Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I call up Vitter amendment No. 1375.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I send a modification of the amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, originally my amendment dealt with two E- Verify issues: the no-match rule under Social Security, which I am about to talk about, and also ensuring that the E-Verify system is used for employers who operate under Federal contracts.

Just a few minutes ago, we passed the Sessions amendment which deals with the second of those issues, Federal contracts, so the modification of my amendment simply takes that part of my amendment out and leaves a correction of the remaining issue, the Social Security no-match rule. That is the only thing the modification did.

What is the no-match rule? In August 2007, the Department of Homeland Security introduced this no-match regulation which clarified the responsibility of employers who receive notice that their employees' names and Social Security numbers don't match the records of the Social Security Administration. Under the rule, employers receiving this sort of notice who did not take corrective action would be deemed to have constructive knowledge that they are employing unauthorized or illegal aliens. In other words, this rule provided clear guidance on the appropriate responsibility of the employer, the appropriate due diligence the employer should undertake if they receive a letter from the Social Security Administration informing them there is not a proper match under those records. DHS, GAO, and Social Security audits found that such discrepancies often arise when workers use false documents to illegally obtain employment in the United States.

Going after these no-matches is absolutely imperative to attack the issue of illegal aliens in this country. Employers who receive no-match letters know they have a problem and a responsibility to do something about it. Either their record keeping needs to be improved or they have hired undocumented workers. This no-match rule is reasonable in telling the employers: You have a problem, and you have a responsibility to do something about it in a circumstance where there is a no-match.

This no-match rule has been blocked by litigation filed by organized labor and business groups that have consistently opposed enforcement of many of our Federal immigration laws. But the administration has twice asked the court to delay ruling on the government's motion to throw out the lawsuit, thus voluntarily leaving the rule in legal limbo for more than 5 years.

My amendment, as modified, would simply prevent any more delays on the no-match rule. It would allow the Social Security Administration and DHS to provide employers with notices of the problem in their workforce payroll records. This is not only thoroughly reasonable, but it is absolutely necessary--one of many necessary steps we must take to move forward with regard to the illegal immigration problem and productive enforcement. If there are situations where there isn't a match under Social Security records, we need to do something about it. The employer needs to look into it and do something about it or else our illegal immigration laws are going to continue to be made a farce and continue to be flagrantly violated in many cases. This is a reasonable approach. It puts a reasonable but not undue burden on the employer to do some appropriate due diligence when they get a no-match notice from Social Security.

With that, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. I hope we will have a vote on it, probably later today. I look forward to any continuing debate and urge a ``yes'' vote.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I have a motion to commit with instructions at the desk.

Madam President, I will outline my motion to commit shortly. First, by way of introduction, let me say how disappointed and frustrated I am that another amendment I had proposed for this bill was consistently blocked out all of this week, and no vote, no consideration was allowed by the distinguished majority leader. That amendment, which had been filed some time ago, which I worked hard to get before this body, would have passed again, a repeal of the automatic pay

raise provision for Members of the Senate and Members of the U.S. House currently in the law.

We are in the midst of a very serious recession. American families all around the country are really hurting. Many have been laid off, lost their jobs through investment losses and the stock market. Many others are scared to death about their future. Yet all of us as Members of Congress live under this system where we get an automatic pay raise virtually every year, a pay raise on autopilot without any need for a proposal or a bill to be offered, to be filed, to be debated or voted on. That really is a very offensive system to millions of American families, particularly so during this serious recession.

I am very sorry the majority leader felt the need to work at every turn to block out any consideration of this amendment and certainly any vote on this amendment. We have a unanimous consent agreement on this bill before us. It contains amendments that are not germane to the bill. It contains amendments that have points of order against them. There is no legitimate way the majority leader can distinguish my amendment from those, except that he didn't want to deal with the issue.

We already have dealt with it by passing a stand-alone bill through the Senate. But, of course, to require the House to deal with it, we need to effectively attach it to another must-pass bill. So that remains my goal, and my effort will continue. I wish to assure and reassure the majority leader that effort will continue and we will be talking about this more in the future.

With regard to my motion to commit with instructions, it has a very similar theme because this motion to commit would simply send this appropriations bill back to the committee and ask that they restyle it so that it does not spend any more money than we spent on legislative appropriations for the last fiscal year. That would constitute about a $76 million cut. That is not a huge amount of money in Washington terms, but I think it would be the beginning of a huge and an important and an appropriate statement by this body.

Again, as I said, American families are hurting all over the country. There have been layoffs, job losses; there have been tremendous investment losses; people's savings have been whittled away, down to nearly nothing in some cases. People who had retired, counting on a certain future have seen that future disappear in front of their eyes. They don't have the luxury, particularly now, this year, in this recession, of any percentage increase--many of them. Many of those American families are dealing with a huge income decrease. Wouldn't it be reasonable and appropriate for us collectively to say we are going to live by the same dollar amount as we did last year? Consider that amount last year was an 11-percent increase from the year before, so that amount Congress passed last year was an 11-percent increase--about triple the rate of inflation--done in the middle of this serious recession. That was a significant increase last year. Shouldn't we temper that? Shouldn't we make a statement that we are going to live with the same dollar amount as last year?

I also note that under the exact language of my amendment, No. 1, we would give maximum flexibility to the Appropriations Committee about how they would find those modest savings of $76 million, and No. 2, the one thing we would protect, the one thing we would tell them not to touch is spending which is essential for security of the Capitol Complex. There would be no chance--not that it would be the desire of the Appropriations Committee--there would be no possibility of sacrificing anything to do with security of the Capitol Complex.

This is a pretty simple and a pretty basic suggestion. I think it is a pretty commonsense one. American families are struggling with the worst recession since World War II. Millions of American families have one or more members who have lost their jobs. Those families have seen their incomes go down enormously. Tens of millions of other Americans have seen life savings cut in half. Folks in retirement or near retirement have seen that whole picture change before their eyes. So there are plenty of Americans who are not dealing with an increase from last year, they are dealing with a huge decrease. How about we say on a bipartisan basis: OK, our legislative budget got an 11-percent increase last year even as this recession was underway.

So this year, we are going to get a zero percent increase. This year we are simply going to live with the same dollars as we lived with for the legislative branch last year. This is simple, straightforward, but I think important. Again, we would do this by giving the committee maximum flexibility in terms of finding those savings, and we would do it by protecting the security of the Capitol complex.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this important symbol and this important statement as families hurt all around our country.

Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

I might need an additional 3 minutes to wrap up.

In summary, let me try to clarify and rebut a few points. First, to say that this bill is a 2.4-percent increase over last year's is complete fiction, because that assumes the stimulus into last year's number. In fact, last year's number, because of the stimulus--and the stimulus was a one-time bill, not a normal fiscal year bill.

No. 2, last year's bill, as I mentioned, was an 11-percent increase over the previous year, three times the rate of inflation.

No. 3, I wanted to give the committee maximum flexibility in making this modest cut. But there are plenty of suggestions I would have. I would be happy to offer specifics. I will offer one right now. The Open World Leadership Center Trust Fund, $14.5 million. That would be almost a quarter of the savings I am asking for. That is a program to bring governmental officials from Russia and Eastern European republics to tour the United States. I am sure it is a nice idea, but I think there would be a lot of American families in the middle of this recession who would ask, is that essential? Is that core to what we are doing in government in very tough economic times? Do we actually need to do this?

We can find those savings. That program alone is a quarter of the savings my motion to commit would require. We can find those savings clearly without touching Capitol Police overtime, without touching cost-of-living increases for employees.

