David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the growing crisis of unaccompanied alien children streaming across our southern border. It has been called a mounting crisis, including the security crisis it is. There are some 52,000 who have come across in the last several months, according to recent reports--up from just a few thousand 1 year ago--and the threat is that will grow significantly. It is continuing to grow. This has been called a humanitarian crisis, and it is. These are, in most cases, vulnerable children who were taken through by human smugglers, by drug cartels, by other folks who do not--absolutely do not--have their best interests in mind. These children are often mistreated in all sorts of despicable ways through that journey. How do we address this crisis? It seems to me we need to get our core response right, and the only way to stop this increasing flow is to make clear this activity will not be successful. The only way to do that is to detain these illegal aliens in our country and keep them under our supervision until we quickly deport them to their countries of origin. That is the only response, the only message, the only visual that will stop this mounting flow from continuing to grow. That is the most humanitarian response that will stop more and more of these Central and South American children from being put in this illegal trade and being victimized along the way. Now, unfortunately, so far, that is not the response President Obama has made. After speaking for weeks about the 2008 change in immigration law as a factor in this scenario, when President Obama presented a request to Congress on this issue, he did not request any change in that law. He talked about it. He pointed to that law for weeks saying this was the root cause of the problem. Yet in his request to Congress he is not proposing we change that law. Instead, all he is proposing is more money--a lot more money--$3.7 billion. Now, some more response and some more resources are undoubtedly necessary, but the lion's share of that, again, doesn't go to enforcement, doesn't go to deportation, doesn't go to sending these illegals back to their home country quickly, humanely, and efficiently. It goes to feeding them and housing them in this country for an extended, indefinite period of time. That is not what we need again. What we need, instead, is whatever changes to the law are necessary to allow us to detain these folks in a proper, humane way and quickly move them back to their home countries. We need the will and the resources to get that done in a quick, efficient way. That is what I will be proposing with many others in both the House and the Senate. For this to work we also need the will and the cooperation of the administration, and I am concerned that there isn't that real focus, real determination, and real will. It is great to have the right law written down on a piece of paper, the right words on a page, but it is equally as important--perhaps more important--to have the right administration, the right spirit, the right execution, the right follow-through on those words on a page. Unfortunately, we haven't had that in the Obama administration either. The Los Angeles Times, not exactly a right-leaning publication, has noted that deportations of illegals has plummeted from the high in 2008, plummeted every year since then, to an absolute low in 2013 of about 1,669--from a high of 8,100, down each and every year to 1,600. This first drop probably had a lot to do with the change in the law to which President Obama has alluded. We need to fix that. But these other drops have to do with the spirit, the focus, and the determination--or lack thereof--of the present administration. Similarly, about 600 minors--all illegals--were ordered deported each year from nonborder States a decade ago--a decade ago 600 and last year only 95. Again, this is the same plummeting trend, the same absolutely plummeting trend. That is what we need to fundamentally reverse. To reverse that I have joined with other Members, as I suggested, to get the right solution in Congress, both changes in the law we need to make and the resources we need to hold these illegal aliens and quickly turn around the flow and send them back to their home countries. That is why I have joined already with Senator Flake in his amendment, which he was trying to propose on the Senate floor this week, to repeal the troublesome part of the 2008 law. That is why I am going further and drafting additional legislation to give this administration the mandate, the ability, the directive it clearly needs to change that practice and to change that policy--not to allow these illegals to be released into the country simply on the honor system that they might show up for a court date--we know that well over 90 percent never show up--and not simply send more money to HHS to properly care for these illegal aliens with no end in sight. Of course, they need to be properly treated and cared for when they are in this country and beyond, but we should not just write a blank check to keep them here forever but change the law and have the procedure in place to detain them--not to release them--and to quickly, effectively, bring them back to their home country. That is what happens in a much more routine way for illegal aliens from border countries such as Mexico and Canada. That is what happens effectively in those situations. We need to mirror that. We need to copy that and make sure that happens effectively when the illegal alien is from a border State. I wrote a letter to DHS Secretary Johnson back in January of this year regarding this very issue, before