David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank my colleague from California, the chair, and all of my colleagues for allowing us to move forward with a very open amendment process. It is not quite as open a process as I would have wanted--namely on the Landrieu amendment because of the objection from my colleague from Pennsylvania. By any Senate standard, this has been a very open amendment process, and that is very healthy. I join the chair in urging all of our colleagues who would like to debate upcoming votes to come to the floor now. The time is between now and 5 p.m. Please come to the floor. I am doing that right now. I want to talk about one of those amendments on which we will vote, the Barrasso amendment, which is about waters of the United States. This is an important issue. John Barrasso and I and many others believe the EPA should not be able to define and expand its regulatory jurisdiction--in this case, we are talking about the Clean Water Act--without undertaking a formal rulemaking process that provides individuals, businesses, and other stakeholders the opportunity to give meaningful input. The Clean Water Act authorizes the EPA to regulate the discharge of pollutants into ``navigable waters.'' Again, that is a very clear term--``navigable waters.'' The act defines ``navigable waters'' as ``the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.'' The trouble is clearly understanding what constitutes the waters of the United States. For decades, courts have considered the meaning of ``the waters of the United States,'' and yet uncertainty still remains. Recently, in 2006--about 7 years ago--in the Rapanos decision, the Supreme Court considered whether the Army Corps of Engineers properly determined the wetlands in Michigan as being waters of the United States. Although the Court determined that the corps viewed its regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act too broadly, a majority of the Justices still could not come to a precise agreement into exactly what ``waters of the United States'' means. So they agreed about what it didn't mean in the context of that case--that the corps had gone too far afield--but they didn't clearly agree on exactly what it meant. More recently, Justice Alito, in the Sackett case, observed that the reach of the Clean Water Act remains ``notoriously unclear.'' Justice Alito and others have called on Congress to examine the Clean Water Act statutory language to make it precise and clear up the confusion. He also noted that EPA ``has not seen fit to promulgate a rule providing a clear and sufficiently limited definition of the phrase''--that phrase being ``the waters of the United States.'' Instead, the EPA has done something different. Unfortunately, this is a trend at the EPA. The EPA issued what it calls guidance on this issue. Now, according to the EPA, the guidance ``clarifies how the EPA and Corps understand existing requirements of the Clean Water Act and the agencies' implementing regulations'' in light of relevant decisions. The problem is this: Guidance is short of what the EPA should do, which is to promulgate rules and regs. It is short of that for a very particular reason--because there is no clear-cut, nailed-down process for guidance. The EPA can just make up what it wants without having to take input from affected parties. Under the law, there are clear-cut guidelines and rules for promulgating rules and regulations, and that is what the EPA should do. In this instance, there are two problems. First of all, the guidance is simply mistaken. It is way too expansive, in the view of many folks, including myself and the author of this amendment, Senator Barrasso. Also, very importantly, guidance doesn't have to go through a process. Guidance doesn't illicit input from citizens, impacted parties, and stakeholders. That is another crucial issue involved. This Barrasso amendment would clear up that point on two fronts. It would go to the substance of the guidance--and we think EPA is getting it wrong with regard to that substance--but it would also help underscore that there is a process for the EPA to issue rules and regulations, and that is what the EPA should be doing on important matters such as this--not shortcutting, circumventing that process by simply issuing guidance. So if the EPA wishes to examine the meaning of ``waters of the United States'' in the Clean Water Act, it needs to do so in a fair and transparent manner, and in a way that provides all Americans the chance to offer meaningful regulatory input. Guidance doesn't do that. This guidance gets it wrong. But, just as importantly, guidance doesn't fulfill the need for transparency and openness and the ability to accept input. This Barrasso amendment would provide EPA with precisely that opportunity: Make them accept input and make them get it right. That is why I strongly support the Barrasso amendment. Again, I invite all of our colleagues to come down to the floor to debate any part of this bill, any aspect of pending amendments. We are open for business now until 5 p.m. I think that is going to be a lot of time. We will have a series of votes starting today and going into tomorrow, and I very much appreciate the chair of the committee and others who have allowed this very open amendment process on the floor of the Senate. With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to very briefly agree with two key points made by my colleague from Louisiana. First of all, as far as the substance of this amendment goes, I wholeheartedly agree with her, and that is why I am a sponsor of this amendment as well. We will visit this issue again because it is vitally important that we get it right--not just for the tens of thousands of folks from Louisiana but for millions of Americans across the country. We need to get this right, and we don't yet have it right. Secondly and also very importantly, I absolutely agree that we should have debate and votes on the Senate floor. I don't think any Member should object to just having a vote on a matter. My colleague, the Senator from Pennsylvania, has been a leading advocate to have an open amendment process on the Senate floor, to allow votes, and I agreed with that. I fought with the chair of the committee to have an open amendment process in the context of this bill, and we got it. Now, at the end of the day, he objects to even having a vote on a particular amendment he doesn't like. The Senator cannot have it both ways. If the Senator wants an open amendment process on the floor, as I do, then he will have to accept that he may have to take votes on amendments he doesn't agree with. I accept that; I wish he would accept that. I hope it will continue and grow from here.