Finally, there are millions of American families who are not dealing with any increase this year in their incomes. They are dealing with a huge decrease. They are dealing with a huge decrease in savings. So can't we simply live with the same dollar amount as we did in the legislative branch last year? I think the huge majority of Americans would find that a very reasonable and a very modest goal.

I yield the reminder of my time.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Madam President, today I rise to speak on two crucial issues which I had hoped we would not only be debating in the context of this FDA bill currently before the Senate, but actually acting on in that context. So I have to say as I speak about these two issues I am disappointed we are not taking this obvious, major opportunity of acting on a major FDA bill to again not only have me speak, but all of us act together on the crucial issues of, No. 1, the reimportation of prescription drugs; and, No. 2, meaningful generic drug reform so that we get generics to market sooner as a lower cost alternative for American consumers. I wish to touch on each of these in turn.

I was glad to support my friend, the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, and many Democratic and Republican colleagues, in introducing an amendment to the FDA tobacco bill to enact comprehensive reimportation of prescription drugs. This has long been an issue that has truly united, in a sincere bipartisan way, Democrats and Republicans. Many Democrats and many Republicans have agreed. I think at a time when, unfortunately, the partisan divide and sometimes divisive and bitter partisan rhetoric is at an all-time high, it is important to find areas where we can bridge that divide in a meaningful and sincere way.

It is important to work on real issues and real solutions together and bridge that divide. Reimportation is a great example of that.

Now, we have on record a clear majority in the Senate and well over 60 votes for reimportation. We have a clear majority in the U.S. House for reimportation, and we have an administration and a President who are for reimportation, and he is on record in that regard in his service in the U.S. Senate. In addition, we have an important issue that can save all of us and can save our health care system billions of dollars as we go into health care reform. Surely, we need to be talking and acting in ways that can cut costs in health care without endangering the public, without hurting patient care, and this is a great opportunity.

The CBO has estimated that Americans would save about $50 billion-- $50 billion with a ``b''--over the next 10 years if reimportation were enacted. So we have a true bipartisan issue which has true consensus support in the Senate, in the House, and in the administration, which can save all of us and our health care system $50 billion. Let's act. Surely, this is a recipe for something we can act strongly on and produce positive results.

So what is going on? Well, I am afraid what is going on is exactly what my colleague, the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, suggested on the Senate floor last week. He stood bravely on the Senate floor and read directly from a lobbyist e-mail, a lobbyist of big PhRMA, the association which represents the biggest pharmaceutical companies, and read a detailed e-mail about how they were going to block and derail this effort of mine and Senator McCain's and Senator Dorgan's and others.

I think seeing that come to pass, seeing this effort successfully blocked from the FDA bill--something that is clearly a major opportunity on which to pass reimportation, a big FDA bill--that has to grow the cynicism of the American public. Americans all across our country have to be out there thinking: OK, what is wrong with this picture? Reimportation unites Democrats and Republicans, a big majority in the Senate, a big majority in the House, the support of the President, saves the system $50 billion, obvious opportunity to pass it on an FDA bill, but, once again, it is cut off. It is blocked from consideration, from moving forward. That has to increase everybody's cynicism, and we have to work beyond that to pass this important legislation for the American people.

I am happy the majority leader has generally said he would find time on the Senate floor for consideration of a reimportation bill. We need to move. We would like a date certain, Mr. Leader, a date certain for that important consideration. After so many years of waiting, after so many years of the big PhRMA lobbyists and others blocking us from that consideration, we would like that debate and that action as soon as possible. It is certainly appropriate as we go into a major debate on health care reform.

I would underscore the same message with regard to the second crucial topic: reform with regard to generic drugs. For many months now, I have been working with several Members, most notably Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire, on bipartisan consensus generic drug reform.

Once again, I was very hopeful that this FDA bill on the floor of the Senate now would be a prime opportunity, an obvious opportunity, to pass that consensus bipartisan reform. Once again, that door was closed to us. We are not going to have that opportunity, and I express real disappointment.

But we need to act in that area. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Shaheen, Senator Brown, and others in that important area. We have been focused on two things, in particular, that can make a huge difference.

First, we need to clear up certain loopholes, quite frankly, in the law that allowed drug companies to make labeling changes when their patent protection is about to run out, when generic was about to be open to go on the market. They were able to make slight labeling changes to extend that protection longer, in my opinion, in a somewhat artificial way. We need to reform the law and clear up those loopholes so that generic can come to market and provide Americans with a lower cost alternative.

Surely the drug companies need a period of protection so they can recoup their enormous investment in research and development. But what they don't need, and what we should not allow, in my opinion, is tweaking the labels at the eleventh hour and extending that protection in an artificial and, in my opinion, unreasonable way. That is a big area of reform I have been working on with Senator Shaheen and others.

A second area of needed reform is to elevate the Office of Generic Drugs and its importance within the FDA. We need to give it more stature. We need to have the head of that office report directly to the head of the FDA, the Administrator. We need to fund it properly so that, again, we put the proper emphasis on generic drugs. Generics are a good, safe, lower cost alternative to millions of American seniors and other Americans. They provide that today. But they can provide that lower cost alternative to an even greater extent if we take these commonsense, consensus, bipartisan measures--if we do away with these loopholes that allow last-minute labeling changes to artificially and unreasonably extend a company's patent, and if we elevate the stature of the Office of Generic Drugs within the FDA.

Again, it was an obvious opportunity to do just that in a bipartisan consensus way as we debate and act on this major FDA bill on the floor of the Senate now. I am sorry that door has been closed to us. I am sorry we have lost that opportunity. It is a shame. But we need to move on that issue, just as we need to move on reimportation now in the next few months this year in this body and in the House of Representatives.

We desperately need important health care reform. We need savings in the system to make costs of the overall health care system more reasonable, without sacrificing patient care, without telling seniors they cannot get this treatment or they cannot get that operation. These are commonsense, achievable ways to do that, by stabilizing the cost of prescription drugs. That is one of the most significant costs in our health care system with one of the most significant growth patterns. So let's act on reimportation, let's act on generics reform, let's act in

a bipartisan way, let's act for the best interests of American seniors and all the American people.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to honor and recognize a fellow Louisianan, Deputy Rhonda Goff, for showing courage and authority when she apprehended three suspects involved in a shooting and burglary last October. She received the National Association of Police Organization's TOP COP Awards for her efforts, and I would like to take a few moments to recognize her actions.

On October 20, 2008, Deputy Goff noticed three men, one of whom was covered in blood, leaving a bar. She immediately stopped and had witnesses identify the men as having robbed the bar. Without hesitation, she ran after the men. Although outnumbered by three to one, she apprehended and handcuffed the suspects, and when she searched them found numerous stolen wallets. When back up arrived, they found four more wounded victims inside the bar and discovered that three more men had been involved in the robbery. Deputy Goff obtained a license plate from a witness and was able to air the information over the radio, enabling detectives to track down the remaining suspects.

Deputy Goff was honored for her coolness under pressure, as well as her quick and decisive action in getting a lead on the additional felons. Her actions exemplify what it means to go above the call of duty. Thus today, I congratulate Deputy Goff as being named one of 2009 TOP COPS and thank her for her bravery and courageous work in keeping the State of Louisiana safe.

Madam President, I rise today to talk about the crucial issue of energy, to express real and deep concern that President Obama's energy proposals are, pure and simple, a huge package of new taxes on domestic energy production that will hurt this country and particularly hurt middle-class and working-class families, and to offer a clear alternative which is embodied in a bill I have introduced with 14 other Senators and 30 House Members, the No Cost Stimulus Act of 2009.

