David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I have an amendment on this important bill at the desk, amendment No. 80. I am not going to offer that amendment now because the minority side is blocking the offering and calling up of additional amendments until we dispose of those presently called up. I want to do that right now. But hopefully, I will be doing that in the very near future. I look forward to a full debate and a vote on this amendment, probably in the next tranche of amendments on the bill. My amendment is about energy. It is about a very crucial part of the domestic policy, something I believe will absolutely be a huge positive incentive and factor to allow us to produce even more American energy, to become even more energy independent, and to provide an even greater boost to our economy; that is, through revenue sharing, sharing the revenue produced by domestic energy production with the producing States. That is fair for two reasons: one, because those producing States do bear costs and burdens and impacts, including environmental impacts, and, two, providing that incentive is the most important way we can boost even further important domestic energy production. That energy production is vital for our country and our economy. In fact, we are not in recession right now because of those U.S. energy jobs. If it were not for those oil and gas and related jobs in America, we would still be in a technical recession right now. Last night President Obama talked glowingly of the state of our economy. I think he exaggerated that significantly. However, we would be in a technical recession and we would be in a far different and worse place were it not for those domestic oil and gas and energy jobs. That is what this amendment would boost and would improve even further. Again, the heart of this amendment is revenue sharing, establishing and expanding revenue sharing for producing States. So rather than all the royalty and revenue produced by this domestic production just going to the Federal Treasury, we need to share that. A lot will go to the Federal Treasury. Most will go to the Federal Treasury. But we need to give producing States a fair share. Again, as I stated, that is for two reasons--two very important, very basic reasons. First of all, those States bear a burden. They have impacts from that production, including environmental impacts. They need funds to deal with those impacts. It is manageable and it is worth doing, but there are impacts. Secondly, and maybe even more importantly, providing that revenue sharing for producing States--host States--is the most important way that we will get more producing States, that we will get more host States, that we will have more American energy. So that is what this is all about. My amendment, again, will be amendment No. 80. I look forward to a vote on the Senate floor soon. It is simple and straightforward. It does several important things. First, it would expedite Outer Continental Shelf lease sales and move forward with a positive OCS lease plan. By expediting leasing and opening up more areas to production, we can create jobs and further enhance and build our manufacturing renaissance and our American energy revolution. In recognizing concerns for production in the North Atlantic Planning Area as well as the North Aleutian Planning Area in Alaska, this proposal excludes lease sales in those particular regions. Secondly, the bill would increase revenue sharing for Gulf States, and it would establish revenue sharing for brand new production in other areas, such as Alaska and the east coast. Again, revenue sharing is fair, and it is the most powerful, positive thing we can do to get more States into the act in a positive way of producing American energy, helping our economy, and helping our energy independence. So that would provide revenue sharing for the first time for the Atlantic States of Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. It would provide that revenue sharing for the first time for new production we would be authorizing for Alaska--a clear net gain for North Carolina, Virginia, South Carolina, and Alaska. This is critical. I know my colleagues from those States are all very supportive of that offshore energy activity. So again, for Alaska, for the first time, Alaska would enjoy revenue sharing with the potential for significant dollars from offshore production going to Alaska. Now, one might ask: What about the Federal revenue impact? What about the fiscal impact? This amendment is fully offset in terms of the Federal Treasury. It is fully offset with revenue from two sources: No. 1, expedited and increased lease sales in our OCS that will produce more Federal revenue, and No. 2, trimming our Federal workforce by attrition, a policy laid out by the Simpson-Bowles Commission-- bipartisan, straightforward, and exactly what we need to do in a fiscally responsible way. Now, on that piece, the legislation would not fire anyone. It would simply reduce the Federal workforce through attrition. For every three Federal workers who retire, only one could be hired. That is exactly what Simpson-Bowles proposed. Two exemptions exist to this rule that could be used by the President in a state of war or extraordinary emergency--again, exactly the Simpson-Bowles proposal. This amendment is very important in the area of energy and to be fair to producing States and to be a powerful incentive--the single most powerful incentive possible to get more producing States, more American production into the act. That is vital for our energy independence. It is also vital for our economy. This amendment, No. 80, would be a big, positive boost over time for our economy. As I said, right now we would be in a recession still were it not for those American energy jobs. That energy renaissance has led the way in our economy. But for those jobs, we would still be in a recession. This can make a good thing better. This can provide more incentives to go further in a powerful, responsible way. It will also be a responsible way on the environment. Let me note that in Louisiana, you know what we do with our revenue sharing? We spend all of it on environmental concerns, mostly coastal restoration. We are losing our coastline. We are losing a football field of Louisiana costal area every 38 minutes--every 38 minutes, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. That is the biggest environmental issue we have by far. That is what this money goes to in Louisiana--proper environmental stewardship. So with that, I urge bipartisan support of this important amendment. I look forward to formally calling it up soon, after we vote on the pending amendments early this afternoon. I look forward to a vote on this on the Senate floor--hopefully, a strong bipartisan vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 80, which I discussed previously today and which is at the desk.