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise for two reasons. First of all, I look forward to supporting the confirmation of Shelly Dick to become a judge in the Middle District of Louisiana, and I look forward to that vote in 5 minutes. As I have said before, I believe she will serve well. Secondly, I also wanted to come to the floor to add my support to the Landrieu flood insurance amendment. I am a cosponsor, and we are working very hard on clearing a path for an important, substantive version of that amendment. Senator Landrieu and I have talked, and we have talked to others, including Senator Boxer and many other supporters. We are working very hard not to get into the weeds but to take care of some technical issues, some budget points of order, and some other issues so we can clear the path for a strong, substantive version of this amendment. This is a big deal. It is a big deal for the country. It is a big deal for any coastal area and certainly a big deal for South Louisiana. We need to ensure that as the new Flood Insurance Program is administered, it is done in a fair and reasonable way and that we don't price anybody who has been following the rules out of their home because their flood insurance rates increased so astronomically. That is the fear, but that has not played out. The new rates are not out, but that is the legitimate fear. Senator Landrieu and I are working with our entire delegation to make sure we avoid that. Right after this vote, I am going to travel to northern Virginia to meet with a Louisiana group at the FEMA offices to talk about this very issue. I am convinced FEMA has some authority under law already to mitigate these issues in many ways but including by making sure they get their LAMP process right and take into account all flood barriers and protections in a given area as new areas are mapped. I am going directly from this judge vote to that important meeting, and we will all be following up in important ways to make sure we get it right, make sure FEMA gets it right, hopefully including a good, workable amendment that can be passed on this bill. We are all working toward that goal. I thank my colleague from Louisiana for that joint effort. I yield back to the Chair.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, through the Chair, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I briefly want to say two things: No. 1, I too am very supportive of this bill, which I do think is a strong bipartisan and a reform-oriented effort. I think the best proof of that is that it came out of our EPW committee 18 to 0. We have a committee that reflects the wide spectrum of opinion of the entire Senate. The waterway infrastructure bill is important, so I am very supportive of it. No. 2, I am also very glad we have this open amendment process. I think it reflects a lot of work and goodwill on a lot of folks' part, including the Chair and myself. I welcome this debate and vote. We want to take up and vote on amendments. With that show of good faith, I hope Members can focus on germane--or at least relevant--amendments, and that is what we will be turning to in our next set of amendments. I hope this open process and show of good faith engenders that response. I look forward to all of these amendments and debates and votes. With that, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for the time. Amendment No. 805 to Amendment No. 799

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I join my colleague in rising in support of this strong, bipartisan, reform-oriented Water Resources Development Act bill. In doing so, I thank and salute Senator Boxer for her leadership. More than anyone else, she got us to the floor today with a strong, solid bill. As Senator Boxer mentioned, very early on in our discussions about the work of the EPW Committee in this Congress, we set a good, solid, bipartisan, reform-oriented WRDA bill as our top immediate goal in terms of something the committee could produce and actually pass into law. In fact, those discussions even started between her and myself, in particular, before the start of this Congress. Of course they continued and they ramped up in a meaningful and substantive way. Through that give-and-take and through that real commitment to work in a bipartisan fashion on infrastructure, on jobs, on issues on which we can agree, this bill resulted. Again, as she mentioned, we do not agree on everything. We do not agree on everything in the committee, and that committee is often very contentious and divided along ideological lines. But this is a subject where we can agree and work productively together because this bill is about infrastructure and jobs. Certainly we can come together around that. That is what it is fundamentally about--water infrastructure, commerce, and jobs. That is why the Alliance for Manufacturing said almost 24,000 jobs will be created for every $1 billion invested in levees, inland waterways, and dams. This bill does several billion dollars of that. That produces jobs because it is building the necessary infrastructure we need for waterborne commerce. Ultimately that core, that theme, that common goal is what brought us effectively together. The proof of that is seen in the committee consideration of this bill. As you may know, the EPW Committee is a divided committee. On many key issues before us we are very divided between Republicans and Democrats. Yet because of this focus in the bill on maritime commerce, jobs, infrastructure, we won an 18-to-0 committee vote to report the bill out favorably and bring it to the floor. Let me talk for a few minutes about exactly what is in the bill. I want to go through the highlights. I think they can best be summarized by focusing on 10 specific points, what is in the bill, what the bill does, sometimes, just as importantly, what is not in the bill and what the bill does not do. First of all, the bill does not increase deficit and debt in any way. There is no negative impact on deficit and debt. Related to that, No. 2, there are no earmarks in the bill. The current rules of both conferences are not to support and sponsor earmarks. There are no earmarks in the bill. What does the bill affirmatively do? No. 3, it authorizes 19 significant projects for flood protection, navigation, and ecosystem restoration. Yet at the same time, even on the authorization side, we create a mechanism--I thank Senator Barrasso for contributing this important element to the bill--we create a BRAC-like commission to deauthorize some old projects which are not being acted upon, which are not getting built. Because of that new BRAC-like deauthorization commission, even on the authorization side, we should have a net- neutral impact on authorizations. The way we have structured it, we should not be increasing overall net authorizations. No. 4, we have made substantial progress and reforms to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and spending on dredging and other Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund projects. As Senator Boxer mentioned, it has been an enormous frustration to many of us that this so-called trust fund is raided every year so that even in a good year, half of the supposedly dedicated revenue from the industry in those trust funds is used for other purposes. Again, this is revenue from the maritime industry. It is supposed to be protected and dedicated for dredging and other delineated purposes, but even in a good year, half is used for other things, with deficit spending. We have negotiated with all Members of the Senate, including the leaders of the Appropriations Committee, and I think we have made substantial progress. I think we have made a big move in the right direction so we ramp up harbor maintenance trust fund spending for dredging and other delineated purposes. In a few years--between now and roughly 2019, 2020--we have a steady ramp-up. We spend more of that trust fund on the agreed-upon delineated purposes every year. We are building toward full spend-out of the trust fund. Again, this is a product of a lot of discussion and goodwill negotiation with other Members of the Senate, including leaders of the Appropriations Committee, which is a major and positive element of this bill. No. 5, we also made important reforms and changes to the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Again, there has been real frustration that those inland waterways trust fund projects have been languishing and have not properly received the resources they need to be completed and get off the books. We have made real reforms on the Inland Waterway Trust Fund side that will have important and positive impacts to get those important projects built. No. 6, we provide non-Federal sponsors of many of these projects more project management control in both the feasibility study and the construction phases of projects. This has been an idea in a stand-alone bill of Senator Bill Nelson of Florida