produce more energy. Certainly nobody in those audiences had very kind words to say about OPEC. Nobody was standing up and lauding the big oil companies. But by the same token, they know the difference between political rhetoric and posturing and real energy policy. They certainly know that a bill to sue OPEC and try to impose a Carter-era windfall profits tax on big oil companies isn't going to do a darn thing, at least on the positive side of the equation, to stabilize and lower gasoline prices at the pump. It is going to have no meaningful impact, certainly, to produce more energy and bring those prices down. So I come to the floor to urge all of us--Democrats and Republicans-- to come together to get real and to act in the face of what is a true economic crisis for millions upon millions of American families. As I say, it is easy to agree that OPEC or big oil is a cheap political target. It is easy to agree that it may be popular superficially to kick them around and to politically bash those easy targets. But I truly believe the American people are smarter than that and can distinguish between political posturing, political rhetoric, and a real energy policy. I think it is particularly true with the windfall profits tax proposed by the Democratic leadership today. Now, why do I say that is not a real energy policy and it won't lead to stabilizing and reducing prices? Well, there are three main reasons: First, the entire notion of a windfall profits tax is a misnomer. Oil company profits are very big when you look at them in dollar terms. Why is that? Mostly for one simple reason: Oil company activity-- exploration and production--is enormously expensive. As a result of that, the major oil companies are enormously big companies--big economic actors--so the dollar terms we bandy about having to do with their activity is enormous. But, of course, when you talk about profit, you can't talk in simple dollar terms; you have to talk in percentages. So what are those percentages? Are they, in fact, windfall profits? Well, the last year for which we have data is full calendar year 2007, and in that calendar year oil and gas companies' profits were, on average, 8.3 percent. How does that compare to everybody else? Well, for all of the U.S. manufacturing sector--a sector we always decry as in decline, being outsourced, being out-competed by competitors such as China and India coming on line--that entire sector had a profit of about 7.3 percent. If you take out U.S. auto companies, which have historically low profits, unfortunately, then the entire U.S. manufacturing sector made a profit of 8.9 percent. So these outrageous windfall profits folks talk about of the oil companies are, in fact, very much in line with that: the whole manufacturing sector, 7.3 percent compared to 8.3 percent. Take out auto manufacturers, and, in fact, then the profit rate is higher, 8.9 percent compared to 8.3 percent. The second reason this entire focus and argument is silly and not real energy policy is when you look at whom you are hurting. Now, the proponents of these sorts of measures talk about going after windfall profits as if oil company executives own it all. Well, they own some-- 1.5 percent of the companies we are talking about. Who owns the rest? Well, over half of oil company shares are owned by mutual fund companies which are widely owned by Americans. That manages to account for nearly 55 million American households. Median income of these households, by the way, is $70,000 or less. Pension funds, both public and private, hold 27 percent of the shares in the energy industry. That means 129 million pension fund participants, who have accounts worth an average of about $63,000, own the companies we are talking about. Twenty-eight million of those pension funds are for public employees, including teachers, police, fire personnel, soldiers, and government workers. So these are the folks who own these companies that we are supposed to go after. The final and most important and compelling reason this notion of a windfall profits tax is a red herring is that it won't produce more energy. It won't stabilize or lower prices at the pump. It won't help the situation. It will, in fact, make it worse. Why do I say this? Because we have historical experience to turn to to see what happened. Under President Carter, we tried this experiment. In terms of boosting energy production, stabilizing or lowering prices, it was a miserable failure. From 1980 to 1988, we had a windfall profits tax. That reduced domestic oil production by up to 8 percent, while dependence on foreign oil grew over that time up to 13 percent. So instead of this sort of tax approach to the oil companies' tax approach to energy, we need to produce more energy, more supply, to stabilize and lessen prices. As my colleague from Alabama mentioned a few minutes ago, one of the first rules of economics is, if you tax an activity, you are going to drive it down, lessen that activity; you are not going to drive it up. If somehow this tax plan--windfall profits tax--or the myriad other tax proposals the Democratic leadership has brought to the floor would help solve our energy problems, I would be all for it. But it is going to make us produce less energy, not more. What will that do? That won't stabilize or lower gasoline prices at the pump. It will drive them up. Let's get serious for once. As the American families we represent face a true crisis, let's put people ahead of politics. Let's put sound policy ahead of political posturing. Let's focus on what can make a positive impact. We need to do much in this regard, on