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, one of the most important advantages of small businesses is their unparalleled devotion to their customers and communities. Small business owners are the most qualified to truly recognize and meet the needs of their local regions. Having a local presence can make all the difference when it comes to building up a community, providing essential goods and services, as well as giving back to those starting new ventures. For my second Small Business of the Week, I am honored to recognize S & W Wholesale Foods for its success and commitment to serving southeast Louisiana and parts of the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Family owned and operated, Frank Spalitta and Richard Willams opened S & W Wholesale Foods in 1978. Over the years, it has grown from a 5,000 square foot operation to two locations in Hammond, LA, and Baton Rouge, LA. While S & W Wholesale Foods is well-known for distributing fresh food products such as meats, seafood, and produce, it also stocks complementary supplies, including plasticware, chemical and cleaning supplies, and paper products to surrounding restaurants, bakeries, childcare centers, convenience stores, and other local businesses. When Frank retired in 2006, his son and daughter-in-law, Paul and Tiffany Spalitta, purchased the business in order to keep the family tradition alive. S & W Wholesale Foods has made a commitment to provide the best available products to its customers, while also supporting an environment in which local restaurants and businesses work together to succeed. As a shareholder in one of the largest foodservice distribution cooperatives, Unipro Foodservice, S & W Wholesale Foods is able to supply high-quality products and services for its customers, which in turn supply Louisianians and residents of the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Even more inspiring is that S & W Wholesale Foods incorporates Louisiana brands, including New Orleans Roast and Zatarain's, to its larger product base. One of the more unique aspects of the company is the quarterly brochure that shares seasonal recipes and localized tips and ideas to help readers build up and maintain their own businesses. S & W Wholesale Foods is a great example of how hard work and quality products can lead to a successful small business. The company's motto truly sums up the undeniable foundation of its priorities, ``Large Enough to Serve . . . Small Enough to Care.'' It is my honor to recognize this company that works so diligently to promote the businesses of the customers they serve. Once again, I congratulate S & W Wholesale Foods for being recognized as this week's ``Small Business of the Week'' and wish them all of the best in the future.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, Louisianians are well-known for our delicious food, rich cultural traditions, and enthusiasm for football. Less well known, but just as important, is our deep appreciation for reliable air conditioning. During the muggy summer months, every Louisianian needs a reliable air conditioning contractor on speed dial. As the newly elected chairman of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, I am honored to recognize a small business from my State that provides this vital service to its customers--the Factory Service Agency--which is celebrating its 40th year of operation this year. Based out of Metairie, LA, Factory Service Agency serves the entire New Orleans metro area. While the business encompasses a multitude of mechanical and general contracting specialties, the primary focus is on the installation, service, and maintenance of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment. This longstanding Louisiana business emphasizes its middle name--``service''--and truly provides outstanding customer service, including 24-hour emergency assistance and maintenance for airflow and ductwork problems. For four decades, Factory Service Agency has gone above and beyond to supply quality products and service to local hospitals, universities, manufacturing facilities, nursing homes, and more. Small businesses provide the backbone for our economy, and their successes would not be possible without the direction of exceptional leaders. Mike Mitternight, the owner of Factory Service Agency, is not only responsible for all operations of the business, but also makes representing small businesses across the State a top priority. Over the years, Mike Mitternight has served on a variety of notable government and business organizations. In addition to his chairmanship of the statewide Louisiana Economic Development Small Business Advisory Council, he has served as the chairman of the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry and as a member of the National Federation of Independent Business, Louisiana Workforce Investment Council, and the National Small Business Association, the last of which he was named the 2010 Advocate of the Year. Small businesses across the country are fortunate to have a strong proponent with such valuable experience in each aspect of business operations, including financial management, job coordination, and project management. For my first small business of the week as chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am honored to recognize a local business that has not only flourished, but has been an inspiration for entrepreneurs in Louisiana and across the country. Small businesses consistently provide unmatched attention, communication, and results to their customers, and I am proud to advocate for them. Once again, I congratulate Factory Service Agency on an exceptional 40 years and wish them continued success in the future.