and myself. We incorporated that reform--that pilot project--into this WRDA bill. In several significant cases, on a sort of experimental basis, we are going to ask the non-Federal sponsors to take over project management control. We think that is going to allow these projects to get built quicker and more efficiently for less money. No. 7, we require more accountability of the Corps of Engineers on project schedules. We increased public disclosure of internal Corps decisions, and we actually penalized the Corps for the first time ever when they missed significant deadlines. Again, Senator Boxer mentioned this. We had discussions right out of the box and came to the agreement that we are not going to lower the bar about environmental review; we are not going to substantively change any environmental or other requirements. What we are going to do is make sure that agencies which are involved do their work in a timely and expeditious way, and that has to start with the Corps of Engineers in terms of these projects. We do that with much heightened Corps accountability. No. 8, in a similar vein, we accelerate the NEPA and project delivery process to ensure that projects are not endlessly held up by government bureaucracy, tangles, and redtape. Again, it is exactly the same approach and agreement I mentioned with regard to point No. 7. We are not changing standards or lessening our requirements. We are appropriately streamlining the process and saying: Everybody works on deadlines, and the Federal agencies involved have to work on and respect those deadlines as well. If they miss them over and over and over, there will be negative consequences, and that is an important reform element to this bill. No. 9, as Senator Boxer mentioned, we provide an innovative financing mechanism for water resource projects as well as water and wastewater infrastructure projects. It is called WIFIA because it is modeled on the TIFIA Program on the transportation side, and it is very much the same basic idea. TIFIA has long been a model to build public-private partnerships and has helped to finance important transportation infrastructure projects. On the last highway bill last year that I helped work on and Senator Boxer led on, we expanded the TIFIA Program. Here we are using the same positive model for a WIFIA program. Finally, No. 10, we provide more credit opportunities for non-Federal sponsors either in lieu of financial reimbursement or cross-crediting among projects so they can more reasonably meet their wetlands mitigation and other needs. Wetlands mitigation requirements have grown much more onerous and expensive over time in a lot of places of the country, including Louisiana. This is simply intended to give people, local government, private industry, and others, more options. It is not to lower the standard for that mitigation, but it allows for more options to meet the standard and goals in a more efficient and less costly way. So we do that through these credit opportunities. Those are the important and 10 key highlights of the bill. Again, I think it is a genuine bipartisan reform-oriented effort that is, at its core, about water infrastructure, waterborne commerce, jobs, and hurricane and flood protection. As I mentioned at the beginning, the clearest proof of that is committee consideration and committee vote. There are not many things that ever get an 18-0 vote in the Senate EPW Committee, but this did. Strong conservatives and strong liberals voted with a result of 18-0. I am very proud of that, and I think that gives us a very productive path forward. Speaking of the path forward, let me underscore and emphasize what Senator Boxer has laid out. We want to have votes; we want to process amendments. There is no goal here to frustrate that in any way by me or Senator Boxer or anyone. In my opinion, to get that ball rolling, the best way to get there is to start taking up amendments and having votes so we can build on that momentum. What we are going to propose in the very near future is that our substitute amendment be adopted by unanimous consent to be the underlying bill. It is noncontroversial. It incorporates the ideas and suggestions of dozens of Senators. There is nothing controversial in it. In fact, the only thing it does is remove some potential controversy in the bill. So we are going to ask the full Senate allow us, by UC, to adopt that as the underlying bill. We are also going to immediately ask to have debate and votes on three or four beginning amendments. I believe those, in fact, are going to be nongermane amendments. I think that underscores and illustrates our goodwill about processing amendments, getting it going, taking amendments, having votes, and getting through this process. I would suggest, as Senator Boxer did, that we try to continue to focus on the important subject matter of the bill and not endlessly or needlessly go far afield. But I do think that proposing these amendment votes straight out is an important gesture of goodwill to set the right precedent and tone for a full and open debate on the floor, and so that is what we are going to do. As soon as that UC request is drafted and ready, I will come to the full Senate with that. If we can gain consent for that, I think it will start us on a very productive path, both to consider the bill and to process amendments and have votes. Clearly those amendments would not be the end of it, by far. We are already keying up some amendments to come forward right after that so we can debate those maybe tonight. If we do that, we can vote on those as soon as possible, perhaps in the morning, and go from there. That is my goal and expectation in terms of the near future, which Senator Boxer shares. Hopefully we will return to the full Senate quickly with that request. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I again thank my colleagues from Arkansas and Oklahoma. I support their measure. I thank them for coming down and laying out the argument explaining their measure even before it is formally presented because that will help expedite the process. We are absolutely working on that formal consideration and vote as soon as possible, just as we are on the amendment we talked about a few minutes ago, the Blunt-Nelson amendment. I thank them for their work. I thank them for coming to the floor to expedite debate. We are absolutely working on proceeding to get to formal consideration of their amendment and a vote. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I thank my colleagues from Missouri and Florida for this very worthwhile amendment. I will certainly be supporting it. The plan is to have this in the second set of amendments for votes, absolutely, as soon as we can proceed to votes. That is the plan, which I fully expect to be executed. I thank them for their work and for their contribution. In the same vein, we are expecting Senator Inhofe to join us on the floor to also present without formally calling up his germane amendment. That way, we will have that discussion ahead of time, and that also will be all teed up for the second set of amendments we hope to have on this bill. I hope what this underscores is that we have a pretty good plan to move forward quickly, to start having votes. Sometimes around here we want to settle every possible discussion about every possible amendment vote out there. In my opinion, it is more productive to start because you can't finish unless you start. I think we want to start having important votes, including nongermane votes, and get to absolutely every amendment we can. I think we are on that path. Hopefully we will be doing that today and then formally presenting and voting on the Blunt-Nelson amendment as well as the Inhofe amendment and other amendments tomorrow. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, point of information.