the supply side as well as the demand side--conservation, greater efficiency, more R&D, and new fuel sources. But at the same time we need to focus on the demand side, on what can help us produce more safe, clean energy here at home. We have those resources here at home. We can access them safely and in an environmentally friendly way. But in order to do that, Congress needs to get out of the way and allow States and private industry to do just that. Offshore is a big piece of that puzzle. That is why I have brought to the Senate floor my proposal that says if these outrageous prices at the pump actually hit $5 a gallon, then we will allow exploration and production in our ocean bottoms off our U.S. coast--but only if two things apply: First, the host State involved would have to want this activity. So the Governor and State legislature in that host State would have to say, yes, we want this activity off of our coast, we want to be part of the solution to help meet the Nation's energy needs. Secondly, that host State would get a fair share of the royalty, or revenue, from that ocean bottom production, 37\1/2\ percent, building on the precedent, the policy we set 2 years ago in opening some limited new areas in the Gulf of Mexico. That actually does something about energy. That actually would increase supply right here at home, would lessen our dependence on dangerous foreign sources, would help stabilize and bring down prices at the pump--something the political posturing of suing OPEC or putting in a windfall profits tax, a Carter- era idea, on the big oil companies would not do. Let's not fiddle while Rome burns. Let's get serious. Let's act respectfully to the situation, the real crisis so many Americans face. Let's come together in a bipartisan way and act, not posture, and debate and talk but act with real energy solutions. We need to do this, as I said, across the board, on the supply side and on the demand side to lessen demand through conservation, increased fuel efficiency, and new energy sources. We need to come together and act now, rather than simply giving political speeches and endlessly posturing and going after easy political targets. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to discuss this very important climate change legislation and amendments I would have brought to the Senate floor for consideration. Now, unfortunately, I said ``would have brought'' because this entire process has been short-circuited, cut off, blocked by the actions of the distinguished majority leader. I find that very regrettable. Whatever side of the debate we are on, whatever we think about this bill, it is beyond debate that this is enormously significant legislation that would have dramatic impacts on our economy. I believe it is the most significant bill that would have the most drastic and dramatic impacts on our economy of any since I have come to the Senate, which has only been about 3 years, but we have considered a lot of bills. Yet we are operating, apparently, under a procedure now where not one amendment will be considered before the significant cloture vote tomorrow morning. The distinguished majority leader has filled the amendment tree, so not a single amendment could ever be considered without his acquiescence and consent. That is flat out ludicrous. That is flat out offensive. I came to the Senate from the House. In doing so, I heard from so many different sources so many stories, so many examples of how the Senate is a place of great unlimited debate; the ability to bring ideas and amendments to the Senate floor on the big issues of the day, in contrast to the House. Unfortunately, our distinguished majority leader has turned that on its head. He has made that exactly the reverse, where debate is completely shut down, where we have no amendments possible to be considered before the cloture vote on the most dramatic and significant bill to impact our economy that I have been able to consider here in the Senate. That is ludicrous. On this topic, former Vice President Al Gore made a very famous movie: ``An Inconvenient Truth.'' I ask what the distinguished majority leader is afraid of. Why not have a full debate. He seems to be concerned about an inconvenient debate or a series of inconvenient amendments. Again, I express extreme regret that we are having a cloture vote tomorrow morning before a single amendment is called up on the floor to be debated, before there is any opportunity--any security--for amendments to be considered, at least unless they have the majority leader's acquiescence and support. I would have called up at least three amendments. These three amendments go to the heart of my concerns about the legislation. When I look at virtually all legislation, I look at the costs of the legislation and the benefits, and I ask: Do the benefits outweigh the costs. In this case, I believe the costs are very severe. First, costs relating to gasoline. The Louisianans whom I represent, as Americans are all over the country, are struggling under the weight of enormously high gasoline prices right now. They have risen from about $2.33 when this Congress came into office, to almost $4 at the pump now. Yet this bill could increase that burden significantly by as much as a dollar a gallon. That is a big cost. I also look at the cost of other energy prices: natural gas prices, electricity prices. Again, that is a big additional cost this bill would be putting on American citizens. Finally, I look at the cost of shipping more jobs overseas, because this bill would put dramatic onerous controls on American industry, American businesses, and