[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.

                          ____________________