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned by proposals for arms control plans related to missile defense and outer space arms, including the EU Code of Conduct for Outer Space activities, which the Obama administration has embraced. These plans were confirmed by Rose Gottemoeller, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, during a House subcommittee hearing last week. I firmly believe any international agreement on a code of conduct for space should be submitted for Senate advice and consent as part of its treaty powers, and not be an ``executive agreement'' that sidesteps that process. I have engaged with the State Department to ensure that this agreement will not be a unilateral act and that it will be fully presented to Congress before moving forward. I strongly believe, given the importance of this issue, that the U.S. Senate should be consulted as part of their advice and consent role in any decision to move forward. I ask to have printed in the Record at the end of my remarks official letters and correspondence with the nominee, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Frank Rose that demonstrate three important points. First, due to serious ongoing concerns related to national security, the administration has not pursued plans to propose the negotiation of a debris-generating ASAT testing moratorium at this time; second, that any decision to subscribe to a code in the future will not in any way constrain our national security-related activities in space or ability to protect the U.S. or allies; third, and most importantly, that the Senate will be given access to the details surrounding any plan once and if any format is determined, and again before any agreement is entered. Space is vital to our national security, and we must maintain the ability to use satellites and various missile capabilities. In particular, space is of critical importance to our national intelligence and warfighting capabilities. The development of anti- satellite capabilities by countries such as China and Russia is well documented, as in the example of China successfully testing a direct- ascent, anti-satellite SC-19 missile against one of its own satellites. It is vital that the United States ensure we are not restricting activity in ways that put our security at risk. Members of Congress have been clear in their view that they see ample disadvantage to such a code for the United States; according to assessments by the uniformed military, implementation of this code would result in real world operational impacts. Congress has previously voted to limit international agreements concerning outer space activities. Section 913 of the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 4310, states that any agreement will have no legally binding effect or basis for limiting the activities of the United States in outer space, and it requires certification that any such agreement will be equitable, enhance national security, and have no militarily significant impact on the ability of the United States to conduct military or intelligence activities in space. There are several key areas that the administration must resolve before moving forward on pursuing any decision. Pentagon officials have long expressed concern that the arms initiative will be exploited by states such as China and Russia to constrain U.S. missile defenses, while both states continue to develop their own advanced missile defenses. In 2007, the Department of Defense concluded that the progress in addressing the vulnerability of U.S. space assets has not kept pace with growing threat capabilities; consequently, the vulnerability of our space assets continues to grow. Additionally, a previous U.S. Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization released a report that predicted that future warfare in space was a ``virtual certainty'' and urged the United States to begin to develop the means both to deter and defend against attacks on its space assets, and to mount offensive operations to deny the use of space to potential adversaries. To do otherwise, the commission warned, would invite a ``space Pearl Harbor.'' Further troubling, a 2014 Department of Defense report noted that China is ``developing a multi-dimensional program to improve its capabilities to limit or prevent the use of space-based assets by adversaries during times of crisis or conflict,'' including ``destroying or capturing satellites and other sensors.'' To protect against these types of attacks, the Department of Defense's ongoing policy is aimed at retaining the capabilities to respond at the time and place of our choosing. Any effort to move forward must address our national security needs and Congressional concerns. Therefore, any State Department effort to move forward with a code or a debris-generating ASAT testing moratorium should fully overcome existing concerns and ensure the plan does not undermine current Department of Defense policy, U.S. capabilities, or congressional concerns. Our growing dependence on space makes it fundamental to U.S. national security interests. I remain extremely concerned by what appears to be previous endeavors by the administration to avoid addressing space policy concerns and potential administration efforts to bypass Congress. While I am pleased at the assurances that Mr. Rose has provided and that relevant offices will engage with Congress if a path forward is agreed upon, I remain extremely concerned about the decision to negotiate a measure using past measures such as the European Union's Code of Conduct as a starting point. Russia