it became the current crisis, regarding reports detailing actual DHS assistance in the completion of smuggling illegal alien minors. In that case, a smuggled child in many cases was transferred to illegal alien parents actually by DHS--by HHS's Office of Refugee Resettlement. So actually, in those cases, the Federal Government was not completing the object of the criminal conspiracy--was not stopping the smuggling, not punishing the smugglers, but completing the operation. Again, it is another classic case of sending the wrong message--a message that will increase the flow and increase the problem, not decrease it. Ultimately, that goes back to the humanitarian issue too, because encouraging human smuggling enriches drug cartels, allows them to continue using violence as a means to an end, and wages war on Mexican and American citizens alike as well as the folks involved from Central and South American countries. We need to change that basic message. We need to turn around those basic incentives. The only way to do that is to have a law and the execution of the law that is reversing that flow, that is apprehending these folks, that is treating them humanely, that is not releasing them out into American society, and that is quickly and effectively returning them to their home countries. That is the only message, that is the only visual, that will stop this mounting wave and will address the horrible humanitarian problems that flow directly from it. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, as we all know, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the VA, is in shambles. Two national reports this week have highlighted the fact that bureaucratic ineptitude and incompetence seem to be the norm there. Unfortunately, reports that surfaced out of Phoenix which led to the resignation of Secretary Shinseki do not seem limited to Arizona. I wish to talk about where we are nationally with this scandal, and also specific instances that have come out of Louisiana I have learned about working directly with whistleblowers and working directly with families of veterans whom I am very concerned about who are examples of this same sort of abuse. On Monday, the head of the agency that investigates whistleblower complaints in the Federal Government, Carolyn Lerner, sent a blistering letter to President Obama stating that the VA Office of the Medical Inspector has repeatedly undermined legitimate whistleblowers by confirming their allegations of wrongdoing but dismissing them as having no impact on patient care. Lerner's letter lists numerous cases where whistleblowers reported numerous failings at the VA, including examples where drinking water at the VA facility at Grand Junction, CO, was tainted with elevated levels of Legionella bacteria, which can cause a form of pneumonia, and standard maintenance and cleaning procedures not being performed at the facility. Also, in Montgomery, AL, a VA pulmonologist portrayed past test readings as current results in more than 1,200 patient files, ``likely resulting in inaccurate patient health information being recorded.'' In these cases, among many others, VA whistleblowers brought the information to the special counsel, an independent Federal entity charged with enforcing whistleblower protection laws. The special counsel passed it along to the Office of the Medical Inspector, but that VA medical inspector concluded the hospital's failings, while accurately reported by the whistleblowers, didn't threaten veterans health or safety, even when the VA inspector general had concluded that similar faults compromised care in other cases. This is deeply troubling and severely cripples any belief that the VA is in any way capable of fixing its deep-seated problems on its own. My colleague, Senator Coburn of Oklahoma, whom I have worked with closely in dealing with many of these VA problems, also released his oversight report on the Department entitled ``Friendly Fire: Death, Delay, and Dismay at the VA.'' To say his report is troubling is quite an understatement. Some of the key findings I found most troubling in the report were these: the fact that there seems to be a perverse culture, his report said, within the Department where veterans are not always the priority and data and employees are manipulated to maintain an appearance that all is well. In many cases it also seems bad employees are rewarded with bonuses and paid leave, while whistleblowers, health care providers, even veterans and their families are subjected to bullying, sexual harassment, abuse, and neglect. Senator Coburn's report also highlights criminal activity by VA employees, vast amounts of waste at the VA, the fact that the VA actually made waiting lists worse, and the VA Committee, led by Bernie Sanders, largely ignored these warnings and delay. That committee, under Senator Sanders, has only held two oversight hearings in the last 4 years. As I said, this is a national scandal. These are national problems. The two reports I alluded to are national reports. But I know from my work in Louisiana that they have consequences, and that similar cases exist in Louisiana. I have been deeply involved in a couple that I wish to highlight. First, the Overton Brooks scandal in Shreveport, LA. A whistleblower came forward to my office with very troubling information regarding the VA hospital in Shreveport called Overton Brooks. The whistleblower is a licensed clinical social worker there, and he accused that VA facility of the following: maintaining a secret wait list and manipulating the official electronic wait list; using gaming strategies to manipulate reported wait times--for example, holding