American jobs, but wouldn't do anything comparable with regard to jobs overseas, including China and India. Those are big costs. The benefit? Well, the benefit, I believe, would be slim to none because of the factors I have mentioned, because of what this bill would do to burden our industry, our companies, our jobs. Those jobs would be pushed overseas, largely to countries without these controls--to countries that would not change their policies, that would not follow our lead, particularly China and India. So what would we do with regard to the global issue of climate change? It is certainly global and not localized. We would be accomplishing virtually nothing. My amendments, had I been allowed to offer them, would have addressed these onerous costs. First, I would have presented an amendment that said if the price of gasoline at the pump reaches $5 a gallon--forget about $4 where we are already--if it reaches $5 a gallon, then we would allow exploration and activity on our ocean bottoms off our coasts, but only under two conditions: first, if the host State off whose coast that activity would happen would want the activity; the Governor and the State legislature of that State would say yes, we want this activity off our coast, we want to help meet the Nation's energy needs. Secondly, if that happened, that State would get a fair revenue share-- 37.5 percent--building off the precedent we set 2 years ago with revenue sharing in the Gulf of Mexico; and important Federal programs and important Federal priorities, such as LIHEAP and the Highway thrust Fund and the Adam Walsh Act, would also get guaranteed funding. That is a significant and important amendment that should be part of this debate. My second amendment would discuss electricity prices, particularly natural gas, and it would say that if natural gas demand went up, if the price went up because of this bill, then again it would pull a trigger and allow that exploration and production on our ocean bottoms off our coasts under the same conditions that I outlined with regard to host States. Finally, my third amendment would address the significant jobs cost that this bill presents. Natural gas-intensive sectors of our manufacturing industry would be particularly hard hit by this bill. So my amendment, had I been allowed to present it, would have said that we will have annual reports describing whether this bill would displace more than 5,000 employees in natural gas-intensive sectors of the manufacturing industry such as the fertilizer industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the chemical industry. If that happened, if we went over that threshold, then the EPA Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, would have to increase the number of allowances necessary to preserve those jobs. Those are important topics in this debate. Yet they were completely shut out from consideration on the Senate floor. Once again, I have enormous regret and concern for this body based on the precedent the distinguished majority leader has set. This is an enormously important topic and bill, yet not allowing a single amendment to be called up and considered before our vote on cloture tomorrow morning, and filling the amendment tree so not a single amendment could ever be considered without the acquiescence and support of the majority leader himself. As I said a few minutes ago, Al Gore talked about an inconvenient truth. I believe the majority leader is concerned about an inconvenient debate, inconvenient amendments, but that is exactly what the American people deserve: a full and fair debate and consideration of amendments. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Deborah Glickson, a fellow in my office, be allowed floor privileges during the debate on this bill.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Mr. President. Switching from coal plants to natural gas will drive job loss, particularly in the chemical and fertilizer industries. The chemical industry is extremely important to my State. Over 100,000 chemical jobs have already been lost in the last 5 years due to the high price of natural gas. Out of 120 new chemical plants under worldwide construction, only one is being constructed in the United States. So like the price of gasoline, like the price of electricity, on the jobs front we have a very dire, challenging situation already, and this bill would make it far worse. The real kicker to all of this is that after all of that damage to Americans, to their lifestyles, to our economy, what would this bill do in terms of climate change? I am very concerned it would do little or nothing because, of course, it mandates no action on the part of other major powers and energy consumers around the world, specifically China and India. Think about it. As we push these jobs overseas, out of our country, where are those jobs going? They are going to countries such as China and India that would not be taking similar action, that would be continuing to build coal-fired powerplants and use outdated technology, that would contribute to the climate change problem. So much higher gasoline prices, much higher electricity and other energy prices, significant job loss--and what impact on the problem are we trying to address? In my opinion, little or none. Mr. President, I hope all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle hear from the American people, hear from them about the challenges they face right now as they fill up their automobiles, as they try to take summer vacations, as they struggle with other energy prices, as they hope to keep their jobs right here in America.

Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, like my colleague from Missouri, last week I traveled all around my home State. I had about nine townhall meetings and many other meetings of all kinds in every part of the State. In these townhall meetings, gas prices--the price at the pump--was not the first question that always came up. It was the first eight questions that always came up. In fact, of all of the discussion I had in all of these townhall meetings put together, about two-thirds of that entire discussion--that entire time--was about rising gasoline prices and energy prices. It is obviously affecting folks all across the country, certainly including in my home State of Louisiana. In early 2006, when this new Democratic Congress was sworn into office and came into power, the average price at the pump was $2.33 a gallon. The new leadership vowed they would do something about those sky-high prices. Well, apparently they did because now the average price at the pump is $3.98 a gallon--a staggering increase in a relatively short amount of time. So in this context, when Americans all over our country, certainly including Louisiana, are suffering from these sky-high prices that continue to rise--as they go into the summer driving season, many hoping to take family vacations, realizing they cannot this summer because of these costs--I think a very reasonable question to ask is, What is this Lieberman-Warner climate change bill going to do to an already dire situation with regard to energy prices? Unfortunately, I have concluded it is going to make that already dire situation much worse. It is going to add on to gasoline prices, as my colleague from Missouri has stated. It is going to add on to electricity and other energy prices significantly. On the job site, it is going to also encourage and exacerbate a very worrisome trend of exporting jobs to other countries. After all of that, it will do little or nothing with regard to the fundamental climate change challenge because it mandates nothing on the part of other industrialized powers such as China and India. Several economic studies have specifically examined these questions. Let's start with the price at the pump. The Energy Information Administration estimates that this bill will cause gasoline prices to increase--in addition to everything that is going on now--between 41 cents a gallon to $1.01 a gallon by 2030. Now, again, we are facing dramatically rising prices at the pump now, and there seems to be no end in sight, in large part because we in Congress have not acted in a bold manner to increase supply and do other things to help ourselves at home. Yet this bill would move us even further in the wrong direction: between 41 cents and $1.01 more per gallon by 2030. According to the EIA, the average American uses 500 gallons of gasoline every year. The average vehicle is driven more than 12,000 miles per year. So even now, at $4 a gallon, a 12-gallon gas tank costs over $50 to fill, and we are going to increase that significantly? That is moving in the wrong direction. What about electricity and other important sources of energy? According to the Environmental Protection Agency, this bill will increase those prices--electricity prices--by 44 percent by 2030. Again, our consumers are struggling under energy prices right now, including electricity. Winters are a tough time for folks in the Northeast. In my part of the world, summer is the time of peak electricity load, and that is a real price burden right now. Yet we are considering a bill that is going to increase that, an already challenging and dire situation, by 44 percent? Then, what about the jobs picture. We debate in this body all the time how we can keep and expand and grow manufacturing jobs in this country, how we can get away from the trend of exporting those jobs overseas. Yet this bill will only make that problem worse as well. The higher energy prices caused by the bill will force U.S. manufacturers to compete unfavorably with lower cost countries overseas. Realistically, companies will move their manufacturing base out of the United States to an even greater extent, and many American jobs will leave with them. This country has already lost 3 million manufacturing jobs since 2000. We cannot afford to lose more. But what does the rigorous analysis of this bill's impact show? Well, the National Association of Manufacturers says up to 1.8 million jobs additionally--in addition to all of those figures I have already quoted--could be lost by 2020 and 4 million jobs additionally could be lost by 2030.

