[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 23, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S681-S682]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2010
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the motion to concur with an amendment to the
House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847, which the clerk
will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A House message to accompany H.R. 2847, an act making
appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice
and Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Reid amendment No. 3310 (to the House amendment to the
Senate amendment), in the nature of a substitute.
Reid amendment No. 3311 (to the amendment No. 3310), to
change the enactment date.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to talk about what I believe should
be our top priority, almost our exclusive focus in terms of immediate
work, and that is the issue of jobs and the economy. Doing so, I
applaud the fact that finally as a body we are somewhat focused on
that. We are debating a bill having to do with job creation, economic
growth. But at the same time, I find it unfortunate, really sad, that
as we take up that top agenda item for the American people we do so by
taking up a bill of the majority leader, which is fine, but in a way
under which he completely shuts out any opportunity for amendment on
the floor of the Senate.
Again, I find that process really unfair and unfortunate. The fact
that every Republican idea, every Republican amendment is just being
shut out is really frustrating, even angering to me as a Republican.
But the issue isn't Republican and Democrat. The issue is what is good
and right for the American people. The fact is that ideas and
amendments on the Senate floor, which is supposed to be a place of
unlimited debate, virtually unlimited ability to offer good ideas, to
offer amendments, that is being completely subverted, and all
amendments are being shut out.
Because of that, I am going to ask unanimous consent that we break
out of that logjam, that we break out of that bitter partisanship and
consider, with an open mind, one amendment I am bringing forward. But
let me spend a few minutes outlining that amendment.
As we look on the job picture and the economy over the last year, as
I talk about that job picture over the last year with folks in my
State, I hear two dominant concerns. No. 1, we are still in a heck of a
recession. The job creation that was promised a year ago with the
stimulus just hasn't panned out. The promise of staying below 8 percent
unemployment, minimizing that job loss, clearly, tragically,
unfortunately never panned out. The President promised his stimulus
would keep us below 8 percent. Unfortunately, as we all know,
unemployment nationally went above 10 percent. Right now it still
hovers near 10 percent, just a shade below that. And, again,
unfortunately, the Federal Reserve has issued a report recently warning
that sort of high level of unemployment would be with us for several
years to come.
What I hear from Louisianans all around the State--and I would
certainly trust what Members from every State of the Union hear in
their home States--is that we need a better model to create jobs, to
jump-start this economy, to get us out of this serious recession.
The other big theme and concern I hear all around Louisiana is: What
are you all doing about this unsustainable level of spending and debt?
I share that fear. I share that concern. Even as we struggle to get out
of this recession--and we are not near there yet--I am fearful that the
next economic crisis is coming based on spending and debt,
unsustainable levels of spending and debt. We are near debt levels
today comparable to where this Nation was at the end of World War II
compared to GDP.
I don't like the idea of going into heavy debt for anything, but if
we are going to do it as a nation, surely the reason we had with World
War II, the need to build a modern Army overnight, unlike any military
we had ever had before that, to defeat Hitler, to preserve freedom and
democracy, literally our way of life, surely that reason is a pretty
darn good one. That is why we as a nation went into debt, got up to 120
percent of GDP at the end of World War II.
The ``greatest generation'' that did that, that sacrificed and fought
and won that war, turned around after the war and wiped away that debt,
sent it down with great prosperity and fiscal restraint in the 1950s.
But today we are nearing those same historic high levels of debt, with
our overall debt now at about 100 percent of GDP, but, obviously,
without the historical circumstances such as we had in World War II.
The other thing we don't have is that plan to get rid of it, that
determination to reverse course and get our fiscal house in order
because we don't have that plan either. In fact, we are in a huge
fiscal debt hole, and we have not even stopped digging. In fact, the
only thing this administration and this liberal Congress have done in
the last year is to put down the shovel digging and used a backhoe
instead, specifically to pass a budget that takes that historically
high level of debt and doubles it in 5 years and triples it in 10
years.
In the face of those two enormous challenges, we need to create jobs
much more effectively than we have in the last year, and we need to get
spending and debt under control.
I proposed last March legislation that I and my cosponsors called the
no-cost stimulus act. The no-cost stimulus act is about just that,
creating great American jobs, stimulating the economy, helping us get
out of this recession, using a fundamentally different model than the
last year, at no cost to the taxpayer, not continuing to drop hard-
earned taxpayer dollars out of helicopters--a fundamentally different
approach at no cost to the taxpayer.
In fact, it will produce new Federal revenue and lower our level of
deficit and debt.
How do we do that? We do it by focusing on our domestic energy
sector, by opening access to domestic energy we have in great
quantities in this country, by decreasing our reliance on foreign
sources and creating great American jobs in the process. Again, we do
this by opening access to our tremendous energy reserves we have.
We are the only country on Earth that has major, significant energy
resources but that puts 95 percent of them off limits under Federal law
and says: No, no, no, no, you cannot touch that. You cannot touch 95
percent of our domestic energy resources.
We need to change that both to improve our energy situation and to
create good American jobs because the answer on the energy front is not
either/or. It is not either drill for traditional sources, such as oil
and gas, or develop new technology, new research and development. The
American people know it is not either/or; it is all of the above, and
we need to do all of the above aggressively.