Energy plays a very unique and important role in our great society because energy--affordable, accessible energy--is one of the great equalizers in our great society. Low-cost energy provides for the single mom working two jobs to be able to drive her kids to school in the morning or soccer practice on the weekend, the way a wealthy family can. Low-cost energy allows for an elderly couple living on Social Security to stay warm in the winter and cool in the summer, as Warren Buffett can.

In providing energy that is truly affordable and accessible to businesses and consumers, we not only grow the society, but it is even more fundamental than that. It is a great equalizer. We ensure that those important opportunities and comforts are available to everyone in our society.

The converse of that is also true. When Congress acts to increase the cost of energy or when Congress acts knowing that will be the effect, we are making a decision to reduce the standard of living of middle- class, working-class families and the poor. We are making a decision to increase that gap, to put classes into our society and take away one of those great equalizers.

Cheap, affordable, accessible energy is as basic as putting a roof over your head and food on the plate of your children. Energy keeps the elderly in Wisconsin warm in the winter, keeps kids in Louisiana cool in the very hot and very humid summer.

With that truth, as sure as we should supply clean drinking water to all Americans, we must provide reliable, affordable energy to the people of our great Nation. It is our responsibility to do so in a nation of the people and by the people and for the people. It is fundamental to who we are as a people because it is a great equalizer, and we are a society not of classes but of one people.

In contrast to this, I am concerned about President Obama's energy proposals which across the board constitute a set of major new taxes on domestically produced energy. I favor an alternative to that, the No Cost Stimulus Act of 2009.

Our goal in the energy debate should be four things. It should be ensuring affordable energy for all Americans, including middle- and low-income families, keeping energy that great positive equalizer in our society. It should be growing the economy from our own abundant resources right here at home and not creating another factor that pushes jobs out of the country to other countries. It should be to work vigilantly to achieve energy independence, doing more here at home. And No. 4, tied directly to that, it should be about ensuring our efforts are consistent with our national security interests, which is, of course, more energy independence.

Again, the President's tax proposals are big increases on domestic energy production across the board. So they work against all of those four core aims that I laid out.

To see how that happens, we can look at history, and not that far back, to President Carter. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter increased taxes on domestic energy production. He signed into law the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act. The windfall profits tax was forecasted to raise more than $320 billion between 1980 and 1989. But a funny thing happened on the road of implementation. The reality was far different.

According to the CRS, the government collected only $80 billion in gross tax revenue, compared to that $320 billion projection. The CRS also found the windfall profits tax had the effect of decreasing domestic production, what we produce at home, by between 3 percent and 6 percent, thereby increasing our dependence on foreign oil sources from 8 percent to 16 percent.

A side effect was declining, not increasing, tax collections. And while the tax raised considerable revenue in the initial years following its enactment, those revenues declined to almost nothing as that domestic energy industry went down as a direct result.

So here we are in 2009 and, unfortunately, it seems to be back to the future, a repeat of that sad experience. The Obama administration is, again, proposing to increase taxes across the board in major ways on domestic energy production and on domestic utilities, even in the midst of this serious recession. In this case, the President imagines different results from the same policy of the 1980s, but I am afraid the result will be more of the same.

Let's look at exactly what these energy proposals, which are just tax increases, are.

First, a huge category of President Obama's proposals is his so- called cap-and-trade plan. Let's make no mistake. Cap and trade is a phrase in vogue. It has gained a lot of vogue. What it is about, again, is a tax on domestic utilities and domestic energy. It is a carbon tax. It is an energy tax, pure and simple. You can dress it up, you can muddy it up, you can try to confuse the public, but it is a tax on utilities, and it is a tax on energy.

Independent analysis by the Heritage Foundation estimates that the economic impact of the Waxman-Markey bill by 2035 will be enormous and it will be negative: reduce aggregate gross domestic product by $7.4 trillion; destroy 844,000 jobs, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 1.9 million jobs; raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation; raise gasoline prices by 74 percent after adjusting for inflation; raise natural gas that goes to residential customers, American families, by 55 percent; raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,500. That is a $1,500 a year tax bill on working-class, middle-class families. Increase the Federal debt by 29 percent after adjusting for inflation. That is $33,400 of additional Federal debt per person, again, after adjusting for inflation.

Some might say this is a conservative think tank, this is biased. There is independent analysis, and in this case it comes from President Obama. The President spoke very directly on the campaign trail. It was at a private editorial board meeting, but it was on the record, and we have his direct quote that said that utility rates would skyrocket-- ``skyrocket,'' his word--and he is right.

In addition to his carbon tax, cap-and-trade proposals, President Obama has other energy taxes on domestic production, right when we should be increasing domestic production, increasing that bridge to the future, energy independence. He has tax proposals on domestic production that would do the opposite: $62 billion of new taxes on the so-called LIFO reserve through a change in accounting rules, bottom line, a $62 billion tax increase on domestic energy; $1 billion of new taxes by increasing the amortization period to 7 years for oil and natural gas production, bottom line, a billion-dollar tax increase on domestic energy; $5 billion tax increase with new taxes on a significant part of domestic oil and gas production, 25 percent of oil production in the United States and 15 percent of gas; $49 billion of new taxes through the repealing of the passive loss exception for oil and gas properties; $13 billion of new taxes by repealing section 199 of the manufacturers tax deduction; $175 billion of new taxes by forcing States into a renewable portfolio system which is particularly difficult and particularly troubling for States such as Louisiana which has many resources and many renewable resources but not the specific ones demanded by that portfolio; and $17 billion of new taxes by reinstating the Superfund excise and income taxes--again, a package of enormous tax increases all on domestic energy production.

If you raise taxes in a major, significant way on domestic energy production, do you think that production is going to go up or go down? The answer is obvious. In theory, it is going to go down. And the answer is obvious, in history, in practice, it is going to go down. It did go down with the Jimmy Carter windfall profits tax, which is small compared to this huge onslaught of new taxes on our utility bills and on domestic production.

Energy Secretary Chu has argued clearly in the past that if the United States wanted to reduce its carbon emissions, policymakers would have to find a way to increase petrol prices, as he put it, to levels like we see in Europe. It is not a secret. Secretary Chu is saying we need to increase taxes on oil, the cost of gasoline. President Obama said on the campaign trail that we need to do a carbon tax, cap and trade, that will, of course, cause utility bills to skyrocket. This is not a secret.

Let me go back to what I think the four main goals of a sound energy policy are and are these major energy tax increases doing any of it.

No. 1, ensuring affordable energy for all Americans, including middle- and low-income Americans. The President is doing the opposite. He is taking away a great equalizer of our society. He is putting an enormous burden on working-class, middle-class families.

No. 2, growing the economy from our own abundant resources and trying to stop the outsourcing of jobs to other countries. The President's plan is doing the opposite of that. He is putting taxes on at a time of a severe recession, and he is putting a tax on domestic energy which is going to increase the flow of jobs elsewhere.

No. 3, working vigilantly to achieve energy independence. It is common sense that if you dramatically increase the taxes on energy here, you are going to increase energy dependence, not increase independence.

No. 4, we need to ensure that our efforts are consistent with our national security interests. We need to increase our energy independence consistent with national security. Taxing energy here will do exactly the opposite.

It is one thing to say no to bad ideas, but with that comes a responsibility to lay out clear, positive alternatives that provide a positive answer. I have done that, working with many other colleagues, in introducing our No Cost Stimulus Act of 2009. Again, I introduced this bill with 14 other Senators and with 30 House Members about 2 months ago.

