David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Recently the House of Representatives passed, on a bipartisan basis, H.R. 3522, the Employee Health Care Protection Act by Congressman Bill Cassidy. This bipartisan act that passed the House would keep the President's core promise throughout the ObamaCare debate when he told every American: If you like the health care coverage you have, you can keep it--period, end of story. I am bringing this up in the Senate because it is vital that the President, and everyone who made that pledge, keep that promise, and the bill that was enacted into law would do that. Again, the bill is limited, focused, and straightforward. It lets small businesses and workers keep their health care coverage if they like it. It provides more affordable health care options for American workers who don't want or can't afford the other ObamaCare mandated plans. Again, the President and every Democrat who voted for ObamaCare promised that explicitly again and again and again. When that didn't happen--when millions of Americans were kicked off the plan they had and liked and wanted to keep--Americans rightly felt misled. In fact, that led to the President's promise and commitment ``if you like your plan, you can keep it'' being labeled by nonpartisan sources in 2013 as the ``lie of the year.'' This bill would fix that and make it good. It would not repeal ObamaCare. It would fix that part of ObamaCare. It would make that promise good. The keep your plan bill would let insurers continue to sell those plans that people want to keep that are less expensive and cover basic but crucial needs. At least 2 million people would likely sign up for these plans. Last fall nearly 5 million Americans all across the country had their health plans canceled even though they wanted to keep them--even though the President told them they could keep them. In Louisiana, 93,000 received cancellation notices after getting that clear pledge and promise from the President and other supporters of ObamaCare. Sadly, that hurt isn't over because the employer mandate for businesses that employ 100 or more workers is still coming. When that mandate kicks in in just a few months, we are going to see the same thing happen all over again with millions upon millions of Americans in Louisiana and in every single State getting pushed off the plan they had, they liked, and they wanted to keep. Small businesses are losing the plans they had, they liked, and they wanted to keep. The bill passed the House, as I said, on a bipartisan basis, 247 to 167, and over 2 dozen Democrats voted to support this bill by Congressman Bill Cassidy. Even Democrats on the House side see the importance of the legislation. I ask all of us to recognize this is a crucial element of ObamaCare that needs to be fixed. It absolutely needs to be fixed. Thirty-nine Democrats in the House had previously voted for a similar bill to let Americans keep their plan in the individual market. Senate Democrats scrambled with the administration last year to find some way to let individuals who faced cancellations on the individual market keep their plan, but those cancellations are happening to a lot of folks. It has not been fixed for all those folks by a long shot, and more of those sorts of cancellations are on the way when the employer mandate finally hits. I urge all of us to come together to pass this bill in the Senate as it has been passed on a bipartisan basis in the House. With that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3522, which was received from the House. I further ask consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, reclaiming the floor----

Mr. VITTER. I think this is very unfortunate. My distinguished colleague alluded to what I know. Let me tell you what I know. I know 93,000 Louisianians were forced off a plan they had, they liked, and they wanted to keep. I know the President of the United States promised them exactly the opposite. I know my Louisiana colleague in the Senate promised them exactly the opposite, and I know thousands of more cancellations are on their way when the employer mandate is enforced. That is what I know. I hold hundreds of townhall meetings in Louisiana, and that is what I know from talking to Louisianians, and that is why I know this is the central problem of ObamaCare and it needs to be fixed. The bill passed the House on a bipartisan basis. I find it very unfortunate that we can't bring it up in the Senate on the same basis and pass it expeditiously. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. We have a significant proposal. It is a constitutional amendment to rewrite the First Amendment to the Constitution, the first portion of the Bill of Rights, and it would fundamentally alter and take away certain free speech rights of millions upon millions of Americans--not a few, not a few ultrawealthy, but many Americans. I have a real problem with that. I think it is misguided. Instead, I think we should focus on other proposals and other provisions that can address what we all see and feel and hear from our constituents. They see a huge gap between Washington and the real world, Washington and Main Street U.S.A. It is also unfortunate that this is, I believe, the first time in Senate history that we are debating a constitutional amendment on the floor of the Senate with no opportunity so far--zero opportunity of floor amendments. That is unheard of, and that is unfortunate. That is why I wish to bring up two proposed floor amendments that I will strongly support that go to the real problem in America-- Washington placing itself up here, separate and apart, higher than the American people in the real world. The first idea was a floor amendment offered by my colleague Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. I strongly support it. I have the leading bill regarding this proposal in the Senate--term limits for Members of Congress. I believe this is a significant step, but it is one, unfortunately, necessary and long overdue because of the separation I have described between Washington and the real world. Americans of all political parties, all backgrounds, all races think that Washington is on a different planet and Members of Congress just don't get it because they come here and ``go Washington.'' We need to get back to the best traditions of our democracy, which include having true citizen legislators, to come here, to serve, to represent their constituents, yes, but for a limited period of time, knowing absolutely they are returning home after significant but limited service. I strongly support Senator Coburn's amendment. I strongly support the same provisions in my stand-alone bill. I urge Senator