[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 108 (Thursday, July 25, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5934-S5937]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          THUD Appropriations

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to propose and support two 
amendments to the appropriations bill that is on the floor today and 
will continue into next week. They both have a common theme, and that 
theme is to keep faith with the American people; to not put ourselves 
here in Washington, here in Congress, in a different, higher class than 
middle-class Americans but to be one of them; to truly represent them; 
to truly fight for them here in Washington.
  The two amendments address this in different ways. One is to block a 
pay raise that would otherwise happen for Members of Congress even in 
the midst of this very sluggish economy, barely getting out of the 
recent recession. There is an automatic pay raise in the law. This was 
done years ago, really behind closed doors in a bit of a smoke-filled 
room, to put an automatic pay raise for Members of Congress in the law 
so that almost every year it just happens automatically. There is no 
inconvenience of having to propose it, actually having to come to the 
Senate floor and come to the floor of the House of Representatives and 
justify it and, God forbid, have to vote for it. It just happens.
  I disagree strongly with that system. I think that entire system and 
premise is offensive. For that reason, Senator Claire McCaskill of 
Missouri and I have a bill, a proposal to undo that and require that 
any future pay raise has to be proposed, justified on the floor of the 
Senate and the floor of the House, and actually voted on. This 
amendment is not that entire bill. This amendment is focused on the 
here and now, to block the automatic pay raise that would happen this 
year if we do not act.
  You will hear from members of the committee, handlers of this 
appropriations bill, that this amendment is not relevant, is not 
germane to this bill. The folks who set up the automatic pay raise 
system several years ago were very clever. They figured out a way that 
an amendment such as this would not be germane to any appropriations 
bill, would not be germane to any bill. That is why we need to act on 
this bill--because this may be one of the few appropriations bills, 
spending bills we actually deal with on the floor of the Senate this 
year.
  To the credit of Congress, in the midst of the recent recession 
Congress denied itself these automatic pay raises, so they have not 
happened since 2009. But we are not into healthy growth. The American 
middle class is not doing just fine. Unemployment is still over 7.5 
percent--7.6 percent, which is well above the 5 percent promised when 
Congress and President Obama passed a $1 trillion stimulus. In fact, we 
have had 53 straight months with unemployment above 7.5 percent. That 
is not a healthy economy. That is not recovery.
  As Americans continue to suffer, continue to look for work, continue 
to look for full-time work as part-time becomes more the norm, 
particularly in the era of ObamaCare, we need to relate to them and not 
set ourselves

[[Page S5935]]