As the title suggests, this bill is a comprehensive economic recovery bill. It is a solid energy bill that does not require borrowing more money from China or anywhere else, increasing the outflow of taxpayer dollars in a time of already historic deficits.

The No Cost Stimulus Act of 2009 can achieve a number of positive outcomes--again, without further indebting our kids and grandkids--and specifically, it does six major things:

First, we can save or create more than 2 million long-term, sustainable, well-paying jobs.

Second, we can dramatically increase GDP that could exceed $10 trillion over the next 30 years.

Third, we would reduce the cost of energy to manufacturers, all U.S. businesses, and American families, including low-income families. On top of helping businesses compete internationally, that reduces the cost of a key input so that resources may be used on other purchases or employee hiring.

Fourth, we would have a real, positive impact on low-income families, as this is the equivalent of receiving a major stimulus check. As the price of energy decreases, a family may direct the extra money toward other needs.

Fifth, we can achieve these goals while not incurring huge amounts of new debt to foreign governments or to anyone else, leveraged against our kids' and grandkids' futures.

Sixth, this bill will have a direct and significant impact on reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

So again, you go back to those four main goals I laid out for sound energy policy. The No Cost Stimulus Act moves us toward those goals, unlike the President's energy tax proposals, which move us away from all of those goals.

What does the No Cost Stimulus Act do exactly? It does three big things:

No. 1, it increases domestic production of energy. We produce more energy here at home on the Outer Continental Shelf, in Alaska, and from oil shale. We have enormous energy resources in this country. We are the only country in the world that has major resources but puts 95 percent of them off limits. This bill would change that.

No. 2--and this is very important--this bill would invest in alternative and renewable energy. No one, including me, thinks our long-term future in energy is oil and gas. We need a new alternative, renewable energy future, and this bill will help build that by actually creating new Federal revenue

through the royalty on energy production and devoting most of it to those investments in alternative and renewable energies. Again, we do this without borrowing money by establishing a renewable and alternative energy trust fund and putting funds from domestic production royalties into that trust fund. In doing so, we do more for alternative and renewable energy than President Obama's entire $800 billion stimulus plan.

No. 3, the third big thing the No Cost Stimulus Act of 2009 does, it streamlines the regulatory burden and clarifies environmental law. We streamline the review process for new nuclear energy production, and we prevent the abuse of environmental laws, which were not meant to be used as a way to simply stop and block all of these projects.

Madam President, I wish to close as I began. Energy is a big topic, and ensuring affordable, reliable energy is central to the core of who we are in this country because energy is a great equalizer. We are a society of equals. We have never had distinct classes. We have always had great mobility. You can make it in America. If you are successful, you can do anything. You are not born into a class. You are not limited in that way. Affordable, reliable energy is a key equalizer that ensures that American way of life.

So what should energy policy be about? It should be about four things:

No. 1, ensuring affordable energy for all Americans, particularly middle- and low-income families, so that we keep that great equalizer in the center of our society, in the center of our economy.

No. 2, it should be a way to grow the economy with our abundant domestic resources, particularly as we need to get out of this serious recession.

No. 3, good energy policy should work us toward energy independence so we do more here at home and we rely less on foreign sources.

No. 4, a good energy policy should ensure that it is consistent with national security, which, of course, increasing our energy independence is.

I truly believe the No Cost Stimulus Act of 2009 achieves all four of those broad goals in a very significant way. Just as clearly, President Obama's energy tax proposals, which across the board increase the tax burden on utility bills, on domestic energy, on domestic energy production, move us in the opposite direction.

President Obama said very recently about GM, in the midst of the latest GM bailout, that:

GM has been buried under an unsustainable mountain of debt,

and piling an irresponsibly large debt on top of the new GM

would mean simply repeating the mistakes of the past.

There is an old saying: What is good for GM is good for the country. I would like to modify that to say: What is true for GM is true for the country. So why are we piling an irresponsibly large debt on top of our existing historically high levels of debt in this country? We need another way. We need something like the No Cost Stimulus Act of 2009. We need to learn again how to generate wealth and a healthy economy. We need to refocus here at home on our abundant energy resources. And that is the way we can have a sound energy policy that meets those four crucial goals I mentioned and allow us to work out of this severe recession--not by borrowing more from the Chinese, not by spending more taxpayer dollars--and it is all borrowed money right now--but focusing here at home on our own resources, on our own people, on good sustainable jobs we can build here toward a prosperous future and toward a new energy future.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to honor and recognize SGT Aubie L. Atkins, Jr., for making the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country. Nearly 67 years after his death in WWII, he will be home for good and laid to rest next to his parents in their Claiborne Parish town of Athens. I would like to take a few moments to speak of his courage and heroism.

Atkins grew up in Athens, LA, and attended Louisiana Tech University for 1 year before enlisting in the Army in 1941. He was trained in communications and assigned to the crew of a B-25 Mitchell bomber in the 405th Bombardment Squadron in the southwestern Pacific. Atkins, along with seven other crew members, took off aboard a bomber nicknamed ``The Happy Legend'' from Port Moresby on a mission to bomb Buna on December 5, 1942. Unfortunately, their plane went down and disappeared near the Kokoda Pass, Papua New Guinea. Military authorities believed the plane was shot down by the Japanese during a bombing run. The crew was declared dead, and all were memorialized on the tablets of the missing at Manila American Cemetery, Philippines, by the American Battle Monuments Commission.

Members of the 1st Australian Corps found the crash in February 1943 along with the pilot's remains and Atkins' identification tags, but because enemy troops remained in the vicinity, the allied soldiers had to abandon the site. Several attempts were launched to retrieve wreckage and the airmen's remains, but the wreckage was in a water- filled crater making it too difficult and dangerous. But, in 2005 Atkins' remains were identified using DNA that was donated in 2007 by his last surviving sibling, just months before her own death.

There is no doubt that December 5, 1942, was a tragic day, not only for the families of the fallen crew members but also for the B-25 family, the community, and the Nation. On Saturday, May 16, Sergeant Atkins was properly buried with full military honors, including a jet flyover and a 21-gun salute. Although all of Atkins' seven siblings are deceased, three subsequent generations were present to honor and pay their respects.

Thus, today, I honor the memory of fellow Louisianan Aubrey Atkins, Jr., and thank him for his devotion and service to our country.

Mr. President, my amendment is very simple. It simply empowers the FDIC to come up with appropriate regulations to ensure that credit cards are only issued to folks who are in the country legally, to ensure that we don't empower and facilitate illegal aliens and terrorists and keep them from getting credit cards, which can then be used improperly. The 9/11 terrorists all did this successfully and all used credit cards in planning and plotting and hatching their scheme. It is also a boon to business for many banks that go after the illegal alien market with credit cards. That is unacceptable, and my amendment would stop that.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Not at this time.

I have a few points, Mr. President. This amendment will absolutely not require every applicant for a credit card to physically go to the bank. That is absolutely, categorically not true.

Secondly, present law doesn't solve this problem. It is universally recognized that illegal aliens, including terrorists, in this country, can get a credit card. Present law isn't solving that problem.

I will submit for the Record this article from the Wall Street Journal which talks about this. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, if this bill is about ending the problems the credit card companies create, or take advantage of, certainly their going after illegal aliens as a niche market and a profit center is an offensive problem we need to address, particularly in a post-9/11 world.

Fourth, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter from the Eagle Forum declaring that this will be a scored vote.

Will the Senator yield?

The amendment is only 2\1/2\ pages long. What language requires an applicant to physically show up before a bank or a credit card issuer?