Mr. VITTER. I would like to ask the distinguished budget chair through the Chair what delay or what conflict with any other event could this possibly pose until at least 6 or 7 a.m.? I don't understand what delay that would cause, to allow more votes on amendments, or what conflict that could possibly pose with any other events, including airplane flights, at least until several hours from now. None of us wants to delay the process, and none of us wants to prevent a vote. Clearly, that is not an issue for several hours. I would just ask that of the distinguished chair.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, we believe this is an important matter, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment would require photo IDs to participate in Federal elections, which is allowed now by States. However, the Justice Department is trying to virtually shut down this practice unreasonably by opposing it in many States. This would be a clarification to mandate the Federal IDs, just as we do in many other less consequential acts such as air travel.

Mr. VITTER. I certainly thank the honorable chairwoman for that kind note, but I do wish to move forward with my amendment. This amendment is simple. It ends the cell phone welfare entitlement. I yield back my time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 689.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, there have been at least three independent studies now recently that underscore that too-big-to-fail is still alive and well, and that too-big-to-fail policies give Wall Street megabanks a subsidy in comparison to their competitors--an unfair advantage, creating an uneven playing field. And not coincidentally, that is why these megabanks dominate the market--the biggest market share ever in history. This amendment is very simple. It says we should do away with the Federal policies that create that subsidy, the uneven playing field. It doesn't say we forcibly break up the banks, it doesn't say we tax them, it just says that. I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Brown of Ohio.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I come to the floor on this budget debate and will specifically highlight several amendments that I am presenting that will be voted on in the context of the debate. We address several provisions that I think are important as we vote on moving forward with the budget. One issue is a reform idea. It is very simple, but it is very basic, and I think it is important in terms of our leading through these fiscally tough times; that is, ending automatic pay raises for Members of Congress. I am joined in this amendment by Senator McCaskill of Missouri, and I thank her for her leadership. There is existing Federal law that establishes automatic pay raises for Members of Congress. We don't have to put in a bill, we don't have to debate the measure on the floor, much less vote. I think that is offensive to the American people, particularly in tough economic times such as these. To Congress's credit, we have passed stopgap legislation to refuse pay raises since 2009, but we need to go the next legitimate step. We need to end all automatic pay raises and have the courage, if it is ever justified over time with inflation, to put in a proposal, to debate it, to vote on it, not to have automatic pay raises for Members of Congress. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. A second amendment would require photographic IDs for voting in Federal elections. This is largely provoked by the actions of the Obama administration's Justice Department which has been fighting States that are trying to institute photo IDs. That is allowed under Federal law, and several States are doing that and doing it properly, including Texas and South Carolina, but this Justice Department is trying to shut that down, even though it is allowed by Federal law. Interestingly, that assault on States trying to do their job, trying to do things properly, has been made by the head of the Civil Rights Division at Justice, Thomas Perez, who is now nominated for a Cabinet position--Labor Secretary. This amendment and this proposal would clarify it by actually requiring photo IDs for voting in Federal elections. We require photo IDs for traveling in airports. We require photo IDs for going into a conference. We require photo IDs for a myriad of things, including visiting the White House. Surely it is a very legitimate, simple requirement that doesn't disenfranchise anyone to make sure the integrity of our election system is preserved. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Third, another amendment I will bring would finally require the US- VISIT system to be properly and fully executed and put in place. The US-VISIT system, as the Presiding Officer knows, is an entry and exit control system to track foreign nationals who are properly visiting our country with visas, so it tracks them as they come in and go out, and if they don't go out in time, if they overstay their visa, it brings up a red flag that is sent to law enforcement officials. This is not a small matter because, as we all remember, the 9/11 terrorists overstayed their visas. A proper US-VISIT system would have tracked that, would have caught them, would have done something about it. There has been a crying need since at least 1996. In 1996, Congress passed legislation that mandated the executive branch, within 2 years, establish this sort of system. Of course, it wasn't done in time for 9/ 11. After 9/11, the 9/11 Commission specifically went back and recommended that we get on this, that we finish the work, that we fully establish the US-VISIT system. It said: The Department of Homeland Security, properly supported by the Congress, should complete as quickly as possible a biometric entry/exit screening system. Yet, even now, over a decade after 9/11, 12 years after 9/11, we don't have that system fully in place. We need that system, and this amendment would not just mandate the system but it would say that the Department of Homeland Security cannot grant legal status to those illegally present within the United States until we all comply with Federal law relating to the entry and exit data system required under the law originally passed in 1996. In the context of immigration reform, I don't think we should consider granting legal status to those here illegally until we have this US-VISIT system, which is an absolutely essential component of enforcement. A fourth amendment I have that we will be voting on over the next few days is in support of the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act. This amendment would support that act and express the sense of the Senate that Congress should enact it. What does that act do? It provides that whoever knowingly performs an abortion that is sought based on sex or gender selection would be guilty of violating the law. So it prohibits discriminating against the unborn in the form of abortion sex selection. A lot of folks don't realize it, but, again, this is not a theoretical issue. This, unfortunately, is an ongoing practice. There are at least four studies from universities--not from ultraconservative think tanks; UC-Berkeley is not a conservative think tank, University of Connecticut, Columbia University--there are at least four studies that found there is a strong son bias within certain American communities, a bias toward having sons, not daughters. These studies say that is ``clear evidence of sex-selection, most likely at the prenatal stage.'' That is sort of academic speak. What does it mean? It means that parents are selecting and using abortion to that outcome. It is always selection against women, against girl babies, in favor of sons. That is outrageous and it is tragic. We need to follow other countries that have prohibited this practice. Other countries--the United Kingdom, India, China--have enacted these sorts of bans. The medical community, including the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, and the President's own Council on Bioethics, have all condemned sex selection abortions. In 2007, the United States even spearheaded a resolution to condemn these sorts of sex selection abortions at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. Yet we are doing nothing about it in this country. So we should start doing something about this horrible practice in this country. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. Fifth and finally, I will have an amendment with regard to China, India, and Russia, and greenhouse gas regulation. The amendment and the idea are very simple. It creates a point of order against funding for greenhouse gas regulations until the administration can certify that China, India, and Russia are similarly implementing greenhouse gas regulations to reduce their own emissions. There are big disagreements and debates about global warming, climate change, greenhouse gas regulation. I wish to forego all that and put it to the side. No matter what one thinks about that--causes and effects, trend lines, or lack of trend lines--one thing is perfectly clear and beyond dispute; that is, whatever the United States does is irrelevant if major players globally, such as China and India and Russia, don't do the same. Clearly, our action is irrelevant unless all three of those countries do the same. China has just surpassed the United States as the world's largest producer of CO2. China now produces more than the United States and Canada combined. India is now the world's third largest offender of CO2, and Russia is fourth. So unless these three countries adopt some sort of similar regime, our actions do zero in terms of the environment. But our actions would do a lot in terms of costing us jobs, killing jobs, and suppressing economic growth. This is a very commonsense regulation. It shouldn't matter what one thinks about climate change with regard to how a Senator votes, because, again, our actions will have zero effect if China, India, and Russia are not taking similar action. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important amendment. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this week, March 10 to 16, has been designated Sunshine Week. What better time for it this year since President Obama has a brandnew nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency, and that agency is in desperate need of sunshine and transparency. In the midst of Sunshine Week, I wanted to talk about these very serious issues. First of all, let's go back a little bit. The first day President Obama took office in 2009, the White House Web site declared that his administration would become ``the most open and transparent in history.'' The President issued high-profile orders pledging ``a new era'' and ``an unprecedented level of openness'' across the Federal Government. Those are great goals and great aspirations. Unfortunately, the record--particularly, as I said, at the EPA--is a lot different. President Obama's EPA has earned a reputation for ignoring congressional information requests, ignoring and frustrating FOIA--the Freedom of Information Act--hiding elite e-mails, which is completely contrary to EPA policy, and hiding other important information from the public. Is it in desperate need of a new leader who will reverse these antisunshine, antitransparency practices and build a true culture of transparency and openness. Unfortunately, President Obama's nominee, Gina McCarthy, comes from inside the very troubled agency and she has been directly involved in many of these problem areas. That is why I think we need to talk about these concerns. I wish to go through four important categories where the EPA-- including during Gina McCarthy's service--has exhibited a complete lack of transparency. It has been exactly the opposite of sunshine, openness, and transparency. First of all, e-mails and the growing e-mail scandal. A lot of the EPA's troubles have surfaced through their dubious e-mail practices, e- mail practices that have been used, in my opinion, clearly to circumvent transparency laws such as FOIA and to circumvent congressional oversight. We have uncovered the use of alias e-mail accounts and private e-mail accounts to conduct official agency business. What is the issue there? The issue is that clearly this is a way to avoid transparency, avoid these being produced through FOIA requests, and try to avoid producing these important e-mails when Congress has asked for them and to keep the public and Congress in the dark. The most infamous example of this is Lisa Jackson, the former EPA Administrator's complete disregard for transparency through her Richard Windsor e-mails. Richard Windsor was an alias. I think, clearly in my opinion, she used this alias when it came to openness and producing documents, et cetera, that this was not necessarily her. As it turns out, multiple EPA officials have been conducting business through aliases or through private e-mail accounts, and these private e-mail accounts are absolutely prohibited by the EPA. In spite of that, we have uncovered a pattern. This is not an isolated incident. It is not just Richard Windsor who has been used as an alias, but there is a pattern. The Acting Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, has used an alias private account. Region 8 Administrator Martin used me.com, a private account; Region 9 Administrator Blumenfeld used comcast.net, a former account; former Deputy General Counsel Yang, a lawyer for the EPA, used a gmail.com account. That is completely contrary to the clear rules of the EPA. It doesn't stop with the use of these completely improper private e- mail accounts for official business. We have also uncovered high-level officials collaborating with environmental groups to push their biased agenda. Administrator Martin--since he resigned over all this when we had this come out--regularly communicated with far-left environmental groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund on his personal e-mail account to circumvent Federal transparency laws. His personal e-mails, which we have since gotten, exposed the EPA's efforts to further bury coal plants under crushing regulations. Again, this is not just some technicality. These private accounts and aliases were clearly used to hide stuff from Congress, hide stuff from the public, and to try not to disclose all this collusion with outside environmental groups and what--in my opinion--is a far-left agenda. Another very important category is FOIA. FOIA is the Freedom of Information Act. It was passed into law by Congress in 1966. It was passed for a very simple purpose: to direct sunshine onto the Federal Government. Here we are in the middle of Sunshine Week, and FOIA is a classic example of an important tool to direct sunshine onto the Federal Government. Under former Administrator Jackson's leadership, FOIA has become a joke at the EPA. Al Armendariz, the former EPA Administrator, had to resign after claiming it was EPA's policy to ``crucify'' domestic businesses. He actually called FOIA ``nonsense.'' As others at the EPA would try to have others think, Al Armendariz was not some rogue EPA official. In fact, this is the general attitude of the EPA. The Obama administration again has tried to get away with the claim that they are ``the most transparent in history.'' Yet as the Associated Press has reported, they sometimes produce a