Reid to again open the floor of the Senate. Let's have the process the Founders intended. Don't be the first U.S. Senate leader in history to shut down all amendments under a constitutional amendment under debate on the floor. The second proposal, which is a floor amendment I have at the desk, also goes to the same concern of Washington living on a different planet than real-world Americans, and it has to do with what I call the Washington exemption from ObamaCare. In the ObamaCare statute, we actually passed, through an amendment on the floor--through being able to pass a floor amendment--language that says every Member of Congress and all of our staff should be treated as all other Americans are treated, who are forced to go to the so-called exchanges. We will go to the exchanges for our health care--no special deal, no special exemption, no special subsidy, no special carve-out. Unfortunately, after that floor amendment passed, after the overall bill passed, I guess some folks took Nancy Pelosi's advice that we have to pass the bill in order to read it. So after the fact, some folks around here started to read it and they got to that provision and they said, Oh, you-know-what; how are we going to deal with this? So a furious lobbying campaign began which resulted in President Obama issuing an Executive order--a special rule which is clearly illegal, in my opinion, because it is contrary to the statute--to create special treatment, a special carve-out, a special subsidy for Members of Congress and our staff. That is not right. We should live by that original language passed right here on the Senate floor in a floor amendment. We should say, The first rule of American democracy should be that what Washington passes on America, it lives with itself, and we should treat ourselves the same way as we treat other Americans who have to go to the exchanges under ObamaCare. That should be the first rule of American democracy: What we pass for America, we live with ourselves, because that is the right thing to do. That is the right principle. Also, for a very practical reason: Because sometimes the chefs in the kitchen should eat their own cooking, but sometimes that makes the cooking get a whole lot better. It is a very practical rule to follow. I urge support for this proposal and I urge an open amendment process and a real debate which, unfortunately, heretofore has been completely shut down. I urge consideration of this amendment. I urge us to place ourselves along with everyday Americans in how we are treated under ObamaCare and everything else. I urge full debate and consideration of the measure, and then passage of it. To further that, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of S.J. Res. 19, that it be in order for my amendment No. 3786 to be called up.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I think there was an objection to my unanimous consent request, and I wish to reclaim the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, reclaiming the floor, as the Senator knows, it is simply not true that we are being treated on the exchange as other Americans are treated. That is flat out not true. No other American at our income level is getting the huge subsidy that Members of Congress are getting--I am not accepting it--but that Members of Congress are getting under the President's illegal rule. No other American in our country, no other American gets that deal, and that was nowhere mentioned and nowhere included in the amendment we passed on this topic during the ObamaCare debate. So what the Senator says is just flat out misleading. If he wants to truly be treated as other Americans are treated under the exchange, absolutely. That is what I am asking for. But don't pretend that present practice does that. It does exactly the opposite. The American people are sick and tired of it. The American people are sick and tired of being put down as second class and Congress and Washington lifting itself up as above them. That is a fundamental thing that is wrong with American democracy today. That is what my amendment goes to with regard to treatment under ObamaCare. That is what Senator Coburn's amendment goes to with regard to term limits for Members of Congress. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish today to honor Teresa Lawrence, CEO of Delta Personnel and the 2014 recipient of the Excelencia Award for Small Business Leadership by the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Louisiana. Teresa was born in Cuba and came to the United States in 1973 to escape tyranny. She came here with her mother, brother, and grandmother. Tragically, her father was unable to join the family in leaving Cuba and was killed 4 years later. Teresa's mother, along with her grandmother, instilled in her a strong work ethic. She began working at the age of 14 by bagging groceries, and eventually worked her way up to the position of advertising account executive. She attended college for 2 years until her mother was injured and needed her help. Teresa then took a full time job at a large architectural firm to help support the family. She said this position helped sharpen her skills and expand her vocabulary. In 1988, Teresa married David Lawrence, whose family owned and operated a staffing agency, Delta Temporaries. That same year, the business was struggling and her father-in-law was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, so David and Teresa quit their jobs and began running the company. With no formal training in the staffing profession, they spent years trying to run the business, get out of debt, and just survive. In 2000, Teresa became the sole owner of Delta Personnel. Just when she felt she had really turned things around, the community was devastated by Hurricane Katrina, which brought immeasurable changes not only to her business, but also to southeast Louisiana. Through a lot of hard work, Teresa and her staff were able to re-open the business in Baton Rouge before eventually being able to locate the business back home in Metairie. Teresa is known as a great leader who places an emphasis on empowering her staff to make decisions needed to help their business grow and thrive. She participated in and graduated from the Goldman Sachs 10,000 Small Businesses program in New Orleans in March of 2012. Since joining 10,000 Small Businesses, her company has more than doubled their sales from $2.3 million with expectations to exceed $5 million this year. Teresa says the great reward is that she and her staff have placed more than 950 people in jobs across the Gulf Coast. I am pleased to join with the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Louisiana in honoring Teresa Lawrence.

