Senate Proceeding on Nov 5th, 2009 :: 2:28:00 to 2:42:10
Total video length: 11 hours 1 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Views:42 Duration: 0:14:10 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

2:27:58 to 2:28:20( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: but i appreciate senator vitter giving us a few minutes to offer this, and i will yield the floor to him. mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

2:28:00 to 2:42:10( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: David Vitter

2:28:21 to 2:28:41( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: senator from yes, sir. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise again in strong support of my amendment number 2644 to the commerce-justice-state appropriations bill, and it is coauthored by the distinguished

2:28:42 to 2:29:03( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: senator bennett from utah and it's strongly supported by many other members. mr. president, there's been a lot said about this amendment, most of it inaccurat so let me step back and start at what the amendment says. pretty simple, pretty straightforward when you actually read it. the amendment simply requires

2:29:04 to 2:29:29( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: the census that were set to take next year to ask whether the respondent is a citizen or not. the amendment doesn't do anything but that. it simply says the census should ask folks if they'r they are citizens. so it's very straightforward. we should count every person in

2:29:32 to 2:29:53( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: the united states. the census should include everyone, but in so doing, i am encouraging -- and my would require -- that the census ask if an individual is a citizen or not. compared to that simple statement of picy, that stimulus goal, it's absolutely mind-boggling to me some of the statements that have been made about it. first of all, the distinguished

2:29:54 to 2:30:14( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: majority leader, senator reid, admitted in several conference calls and statements to the press that he's trying to invoke cloture on this bill, specifically to block out any vote, any discussion of the vitter amendment. secondly, in saying that, the

2:30:15 to 2:30:36( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: majority leader called my amendment "anti-immigrant." now, i honestly don't see how any reasonable person can say, we take a census; we simy ask whether the respondent is a citizen or noncitizen. plenty of noncitizens who are here illegally is anti-immigrant.

2:30:37 to 2:30:57( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: third, and outrageously, senator reid said that my effort is akin to the activities in the 1950's and 1960's to intimidate black citizens and try to get them to stay away from voting in the voting booth. i take personal offense to that. i think there's no reasonable

2:30:58 to 2:31:18( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: comparison, and i ask senator reid to apologize to me for that outrageous statement on the senate floor. as i said, what the amendment does is simple. it says the census should ask whether a reupon d respoon dpent accident --

2:31:19 to 2:31:40( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: should ask whether a respoon dpents is a citizen or not. the census is a fool that we in the congress are supposed to use, information statistics, as we tackle any number of significant issues in federal programs. and certainly, certainly, it is a very significant, important issue that we deal with the iermmigration problem and immigration issue and the issue of h illegal

2:31:41 to 2:32:01( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: and certainly it is useful to know if we're going to spend $14 billion to do a census, it's useful to know who within that number are citizens and who within that number are noncitizens. secondly and even more importantly, you know, the thing the census is used for -- the first thing the census is

2:32:02 to 2:32:24( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: used for -- is to reapportion the u.s. house of representatives, to determine, after each census is done, how much u.s. house members each state gets. now, the current pla count everybody and not ask whether a person is a citizen or a noncitizen. so the current plan is to reapportion house seats using

2:32:25 to 2:32:45( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: that overall number, citizens and noncitizens in the mix. i think that's wrong. i think that's contrary to the whole intent of the constitution and the establishment of congress as a democratic institution to represent citizens. i believe only citizens should be in that particular

2:32:46 to 2:33:07( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: calculation of reapportionment of the u.s. house of representatives. this is a significant issue for many states, including my state of louisiana, and it has a very big and direct and concrete impact on louisiana and certain other states. and it comes down to this:

2:33:08 to 2:33:28( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: if the census is done next year and reapportionment happens using everybody -- citizens and noncitizens -- louisiana is going to lose a house seat in the u.s. house of representatives, lose one-seventh of our standing there, our representation there, our clout. if the census was done and only

2:33:29 to 2:33:50( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: citizens -- that number of citizens us woulde ucitizenswas used, lose lose would not lose a seat. so that's a very big impact on my state of louisiana. i'd also point out that it's the same impact in seven other

2:33:51 to 2:34:11( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: states -- north carolina, south carolina, oregon, pennsylvania, mississippi, michigan. iowa, and indiana -- excuse me, eight other states. so a total of nine states are in this position, louisiana being one ever them. and so it's a very significant issue that directly impacts

2:34:12 to 2:34:34( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: many, many citizens, many states. and so i urge all of my colleagues to support getting a vote on the vitter amendment by denying cloture on the commerce-justice-state appropriations bill. however you may vote, this is an important issue, and however you may vote, we need a full debate and a vote.

2:34:35 to 2:34:56( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: and, in particular, i'd urge my colleagues in north carolina, south carolina, oregon, pennsylvania, mississippi, michigan, iowa, indiana, and of course louisiana to vote "no" on cloture so we can examine this very significant issue and so we can have a vote on the vitter-bennett amendment.