has demonstrated its willingness to break its agreements, as seen with the ongoing violation of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty. We need to improve our capacity to understand what is going on in space, and we need to ensure we are adequately capable of deterring the growing number of countries that are pursuing weapons capable of targeting U.S. satellites. While necessary, the development of transparency and confidence- building measures and behavioral norms promoting responsible space operations should not come at the expense of America's national security. The President's own Space Policy released in 2010 states: ``The United States will employ a variety of measures to help assure the use of space for all responsible parties, and, consistent with the inherent right of self-defense, deter others from interference and attack, defend our space systems and contribute to the defense of allied space systems, and, if deterrence fails, defeat efforts to attack them.'' With a growing number of states acquiring the ability to degrade or destroy U.S. space capabilities, the probability that space systems will come under attack in a future crisis or conflict is ever increasing. The State Department cannot have the attitude that they are going to go it alone. The United States cannot afford it. The material is as follows: Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, November 12, 2014. Mr. Frank Rose, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Space and Defense Policy, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC. Dear Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Rose: We write to ask for your clarification regarding the Administration's space arms control posture. Like you, we are deeply concerned by the rising threats of anti-satellite weapons in the hands of states like the People's Republic of China. That said, we believe the Administration would do better to focus on real solutions to these threats, as opposed to more feel good measures like the European Union's (EU) Code of Conduct for Outer Space activities or other similar measures. We are concerned by proposals for outer space arms control, including the EU Code of Conduct for Outer Space activities, which the Administration has embraced. We see no advantage to such a Code for the United States; according to assessments by the uniformed military, implementation of this code would result in real world operational impacts. The product of this equation demands the opposition of the entire United States government. With the languishing of that Code, we fear a new threat to our ability to protect U.S. outer space capabilities, and, perhaps even to develop our missile defenses. We seek your understanding of the Administration's position on space arms control, specifically, the ``debris generating kinetic energy ASAT testing moratorium'' which, as we have been informed, you proposed to U.S. allies. We are unfamiliar with any such proposal having been coordinated with the Department of Defense or the uniformed military, and therefore we ask for your answers to the following questions: 1) Please indicate the date, and by which Department official, the State Department Circular 175 request was signed. What was the scope of this Circ-175 and has the Department determined if this moratorium would be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent? 2) If this Circ-175 will not be submitted to the Senate, on what basis would such an international agreement be negotiated and to what end? 3) Please detail the potential implications for United States space and missile defense activities. How would such an agreement protect our ability to fully develop our missile defenses, including our test and targets program? 4) Please further detail how such agreement will ensure full freedom of action for the United States to take needed defensive and other action in space. 5) Please provide the Joint Staff assessment of impacts to military operations you obtained before discussing this moratorium with our allies. 6) Please detail the specific allies with which you have discussed this moratorium and the respective dates of discussion. Please further detail which State Department official authorized these discussions. We appreciate your prompt responses to these questions. Sincerely, David Vitter, United States Senator. Doug Lamborn, Member of Congress.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Sessions, I object.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, also on behalf of Senator Sessions, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4137; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to strongly oppose the nomination of Sarah Saldana to head ICE for a very simple reason: If confirmed as the head of ICE, Ms. Saldana would be a key player in the administration to help President Obama further a very bad policy that is very unconstitutional and completely beyond the President's proper constitutional authority. In my opinion, it all comes down to this very important issue of his Executive amnesty--his recent decision, without authority, to move forward on his own, without legislative approval and without congressional action, to grant about 5 million illegal aliens in this country an Executive amnesty. I think that is a horrible and dangerous decision for two reasons. First of all, I think the policy is wrong and is guaranteed--alas, even designed--to produce more illegal border crossings, which will increase the problem, not solve it. Some things are pretty simple, and one simple rule with regard to law enforcement is that when you reward certain behavior, you are going to get more of it, not less of it. Through his Executive amnesty, President Obama is clearly rewarding that behavior and rewarding illegal crossings. In every instance in our past when that has happened--including a 1986 amnesty that was at least passed through Congress--it produced more of that behavior, more of the illegal crossings, and more of a problem, not less of it. I think it is horrible policy from that point of