Mr. VITTER

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

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to talk about the crisis at our southern border and the need for unified action to deal with it and the need to come together on a commonsense enforcement approach that undoubtedly will need some additional resources, but also clearly demand some changes to the current law so we may quickly deal with the need to quickly deport folks illegally coming over our Mexican border back to their home country. In the case of alien children, we need to get them out of the hands of criminal gangs and reunite them with their families in their home country. That is an obvious need in the eyes of the American people. I think a vast majority of Americans realize we need that sort of approach which starts with much better enforcement of our southern border, and, yes, if people do get across, they need to quickly deal with their situation and quickly and effectively deport them. That is the approach we need. Sadly, that is not what the President has proposed, and that is not what Harry Reid is even allowing us to vote on on the Senate floor. For a couple of weeks, at least, after this crisis hit the first page of the newspaper, President Obama constantly pointed to those parts of the law that he said tie his hands in terms of quickly and effectively deporting some of these individuals. He pointed to the 2008 changes of the law over and over and over again. The problem is that a couple of weeks after that--when he actually sent a proposal to Congress to deal with the crisis--any mention of that was gone. There was no suggestion of any change in the law in that regard or any other regard. The only request he made was for $3.7 billion--a huge amount of additional money. The great majority of that money is to feed, house, and relocate these illegal aliens, including unaccompanied alien children, within our own country. The problem with that is it will encourage this flow of illegal immigrants into our country and this problem will continue to grow. It will not discourage it and it will not end it. We need that comprehensive approach--including necessary changes to the law and enforcement--to quickly deport these folks to their home countries and reunite them with their families. In the absence of the President leading us in that regard, I came up with my own legislation. I introduced it in the Senate, and I have now introduced it as a floor amendment to the spending bill which Senator Reid is bringing to the Senate floor. It would change the aspects of the law that we need to change in order to streamline the process and allow us to quickly deport individuals within 72 hours so they can be safely reunited with their families in their home country. That is the only thing that will stem this increased tide, this increasing flow, and this increasing problem. There has also been a lot of debate about the resources that are necessary and the increased spending that is clearly necessary. But before we pass the President's proposal, we need to marry it with these enforcement measures and these changes to the law. We need to pay for that enforcement and deportation and not simply pay to feed and house these illegal aliens within our country. We need to actually relocate them to other places within our country with no foreseeable end in sight. We can't do that unless we get the right enforcement measures. I also have suggestions on how we can help pay for whatever increased enforcement, border security, and quick deportation we need. I have two suggestions in particular. I have two specific bills which I introduced some time ago in the Senate. I introduced each of these bills this week as amendments to the spending bill that Harry Reid is bringing to the Senate floor. One is S. 1176, which is a freestanding bill, but I also introduced it as a floor amendment. It is called the Remittance Status Verification Act of 2013. What is this about? This is about remittances by illegal aliens in this country and how they are sending money back to families and others in their home country. The GAO--which is a respected nonpartisan organization--previously noted that the United States is the largest remittance-sending country in the world, with the majority of funds being sent to Latin America and the Caribbean and substantial amounts of money also being sent to Asia and Africa. In the past 10 years the total number of international remittances has increased by 8 percent in 2013, and is expected to grow 10.1 percent in 2014 and 10.7 percent in 2015. It is reaching an astronomical number. In 2015, it will be over half a trillion dollars. If folks are working in this country legally, that is fine. We don't want to hassle them or make any problems for them. But, clearly, a significant portion of the folks we are talking about are here illegally and working illegally. That is wrong, and we need the legislation I am proposing to fix that, with four important goals in mind. First of all, we need to see if the folks who are sending these remittances are here illegally; second, we need to ensure U.S. taxpayer fairness; third, we need to address inaccurate U.S. data on remittances and collect all the facts; and, fourth, we need to make sure that illegal aliens who are receiving U.S. benefits are--we need to see if they are remitting higher amounts abroad. My legislation would address all of these goals and would fundamentally get a handle on the situation and make sure that those who are not in this country legally pay a substantial fee, and that fee would be used on border security and other immigration enforcement. That could grow a significant amount of revenue specifically dedicated to border and other enforcement. The second proposal I have is in the form of other freestanding legislation, which I also introduced this week as a Senate floor amendment for the supplemental appropriations bill. It is about child tax credits. This amendment addresses a clear loophole in the IRS code that allows illegal aliens to access income-tax-based benefits, such as the child tax credit and the additional child tax credit. According to the Treasury Department's inspector general--again, this is not some partisan Republican source, it is the Obama administration's inspector general for Treasury. They issued a report recently that said $4.2 billion--with a B--is sent each year to folks who are probably here illegally and do not qualify under these programs. We send them a check, a refundable tax credit, and it costs the taxpayers $4.2 billion. As the inspector general has said, there is a pretty simple way to fix this by requiring a valid Social Security