appointments without scheduling them until capacity opens or entering into the system that the patient requested an out-of-date appointment when that just wasn't true; providing group therapy appointments to mental health patients, and counting these group sessions as an appointment with a primary care provider, which they were clearly not. These aren't just allegations. I have also personally seen emails the whistleblower provided, and that has shown that this secret list could contain up to 2,700 veterans. It also seems to confirm that, while waiting for appointments, 37 of those veterans died. Since hearing these allegations, I have sent a letter demanding a full investigation into Overton Brooks to the inspector general of the VA, and I have confirmed that that is happening. That absolutely is moving forward. No veteran who served this country should be put on any secret waiting list. At a time when we are learning more and more about rampant mismanagement at the VA across the country, any internal allegations such as that should be taken very seriously and clearly investigated. That brings me to the second case I have personally dealt with and learned about in Louisiana, this case out of the New Orleans area. Gwen Moity Nolan was the daughter of a distinguished veteran. She came to one of my recent townhall meetings in New Orleans, and she explained to me personally that her dad passed away in 2011 while a patient at the VA hospital in New Orleans, allegedly in part due to delayed and poor care at the facility. She described the medical treatment there as poor, and that her father's doctor had a terrible attitude and regularly refused to show up at the hospital in key situations. She requested that information from the VA, including information regarding a supposed investigation into the case of her father, be given to her. Her dad had passed. What she most wanted was to be sure the VA got it--to be sure the VA in New Orleans took some remedial action to correct the situation. Her case was done. Her case was done in two ways: First of all, tragically, her father was dead. Her father was passed. Secondly, she brought a legal action against the VA, and that was settled for a substantial sum of money which she received, and she is not disputing that or reopening that. That is done. But she wanted to know that these problems have been addressed. On June 3 I sent a letter to the Acting Secretary of the VA, Sloan Gibson, demanding this information and the steps the VA has taken to correct what went wrong. After the New Orleans VA responded by saying ``patient privacy laws prohibit us from discussing specific patient information,'' I sent another letter with the pertinent constituent's privacy release form. The patient is dead. The daughter will sign any release form they want. This was clearly stonewalling to avoid giving us appropriate information. Unfortunately, the VA responded that they cannot share this information with my office unless very specific criteria are met. Guess what. They didn't think it was relevant to list the specific criteria we need to meet. Again, more pure stonewalling. This information is extremely important, and I am continuing to fight to get my constituents and myself this information about if and how the New Orleans VA fixed these problems. I will be demanding a meeting as soon as possible with the head of the New Orleans VA hospital so I can answer those questions directly, and that person had better not stonewall me to my face. That will have very negative consequences. We are setting up that meeting. That meeting will happen, and I will be following up on this New Orleans case. Similarly, I am following up on the Shreveport case that came to light because of the whistleblower. I will be in Shreveport tomorrow, meeting with two significant people directly involved in these issues-- one an official at the VA; the second, someone who has come with additional information to confirm the fears, claims, and concerns of the original whistleblower. So I will be having those meetings in Shreveport tomorrow. Again, these Louisiana cases that I have been personally involved in underscore the serious scandal at the VA. Every community has these cases. Every State has these cases. Every Senator--Republican, Democrat, Independent--has these cases. We need to fix these to properly honor our veterans. We need to ensure that this sort of abuse--in some cases, fraud and dishonesty--to the great detriment of our veterans never happens again. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, as you know, Close Up is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that promotes responsible participation in our democratic process. Its mission is to inform, educate, and inspire students to exercise the rights and accept the responsibilities of being a citizen in our democracy. Through experiential civic education programs based in Washington, DC, and other local communities, and publication of classroom resources to help educators teach students about public policy issues, Close Up impacts the lives of students every day. Both of us are testament to the profound impact these programs have on our youth, as we participated in the Close Up program in its early years, an experience that incited our first thoughts of a career in public service. We commend and congratulate Close Up on its important work.