Mr. President, this amendment is 2\1/2\ pages long, and there is no language in it that requires their physical presence. I know this administration is opposed to the amendment, but this is simply a smokescreen. I invite Members to actually read the amendment.

I yield back my time.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up the Vitter amendment, No. 1066.

I ask unanimous consent to waive the reading of the whole.

Madam President, this is a very straightforward but important amendment. It would grant rulemaking authority to the Federal Reserve to set forth minimum standards for credit card issuers to establish a consumer's identity in order to prevent illegal immigrants--folks in the country illegally, breaking Federal law, including terrorists, in some cases, and including many others here illegally--from obtaining credit cards.

Madam President, we have all read numerous accounts of how this is actually a growth industry for some very large financial institutions. Not so long ago, in February 2007, the Wall Street Journal reported:

In the latest sign of the U.S. banking industry's

aggressive pursuit of the Hispanic market, Bank of America

Corp. has quietly begun offering credit cards to customers

without Social Security numbers--typically illegal

immigrants.

The same Wall Street Journal article detailed how Bank of America abused loopholes in customer identification rules to provide illegal immigrants with credit cards.

The new Bank of America program is open to people who lack

both a Social Security number and a credit history, as long

as they have held a checking account with the bank for 3

months without an overdraft. Most adults in the U.S. who

don't have a Social Security number are undocumented

immigrants.

Now, as we have a major credit crisis in this country, and particularly when we are throwing billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars at these same large financial institutions, I don't think it is too much to ask that they help us enforce our law, not to be a willing coconspirator with lawbreakers, and to actually go after the illegal alien market as a new niche market or a new profit center. I think that is offensive because we do have a serious illegal immigration problem that we are trying to get our hands around in this country.

So again, my amendment is very simple. It doesn't say exactly what all of the detailed rules have to be. It simply gives the experts in the Federal system--in this case the Federal Reserve--rulemaking authority to set forth minimum standards for credit card issuers to establish a consumer's identity, and specifically to prevent illegal immigrants and terrorists from obtaining credit cards. It shouldn't be too much to ask, curtailing a little bit of the big banks and big credit card companies' business to do that, to at least be that careful. It isn't asking very much, and I believe this would be an important step forward in the proper enforcement of our immigration laws.

I thank my colleagues for their attention. I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to support this commonsense, simple, but important amendment, and I look forward to a vote tomorrow.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise to again present my amendments coming up for a vote, Nos. 1016 and 1017. I have spoken before on this floor about them, but I want to summarize briefly.

Amendment No. 1016 is very simple and straightforward, but it is very important as well. It says any bank that has accepted taxpayer TARP dollars can repay those dollars, with interest, and get out of the program whenever it wants, as long as it meets all of the safety and soundness criteria, and all the capitalization and liquidity criteria that all of the regulators who regulate that bank have on them. Again, this is a very basic but important idea.

The TARP program was designed to stabilize shaky banks. So if a bank wants to give back the money, with interest, as long as it meets all of the safety and soundness criteria--every one in sight--it should be able to do that.

You would think this would be beyond debate. Unfortunately, it is not and, unfortunately, several folks, starting with the Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, are refusing to let this happen. In fact, Secretary Geithner has been very clear that this isn't simply up to those banks; it is up to their new senior partner, the Federal Government. It is sort of like when the mob comes in as your partner in a business; you lose complete control and you cannot decide that it is not time for them to buy you out. After that happens, no, no, no, it is no longer your decision.

As the Wall Street Journal recently reported, with regard to an interview with the Secretary, he indicated that the ``health of individual banks won't be the sole criteria for whether financial firms will be allowed to repay bailout funds.''

What a great, brave, new world we now live in, where individual private institutions cannot set their own course, cannot decide their own destiny, and cannot even give back taxpayer dollars to benefit the taxpayer, benefit the Treasury, with interest, as long as they meet all of the safety and soundness and capitalization and liquidity requirements in sight.

There is also a provision in my amendment that says Treasury cannot force repayment buyback of the warrants at a price they name. That is completely noncontroversial, since a distinguished member of the majority, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, is proposing precisely my same language with regard to warrants. This is an important issue regarding our free market system and whether we are going to allow it to get back to a private firm-based free market system.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Second is my amendment No. 1017. This amendment has to do with the Federal Housing Administration. It simply focuses like a laser beam on the importance of preserving and protecting the fundamental solvency of the FHA. This amendment requires that the first duty of the FHA is to maintain that solvency. It says if the provisions of this underlying bill, or any other existing requirement, cause the FHA to be reasonably likely to need a bailout from Congress--which a lot of folks think is imminent--then the Commissioner shall temporarily suspend that program which is causing a need for a bailout and recommend legislation to Congress to fix the situation.

Many observers, including the Wall Street Journal, think it is a virtual certainty that we are headed toward a crippling blow to the FHA needing a bailout from Congress. Rather than rush there and heap more burdens and more requirements and more need for more money on the FHA, which this underlying bill does, perhaps we should put in place some basic protections to the solvency of the FHA. That is what my amendment does very clearly.

With that, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, I appreciate the kind comments of my colleague. I note that he never disagrees with me, although, unfortunately, he always opposes my amendments. We will work through that.

I have a few closing comments. First of all, with regard to my first amendment allowing banks to repay the TARP money as long as they are sound and secure, I note that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly supports this amendment. I have a letter from the Chamber.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from the Chamber of Commerce.

Madam President, I also note a particular line in that letter, which is an excellent point, which is that the repayment of these moneys from TARP banks will actually be an enormously positive confidence-inspiring turn of events, and I think it will do a lot to shore up concern regarding financial institutions that will be correctly perceived as movement in the right direction.

With regard to my second amendment regarding the FHA, I will just note a couple of things. First of all, my amendment does not propose in any way shutting down the FHA under any circumstances. What it says is, if the FHA thinks it is headed toward insolvency, it is going to stop these new mandates on it, these new programs which are pushing it toward insolvency and, at the same time, immediately report to Congress about how we deal with that situation.

Unfortunately, I don't think it is a very well kept secret that this is a grave threat for the FHA to start walking down the path of Fannie and Freddie and everyone else.

Again, the Wall Street Journal wrote in their very prescient article, ``The Next Housing Bust,'' predicting exactly that. There are very many tell-tale signs on the horizon:

According to Mortgage Bankers Association data, more than

one in eight FHA loans is now delinquent, nearly triple the

rate of conventional non-subprime loan portfolios. Another

7.5 percent of recent FHA loans are in serious delinquency,

which means at least 3 months overdue. The FHA is almost

certainly going to need a taxpayer bailout in the months

ahead.

Let's try to head this off before another collapse, another rattling of the system is upon us and keep the FHA solvent rather than having it shaken, having public confidence rattled once again and having Congress have to act in a complete emergency atmosphere. My amendment would head that off in an effective way.

Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time to the extent I have any.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and to call up Vitter amendment No. 1016 to the underlying bill.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, this amendment is very simple. In fact, it is identical to an amendment I offered to a different bill last week which unfortunately we did not get to vote on because cloture was passed.

This amendment says that under the TARP, if a bank wants to repay its TARP money that it has taken from the taxpayer, with all of the penalties and interests that are relevant, it can do that immediately whenever it wants, as long as it remains perfectly sound and meets all of the liquidity, safety, and soundness requirements that the normal regulators impose on those sorts of institutions. I think that is very commonsensical and straightforward. If a bank wants to repay with interest, why shouldn't it be able to leave the program? That is the guarantee and the promise that was made to banks when TARP was originally instituted. Yet several banks are trying to do that now and are getting a different story: No, no, no, no. This isn't your decision alone. This is our decision, the Government's decision, even if it doesn't impact the safety and soundness of your institution.