number or other appropriate identification number. This approach is straightforward, it is simple, and it will fix the problem. It would cut down the $4.2 billion--with a B--worth of spending that we are sending improperly and illegally to largely illegal aliens and illegal alien families. We can use those resources, instead, on enforcement. Those are simply two specific suggestions that I filed this week in the form of Senate floor amendments that could help raise the additional resources we need to address this issue. Again, I want to emphasize that we need to do a number of things, and it is not all about throwing money at the situation, particularly when most of that money under President Obama's proposal is simply to house and feed these folks who are here illegally and then distribute them throughout the country for an indefinite period of time. Fundamentally, we need to marry that with real enforcement measures, including those addressed and listed in my bill. I hope we take that approach. I hope Senator Reid allows that debate and allows those votes. Right now he is lying across the tracks. The only thing he is allowing a vote on is this spending measure which just gives the President a blank check. That will not solve the problem. That is not the correct response. We need to do all of the things, broadly speaking, I have laid out. I hope we do that and come together--as, in fact, the American people have-- around my commonsense approach with a clear consensus. I thank the Presiding Officer, relinquish the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, there has been an important development in the effort to bring fairness for the victims of poisonous drywall that was imported from China. Drywall sourced from China was found to emit dangerous chemicals that make people sick and damage metal components of air conditioning and other electronics, among other effects. In Louisiana, the defective drywall came at a particularly troubling time. Just as we were starting to rebuild after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the defective Chinese drywall was imported in large quantities. Many homeowners returned after their houses were rebuilt only to soon find them to be inhabitable yet again. We are still fighting today almost 9 years after the storm to bring justice to the affected families. Some other companies, specifically German-owned entities, that supplied defected drywall from China have participated in the legal process and made settlements that have been helpful to homeowners. However, the Chinese company Taishan, a state-owned entity, refuses to take responsibility for its harmful products and continues to disregard U.S. law and our court system. If the homeowners' contractors got drywall from Taishan, they have thus far been out of luck in seeking fair compensation as Taishan continues to ignore our court system. In February 2014, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld a $2.7 million default judgment requiring Taishan to cover the cost of removing its defective drywall. Even after losing the appeal, Taishan let the deadline pass for an appeal to the Supreme Court, meaning the case was back in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and Judge Eldon Fallon. Earlier this month, Taishan disregarded our legal system and refused to appear in court proceedings in this case. Judge Fallon ruled that Taishan was in contempt of court for failing to appear to address the default judgment entered against the company. He ordered Taishan to pay $15,000 in attorney's fees of the plaintiffs and $40,000 in penalties. Most importantly, his ruling banned Taishan and any of its affiliates or subsidiaries from doing business in the United States unless and until it participates in the court's process on this ongoing case. To help ensure enforcement of the order, the court sent notice of its ruling to the Federal Government. I applaud the court's effort to protect the integrity of our legal system in taking action to force the Chinese company to comply with the law and the court's orders. If state-owned Chinese companies such as Taishan want to do business in the United States, they must follow the law and must honor our legal system. If they will not honor commitments and work to resolve claims, how can we expect any Americans to trust any business relations with or products from Chinese government controlled companies? Our government must insist that Taishan return to the table and participate in the legal process. To help stop this situation from happening again, I worked to pass into law bipartisan legislation to stop unsafe drywall from entering U.S. markets by ensuring that the Consumer Product Safety Commission follows a voluntary consensus health and safety standard. Enacted in 2013, this law also ensures that unsafe drywall will not be reused by requiring that it be labeled and that its manufacturers are identified. I specifically offered an amendment to focus the emphasis of the legislation on high sulfur content, the main damaging element emitted from the defective drywall, and to make the origin of the drywall traceable to the manufacturer. This law protects homeowners going forward, but it cannot help the homeowners still looking for justice now. We know that the harmful drywall came from China, and the remedy for these homeowners is for Taishan to follow the court's order, come to the table, and reach a fair settlement.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Madam President. I stand today also with high hopes that the new leadership at the VA will bring much needed changes to a department that is clearly, quite frankly, in a shambles, failing our Nation's veterans. During his committee hearing, the nominee Robert McDonald promised to bring a high level of accountability and transparency to the VA, two characteristics that are sorely needed. This is extremely important in an agency where under the leadership of the previous Secretary it would often take months to get answers to routine questions--or in many cases you would never get answers at all. By the end of this week I am also hopeful that besides confirming the new Secretary, we will send to the President the Veterans Access Choice and Accountability Act. This important legislation includes many needed reforms to the VA, including bringing that accountability to the Department and actually providing our Nation's veterans with choices about where they can receive care. The bill also, perhaps most importantly for Louisiana, finally authorizes much needed community-based clinics around the country, including two which have been long delayed in Louisiana by pure ineptitude and bureaucratic