lot of pieces of paper under FOIA, but ``more often than it ever has, it cited legal exceptions to censor or withhold the material, according to a new analysis.'' This is a perfect example. This is a document produced under a FOIA request. It is one of the infamous Richard Windsor e-mails. Guess what is produced. Nothing. It is one thing to redact a few words or a particularly sensitive sentence. They have produced absolutely nothing. There is not a single word from the body of the e-mail. This is routine. The EPA has regularly mismanaged FOIA requests. It is clearly in the business to frustrate these sorts of requests and not to follow the law. I would like to show some other examples. Again, these are produced e-mails. Most of them are from the infamous Richard Windsor e-mails. Again, not a word in the body of any of these e-mails is produced. There is not a single word. This is another good example. There is not a single word produced. So we get plenty of paper, but what information do we have for the public? Nothing. There is something else that is particularly outrageous. We have an e-mail that was produced from the Office of General Counsel to Region 6 officials. That e-mail talks about standard EPA protocol regarding FOIA requests. It is not about a particular FOIA request, which might be overbroad, inappropriate, and might have arguments against it. Again, this e-mail is from the EPA lawyers to an EPA region, and it is about how to deal with FOIA in general. That standard EPA protocol--according to this e-mail--is ``to alert the requestor that they need to narrow their request because it is overbroad, and secondarily that it will probably cost more than the amount of money they agreed to pay.'' Then when the requestor doesn't immediately respond to that, they just shut down any EPA response. Again, this is outrageous. This was not a response to a particular request. This was the advice from EPA lawyers about how they should always consider responding. Just always say it is overbroad, just always say it is going to cost more money, and then shut things down, foot drag, and obstruct. That is absolutely ridiculous. A third important category in this pattern of activity is EPA's use of secret data. This EPA, more than any other in history, has been promulgating rules and regulations which have a dramatic effect on major sectors of our economy. Obviously, this is a big deal and big concern, particularly when it costs us jobs or potentially shuts down businesses. Yet the EPA has been completely opposed to releasing any of the numbers, the science--the alleged science--and the data behind these decisions. Again, many of EPA's regulations have big pricetags. Yet EPA refuses to publicize the basic scientific data underlying virtually all of what they have done. The new Clean Air Act rules are the biggest example. Implementing the Clean Air Act happens to be the responsibility, by the way, that Gina McCarthy has been directly overseeing since June of 2009. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards, for example, are complex and sweeping in their nature. The law requires, as it should, that they be based on sound scientific data and that it be implemented through a robust decisionmaking process. Unfortunately, that has not been the case and recent standards have suffered from a rushed process, reliance on secret data, and biased scientific review. The only way we can fully know what is going on and have a discussion about this is if EPA releases the underlying scientific data--the underlying numbers. I have personally asked for this. In fact, this request is 20 months outstanding. I asked for it almost 2 full years ago. Yet EPA has adamantly refused. Recently, it has come to light that EPA fails to complete comprehensive economic analyses of a majority of its rules. A February 2013 study reveals that the Agency's disregard for economywide impacts, as well as any other discrete negative impacts, renders their cost- benefit analyses to be misleading and based on manipulated data. Again, this is a very important category. If sunshine is to mean anything, if it is to have any real meaning as we stand here in the midst of Sunshine Week, we need to see the data behind these enormously important decisions. EPA cannot use secret data. That is contrary to the letter and spirit of the law. It is certainly contrary to the public having access to important information and to our responsibility in Congress on oversight. The final category I wish to mention is the so-called unified agenda. Under Federal law, every agency is required to produce their regulatory agenda. In fact, they are required to produce it under law twice a year--once in the spring and once in the fall, and that is called the unified agenda. Again, every agency is required to produce that to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The problem is this requirement is observed sort of like the requirement to pass the budget is observed in the Senate. In 2012, the EPA was 8 months late producing their spring 2012 regulatory agenda, and they have yet to submit their fall 2012 regulatory agenda. Again, I have asked EPA directly about this. More than 6 weeks after the deadline passed, EPA has yet to respond to the simple question of when they will submit their spring and fall regulatory agendas. We have not seen a bit of either of them yet. This is important because it is about sunshine, openness, and transparency. It is about being fair and open to the American people and giving the American people--including through its representatives in Congress--full information. This is an important area that the nominee to head the EPA, Gina McCarthy, has to address. It is awfully basic and legitimate to say to Gina McCarthy: If you want to become the new EPA Administrator, you will need to answer these big, obvious, and pertinent questions. It is particularly important since you come from inside this very troubled, completely nontransparent agency and have been at the heart of many of these troubling areas. One thing I will question her directly on is her active coordination with Al Armendariz, whom I mentioned earlier, in shutting down key energy projects. That direct coordination was highlighted in an e-mail we did get from Armendariz celebrating the death of a petroleum coke plant in Texas. Armendariz wrote in that e-mail: ``Gina's new air rules will soon be the icing on the cake.'' Shutting down jobs, shutting down American businesses is going to be the icing on the cake. In conclusion, I want to underscore that President Obama's EPA, unfortunately, has been the worst example of how hollow his promise is of being the most open and transparent administration in history. As we begin to consider the confirmation of a new EPA Administrator, this needs to be a big focus of our attention. Surely she needs to commit in very concrete and specific ways to change this culture. I am concerned that she has been part of this culture. She comes from inside the agency. She is directly involved in many of these very troubling areas. So we need to hear how she is going to reverse this culture and usher in a new era of openness and transparency. I will have specific requests for her that will allow her to prove that commitment, and I know many other Members of the Senate have similar concerns. I look forward to that discussion with Gina McCarthy. I look forward to continuing this discussion with the entire U.S. Senate. Transparency Week is an important time and an appropriate time to start that important discussion and to end these abusive practices by the current EPA. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, today I recognize the City of Thibodaux. This month, Thibodaux, LA, celebrates its 175th anniversary. First named Thibodauxville to honor Henry Schuyler Thibodaux, the city was both a trading post between New Orleans and Bayou Teche in the late 1700s and also a popular settling place for Acadians, Africans, Italians, and Spaniards coming to Louisiana during that time. However, it wasn't until 1838 that Thibodaux became the official name. In fact, city resident and Louisiana Governor E.D. White, Sr., commissioned the name change. Thibodaux is also where the Battle of Georgia Landing was fought during the Civil War, and the Battle of Lafourche Crossing happened a few miles east. Affectionately known as the Queen City of Bayou Lafourche, Thibodaux's history can be seen in places such as the Laurel Valley Village, home of the oldest working sugar cane plantation in the United States, and the home of Governor E.D. White. Both are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Along with Governor White, Governor Francis T. Nicholls also was a native of Thibodaux, and Nicholls State University is named in his honor. Governor White's son, E.D. White, Jr., served as U.S. Senator from 1891 to 1894. Later, he was an associate justice and chief justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1894 until his passing in 1921. A statue of Chief Justice White stands in our U.S. Capitol commemorating his service to Louisiana and the Nation. These are just a few of the historically significant residents of Thibodaux. The City of Thibodaux, its people, and Cajun heritage are at the heart of the culture and traditions that have made Louisiana great. Louisiana and the City of Thibodaux's history are represented through our culture, our traditions, and especially our food. They all symbolize who we are and the devotion we have to preserving our heritage. Thibodaux's motto is ``Where Yesterday Welcomes Tomorrow,'' and it is my honor to celebrate the City of Thibodaux's 175th anniversary while looking forward to its bright future.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I could not participate in the nomination of John Brennan to be Director of the CIA because of a family obligation in Louisiana. I strongly support Senator Paul's filibuster, oppose the use of drones in this country, and oppose both cloture and the confirmation of John Brennan.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I could not participate in the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Calendar No. 13, Caitlin Joan Halligan, of New York, to be U.S. circuit judge for the District of Columbia Circuit. Had I voted, I would have voted nay. Ms. Halligan has consistently espoused extremist positions on well- settled areas of the law including second amendment rights, abortion, and terrorist detention. I believe that Ms. Halligan's demonstrated propensity for judicial activism disqualifies her for the Federal bench where a judge must impartially apply the law.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Brown on the Senate floor to echo those comments. I agree that too big to fail, unfortunately, is alive and well, and that poses a real threat to all of us--to consumers and citizens everywhere and fundamentally to the American economy. Coming out of the financial crisis, it seemed to me that the biggest threat and the biggest problem was continuing too big to fail. I think now, several years after the passage of Dodd-Frank, we have objective numbers and evidence that it did not bury too big to fail. Again, they are objective numbers and evidence and pricing in the market that too big to fail is alive and well. I think the fact that Senator Brown and I are both here on the floor echoing each other's concerns, virtually repeating each other's arguments, is pretty significant. I don't know if we quite define the political spectrum of the Senate, but we come pretty darn close. Yet we absolutely agree about this threat. I think Senator Brown's historical analogy is right. It is like the unfettered growth and power of the trusts in the late 19th century, and there too folks of all sorts of ideologies correctly recognized that threat--liberal Democrats as well as Senator Brown's Republican predecessor, Senator Sherman, and, of course, the biggest Republican trust-buster of all, Teddy Roosevelt. It is the same issue. It is the intense concentration of power. As a conservative, I am very suspicious and nervous about that, whether it is when it is in government or whether it is when it is in the private sector. I think the sort of bipartisan consensus that, perhaps, we personify on the Senate floor is also growing outside Congress and outside this institution. Senator Brown alluded to some of it, but let me flesh that out. We have, for instance, the Federal Reserve Board Governor, Dan Tarullo. He was appointed by President Obama. He was a prominent figure in drafting and implementing Dodd-Frank. He recently lamented: . . . to the extent that a growing systemic footprint increases perceptions of at least some residual too-big-to- fail quality in such a firm-- Meaning a megabank-- notwithstanding the panoply of measures in Dodd-Frank and our regulations, there may be funding advantages for the firm, which reinforces the impulse to grow. In a little more blunt terms, our colleague, Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is also a figure in coming up with Dodd-Frank, said recently in our Banking Committee hearing with Chairman Bernanke: I'd like to go to the question about too-big-to-fail; that we haven't gotten rid of it yet. And so now we have a double problem, and that is that the big banks--big at the time that they were bailed out the first time--have gotten bigger, and at the same time that investors believe that too-big-to-fail out there, that it's safer to put your money into the big banks and not the little banks, in effect creating an insurance policy for the big banks that the government is creating this insurance policy--not there for the small banks. In a similar way, we have those concerns echoed in the real world outside this body on the right as well. Recently, George Will said: By breaking up the biggest banks, conservatives will not be putting asunder what the free market has joined together. Government nurtured these behemoths by weaving an improvident safety net and by practicing crony capitalism. Peggy Noonan, another well-known conservative, has said: If you are conservative you are skeptical of concentrated power. You know the bullying and bossism it can lead to. . . . Too big to fail is too big to continue. The megabanks have too much power in Washington and too much weight within the financial system. So I do think there is a real and growing consensus in this body, in Washington, and in the real world, as I have suggested by those observers' quotes, and I think we need to build on that consensus and act in a responsible way. Senator Brown and I have been doing that, first with joint letters to Chairman Bernanke and others, focusing on the need for significantly greater capital requirements for the biggest banks. We think this would be the best and first way we should try to rein in too big to fail, to put more protection between megabank failure and the taxpayer, more incentive for the megabanks to perhaps diversify, perhaps break up, or at least correctly price their size and risk to the financial system. We are following up on that initial work that was reflected in letters and specific suggestions to Chairman Bernanke with legislation that is quite far along, and I know we will be talking about more both today and in the near future. With that, let me invite Senator Brown to round out his comments, and then I will have a few more words to say.

