David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Reserving my right to object, if I can inquire of the distinguished majority leader and explain to him, through the Chair, that my objection does not rest on the time period; it rests on my rights on the Senate floor being shut down. So I would again ask if the unanimous consent request can be modified to allow me to exercise my rights on the Senate floor--specifically, to have a mere 5 minutes on the Senate floor to be recognized for purposes of my choosing, not merely for purposes of the majority leader's choosing?

Mr. VITTER. There is objection.

Mr. VITTER. I thank the majority leader, and simply two points, quickly. First, with regard to the statement the majority leader just made and the letter he read, let me end the debate. Let me stipulate for the record that Senator McConnell is not being railroaded and President Bush is not being railroaded. I am being railroaded and my allies on the floor of the Senate are being railroaded. So we will end that debate and stipulate that for the record. Second, with regard to your last unanimous consent request, I would love to agree to it if it can be modified so that my rights on the floor of the Senate are also preserved--specifically so that I can be recognized for 2 minutes for any purpose.

Mr. VITTER. There is objection. I would like to enter into that dialog on two points.

Mr. VITTER. Then I ask that the record be read with regard to whether I was recognized or not.

Mr. VITTER. I am reserving my right to object, and I was trying to gain recognition, and I believe I did gain recognition.

Mr. VITTER. There is objection. And I would like to ask the majority leader's----

Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Mr. President. Well, again, I take it from the distinguished majority leader that his answer to my last question is no. Under this process, there will be no opportunity for me and like-minded Senators to offer our amendments. We will only consider his 26 handpicked amendments. Again, he put together that list. He could have included some amendments of folks who have serious problems with the bill. But there are no Vitter amendments on the list. There are no Sessions amendments. There are no DeMint amendments, no Cornyn amendments, no Dole amendments, no Bunning amendments, and we could go on and on. Is that a fair process? I also ask, is it a fair process for me to only be recognized on the floor of the Senate during this momentous debate leading up to a cloture vote only for purposes of the majority leader's choosing and for no purposes of my own choosing? With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. That is correct.

Mr. VITTER. For debate only.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, reserving, again, my right to object, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 additional minute.

Mr. VITTER. Yes. The second question for the majority leader is about procedure. I think he understands my frustrations in terms of the procedure we seem to be adopting. Does the distinguished majority leader see any opportunity between now and tomorrow's key cloture vote for me and like-minded Senators to offer our amendments on the floor versus his handpicked amendments or to be recognized on the floor for reasons of our choosing versus merely being recognized for reasons of his choosing?

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this June 25, 2007, Congressional Research Service memorandum printed in the Record because it certainly states clearly that the trigger does not have to be fully met before these funds can go to the Z visa program.

Mr. VITTER. I thank the majority leader. Two questions. One is on the substance of the bill. In particular, on the point you were making regarding funding for enforcement, are you aware of the CRS letter and report which says that $4.4 billion, or at least much of it, can go to the Z visa and the Y visa program, and that it is not clear at all that the trigger provisions have to be met and that certification has to happen before those funds can instead be used for the Z visa program versus enforcement?

Mr. VITTER. Reserving the right to object, as I consider the unanimous consent request, can I ask permission to pose two questions to the distinguished majority leader?

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, will the distinguished majority leader yield for a question?

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. And for any purposes.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask for 5 minutes under the same time agreement.