Several folks in this institution mirror the concerns of citizens around the country. We are very concerned about the Federal Government getting ever more involved in the business of private business and institutions, in particular, of banks and financial institutions. This is a steady trend that began last September, and it is a very steady trend that the Government is becoming first a junior partner and seemingly a senior partner in more and more significant institutions in our private market. Now we see that it is expanding beyond banks and financial institutions into auto companies, insurance companies, and who knows what next.

Certainly, with all of these legitimate concerns we have about that trend, it should be an established principle of the TARP that if a bank wants to repay the money fully with interest and if that repayment does not impact its safety and soundness, if they meet all of the liquidity requirements put on them by the Federal regulators, they should be able to do that. Yet they are not. They have not been able to do that. Some have. I am very proud to say that IberiaBank, headquartered in Lafayette, LA, was the first bank to apply for repayment and to actually give all of its TARP money back. I am very happy to say that was successfully done. They were followed by six other smaller or regional banks: the Bank of Maine, Bancorp, Old National Bancorp, Signature Bank, Sun Bancorp, Shore Bancshares, and Centra Financial Holding, Inc. All of those banks followed Iberia's lead and gave that money back.

But more recently, unfortunately, the Federal Government has been singing a different tune and has said, Wait, wait. You can't decide this on your own. We are your new partner and we get to decide this, and we are going to decide it on our criteria, even if it is a perfectly reasonable and safe thing to do with regard to your liquidity and

your safety and soundness. That exemplifies what so many of us are concerned about, about expanding government authority.

Let me quote directly from Secretary Geithner. The Wall Street Journal reported an interview recently where he:

indicated that the health of individual banks won't be the

sole criteria for whether financial firms will be allowed to

repay bailout funds.

He also testified before Congress in the last few weeks and the bottom line of his testimony was: Stay tuned. We will give you guidelines on how to repay TARP funds in the future. We are not there yet, and we are not--we are certainly not willing to allow banks to make that decision. We are going to make that decision.

I have to say it sort of reminds me of the analogy of businesses that are infiltrated by the mob and they have as their new senior partner the mafia, and all of a sudden, if they want to get out, it is no longer their choice. Their new big brother partner is going to make the calls and is going to decide: No, no, no. We have our claws into you. That is not changing anytime soon.

Is that the new rule we want to establish for private market capitalism? Is that the amount of power and authority we want to give to the Federal Government over private institutions in the private sector? Even when they can repay the money and remain perfectly liquid, perfectly solvent, meeting all of the relevant safety and soundness criteria, do we want to say no, no, no, big brother government says no. We know best.

I am very disturbed by this policy that my amendment is counterpoised to. It does suggest that big government knows best and that big government is going to make the call, apart from the interests of that particular private firm. If that firm meets liquidity requirements, meets all the safety and soundness regulations in sight, then they should be able to do whatever the heck they want to determine their own future, and that includes repaying their TARP money to the government.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense, reasonable, pro-free market amendment.

Amendment No. 1017 to Amendment No. 1018

Madam President, at this point I ask unanimous consent to set aside that amendment and call up the Vitter amendment No. 1017 to the underlying bill.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman for his comments and for his forbearance. I will be very brief on this amendment, which goes directly to the bill and is very germane.

This amendment, again, is very simple and very straightforward but I also think very important. It would require that the Federal Housing Administration recognize as its first duty to maintain its own solvency. If the provisions of the underlying bill or any other existing requirement cause the FHA to be reasonably likely to need a credit subsidy from Congress, then it shall require the Commissioner, No. 1, to temporarily suspend any program that is threatening the solvency of the FHA; and No. 2, to recommend legislation to Congress to address those solvency issues.

I commend the motives of the distinguished chairman and others with regard to this bill. Clearly, they are trying to help homeowners in dire need, and there sure as heck are many of them around the country, including my State. But as we walk down this path, I think we all want to be careful that we don't create a new crisis, a new solvency crisis at the FHA. I believe we need to be very aware of that so we don't create another crisis there as congressional and other action has in the past at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and elsewhere.

Recently, on April 23 at a nomination hearing for Mr. David Stevens, who is the designate for housing and Federal Housing commissioner, the person whom President Obama has chosen to run the FHA, I asked how he viewed the health of the FHA mortgage insurance fund and if he anticipated having to ask Congress for a credit subsidy. His answer on April 23 was:

At the present time, the FHA fund is solvent and meets

actuarial requirements. Maintaining that solvency would be a

top priority for me.

I am glad to hear that it is solvent as of now but, quite frankly, I don't want that solvency to be a top priority for him; I think it should be the top priority for him. I think we should be very cautious about expanding programs under the FHA if it could lead to a crisis of solvency there which could be a further rattling of the financial markets, just as similar crises have been in the past.

Unfortunately, there are significant signs that the FHA is a ticking timebomb now. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association National Delinquency Survey, for the fourth quarter of 2009 seasonally adjusted delinquency rate, 13.73 percent of FHA loans would present an increase of 81 basis points from the third quarter of 2008.

Similarly, in a report from J.P. Morgan Securities issued in January of this year, it says 70 percent of Ginnie Mae borrowers, those who are FHA borrowers and VA borrowers, would be underwater if home prices drop another 10 percent.

On March 8 of this year, a Washington Post investigation led many observers to view the FHA as a ticking timebomb. The article reports:

There has been a spike in quick defaults that seem to

follow the pattern that preceded the collapse of the subprime

market as some of the same flawed lending practices that

contributed to the mortgage crisis are now eroding one of the

main Federal agencies charged with addressing it.

Of course they were talking about the FHA.

According to the same article:

More than 9,200 of the loans insured by the FHA in the past

2 years have gone into default after no or only one payment.

So already we see very troubling signs.

On top of that, this bill, in some ways, erodes the stability of the FHA. It does things such as say that an individual receiving assistance under this program must verify their income, providing income tax return information but reducing the upfront fee for the program from 3 percent to 2 percent. It reduces the annual fee from 1.5 percent to 1 percent, and it adds incentives with $1,000 for each loan for folks to enter and service the program.

So I am concerned, No. 1, that the FHA right now shows real signs of a possible future crisis, and No. 2, that

this bill could unintentionally be making that worse and making that day come quicker.

I am not proposing we scrap the provisions of the bill, but my amendment would simply say that the first duty of the FHA is to maintain solvency, and secondly, if the provisions of this bill or any other requirement causes the FHA to be reasonably likely to need a credit subsidy from Congress, the Commissioner has the power to, No. 1, temporarily suspend that program, and No. 2, recommend legislation to Congress to address the solvency problem.

Let's not let the FHA be the next chapter in terms of this financial crisis. Let's not repeat the kinds of mistakes we have seen in other Federal Government or related entities. Let's be careful to avoid that, which would be an enormous rattling of the financial system and which would cause an enormous drop in confidence.

With that, Madam President, I thank the Chair and the chairman for his forbearance, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I stand today to commend Governor Bobby Jindal, Louisiana State senator A. G. Crowe, and Louisiana resident Cindy Collins for their efforts in making April ``Abortion Recovery Awareness Month'' in Louisiana. I would like to take a few moments to remark on this important issue.