view. The second reason I am very concerned about this recent Executive action is even more fundamental, and that is because I think this is clearly beyond the President's proper legal constitutional authority. I think his actions are clearly unconstitutional, beyond that authority, and therefore a very serious matter for the country and the Congress to focus on. I am the first to admit that every President has significant Executive power, and every President has the power to provide details when statutes are silent about them, to figure out necessary details in implementing and in executing statutes. His job as the Executive is to execute. But that is fundamentally different from taking action that is completely contrary to statute. Of course, that is what the President is doing in this case--granting amnesty to about 5 million illegal aliens when the statute, properly passed through Congress, says these folks came into our country illegally, they are here illegally, and allowing them to stay here and work is contrary to law. Again, it would be one thing if the President had to figure out details consistent with that statute, but instead he is taking action directly contrary to those statutes and that directive. It is not simply prosecutorial discretion. It is not simply saying, well, because of a particular circumstance, we are not going to prosecute that case or this case or that case over there. He is making a broad policy which will affect about 5 million cases, and he has gone way beyond saying: We won't prosecute these cases. He is having his bureaucracy--his administration--actually issue work permits by giving folks who cannot work legally in this country work permits. He is telling employers to hire them because they have this new work permit. He is giving them Social Security numbers and other affirmative identification. Again, that is not figuring out the details on how to execute law; that is not figuring out unspoken details about how to further law; that is acting directly contrary to our law and to our statutes on this very topic. Clearly, anyone in the position of heading ICE, including this nominee, Ms. Sarah Saldana, if she is confirmed, would be clearly and directly furthering that bad policy and illegal and unconstitutional action. To the point of this being unconstitutional, don't take my word for it. There are a lot of authorities on the subject, a lot of legal authorities, such as professors and academic experts. The Supreme Court directly recognized that on the policy of immigration in particular, Congress absolutely has clear authority to act in that area under the Constitution. In fact, in previous opinions, the Supreme Court has written that ``over no conceivable subject is the power of Congress more complete'' than on immigration. Another interesting expert and source on this topic is President Obama himself. Prior to taking this enormous action--in the years prior--President Obama said very directly to his supporters urging him in this direction: I don't have the authority to do it. He repeatedly acknowledged that. He said: This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. He also stated: For me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President. Well, President Obama was right back then. The problem is his recent actions--his Executive amnesty--constitute a complete turnaround on that by doing exactly what he himself previously said he doesn't have the authority to do. Again, why is this pertinent? Because Sarah Saldana, if confirmed to head ICE, will be a key participant in the administration thereby furthering this policy that is a bad policy. It is a counterproductive policy that will make it worse, not better. Even more seriously, it will further this action, which is illegal, unconstitutional, and well beyond the President's constitutional authority. This is serious stuff. This is serious constitutional business, and I urge my colleagues to look hard at these matters. After they do look seriously at these matters, I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to vote no on this confirmation. Again, the whole issue is serious. Illegal immigration is a vexing problem. Yes, we need to act. It is a complete straw man for the distinguished leader on the Democratic side to say that Republicans in the House--or anybody else--just don't want to act. Of course we need to act. Of course we have proposed actions. The question is, what actions, in what order, in what time? This action is wrong on so many grounds. It is wrong on policy because it is going to make the problem worse. It is rewarding illegal crossings, so we will get more of them. It is wrong, even more seriously, on constitutional grounds. It has gone well beyond President Obama's legal and constitutional authority. Based on those serious areas of concerns, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this confirmation. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I speak today about an important provision in the defense bill. As you know, the maritime and shipbuilding industries are significant contributors to the economy in Louisiana and are important to our national security. In Louisiana alone, these industries employ thousands of hard-working Americans. I am pleased that the managers of this bill were able to include section 3502, dealing with floating drydocks that are owned or contracted for purchase by eligible United States shipyards or their affiliates prior to this bill's enactment. The term ``shipyard'' in section 3502 will apply to any facility owned by an eligible company in the United States that constructs or repairs commercial or government vessels, including, but not limited to, facilities that undertake alterations, conversions, installations, cleaning, painting, or maintenance work to such vessels. This provision will clear confusion regarding drydocks and will benefit American shipbuilders. I commend the managers for including this provision in the bill.