Mr. VITTER. Again, I thank Senator Brown for his partnership. Senator Brown, with those posters, made crystal clear the facts. The fact is that since the financial crisis, the megabanks have only continued to grow in size, in dominance, and in market share. In fact, that has accelerated significantly. Some folks will say: Oh, well, that was a preexisting trend. That is because of a number of factors. It is certainly true there are a number of factors at issue. But the growth has only accelerated since the crisis and Dodd-Frank. It has not let up. In addition, there have been several recent studies that actually quantify the fact that too big to fail is a market advantage, is, in essence, a taxpayer subsidy, as Elizabeth Warren suggested, for the megabanks. An FDIC study released in September says that. It says: The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 was explicitly intended to, in part, put an end to the TBTF [too big to fail] de facto policy. But it concludes that: The largest banks do, in fact, pay less for comparable deposits. Furthermore, we show that some of the difference in the cost of funding cannot be attributed to either differences in balance sheet risk or any non-risk related factors. The remaining unexplained risk premium gap is on the order of 45 bps [basis points]. Such a gap is consistent with an economically significant ``too-big-to-fail'' . . . subsidy paid to the largest banks. Another recent study and working paper is an IMF working paper. It simply attempted to quantify that taxpayer too-big-to-fail subsidy. According to that study, before that financial crisis, the subsidy: . . . was already sizable, 60 basis points. . . . It increased to 80 basis points by the end [of] 2009. Then, most recently, Bloomberg has tried to put pen to paper and refine that calculation, and Bloomberg's calculation is $83 billion--an $83 billion subsidy of the five biggest U.S. banks, specifically because of artificially cheap rates created by the market believing they are too big to fail. I do not like huge size and dominance in market share, period. But certainly--certainly--we should not have government policy that is driving it, that is exacerbating it. It seems to me that should be a solid consensus left and right, Democrat and Republican. Senator Brown and I are following up on our previous work and drafting legislation. Of course, we are not ready to introduce that today. But it would fundamentally require significantly more capital for the megabanks and would distinguish between megabanks and other size banks; namely, community banks, midsized banks, and regional banks. The largest banks would have that significantly higher capital requirement. It would also try to walk regulators away from Basel III and institute new capital rules that do not rely on risk weights and are simple and easy to understand and are transparent and cannot be gamed the way we think Basel III can be manipulated and gamed. Requiring this would do one or both of two things. It would better ensure the taxpayer against bailouts and/or it would push the megabanks to restructure because they would be bearing more cost of that risk to the financial system. In addition, we are contemplating and discussing another section of this bill that would do something that I think is very important to do at the same time: create an easier--not a lax but a more appropriate regulatory framework for clearly smaller and less risky financial institutions such as community banks. Again, I thank Senator Brown for his partnership. I thank him for his words today. I look forward to continuing to work on this project, as I believe a true bipartisan consensus continues to grow on this issue.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I could not participate in this Hagel nomination cloture vote because I had to return to Louisiana to attend a funeral. Had I been present, I would have voted no for two reasons. First, I would like to state for the Record that I believe this process has been rushed and that very reasonable Member requests for information have been denied. Secondly, I oppose the nomination on its substance in light of Senator Hagel's long history of troublesome votes and comments regarding the defense of Israel and related Middle East issues.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I thank the Senator, and I certainly agree. Again, the fundamental issue is, Is the model that has been tried before really going to work--an immediate amnesty with promises of enforcement? Unfortunately, history is littered with examples of that exact model failing and those promises of enforcement never being kept. What do I mean by that? I mentioned 1986, which is the biggest historical example: An immediate amnesty where we are going to get serious about enforcement, we will never have to look back, and we will have to do this once. We will solve the problem. Of course, it didn't solve the problem; it quadrupled the problem. There were 3 million illegal aliens back then. There are 11 to 12 million illegal aliens now. There have been promises of a U.S.-VISIT Program with an entry-and-exit system to track everyone entering the country and making sure they exit in time. That was first promised back in 1986. Ten years later, in 1996, Congress passed another act to require a fully integrated entry-exit system with full implementation by 2005. Guess what. 2005 has come and gone. It has been 30 years since that initial promise was made. We still don't have an operational and effective U.S.-VISIT system. My colleague from Alabama mentioned another glaring example: the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which we actually passed in legislation. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 promises to achieve operational control for the entire border. It defined ``operational control'' as ``the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.'' We have not achieved that. In fact, we are so far from that goal, DHS has had to weaken the definition so it only now talks about effective operational control. They had to stick the word ``effective'' in there because we never had operational control. Who knows exactly what that means, but GAO tried to define and tried to measure it in a recent report. In their recent report they found that only 44 percent of the southern border was under any sort of operational control. Only 15 percent of that is under full operational control. Even if we use the loosey-goosey word ``effective,'' we have less than one-half of the border under that control. More than one-half of the border is under what they call managed control, which often means no control. It means a lot of almost fully unfettered, illegal crosses. Now we come to today with this debate, and the new promise: If you just give us immediate amnesty, we are going to have this enforcement. We promise, we promise, we promise. Again, we are concerned that we are reliving history in a negative way. For instance, when the Gang of 8 declares they ``will ensure . . . a successful permanent reform to our immigration system that will not need to be revisited,'' that sure sounds like 1986, with this one fix that we will never have to look back. But, of course, we are looking back because the problem has grown. It is interesting to note that the very day after the Gang of 8 announcement, there was even disagreement between some of the gang members regarding what they announced and what they promised. Many of the Republican members of that Gang of 8 emphasized that enforcement has to happen; otherwise, nothing else is triggered. Yet on the other side of the political spectrum, Senator Schumer--also a member of that Gang of 8--walked back any commitment to fully secure enforcement before citizenship happened. He said: ``We're not using border security as an excuse or a block to the path to citizenship.'' So there we have it. After the announcement, there is apparent inconsistency about how serious they are about ensuring enforcement, and that is the fundamental question. I think that is a very legitimate concern given the past history. We have proposed a different path forward with a targeted, step-by- step approach to prove to ourselves and the American people that we are serious about these enforcement and related reforms, to do those, and to have them working before we move on anything else. Today I am introducing a series of bills that fall into that targeted, step-by-step approach. I do not use the word ``comprehensive'' because I think that word is a negative. It is targeted, and it is step by step. I will outline those bills in a minute. Again, I certainly want to thank and recognize the Senator from Alabama.