I would also like to thank the following organizations for their efforts in helping to reduce abortions and fighting for the unborn. I thank Abortion Recovery International, Louisiana Abortion Recovery Alliance, Post Abortion Helpline of Louisiana, Rachel's Vineyard Louisiana, Pregnancy Resource Centers of Louisiana, National Abortion Recovery Helpline, Operation Outcry Louisiana, and Silent No More Awareness Louisiana.

All human life is sacred, and I have worked hard in Congress to advance a culture of life, including banning partial-birth abortions, outlawing abortion drugs, fighting against taxpayer funding of abortions, and strongly supporting adoption and crisis pregnancy centers. I have always been adamant in my support of pro-life and pro- family measures in Congress, and groups and individuals like these are instrumental to these and other advances we have made in promoting a culture of life.

Thus, today, I applaud Governor Bobby Jindal, State senator A. G. Crowe, Cindy Collins, and the many great organizations listed above for their efforts in making April ``Abortion Recovery Awareness Month'' in Louisiana.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending motion be set aside and that my motion be sent to the desk.

Madam President, a few weeks ago, when we debated the budget here on floor of the Senate, I passed language contained in section 202(a) of that budget resolution. This motion to instruct conferees is very simple. It says that we will fight to keep that language in the final budget resolution.

What does that language do? Well, it is very simple. It says that this budget legislation `` . . . would not increase the cost of producing energy from domestic sources, including oil and gas from the Outer Continental Shelf or other areas; would not increase the cost of energy for American families; would not increase the cost of energy for domestic manufacturers, farmers, fishermen, or other domestic industries; and would not enhance foreign competitiveness against U.S. businesses.''

That is a pretty simple, straightforward plea, and it is one we should keep in this budget resolution--fight and demand to retain that language in our budget. That is why I ask all my colleagues to join me in supporting this motion to instruct.

At a gut level, this is very simple. New taxes kill jobs. New taxes kill jobs. According to a preliminary estimate based on the Center for American Progress data, 271,000 oil and gas jobs would be destroyed by the administration's proposed new taxes and fees on energy. That would be a bad idea, in my opinion, at any time. But now, as we are in the midst of a horrible recession, which is still getting worse, it is a horrendous idea. Now is not the time to impose these new taxes on the economy, including the oil and gas industry. New taxes would hurt workers by extending the recession and by depressing job creation just as, hopefully, an economic recovery in the next several months starts to gain a foothold.

The oil and gas industry is significant to our economy and employs more than 6 million fellow Americans. Attacking that industry in the midst of a horrible recession is attacking those 6 million of our fellow citizens. Right now, they feed their families, put a roof over their kids' heads because of good, solid jobs in the energy sector producing good, affordable energy for Americans. These proposed taxes would kill those jobs in the midst of a horrible recession.

This is not brain surgery. We know from history, from practice, that higher taxes in this sector result directly in less domestic energy, and restrained supplies lead to higher energy costs for consumers too. So in today's economy, that would stifle recovery and make Americans more dependent on foreign oil and natural gas.

New taxes will make it more expensive for oil and natural gas companies to expand or initiate new exploration and development programs, and that would mean fewer jobs for American workers.

New taxes hurt businesses, threaten jobs, and they are then passed on to

consumers as higher prices. And higher taxes are a burden felt throughout the economy. They discourage business expansion, investment, and job creation.

Again, this is a very simple, basic, but important notion. This is no time to increase taxes on domestic energy production. This is no time to stifle what will hopefully soon become the beginnings of a recovery. In terms of our energy picture, this is no time to lessen domestic production when we should be moving in the opposite direction and increasing domestic production and independence from foreign sources. All of these energy tax proposals would do exactly that.

Let's be clear about it. These proposals have been made. They are there in black and white. They are concrete. They are real proposals from the Obama administration and some liberal Members of Congress, and they fall into two big categories: No. 1, a very aggressive, ambitious cap-and-trade program, which is a tax on so many forms of energy and activity in our country; and No. 2, direct tax increase proposals on domestic oil and gas production. I don't believe any time is a good time to push that policy, but I would hope we can all agree that now, in the midst of a severe recession, which unfortunately is still getting worse, is really not the time to increase taxes on the domestic energy sector. It will cost us jobs, it will stifle a recovery, it will increase costs on consumers, and it will hurt American businesses and consumers.

Madam President, let's all join in support of this language in the Senate version of the budget resolution. In our previous debate of a few weeks ago, it was adopted by unanimous consent. Let's make sure it is fought for and preserved in the final version of the budget resolution.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in our original Senate debate on the budget, we passed by unanimous consent language that is in section 202(a) that we would not raise taxes on domestic energy production.

That language says that our budget legislation ``would not increase the cost of producing energy from domestic sources, including oil and gas from the Outer Continental Shelf or other areas; it would not increase the cost of energy for American families; it would not increase the cost of energy for domestic manufacturers, farmers, fishermen or other domestic industries; and it would

not enhance foreign competitiveness against U.S. businesses.''

This motion to instruct would say we need to keep that mandate in the final version of the budget. This is important because, unfortunately, the President has proposed tax increases in all those areas, and all those significant increases in domestic energy production are part of his budget proposal.

It would be tremendously wrongheaded and would hurt Americans to increase taxes on energy, particularly now in the midst of a deep recession. I ask all my colleagues to support this motion to instruct, and I respectfully ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up the Vitter amendment No. 991.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It is regarding the TARP program, and it simply allows banks that want to repay taxpayer dollars back to the Government, back into the program, to do so. It is a pretty simple idea. It only allows it if the bank is going to be financially stable and meet all the applicable capital requirements without the money. Again, it is a pretty simple idea. Yet this amendment is clearly necessary in order to allow banks to do that without having Washington bureaucrats veto that decision, which should rest with those private financial institutions.

As this body knows, I have been a cynic and critic of TARP from the very beginning. I voted against it last year under President Bush. Unfortunately, many of my greatest fears about its weaknesses and how it would develop have come to pass. But there is one recent trend with regard to the program that I find enormously promising, and that trend is that more and more banks that got the taxpayer money want to pay it back, want to exit the program and have nothing more to do with it as soon as possible.

I am happy to say that positive trend was begun in Louisiana. It was begun by a significant Louisiana bank named Iberia Bank of Lafayette which became the first bank in the country to try to repay its TARP money. Of course, the Iberia Bank did eventually get to repay

that money. The bank said that being a recipient of TARP funds, it realized, after some experience, placed it at an ``unacceptable competitive disadvantage.''

I think it is very important to underscore that this was not an issue of executive compensation or bonuses. Iberia Bank is in Lafayette, LA, not Wall Street, New York City, NY. It had nobody in its structure that would have been limited in terms of compensation by the rules Congress placed with regard to that. Executive compensation wasn't the issue with them at all. However, they feared a couple of things. They saw the increasing role of government in the boardroom of banks that had accepted TARP money, they saw what they considered a contract with regard to the TARP money between the bank and the taxpayer being unilaterally changed by Federal bureaucrats every week, and they saw that as a very clear building trend. So they decided they wanted out because they feared they were going to be more and more hamstrung by Federal bureaucrats and the government growing to become their senior partner, rather than as the original role of a junior partner. They saw the government becoming more and more involved in how their bank was run, and they wanted out. And as they said very directly, they then considered having the TARP funds as an ``unacceptable competitive disadvantage.''

Seven banks in all have reached that same conclusion and have been able to repay TARP funds to the program. That repayment has totaled about half a trillion. Iberia Bank of Lafayette, LA, was the first to start this trend, but they were followed by Bank of Maine Bankcorp, Old National Bankcorp, Signature Bank, Sun Bankcorp, Shore Bancshares, and Centra Financial Holding, Inc. All of these banks said: We want out. We think this is a real problem. The government is getting more and more into how we run our business. We want to repay and get out of the program. And these banks were allowed to repay TARP funds back to the government and withdraw from TARP.