apart. We need to be a fighter for them, not a member of a higher, 
different class in Washington. One simple but important way to do that 
is to say no pay raise when we are in the midst of this very sluggish 
nonrecovery.
  Again, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri has joined me in this 
effort. I appreciate her partnership on the broader bill, and I 
appreciate her partnership on this amendment, the Vitter amendment No. 
1746. I urge all my colleagues, Democrats as well as Republicans, to 
adopt and support this commonsense amendment.
  This is an important message. This is an important statement. The 
question and the choice is simple: Are you going to be a true 
representative of the folks back home, relate to them, be one of them, 
or did you really come to Washington to put yourself in a different, 
higher class? The answer needs to be the first answer provided. We need 
to represent the folks back home, not put ourselves in a different, 
higher class. This pay raise amendment is one way to do that. Say no to 
any congressional pay raise in the midst of this horribly slow economy.
  My second amendment also continues this theme. It relates to our 
health care benefits, but it is really the same issue, the same theme. 
Are we one with the folks we were elected to represent or are we trying 
to set ourselves out as a different, higher class here in Washington?
  This amendment is Vitter amendment No. 1748. It would ensure that all 
Members of Congress, all congressional staff, and all executive 
appointees deal with ObamaCare in the same way ordinary Americans do. 
They have to go in the exchange; they have to deal with their health 
care that way. They do not get special treatment.
  In the midst of the ObamaCare debate, that issue came up. I brought 
up the issue. I brought an amendment to the floor. My Louisiana 
colleague John Fleming did the same thing in the House. Because of the 
attention we focused on that issue, there was a limited provision in 
the law that said Members of Congress and their direct staffs would be 
in the exchanges. However, very conveniently, some of the details were 
jiggered around so that Members of the leadership and their staffs and 
committee staffs would somehow be in a different, higher category and 
they would not be subject to the same ObamaCare rules. They would 
benefit from the very generous and very lucrative Federal Employees 
Health Benefits Plan that Congress has traditionally been under.
  I think we should undo that. I think we should be one of the American 
people, relate to the American people, and get the same treatment 
through the exchanges that the great majority of them will get under 
ObamaCare. The problem is that here on Capitol Hill, again behind 
closed doors, the effort is largely in the opposite direction.
  The Wall Street Journal unveiled this on April 25 of this year. It 
reported that Senator Reid and Congressman Steny Hoyer had initiated 
some behind-closed-doors secret discussions to actually fix the 
problem, as they saw it, and put all Members of Congress and all of our 
staffs back in that select category--not with the American people, not 
in the exchanges, but in that select higher category and be granted 
preferential treatment. Because that hit the press, because that word 
got out, I am hopeful that those secret negotiations have stopped. We 
need to make sure we do not move in that direction.
  ObamaCare is a train wreck. Implementation is causing dramatic 
problems for millions upon millions of Americans. But the solution is 
not to fix it selectively for us; the solution is to fix it for 
everybody, to fix it for average middle-class Americans. If we do that 
we would benefit as well.
  So this amendment not only blocks the effort by Senator Reid and 
Steny Hoyer and others to move Members of Congress and our staffs back 
into a select category and protect us from the train wreck of ObamaCare 
implementation, the solution is to broaden that pool and actually have 
that same treatment, along with ordinary Americans, for every Member of 
Congress, for all of our staffs, for leadership, for committee staffs, 
and also for President Obama's appointees.
  My amendment, Vitter amendment No. 1748, on which Dean Heller is a 
cosponsor, would do just that. It would ensure that all bureaucrats, 
all Obama appointees, all congressional staff, all Members, leadership 
and otherwise, all of our staffs, committee and otherwise, are subject 
to ObamaCare and are not put into a select higher class and offered 
preferential treatment--again, the common theme with my other 
amendment. That is how we relate to the folks we represent. That is how 
we are truly one of them.
  ObamaCare is a problem. Implementation is a train wreck. But the 
solution is not to put ourselves in a higher class, divorced from that 
problem; the solution is to live that problem ourselves, and hopefully 
that will promote us and motivate us to solve that problem for all of 
the American people.
  This is not a partisan amendment. This should not be a partisan 
fight. This is about are we truly part of the States we represent? Do 
we truly relate to those citizens who sent us to Washington or do we 
come here and put ourselves in a select, different class, give 
ourselves preferential treatment under law, after law, after law--in 
this case, ObamaCare?
  Again, this is Vitter amendment No. 1748. I urge all my colleagues--
Republicans, Democrats, Independents, everyone--to support it, to tell 
your constituents: No, I did not come here to put myself in a special 
class. I did not come here to get preferential treatment. I came here 
to fight for you.
  And, yes, ObamaCare has major issues, major problems. Implementation 
is, as one of my Democratic colleagues has forthrightly said, a train 
wreck. But the solution is not to fix it behind closed doors 
selectively for us; the solution is to fix it--which personally I think 
means delay or repeal it--for the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, am I in order to speak about the 
nomination of Tony West?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is in order.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today the Senate will vote on the 
nomination of Tony West to be Associate Attorney General. Although I 
will be supporting Mr. West's nomination, I have some concerns about 
his record that I want to share with my colleagues.
  This is a very important position. The Associate Attorney General is 
the third highest ranking official within the Department of Justice. 
Mr. West is currently serving as Acting Associate Attorney General, and 
as far as I can tell he has generally done a pretty good job. However, 
before serving as Acting Associate Attorney General, Mr. West was 
confirmed as Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division. My 
concerns are with his record while serving in that position.
  Specifically, while heading the Civil Division, Mr. West was involved 
in and even defended the quid quo pro deal between the Department of 
Justice and the City of St. Paul, MN. That scheme was orchestrated by 
Tom Perez, who headed the Civil Rights Division and was recently 
confirmed by the Senate to be Labor Secretary.
  My colleagues have heard me on the floor of this body many times 
talking about this quid pro quo, most often emphasizing Tom Perez's 
involvement with it, but not too much about Mr. West.
  The quid pro quo involved the Department agreeing to decline two 
False Claims cases pending against the City of St. Paul. Remember, if 
successful, those two False Claims cases were estimated--and they were 
pretty good cases--to bring $200 million back into the Federal 
Treasury. In exchange, the City of St. Paul would agree to drop a case 
pending before the Supreme Court.
  As I have said, I have spoken at length on the St. Paul quid pro quo 
as it relates to the nomination of Mr. Perez to be Secretary of Labor.
  As my colleagues know, I have been a major supporter of 
whistleblowers and their protection under the laws of this country. 
Whistleblowers are a very important source of information in helping us 
if laws are not being abided by