This bill fits right into that commonsense, all-of-the-above
mentality of the American people. We open access to domestic energy
reserves. We produce
[[Page S682]]
more energy here at home. In doing so, we grow great American jobs--2
million long-term, sustainable, well-paying jobs. In doing that, we
increase GDP by as much as $10 trillion over the next 30 years.
But we accomplish even more. We lessen our dependence on foreign
sources. We do not spend additional taxpayer dollars and go deeper into
debt. By creating these jobs and domestic energy, we actually increase
Federal revenue. Because what happens when we open our energy resources
for production? That production comes online, royalty goes to the
Federal Government--new Federal revenue--and we decrease deficit and
debt. It truly is a win-win-win.
Part of that is also focusing on the nuclear side, developing what
many folks, including the President, have talked about but which we
have not accomplished yet: a true nuclear renaissance, a true
streamlining of nuclear programs so we can dramatically increase that
capacity, particularly producing electricity.
Finally, let me mention the other part of the win-win-win which is in
this legislation. We devote some significant portion of the new,
additional Federal revenue created to alternative energy research and
development. So, again, it is not either/or; it is all of the above.
This proposal has significant support. I am very proud to say we now
have 18 Senators who are coauthors of the proposal. There is a
companion bill in the House with 50 coauthors there. So it is a
significant proposal with significant support. It represents a win-win-
win for the American people and the American economy in this time of
serious recession.
So why shouldn't this be actively considered and debated and voted
on, on the floor of the Senate? We are supposed to be considering a
jobs bill. That is progress. At least, finally, we are focused on jobs.
But why is every alternative, every amendment being shut out by the
majority leader, including this valid alternative?
So in that vein, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order for me to offer amendment No. 3318, which is filed at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. VITTER. Well, again, I came to the Senate hearing this was the
body of full and open debate, full and open consideration of
amendments. The problem is my experience here in 5 years has been
anything but that, including yet again this week on this legislation,
as we are trying to address the top issue of the American people: jobs
and the economy.
Why can't we have a full debate? Why can't we have open consideration
of amendments, including this alternative model to continuing to spend
taxpayer dollars, increasing deficit and debt at an alarming rate.
Again, I find it unfortunate that is the partisan procedural position
we are in. But I will continue with my Senate coauthors, with the 50
House coauthors of this no-cost stimulus proposal to advance this idea
as part of a reasonable solution to grow good jobs without having to
spend another trillion dollars of hard-earned taxpayer dollars and
increased deficit and debt.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I come down to the floor and I hear
the Senator from Louisiana saying he has been in the Senate for years
and he cannot believe we cannot debate these things. I have watched
over the last 13 months since President Obama took the oath of office--
13 months and less than a week--and I am incredulous the Senator from
Louisiana would say what he says; that we, in fact, do not allow debate
in this institution, when more than 100 times, just in the last 13
months--I think maybe 110 times; I cannot keep count because we add a
few every day or every week--more than 100 times the other party, the
Republicans, have obstructed, have delayed, have stopped us from moving
forward.
We have had plenty of time to debate. We will stay here weekends. We
will stay here evenings. But when it is not debate they want, it is to
block things--maybe talking things to death is the way they block
things; maybe they just object to things--but time and time again we
have had the ``slow walk'' on health care, so we have not been able to
put a bill on the President's desk. That is not because people do not
have ideas. It is not because people want to shut down debate. It is
because they have tried to stop these bills on issue after issue after
issue.
I remember something so simple as the children's health insurance
bill, which President Bush vetoed but many people in both parties
supported. They tried to slow that down. They tried to slow the Lilly
Ledbetter legislation which we passed to try to make sure women doing
the same job in the same place are paid as much as men doing the same
job in the same place.
I could stand here, Mr. President, as you could, representing your
constituents in Santa Fe and Taos and all over New Mexico--you could do
the same as I can do, representing my constituents in Toledo and Dayton
and Galion and Saint Clairsville--and point out that when we have tried
to get things done, they have blocked it.
We do want bipartisanship. But the public, more than anything, wants
us to get things done. The Senator from Louisiana has been one of the
leaders, in conjunction with one of his other regional Senators, who
has said health care could be President Obama's Waterloo. There are
people in this institution on the other side of the aisle--not all of
them; the senior Senator from my State, George Voinovich, has
cooperated a lot of times on a lot of things, unlike some of his
colleagues, but there are senior Senators on that side of the aisle,
where their goal is to see the President of the United States fail. If
the President of the United States fails, this country does not move
forward.
We are in the worst economic times of my lifetime, brought on by
terrible policies in the last 8 years: bank deregulation, tax cuts for
the rich, a war not paid for, a giveaway to drug companies and the
insurance companies in the name of Medicare privatization, causing all
these problems that we inherited a year ago, and all they want to do is
stop the jobs bill. They voted last night--the Senator who just
complained about not being able to debate voted last night not to even
allow the bill on the floor, as he did on health care, as he has done
on issue after issue after issue.
It is not personal to me what they are doing, but it is certainly
wrong when they try to block issue after issue, bill after bill. We can
disagree on what we need to do to bring this country forward. We can
disagree on the jobs bill. We can disagree on the health care bill. But
we ought to be able to agree we can have full debate, move forward,
work on this legislation, and pass it in a reasonable time so every
Senator does not talk it to death in the way of stopping it, in the way
of obstructionism.
I yield the floor.
____________________