screw-ups at the VA--clinics and expanded clinics in Lafayette and Lake Charles. For 4 years I have been fighting the Washington bureaucracy tooth and nail to get these new expanded outpatient clinics. They are vitally important to Louisiana veterans who now sometimes have to drive up to 4 hours to receive services that have been promised to them much closer to their community. The current clinics in Acadiana are overcrowded and don't offer the full range of services that these new clinics will. As I said, VA ineptitude delayed the clinics in the first place. If it weren't for their mistakes, these clinics would actually already be built. When they were finally teed up and ready to go, then the Congressional Budget Office made a ridiculous decision that again threw these clinics into limbo because of a scoring issue out of the blue. Finally in December, the House was able to pass a bill that dealt with these CBO concerns that passed 346 to 1. Normally when a bill passes with that sort of margin the Senate will quickly pass it by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. First we needed to attach an amendment to address some marginal concerns. Then even after we had done that--even after that received full agreement in the Senate, unfortunately Senate Democrats, led by the Chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, held up the legislation basically as a hostage to try to get a broader VA package. Actually I had to come down and ask unanimous consent for the House clinics legislation six times on the floor. Unfortunately, six times Senator Sanders denied that unanimous consent. It was only after the VA scandal broke that momentum shifted and, thankfully, it looks as though we will finally pass this into law, the clinics legislation, along with this important reform bill. When the authorization occurs, I strongly urge Mr. McDonald and the VA to streamline the process to get these two clinics built as soon as possible, given the long and arduous history of VA delays and screw- ups. The veterans of Louisiana have waited patiently, literally for years. These clinics are overdue. Let's get on with it. Louisiana veterans have had to wait for numerous delays caused by VA mistakes. The least the Department can do is to make sure these clinics are now built with the utmost haste and efficiency. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise again on the Senate floor to talk about the crisis at our southern border, and it is a crisis. I don't use that word lightly, but it is clearly a crisis on many levels. This fiscal year alone, since October 1, 2013, over 381,000 illegal aliens have entered our country through that border. Of course, a big part of that crisis is unaccompanied alien children--58,000 of them. The Obama administration itself says that number will probably grow to 85,000 or 90,000 in just the next few months, by the end of this fiscal year. We see on this chart that since 2008, sending these UACs back, deporting them, effectively has plummeted--absolutely plummeted. This is a key part of the problem. Since this crisis came into clear focus, I have been doing several things. I have asked the administration, through a letter to the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, for facts, details about the impact of this crisis--the numbers, the particulars, and specifically what impact it can have on Louisiana, my home State. I haven't gotten any response. That is very disappointing. I am asking publicly again for a detailed response to those legitimate straightforward questions. I have agreed with many others in the House and Senate to partner with the administration around strong action to change this trend, to change our policy, to deport illegal aliens effectively, to send a very new and different message to Central and South America to stem this growing crisis. Unfortunately, that plea has not gotten a positive response from the administration either. In reaction to that, I have had to dig around wherever I can find credible sources and find out key information myself, particularly as it affects Louisiana. I have been making calls to military leaders, local ICE officials, anyone else with significant credible information. Again, this should be able to come directly from the Department of Homeland Security. It has not. But this is what I am finding out: The Louisiana ICE office has a backlog of juvenile cases--cases involving minors. First of all, it already had about 2,000 of those cases in Louisiana alone before this wave upon wave of minor illegal aliens reached crisis proportions. Adding on to those 2,000 cases--1,956 to be exact--there are now over 1,200 new juvenile cases in Louisiana. These are unaccompanied children coming into the country illegally and then being brought into Louisiana, in most cases turned over to the custody of a family member or a sponsor, and many of these family members are themselves illegal. We are not a border State. We are not Texas, we are not Arizona or New Mexico. We are not one of the States most affected. Yet even Louisiana has this significant impact with very troubling numbers. I talked to folks at the Hirsch Memorial Coliseum in Shreveport and found out that the International Association of Fairs and Expositions-- a trade association for their sorts of facilities around the country-- was contacted by the Department of Homeland Security about locating mass space for housing of illegal alien UACs. The Hirsch Memorial Coliseum in particular in Shreveport was contacted to see if they could be part of that, and they said they couldn't. It was not practical at all. But that inquiry was made. On the military side, I talked to leadership at Fort Pope. They were contacted by the U.S. Army Installation Management Command Headquarters and asked if they could house between 400 and 500 unaccompanied alien children. They said they couldn't for very compelling practical reasons at Fort Pope. Barksdale Air Force Base in Shreveport was asked via the Air Force Global Strike Command and the Department of Defense if they had capacity for the same mass housing operation. Their response was as follows: Barksdale's answer has been consistent with our strategic mission and supporting base infrastructure for the nation's #1 mission (nuclear)--we would not support or participate. But it is significant those inquiries were actively made. Belle Chasse Naval Air Station in New Orleans, again on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security, was contacted about their capacity for this same sort of thing twice. Again, it makes the point that even Louisiana--not a border State, not a State most affected--is fielding many inquiries