Mr. VITTER. If our colleagues hear that message, I am confident they will vote down this dangerous bill. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back my time.

Mr. VITTER. I need about 8 minutes.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I have been allotted 8 minutes, and I ask the Chair to notify me when 6 minutes of that 8 have expired.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of that portion of the emergency funding bill we will be voting on in about 35 minutes. The reason I do so is because it is absolutely essential to deliver the help the President has committed--that the Nation has committed--to our continuing recovery in Louisiana. First, let me begin by thanking all my colleagues and, perhaps even more importantly, the American people, the American taxpayer, for an unprecedented outpouring of support for our recovery. True, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, a devastating one-two punch, were unprecedented disasters, the biggest natural disasters--particularly when put together--that the country has ever faced. Still, it is very significant, very important to acknowledge that the American people have also stepped to the plate and made an unprecedented response. The people of Louisiana are deeply grateful. The provisions in this bill are an essential part of that commitment and that response. Very soon after Hurricane Katrina, I sat in Jackson Square, in the middle of the French Quarter, and heard the President deliver his live address to the Nation from Jackson Square, right in front of St. Louis Cathedral. It was a strange, eerie night because New Orleans had not yet recovered, in significant ways, from the storm. It was only a few weeks since Hurricane Katrina. The whole French Quarter was dark--no electricity. The only light, lighting a small portion of that part of the world, was from light trucks sent in so the President could speak from that historic point to the American people. The President made a clear and a firm commitment to the full recovery of our region. I thanked him for that. I thank him for that today. A big part of that commitment, of course, was strong, meaningful hurricane and flood protection for southeast Louisiana, building at a minimum a 100-year level of protection and building it quickly enough to sustain a storm that you might expect to see only once every 100 years. Again, I thank the President for that commitment. I thank the American people for that commitment. But this funding in this bill passed now is absolutely essential to keep that commitment. The Corps of Engineers itself says, if they do not have this money by October 1, they will slip from their schedule and that rebuilding and that level of protection for southeast Louisiana will not be here in the promised timeframe for the hurricane season of 2011. We cannot allow that schedule to slip. We cannot allow that solemn commitment of the President not to be fulfilled in a real and a timely manner. That is why these funds in this emergency funding bill are so essential. I know many of my friends who have fiscal concerns, as I do in general have concerns about this bill. I would simply say with regard to these funds for our recovery, the President has asked for 95 percent of these moneys. The President himself has asked that those moneys be emergency spending. So this is hardly some Christmas tree on which we are trying to put ornaments for needs that are not there, that the President has not requested. At least 95 percent of this recovery package is what the President himself has explicitly requested and even requested be made emergency funding. Let's follow through on that solemn commitment of the President, of the Congress, of the American people, and let's be sure to do it in a timely way so this enormously important protection system is built in time for the hurricane season of 2011. This is very important to our recovery. Besides levees and hurricane protection, it also addresses, in a small but important way, hospital needs, criminal justice needs, relocating businesses from the MRGO so that hurricane highway can finally be closed and we do not have a repeat of the devastation it helped cause in eastern New Orleans and St. Bernard Parish. Again, this is our opportunity to do this this year in a timely way. I respectfully again thank all of my colleagues for their support in our recovery and ask them to support this essential step in meeting the President's commitment, meeting these needs in a timely way. I yield back any remaining time.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Yes, Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Enzi, the ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction, I object.