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to thank Senator Landrieu for her tireless service in the U.S. Senate to our State and to the country. I have had the pleasure of knowing Mary for a long time. She was in her second year of service in the Senate when I first came to Washington to the U.S. House, but it is far longer than that, probably longer than anyone in this Chamber realizes. Both sets of my grandparents live all of 3 blocks from where Mary grew up, and I grew up all of 10 blocks from there. Mary and my brother Jeff were grammar school classmates starting at kindergarten. Of course, here in the Senate I had the honor of working with Mary on so many important issues and challenges. From the moment we worked together on key Louisiana issues, we determined on those issues to put aside any partisan concerns when those crucial priorities were at stake. As she alluded to, the most challenging and trying time in all of that experience was just a few months after I first came to the Senate when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck. Neither of us could have ever imagined facing the challenges our State and Mississippi and others faced and facing the challenges we faced in the Senate trying to respond in a robust and full and responsible way. I am sure it was the most trying work for both of us in our careers. Louisiana faced unprecedented disaster and desperation, and that brought us together all the more to work for those crucial Louisiana needs and priorities. We traveled together, of course, to see the damage and meet with our neighbors and local leaders all around the State. Her staff and mine worked directly together around-the-clock, really, for months, sometimes in my office, sometimes in hers, always with the same goal of doing everything possible to help our neighbors and Louisiana citizens get through that disaster and get through to a full recovery. Those trials, of course, didn't end with Katrina and Rita. There were other similar challenges which brought us together and on which Mary was a distinguished leader. She was always a champion for domestic energy production, and Louisiana will enjoy a far fairer share of oil and gas revenue under the legislation commonly referred to as Domenici- Landrieu. After the infamous BP oilspill in 2010, Mary pushed for the RESTORE Act legislation to dedicate revenue from the fines to oilspill recovery in the affected areas. As Louisiana fights continually against the loss of coastal wetlands, major restoration work is moving forward because of Mary's years of hard work directly related to that. Due to Mary's strong support of our Nation's military, our fighting men and women are better off. The bases in Louisiana, which are important to our communities and to the Nation's defense, continue to have what they need for their vital mission. Our veterans face challenges and most recently faced the crying need for new health care clinics in Louisiana, and Mary helped make those finally happen, finally move forward, including pushing the case fervently and directly to administration officials. In a very personal and dramatic way, Mary is enthusiastic in promoting children's welfare and supporting adoption. Her dedication internationally was recognized when Russia banned her travel after her direct and well-founded criticism of Russia's action to curb adoption by Americans. In all of this work, one thing is always crystal clear--certainly crystal clear to me--with Senator Landrieu: Louisiana has always been first in her heart and her top motivation, and she has had a distinguished career of service in the Senate on all of those issues I mentioned and many more. All of us in Louisiana gives her our sincere thanks for that. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Madam President. I rise today to express strong concern and opposition to President Obama's Executive amnesty, which I think is clearly, flat-out illegal and unconstitutional. I announce that because of that I will be voting ``no'' on the confirmation of Loretta Lynch to become Attorney General--because she would directly help President Obama execute that illegal Executive amnesty, and she would be actively giving him legal cover, if you will--bad legal reasoning--used for PR purposes to further that illegal Executive order. I urge all my colleagues who share my concern about this illegal Executive amnesty to do the same. I strongly oppose President Obama's recent action for two reasons. The first is I think it is a horrible policy that is going to take a desperate situation of illegal immigration into this country-- a situation that has truly reached crisis proportions, including over the last several months with these new waves, for instance, of illegal minors--and make that desperate situation much worse. Why do I say that? Well, it is common sense. If you take a big action that is going to reward folks who have participated in that illegal crossing, what do you think you are going to get--more of it or less of it? If you reward behavior, you are going to get more of it; if you punish or stop behavior, you will get less of it. So on policy grounds, this Executive action--this illegal Executive amnesty for about 5 million illegal aliens in our country--is going to reward that behavior and produce more of it. As we have proved, we don't have adequate protections at the border-- an adequate system of enforcement in place either at the border or just as importantly at the workplace. It is horrible policy that is going to make the situation worse. But the second concern I have is much more fundamental, and it goes to the constitutional authority of the President and the fact that this is clearly beyond his authority because he is acting contrary to statutory law. The Congress and the President have acted together in the past and laid out statutory law about immigration. This is clearly directly contrary to statutory law because the President through this Executive action is not simply saying: I am going to refuse to prosecute this case or that case or even a broad category of cases. He is going even further and saying: I am going to issue work permits to affirmatively