and significant impacts--1,259 new juvenile cases being brought into the State, all of these inquiries. I wish I could get this information directly from the Department of Homeland Security. I have asked for it. They have not been forthcoming. Unfortunately, the administration likewise has not been forthcoming about real solutions, partnering with Congress to make changes in the law and anything else necessary to stem this tide and reverse the policy that continues to encourage this tide. We have seen no leadership there either. While the President spent the first 10 days of focus on this crisis talking about various parts of Federal law that he said were tying his hands, when it came to sending a request to Congress, there was no request to change any of that law. There was no request to streamline any deportation procedures. There was no request to heighten the standard for asylum or anything else. The only request was to send him a huge amount of additional money, billions upon billions of dollars. So in the absence of that leadership and partnership and information, I started to develop legislative ideas with many others myself, and I have introduced a legislative solution--S. 2632--to address this specific unaccompanied alien children crisis, and it has been introduced in the House by my Louisiana colleague, Congressman Bill Cassidy. Fundamentally, this legislation would reverse the policy we have in place which accepts these folks over and does nothing to quickly deport them to their home country. It would reverse that policy so we would have quick, effective, immediate deportations to send the message to Central and South America that this has to stop and to stem that tide. Specifically, the legislation would do nine things: No. 1, it would mandate detention of all unaccompanied alien children upon apprehension. No catch and release. No catch and then, yes, here. We will further the smuggling and give you to your family members or sponsors in this country. No. 2, we would amend the law to bring parity between UACs from contiguous and noncontiguous countries. All UACs, regardless of country of origin, will be given the option to voluntarily depart. That is a practical solution, in the case of those coming from Mexico and Canada--obviously many more from Mexico. No. 3, those UACs who do not voluntarily depart will be immediately placed in a streamlined removal process and detained by the Department of Homeland Security. Currently, they are transferred instead to Health and Human Service's Office of Refugee Resettlement, where they are basically resettled.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. VITTER. I will consider objecting, but I would far prefer to amend the unanimous consent request so that I get the additional minute I was just denied and the Senator from Maryland gets her time.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, my unanimous consent request was for me to finish my remarks in 1 minute and then have the Senator----

Mr. VITTER. I object.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I would just like to again ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 1 additional minute following the Senator from Maryland being recognized for 4 additional minutes.

Mr. VITTER

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I wish to speak about a pressing issue--really, a crisis, and I don't use that word lightly--of some 52,000 unaccompanied alien children streaming across our southern border with Mexico, coming into our country, and that number is continuing to grow. In fact, the Obama administration itself says that number could reach 90,000 or more by the end of the fiscal year on October 1--in just a few months. Again, this is a crisis on many levels. It is a border crises. It is a national security crisis. It is a humanitarian crisis. It is a fiscal issue for our country. It is a very serious situation. I talked about it on the floor last week and laid out, broadly speaking, the policy response I think we need to have so this flow does not continue to grow. Today I come back to the floor, and I wish to speak about two things--specifics I have learned about how this crisis is specifically affecting Louisiana. I am really concerned about that. I am sure every Member here is concerned about the direct impact on their State. No. 2, there is legislation I have introduced to directly respond to this crisis. Again, it is a real crisis. In Louisiana, just in the last week or so, I have learned a number of specifics that are significant and continue to raise my concerns. I wrote the Secretary of Homeland Security asking a number of detailed questions some time ago, including about impacts on Louisiana. Unfortunately, I have heard nothing from the Department. I have received no response yet to that letter. I will follow up and get a response. In the meantime, these are specifics I am hearing from other reliable sources: First of all, the Hirsch Memorial Coliseum in Shreveport, LA, has been apparently contacted by the Department of Homeland Security about locating space for the housing of illegal minors--setting up a camp, a facility specifically for that. No Member of our delegation was contacted. I had asked specific questions about any activity impacting Louisiana. I wasn't told, but they were contacted directly. This isn't happening. It is impractical. It can't happen at the Hirsch Memorial Coliseum. They have many commitments and a lot of things they need to do there. So I don't think there is any chance of this sort of detention facility being set up there. But they were contacted. In addition, there are thousands of new ICE cases regarding unaccompanied alien children. First of all, before the current crisis began there was a backlog of these UAC cases being sent to Louisiana with family members or sponsors. So there is a backlog of about 2,000 cases. Apparently, since this crisis started developing in the last several months, we have 1,259 new juvenile cases for Louisiana alone. That is a significant number for a State the size of Louisiana. We believe these are folks being sent through the Chicago detention facility to be united with family members or other sponsors in Louisiana. Again, this is exactly the sort of thing I had asked the Department of Homeland Security about. I haven't received any response to my letter. I haven't received any official formal response to my specific questions. We have had to learn this through other sources, talking to some ICE officials and others directly. This is really concerning. If this is going on in Louisiana, this is going on in every State of the country, and it underscores what a serious situation and in