Mr. President, you might say: Well, if these banks were allowed to do it, what is the problem? The problem is that Secretary Geithner and the Treasury Department have made it clear that while they allowed repayment in those cases, they may well not allow it in other cases, particularly in the case of much larger institutions. Again, this is very clear from recent discussion and recent testimony from Secretary Geithner. In the last few days, Secretary Geithner has testified on Capitol Hill, and the main message from that testimony with regard to the ever evolving TARP program and how precisely it is going to be operated in the future is that we are not sure. We are not sure about guidelines for repayment. Stay tuned.

On the one hand, the Secretary indicated a willingness to allow banks to repay, but at the same time, on the other hand, he indicated clearly that it will largely depend on the credit needs of the broader economy and not simply the health of that individual bank.

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal confirmed exactly this, because it reported an interview with Secretary Geithner where he indicated ``that the health of individual banks won't be the sole criterion for whether financial firms will be allowed to repay bailout funds.'' So in other words, the Secretary is taking the position that he wants to maintain a veto over any repayment beyond the issue of whether that single bank, that particular financial institution, would be perfectly sound and healthy without holding on to that TARP money.

I think that is unacceptable. I think that is offensive, in fact. That is a government bureaucrat saying: No, no, no, no. I know this is your business, but we know best. I know you have decided this is best for you, but we have a veto over this because of our general concerns about the broader economy. That is unacceptable.

So again, we come back to my amendment--Vitter amendment No. 991-- which is necessary in light of this stance of Secretary Geithner and the Treasury Department. Again, my amendment is very simple. It ensures the immediate repayment of TARP funds for banks that want to repay, but only in a few circumstances. First, the government must be repaid everything it is owed. The government has to be repaid everything it is owed, although it does prohibit the government from requiring a company to repurchase its warrants.

My amendment also ensures that TARP recipients be well capitalized, meet all the soundness and safety and capitalization liquidity requirements after the repayment. So my amendment wouldn't allow a repayment if that repayment would sink a bank to a position of not being well capitalized, of not meeting the normal capitalization liquidity requirements to ensure safety and soundness. Those requirements are spelled out by the regulators, as they have always been. So my amendment does not threaten that at all. It requires that those capitalization requirements be adhered to and a repayment only happen if the bank meets those capitalization and liquidity requirements after the repayment.

I hope this amendment not only passes but gets overwhelming bipartisan support. After all, why shouldn't it? This amendment is simply saying that a private business will be in control of its own destiny; that a private business can pay back TARP money, with interest, with everything that is required to the government, if it decides that is the best thing for that business to do, as long as that repayment does not affect the safety and soundness of the institution and make it dip below already established guidelines with regard to capitalization and liquidity.

Again, I believe this idea and this amendment should not only pass, it should have overwhelming bipartisan support because it seems to me those who oppose this amendment--presumably including Secretary Geithner--have to be saying one of two things, or maybe both: No. 1, they have to be saying, in a very arrogant way: No, we know better. No, you may run your business, you may be aware of all aspects of it, but we know better so we have to have a veto, or they have to be saying and acting on the basis of: We are now involved in your business. You have the government as a dominant partner, and we are not going to let go because letting go means loss of power and control as well as your repaying the money.

I encourage all of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to come together and support this very reasonable commonsense amendment. Banks that can afford to repay the TARP money and that want to repay the TARP money certainly should have the absolute unquestioned right to repay the TARP money. It is as simple as that. We shouldn't stand here on the Senate floor or in the Department of the Treasury and say: No, we know better. And we certainly shouldn't stand here on the Senate floor or in the Department of the Treasury and say: No, the government has now sunk its claws into you and we are not letting go. We like the control. We like the takeover. We like the authority and we are not giving that up.

That is a very dangerous statement for the government to get out, and it is quite frankly what so many Americans are fearful of--that these emergency measures in the midst of the financial crisis are really a dramatic, long-term expansion of the authority and role of the Federal Government in the free market.

With that, Mr. President, I look forward to further debate and a vote on this amendment tomorrow.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Certainly.

Madam President, today I wish to recognize and pay tribute to the heroic men and women of

the Police Social Services Section, PSS, of Lafourche Parish, LA, for their victim advocacy, courage, Federal leadership, and professional innovation in victim services. I would like to take some time to make a few remarks on their tireless efforts and work on behalf of crime victims.

National Crime Victims' Rights Week will be observed from April 26 to May 2, 2009. This year marks the 25th anniversary of the passage of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, which created the Office for Victims of Crime and is responsible for nearly $7 billion in support for crime victim compensation, assistance, and other programs that serve victims. On Thursday, April 23, Attorney General Holder will preside over a national candlelight observance and will join victims, victim advocates, criminal justice professionals, and members of the public to remember crime victims and reflect on progress made in improving victims' rights.

On Friday, April 24, the PSS of Lafourche Parish will receive the Award for Professional Innovation in Victim Services. Team members include: LT. Karla S. Beck, Ms. Deanna Dufrene, SGT. Valerie Day, Deputy Dale Savoie, Deputy Walter Tenney, Deputy Delaune Boudreaux, Advocate Tamera Joseph, Deputy Rebecca Shaver, Deputy Amy Guillot, Deputy Pam Guedry, and Reservist Bernard Lafaso. The team is unique in their innovative and significant efforts on behalf of victim services. The PSS Elderly Services Officer is a devoted, full-time, extensive case manager, visiting the local nursing home and community Council on Aging groups to provide assistance, services, and education to older victims, their family members and caregivers. They also implemented the Crime Victims with Disabilities Program to address victims with disabilities, and also developed a model curriculum, ``Beyond the Barriers: Crisis Intervention Training,'' that has been used to educate law enforcement personnel throughout Louisiana. They were also awarded a grant in 2007 to establish Supervised Visitation Centers--a safe space for children to transition from one parent to another. Due to PSS, the Sherriff's Office has received numerous awards and national and State recognition. PSS started with one full-time deputy and one volunteer. Today, PSS has 12 full-time deputies, two auxiliary deputies, two volunteers, and administrative support, all of whom work together to improve the lives of victims in the aftermath of crime.

Today, I applaud the Lafourche Parish Sheriff's Office for being honored by the Department of Justice for their victim advocacy and thank them for their continued service to the people of Louisiana and the rest of the Nation.

Mr. President, next after this amendment is my amendment. It would return TARP funds not already out the door, except for the $100 billion set aside for buying toxic assets, which is exactly what TARP was supposed to be about. But it ends everything else and invites the Obama administration to come back to us regarding other programs.

The Reed amendment reaffirms TARP as it has been executed. So if you like everything that has been done under TARP and how it has been done, that model and program changing every other week, vote for the Reed amendment and reaffirm TARP as it is. If you think a change and focus needs to be brought to TARP, vote for the Vitter amendment, which is next.

Mr. President, I now present the Vitter amendment. It is very simple. It says that the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, will actually be about troubled asset relief. It returns the other money not reserved for troubled asset relief to the Treasury for debt reduction, $136 billion of debt reduction.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I offer the amendment at this point.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, the program which Secretary Geithner has actually announced about toxic assets is protected even under my amendment. What my amendment says is that we are not any longer going to allow the Treasury to do other things on an ad hoc basis, making it up as they go along every week.

In the process, we would reduce the debt of this country by at least $136 billion under this amendment. I urge support for the amendment.