[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]]
____________________