fact a crisis on many different levels this is. That is why last week I introduced legislation to try to address this very serious situation, this border crisis. I introduced S. 2632 to address specifically the UAC issue. I will outline broadly what it will do. Broadly speaking, it will make sure we detain these individuals, don't release them to relatives, family members, sponsors--don't release them out into society but detain them, and have a much quicker, more efficient process for deporting them and returning them to their home countries. Specifically, we would have mandatory detention of all unaccompanied alien children--UACs--upon apprehension. No. 2, we would amend TVPRA to bring parity between UACs from contiguous and noncontiguous countries. As most Senators know, we have a more streamlined, workable process for unaccompanied alien children from contiguous countries--namely, Mexico as well as Canada--but it is much more of an issue with Mexico. We would bring noncontiguous countries--Central and South American countries apart from Mexico--into the same category and treat those aliens the same way. Third, those UACs that do not voluntarily depart--which is part of the process dealing with Mexican UACs--will be immediately placed in a streamlined removal process and detained by the Department of Homeland Security. Currently, UACs are transferred to HHS and their Office of Refugee Resettlement, where they, quite frankly, disappear into the United States. They are reunited with parents or sponsors living in the United States, often illegally. What that means as a practical matter is they essentially disappear into our country. Fourth, anyone with gang affiliations, whether those affiliations are renounced or not, will be immediately placed in expedited removal proceedings under INA 235(b). Therefore, that would make them ineligible for asylum status. Fifth, we would raise the standard for asylum determinations, from a standard where it is now ``credible fear,'' which is extremely subjective and, quite frankly, a standard that is too easy for these folks to meet, simply by repeating the right magic words which they learn about as they come here. We would raise that standard from ``credible fear'' to ``substantiated fear of persecution.'' Sixth, within 72 hours of an initial screening, all UACs found not to have a claim for asylum will be given a final removal order and placed on the next available flight to their home country, subject to determinations of cost, feasibility, and any repatriation agreements with their home country. Seventh, a final order of removal is not subject to review and sets, as a minimum, a 10-year bar to reentry. Eighth, upon apprehension, biometric data--including, but not limited to, photographs and fingerprints--will be collected for future enforcement use. Ninth, and finally, the Department of Homeland Security will report annually to Congress on the number of apprehensions, the number of removals, the number of voluntary departures, et cetera. And specifically, in no event shall a voluntary departure be counted as a deportation. Now, what does all this mean? It is a very detailed bill. We put great time and effort into the specifics of the legislation. We need to get the specifics right. But what does it mean? It means we are stopping catch and release. It means we are stopping simply releasing these folks out into the country, to family members or to sponsors, where they are usually never heard from again. They don't show up for court dates and they don't respond to any enforcement actions. Catch and release is a complete failure because it essentially means being released in the country for an extended period of time, and it means we retain control and detention and then have a quick, efficient process for removing them from the country. That is the only way we will stem this increasing flow--still increasing. The number of unaccompanied alien children is still mounting and mounting and mounting. I called this a crisis at the beginning of my remarks, and it is. It is a crisis on many different levels. It is a border crisis, it is a law enforcement crisis, and it is a fiscal issue. As many folks have correctly said--particularly on the left--it is a humanitarian crisis. The biggest threat to these individuals in humanitarian terms is the fact that they are entrusted and put in the hands of outright criminal gangs, often drug lords and drug gangs, coyotes--folks who do not have their best interests in mind, and very often in that process they are abused in multiple ways. That is a humanitarian travesty and it is a humanitarian crisis. The problem is we have a policy right now that encourages that treatment and allows for those numbers to grow and not to be brought back down to zero. We need a different policy that discourages and stops that. Fundamentally, the way to do that is to apprehend these individuals, and instead of releasing them into the country--which means the illegal gang smuggling operation has been successful--quickly and efficiently deport them back to their home country. That is the only action which will reverse the message that has gone out far and wide in Central and South America, which is to send your minors because President Obama has an Executive order that says we won't prosecute them. That is the message that has been heard and the fundamental message we have to reverse, and you only reverse that message if you reverse the policy through specific actions such as what I have described. This is a graph which very clearly shows that deportations of this class of illegal aliens have plummeted under President Obama. President Obama often points to a change in the law in 2008 that was part of that equation. He complained about that for weeks and weeks when this crisis first hit the front page of the paper. The problem is when it comes to his proposal which was sent to Congress about how to deal with the crisis, he didn't ask to change the law. He didn't ask for any new authority to expedite the removal process. All he asked for was $3.9 billion, largely for the housing and feeding of these aliens and not for expedited and effective removal. That is what we need to change. This trendline is what we need to change in order to address the problem and stop this mounting flow and crisis at our border. I hope we act in a responsible way by adopting this sort of policy and catch and release and detain these folks. Of course we need to treat them humanely and provide what we need to provide for them in the limited period of time we have them detained, but don't release them into the country with family members and often other illegals or sponsors. Detain them and