Mr. VITTER. Charlie was first introduced to Close Up in 1974 when he was chief of staff for Senator Bennett Johnston and helped secure funding for the Allen J. Ellender Fellowships that served to provide support for economically disadvantaged students and teachers to participate in Close Up programs. After working closely with Close Up for many years, he joined its board of directors in 1988 and has served as the vice chairman for the past 10 years. During his service, Charlie has provided leadership and assisted Close Up in its relations with Members in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I stand in strong support of the veterans bill we are about to vote on as well. I commend everyone who worked on it on both sides of the aisle, certainly including Senator McCain, who was here a minute ago, Senator Sanders, who is on the floor, and Senator Burr, who is the ranking Republican member of the committee. I am strongly supporting it, mostly with three key provisions in mind--one I have been working on since well before this scandal and this crisis that has engulfed the VA broke; that is, to dislodge, to get moving on crucial expanded VA outpatient clinics in 18 States around the country, including Louisiana. Mr. President, 26 clinics; 2 of those are in Louisiana, in Lafayette and Lake Charles. Those should have been built by now. They have been on the books, they have been in the VA plan for years. Through what the VA readily admits was a bureaucratic glitch--a complete screw-up at the VA--they were delayed for a significant period of time. There was another glitch in terms of the so-called scoring of these clinics. That required legislation, which the House passed. But that legislation, which I was spearheading in the Senate, has been balled up in the Senate. Finally, the corrective legislation, to get moving, to get these clinics done--including in Lafayette and Lake Charles, LA--is in this bill. So I have been committed to that for months--since well before this scandal erupted. The other two provisions I want to highlight in this bill do go directly to this scandal. One is the need to give veterans choice when they are locked into a dysfunctional system. So for the first time ever we are mandating the unparalleled choice that if a veteran is either over 40 miles from a VA facility or he or she cannot get care--an appointment--in a reasonable timeframe, then that veteran can go to a Medicare provider or another provider who is delineated in the bill to get the care he or she needs in a timely way. That is a really important reform to expand choice and really competition that I think will make the VA system better and offer veterans, when need be, important care outside the strict VA system. The third provision I wish to highlight is to give the leadership of the VA the tools it needs to clean house, to get rid of incompetence or, worse, to fire people who clearly merit that in the cases we have been reading about in the last several months. We have had so many protections heaped on the civil service system over 100-plus years that it has become virtually impossible to fire or demote or punish someone who is deserving of that because of incompetence or worse. We need to change that because unless and until we do, bureaucracies such as the VA will remain broken. This bill has important provisions in that regard. Those are the three top reasons I will be strongly supporting the bill. I thank the Chair.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, on April 29 of this year, Louisiana's House Republican delegation wrote a letter to Senator Landrieu, as well as myself, urging us to represent a majority of Louisianan's opinions and oppose the nomination of Sylvia Burwell to become HHS Secretary unless significant changes were made to the path we are on regarding the implementation of ObamaCare. They asked us to oppose Ms. Burwell's nomination until an agreement is reached to provide for the equitable treatment and protection of all Americans under ObamaCare, and until the administration, including Ms. Burwell, committed not to pick and choose what parts of the law they would implement; not to pick and choose what deadlines they would meet, what deadlines they would ignore; not to pick and choose mandates they would enforce, such as the individual mandate, and what mandates they would ignore, such as the employer mandate. This is that letter dated April 29. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record. I agreed with that sentiment. I agreed with those concerns. So I responded shortly thereafter in a letter dated May 19 that I would oppose Ms. Burwell's nomination because of those concerns, because there is no evidence that Ms. Burwell would put an end to any of that, would put an end to the administration's common practice of creating special rules for big business, special rules for Washington insiders, for not simply following the law, not simply implementing the law but picking, choosing, and doing parts of the law, such as delaying parts of the law when it was politically convenient. The Senate's consideration of Ms. Burwell's nomination to become Secretary of HHS invited a conversation to discuss all of that, to discuss her responsibilities for the full, impartial, fair, legal implementation of ObamaCare. I paid attention very much to that discussion. I was hopeful about it. Unfortunately, it was disappointing, in my view, in terms of her responses. During the nomination process, Ms. Burwell was asked on a number of occasions how she would continue to implement and enforce various aspects of ObamaCare. Again, these concerns obviously arose because of the administration's decisions to make more than 20 unilateral changes to the law as written, to timing, to applicability of various provisions. One of these decisions which was particularly highlighted in my House colleagues' letter of April 29 was to give big business relief