2:34:57 to 2:35:18( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: now, there been discussion in at least two areas that i want to quickly address. one is some discussion in the press, including from my distinguished colleague from louisiana, senator landrieu, that what i just laid out in terms of the impact on reapportionment isn't true. well, i think every expert who's

2:35:19 to 2:35:41( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: looked at this, every demographer who's looked at this, agrees with what just said; that this factor is the difference between louisiana losing a house seat or not. these other states losing a house seat or not. i would point out three experts -- and there are many others -- dr. elliott stonese fivment.

2:35:42 to 2:36:03( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: er has been leading the charge on this issue. i compliment him for his tenacity and his hard work. but others as well. in an october 27, 2009, "new york times" article, my numbers were again confirmed by andre bench, professor of cork ole at queens college, new york.

2:36:04 to 2:36:24( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: he did an independent analysis and said exactly the same thing. yes, this issue of whether we use noncitizens in reapportionment does make that huge difference for those states. and again, last week my analysis and my numbers were confirmed

2:36:25 to 2:36:45( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: yet again by an independent and well-respected demographic expert, again in my state of louisiana, greg riggamer, are and that's very significant. secondly, i address this cost issue. you know,ness interesting that in this debate the other side -- you know, it is interesting that in this debate the oth

2:36:46 to 2:37:08( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: has been flailing around for an argument against my amendment. it is interesting that nobody has ringed, that i have heard, that reapportionment should be done counting citizens and none citizens, that that's more consistent with the notion of congress being the representative body of citizens of the united states. so folks on the other side are

2:37:09 to 2:37:29( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: wildly flailing around for some argument, and one they have come across is cost, and that, oh, my good in the census would have to incur additional cost to add this to the floor. well, it's certainly true that it would cost some more. i can't give you a precise dollar figure. it would cost something more. it is certainly true that it

2:37:30 to 2:37:51( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: would have been better for this to have been caught and debated earlier rather than later. and, unfortunately, the committee of jurisdiction, homeland security, which reviews the census forms, did not bring this issue up in a significant way. i agree with that. i don't agree with this wild figure that it would cost $1 billion.

2:37:52 to 2:38:13( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: i point out a couple things. first of all, the cost of the census has ballooned from the last census. the last census it was $3.4 billion. this creng success it is going to be $14 billion. the first thing i'd honestly, it is pretty ironic for an agency that has had a

2:38:14 to 2:38:35( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: budget balloon from $3.4 billion last census to $14 this census saying they can't squeeze in that question, they can't do it right for $14 billion. but, secondly, the frankly, has a horrendous record in terms of cost estimate. when they threw out this very

2:38:36 to 2:38:57( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: large, very round figure of it's going to cost another $1 billion, i called them and said, okay, can you give us the rationale for that, the background on that cost estimate? after three weeks of asking for the data behind that $1 billion

2:38:58 to 2:39:18( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: claim, they sent us e piece of paper with 10 bullet points on it, all very general statements and suggestns, and with the final bottom line, a nice, even, round figure of $1 billion. that's very unimpressive, in my

2:39:19 to 2:39:39( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: opinion, in terms of any precise accounting for $1 billion. i'd also draw everyone's attention to an october 7, 2009, g.a.o. report delivered to the homeland security subcommittee on financial management, government information, federal services, and international security. it was about the census, and in

2:39:40 to 2:40:02( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: that report, the g.a.o. said -- quote -- "given the bureau's past difficulties in developing credible and accurate cost estimates, we're concerned about the reliability of the figures that were used to support the 2010 budget." close quote. in another example, the office of the inspector general filed a

2:40:03 to 2:40:23( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: report in 2008 about the censu in that report, the office inspected a particular cost estimate from the census that came up to $494 million for a certain portion of their activity and said, we think this is a wildly inflated figure, and we can immediately identify cost

2:40:24 to 2:40:45( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: savings that bring it down to $348 million, a significant savings of almost $150 million. and when the census was confronted with that, they had to agree, and they had to adopt the lower figure. so, mr. president, my bottom line is simple: we do a census every 10 years.

2:40:46 to 2:41:07( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: it's a really important event. we neeto do it right, and to do it right, we need a full bate on a vote on this central question embodied by the vitter-bennett amendment. so i urge all of my colleagues to vote "no" on cloture of the commerce-justice-state

2:41:08 to 2:41:28( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: appropriations bill, to demand a reasonable debate and vote on the vitter-bennett amendment. this is an important question, and we simply shouldn't forge ahead when americans have a fundamental problem with not even asking the citizensh question and with, therefore

2:41:29 to 2:41:50( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: forging ahead with the plan to reapportion the entire u.s. house of representatives, putting noncitizens in the mix when the whole notion of a representative democracy and of congress is to represent citizens of the country. i urge my colleagues to support that position. i thank my colleagues who have done so so far, and in

2:41:51 to 2:42:11( Edit History Discussion )

David Vitter: particular, i urge my colleagues from north carolina, south carolina, oregon, pennsylvania, mississippi, michigan, iowa, indiana, and certainly louisiana to stand up for your states, to stand up for their interests, to stand up for their clout and