deport them to their home countries. That is the only appropriate response which will stop this crisis from continuing to grow and stop the abuses and humanitarian crisis from continuing to grow. I encourage my colleagues to come around to this commonsense solution. The American people have already done that. Have a townhall meeting on this. I don't care what State you come from. Look at the polling on this issue. The American people have already reached this commonsense consensus. The question is, is Washington going to catch up and follow? Are we going to reach the same commonsense consensus and respond in a commonsense way that solves the problem rather than just growing it or throwing money at it? I encourage all of us from both sides of the aisle to come around to this sort of consensus approach. Of course I favor the specific legislation I have filed, S. 2632, but it doesn't have to be exactly that vehicle. It does have to be that general approach in order to stop this mounting flood of illegals at our southern border and to deal with this crisis--including the humanitarian crisis--effectively rather than continuing to deal with it in a way where the numbers, the burden, the crisis, and the abuses continue to grow. In closing, I will say I am, again, very concerned, as I am sure every Member in this body is, about the specific impact to my State. I mentioned some of those impacts. I didn't get those details from the Department of Homeland Security even though I specifically asked for that from the Department. I have had no real cooperation or information from the Department. I had to search out that information from other reliable sources. I will continue to do that, and I will continue to get the word out to Louisianans because they deserve to know what our State and communities may be dealing with. In the meantime I hope the Department of Homeland Security will actually answer my letter, answer my questions, and give us the details directly so we all know exactly what we are dealing with as a country and in our individual States. I thank the Presiding Officer, yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment so that I may call up my amendment No. 3550, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to talk about this amendment which I look forward to being adopted on this important terrorism risk insurance reauthorization bill. It is a commonsense amendment. It is about the Federal Reserve Board, and it says at least one member of that important Board should have significant experience as a community banker or a community bank supervisor. This used to be commonplace because community banks--smaller institutions--were and are an important part of our financial system. In fact, these days it is one part of our financial system that sets us apart from many others, such as Canada and Europe, which are far more dominated by mega-institutions. Of course, the United States has some very big institutions, and they serve an important role and they have an important place, but smaller institutions, so-called community banks, serve a vital role as well and particularly in smaller communities and in more rural areas they serve those communities in a way megabanks simply do not. I have been looking at this trend on the Federal Reserve, and unfortunately there is an unmistakable trend away from having adequate representation from folks with community bank experience; that same trend has been toward having the Federal Reserve Board completely dominated by academics and folks with megabank and academic economist experience. This chart I have in the Chamber shows that trend. From 1936 until the present, it goes decade by decade. The chart is a little busy, and we have this color coding here, but basically we can see this huge growth in the domination of this red category: folks with pure academic economic experience. Folks with community bank experience, which used to actually dominate the Federal Reserve Board several decades ago, are now very limited. Look, there is nothing wrong with folks with academic experience, but it should not be so dominant on the Federal Reserve and we should have regular representation from community banks or community bank supervisors because that is a vital part of our banking system. My amendment is therefore very simple. It would mandate that at least one member of the Federal Reserve Board have that experience, have direct community bank experience or have direct experience as a community bank supervisor. Specifically, we are talking about institutions with less than $10 billion in total assets. This bill follows a letter several of my colleagues joined me in sending to President Obama. We were asking him to nominate an individual with that sort of experience, and I thank the cosigners on that letter: Senators Tester, Moran, Merkley, Coburn, and Johanns on the committee; and noncommittee Members Senators Hirono, King, Franken, Baldwin, Begich, Landrieu, Heinrich, and Udall. We seem to be making progress in that regard. There is widespread reporting that the White House is considering a list of candidates for the Federal Reserve with community banking experience. But this specific mandate--just one member, a very modest mandate--would help ensure that happens and would help ensure that regularly happens into the future to reverse this trend, to get more balance on the Federal Reserve Board. This is very important in the context of the too-big-to-fail debate. Too big to fail helped lead to the crisis several years ago in the banking industry. It helped lead to the massive bailouts of mega- institutions, and unfortunately I am one who believes--and there are many others--that too big to fail is alive and well today, and in some ways Dodd-Frank institutionalized too big to fail. It did not end too big to fail in any way. We need to do a number of things to even the playing field, to make it fairer for smaller institutions, community banks that serve our smaller communities in rural areas, particularly on the Federal Reserve Board, which is such a significant governing and supervisory board in our banking industry. I specifically thank the ranking member of the committee, Senator Crapo, for his support of this concept, his support in negotiations of this amendment, and his very active involvement in getting this amendment accepted on to the TRIA bill. I think the ranking member may have a few words about this and other matters. I will relinquish the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, just one final wrapup issue. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter of support for this amendment from ICBA, the Independent Community Bankers of America.