say that these people can work legally in our country, to affirmatively say that employers can hire these people, even though that is directly contrary to all sorts of statutory law on the books now. Every President in the United States has significant powers, obviously, and Presidents have the power to fill in the details of legislation when those details are not clear and when they need to do so to properly execute the law. But that is completely different from doing something contrary to statutory law, and that is what President Obama is doing here. Several people directly involved in this--including the Supreme Court, including President Obama, ironically--have made this clear: The Supreme Court in the past has recognized that ``over no conceivable subject is the power of Congress more complete'' than over immigration. So the Supreme Court has said that in all subject matters of law across the board, immigration is squarely in the hands of Congress under the Constitution. As I said, even more interesting, President Obama in the past, before this illegal Executive order, has said he doesn't have this power. He has repeatedly acknowledged that in the past before he took this action. He said: ``This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true.'' Furthermore he said: ``For me to simply, through Executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.'' That is what he said when he was defending not taking action before, and he was right. Now he has done exactly what he correctly said before he did not have the power to do. As I suggested at the beginning of my remarks, the Attorney General is directly related to this immigration issue and this legal constitutional issue. The Attorney General is the top law enforcement officer of the United States. The Attorney General is the top legal expert for the President and for the Federal Government. So I think if we truly believe--as I do and as certainly my Republican colleagues and as several Democrats do, based on their public statements--that this Executive action is wrong, is unconstitutional, is illegal, then we should not confirm an Attorney General who is going to further that illegal unconstitutional course of action. To me that is very straightforward. This is not just grabbing someone out of the blue. The Attorney General is directly--directly--related to these issues of the constitutional bounds of law, the constitutional lines between the executive and the legislative--and immigration enforcement. Based on that, I will vote no, and I will strongly push against the confirmation of Loretta Lynch as attorney general, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. If you believe that President Obama's actions are illegal or unconstitutional through executive amnesty, then I think you need to reach the same conclusion, but the attorney general is directly related to these issues of both immigration enforcement and the Constitution. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, reserving the right to object. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from California and want to work with her toward a common goal. In that spirit, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify her request and agree to the substitute amendment, which is also at the desk, which includes a 3-year extension of the vessel discharge moratorium.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I yield back and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. VITTER. Did that unanimous consent agreement cover both bills?

Mr. VITTER. I thank the Chair.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I am truly honored to join my colleagues on the floor, Senators Warner and Begich. I am pleased to support Senator Warner's bill that he just described and also a second bill Senator Begich and I have been working very diligently on that will be part of the unanimous consent request. That is H.R. 5069, the Federal Duck Stamp Act of 2014. This bipartisan legislation is a real victory for sportsmen and for conservation. It is a straightforward bill that updates the fee paid by duck hunters for a duck stamp for the first time since 1991, and that is a big win for the hunters, it is a big win for conservation because the cost of the duck stamp goes directly toward conservation of waterfowl habitat. In fact, 98 cents on every $1 generated goes directly to purchase or lease wetland habitat for ducks, and where you have more habitat, you have more ducks and you have a healthier environment. It is as simple as that. I am very pleased to say our work on this bill is exactly how this place and American democracy is supposed to work. I first heard about this real need from duck hunters, from sportsmen who live this and breathe this every day. I am an occasional hunter, but these folks absolutely live it and breathe it every day and understand the critical need. I immediately got very involved. I reached out to allies such as Senator Begich, who had a great interest in it. I met with the House sponsor, Representative John Fleming, also from Louisiana. We met with the House Natural Resources chairman, Doc Hastings. We got a strong version of the bill that passed through the House recently and that now comes to the Senate. Today, by this consent, we will pass that House bill through the Senate and send it to the President. As I said, that is the way the process is supposed to work, and this is a real win for hunters, for conservation, for the environment. I thank my colleague and partner on this, Senator Begich, and yield the floor to him.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. VITTER. Reserving the right to object. There are major concerns, particularly about the NRC nominee. He has no technical or scientific background. He visited his first nuclear plant this summer. Given that, and given that there is no precedent anywhere that I can find for a 4-year nomination to the NRC not to have a nomination hearing before the committee, all we are asking for is a normal, routine nomination hearing. Given all of that, I object.