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

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, in light of our discussion with the distinguished majority leader under which we won't take further action until tomorrow, so we can begin to digest this mammoth amendment, I move to waive reading of the amendment.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge Louisiana Tech University for its scientific breakthrough and innovation in the department of nanotechnology. I would like to take a few moments to expand on Louisiana Tech's achievements and wish the facility and student body continued success. Nanotechnology is the art of manipulating materials on an atomic and molecular level, and Louisiana Tech University has risen to the top of this scientific threshold. This year a trade magazine, Small Times, ranked LA Tech third in micro and nanotechnology education. Small Times evaluated each college based on various criteria, and Louisiana Tech surfaced as one of the elite universities. Louisiana Tech also stands as one of the only universities in the country that offers a nanotechnology degree at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Their diversity within the program, and their excellence in both faculty innovation and curriculum ranks them among the best major scientific universities. Louisiana Tech University also ranked tenth in the Nation for commercializing nanotechnology inventions, or the capability to process patents and turn them into profitable ideas. The university alone applied for 24 patent applications in the last year, 20 of which involved micro and nanotechnology, proving Louisiana Tech's dedication as a national contributor to the scientific spectrum. As Louisiana Tech blossoms, many profitable institutions have invested and settled within the university, such as Avoyelles Renewable Fuels, which is working to discover a way to convert biomass waste into a biofuel through a nanocatalyst. I would also like to take a moment to honor Joshua Michael Brown. At Louisiana Tech University, he became this first person in the entire world to graduate with a nanosystems engineering degree. He will continue at Louisiana Tech University in order to gain his doctorate in micronanotechnology. Thus, today I congratulate Louisiana Tech for its innovation in the ever-changing fields of science, and I look forward to the continued growth of the school and its students as they shape the future development of micro and nanotechnology.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Reclaiming the floor, I will put that down as an ``undecided,'' and ``maybe.'' I want to continue these discussions with the Senator from New Mexico. He is essentially the key to clearing this amendment, probably without objection. Again, I restate that because of the devastating impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, I think there is every reason in the world to lift this arbitrary cap of 23 percent, specifically and only for hurricane protection work on our coast. It is absolutely vital for our survival. It will not mean we are not doing everything else we have been talking about. That is moving forward for a number of reasons, including the revenue sharing piece we were able to pass into law late last year. That will give significant new revenue to our coastal restoration efforts and other things. I again urge the Senator to continue to look at this and hopefully clear this so it can be adopted without even the need for a vote on the floor, adopted by unanimous consent. Amendment No. 1776 Now I wish to move to a second very important amendment I have at the desk, which is amendment No. 1776. I just happened to get that number but I think it is a very appropriate number for this amendment because this goes to our very important, patriotic efforts to increase our energy independence and to get away from our enormous reliance on the Middle East, including very dangerous countries and regimes in the Middle East that are clearly not friends of ours at all. This amendment is straightforward. It would allow increased domestic production of minerals or renewable energy in Federal areas that are not allowed now, if and only if all four of these things happen--really five. No. 1, the national average gasoline price would have to exceed $3.75 a gallon at the pump. No. 2, in addition, foreign imports of oil would have to exceed 65 percent of all oil use. No. 3, in addition, the President would have to determine that an ample supply of renewable fuels is insufficient to meet fuel demand domestically at that time. No. 4, in addition, the President would have to determine that continued and growing reliance on foreign oil imports is a threat to national security. If all of those four preconditions were met, then and only then, No. 5, the Governor of a State, with the concurrence of the State legislature, could petition the Secretary of the Interior to initiate leasing activities on specified Federal lands within the State or within the administrative boundaries of the Outer Continental Shelf related to that State for oil and gas or alternative energy production. So if everything I mentioned happened, then and only then a State itself, through its Governor, through its State legislature, can say: Yes, sir, Mr. President, we want to be part of the solution. This is a dire, extreme case. This is a real national security threat. We want to be part of the solution by producing, safely and in an environmentally friendly way, more oil and gas, more renewable energy for America. I think this is an utterly commonsense and very much needed amendment to increase domestic production, decrease reliance on foreign sources. That goes to energy security. As such, it goes to economic security. It goes to national security. Again, none of this would happen unless all of those things happened first: gasoline prices at $3.75 at the pump, foreign imports over 65 percent of everything we are using in this country, the President saying renewables cannot make up the difference, the President saying this is a real national security issue, the Governor of the State saying we want to do this, it is our home, we can do it responsibly, and the State legislature of the State concurring. All of those things would have to happen before opening up either land within the State or part of the Outer Continental Shelf off the State to leasing activity, in terms of Federal land. It is very important that we do a balanced approach, all sorts of things, to decrease our reliance on foreign sources. This is a very commonsense part of that menu. With that, I understand there may be objection, but I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so that this very commonsense amendment, which goes to the heart of this debate and the heart of the bill, Vitter amendment No. 1776, can be called up and made pending.

Mr. VITTER. Yes, I do.