[[Page S5936]]

or money is being misspent. Of course, that is why I authored the 1986 
amendments to the False Claims Act. It was to protect whistleblowers, 
but it also gives a resource for getting money back into the Federal 
Treasury if it is misspent.
  Those amendments--meaning the False Claims Act amendments--
revitalized the law by empowering individual qui tam whistleblowers to 
come forward and file suits on behalf of the Federal Government to 
recover taxpayer dollars lost to fraud. Since those amendments were 
enacted, over $40 billion has been recovered.
  Under Mr. West's tenure as head of the Civil Division, that 
Department has been successfully utilizing the tools of qui tam 
whistleblowers' information. Of course, they are not shy about saying 
so, and as far as I am concerned it is their right to do that. The more 
publicity we can have about recovering money under the False Claims 
Act, the more we may encourage more whistleblowers to come forth and 
recover even more money.
  The False Claims Act is within the purview of the Civil Division, 
which Mr. West oversaw at that time, not the Civil Rights Division. 
However, in the quid pro quo, the evidence uncovered by my 
investigation suggests that Mr. West allowed Tom Perez to take control 
of the Civil Division in order to cut this deal that saved Mr. Perez's 
favored legal theory referred to as the ``disparate impact'' theory. As 
I have discussed previously, Mr. Perez was concerned the Supreme Court 
was going to strike down this theory as unconstitutional.

  In doing so, the Department undercut a viable case against St. Paul 
and, in the process, left the whistleblower who filed the suit to fight 
the City on behalf of the American taxpayers all alone--left him out 
there twisting in the wind.
  This is not how I expect the Department to treat good-faith 
whistleblowers. They are patriotic people. They are people who probably 
destroyed their opportunity of livelihood because they know something 
is wrong and they want to report it, just as patriotic people ought to 
do. In fact, I believe it is contrary to the assurances Mr. West gave 
me during his confirmation hearing in 2009 when he indicated he would 
protect whistleblowers and vigorously enforce the False Claims Act.
  Let everybody understand there is not a single individual subject to 
Senate confirmation in the Justice Department who comes before the 
committee or to my office for an interview that I don't ask them their 
view of the False Claims Act, because I don't want anyone serving in 
the Justice Department who doesn't support vigorous enforcement and use 
of the False Claims Act.
  As I have said, ultimately Mr. Perez was the architect of this ill-
advised quid pro quo that left Frederick Newell, a good-faith 
whistleblower, hanging out there to dry. In my view, Mr. Perez bears 
the most responsibility in this whole matter. He was the one who was 
manipulating the process and he did so at times behind the back of Mr. 
West.
  Nonetheless, Mr. West was the individual in charge of the Civil 
Division, and as head of that division the decision regarding whether 
to join those False Claims cases fell to Mr. West.
  It is troubling to me that Mr. Perez, who at the time was head of the 
Civil Rights Division, would be the one who was so clearly 
orchestrating the deal, and acting as de facto head of the Civil 
Division. Unfortunately, Mr. West let him get away with it. So that 
concerns me as it relates to the nomination of Mr. West to be the third 
highest ranking official at the Department of Justice.
  We need individuals serving in these positions who are willing to 
stand up to those who are trying to advance a political agenda; and 
that is exactly what Mr. Perez was trying to advance. In this instance, 
at least, it doesn't appear that Mr. West stood up to Mr. Perez as he 
should have.
  On the contrary, the record appears to indicate Mr. West allowed Mr. 
Perez to orchestrate this deal on behalf of the Civil Division even 
though Mr. Perez was head of the Civil Rights Division.
  However, notwithstanding these concerns, I am willing to give Mr. 
West the benefit of the doubt and vote for his nomination. Part of the 
reason I am willing to do so is because the Civil Division, under the 
leadership of Mr. West, has established a respectable record in 
utilizing the tools available under the False Claims Act amendments 
that I got passed in 1986 and that have brought back into the Treasury 
approximately $40 billion.
  And, as an instance of the use of the False Claims Act by Mr. West, 
the Civil Division secured approximately $4.9 billion coming back into 
the Federal Treasury in the single year of 2012. Taken together over 
the last several years, the Civil Division has secured a total of 
approximately $13.3 billion.
  Obviously, this is not an insignificant amount of taxpayer dollars 
coming back. Although the Department's recovery of this money, on the 
one hand, does not excuse their behavior in the quid pro quo matter, I 
do believe Mr. West deserves a certain degree of credit for his 
leadership in this area.
  So, as I said, I will support his nomination, and I expect he will be 
confirmed. It is my sincere hope he will perform his job well and not 
let somebody undercut him as he let Mr. Perez undercut him in regard to 
the quid pro quo and the False Claims cases involving St. Paul, MN. But 
I want him to know, and everybody else to know, that I plan to conduct 
aggressive oversight of the Department to ensure the mistakes that 
occurred as part of the quid pro quo that potentially cost the 
taxpayers nearly $200 million lost to fraud are not repeated.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TESTER. I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Derek Anthony West, of California, to be Associate Attorney General?
  Mr. TESTER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 186 Ex.]

                                YEAS--98

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Chiesa
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Coburn
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Moran
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. The President 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

[[Page S5937]]



                          ____________________