from the employer mandate while there was no relief for individuals. Millions will face a steep penalty--face it right now under the individual mandates. Not only did Ms. Burwell punt to the Treasury Department, her response failed to even acknowledge that the administration has failed to execute the law as written because the law is broken. The American people have really had enough of the administration passing blame through certain Federal agencies or to bureaucrats or to Congress or to political parties. They have had enough of the blame game. They have had enough of finger pointing. What I find even more hypocritical in this regard is that the administration worked with many Members of Congress behind closed doors to give Congress and Washington insiders special treatment under ObamaCare, to give them a way to avoid higher costs and lower quality care, the way Americans are suffering from that. So I will also oppose Ms. Burwell's nomination until the American people get the same relief from ObamaCare as the Washington elite, as the Washington exemption from ObamaCare, as the Congressional subsidy. To date, at least 4.7 million Americans, including 92,000 Louisianans, have had their health insurance plans canceled as a result of the mandates of the law. Many of these folks were then dealt with a choice of going without health insurance or taking the gamble of purchasing an expensive plan on the government-run ObamaCare exchange. Again, the law, as written, was intended to make every Member of Congress and our staff walk in those same shoes, but the administration, again, was fast and loose with the law and created a special rule contrary to statute. Ms. Burwell was part of that administration, creating a special exemption, a special subsidy, a special rule not found in the statute. So in contrast to that experience of many Louisianians, millions of Americans, Members of Congress, and congressional staff can get out of that mandate of ObamaCare. Many congressional staff have been exempted from having to go to the exchange, which is clearly a requirement under the statute. Members of Congress and staff who do go to the exchange get a huge taxpayer funded subsidy--nowhere in the statute and nowhere available to any other American at the same income levels. For all of these reasons, because of this disparate treatment, because of ignoring the law, because of amending the law over and over by administrative fiat, I have to oppose Ms. Burwell's nomination. She gave no indication in any of her testimony or in any discussions leading up to this confirmation vote that she would change any of that, and it is pretty clear she will not. I will oppose the nomination. If Ms. Burwell is passed by the Senate as Secretary of the HHS, I urge her to take heed of these calls. We have a law before us. We need to follow the law--not in some cases but in all cases, not implement here but not there, not give some folks special treatment and special exemptions not found under the statute but implement the law as written. That will be her responsibility as much as anyone in the administration. I urge her to be a true leader in the administration, to start doing that in an appropriate, legal way. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the April 29, 2014, and May 19, 2014, letters I referred to previously.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish to applaud the work of the Senator from Nevada and echo his sentiments. I am a member of this bipartisan working group on the claims backlog. I am a coauthor of the bipartisan legislation he helped spearhead, along with Senator Casey. It is another very good example of a bipartisan consensus where we can act. We can move it. So let's come together and let's act in a responsible, bipartisan way, and let's move it. That is what veterans want. That is what veterans tell me all across Louisiana. That is what the veterans service organizations are saying. This crisis demands action. It demands bipartisan action. This is an area where we can act now and act effectively. We should. The clinics I spoke about are an area where we can act now and act effectively in a bipartisan way. We should. I also applaud Senator Inhofe, who may be coming to the floor, for his leadership on this clinics issue. We need to authorize those and move on with them and get that done. I also thank Senator Rubio, who will be speaking later about the legislation he has that has already passed the House to give the leadership--the new leadership, thank goodness--of the VA the authority they need to take dramatic action when necessary, to clean house when necessary, and get people in place who are going to make a difference in that broken bureaucracy. So let's act now, in a bipartisan way, where we can. Again, that is absolutely possible in these areas, including these 27 outpatient clinics in 18 States, the 2 in Louisiana that I discussed. We have complete agreement in the Senate on the substance of these clinics. We have legislation that has already passed the House. So please, Senator Sanders, release your obstacle, release your blockade. Let's move forward. Let's agree where we can agree. Let's act where we can act, here and now, and continue to work on those other vital areas where we also need agreement. There is a common saying: Time is money. Well, in terms of what we are talking about, time can be lost lives. We have seen cases of that, documented cases of that with regard to veterans who were waiting for so long they died. Time in health care can be lost lives. This past week, as I traveled in Louisiana, I had a townhall meeting in New Orleans, among other places, and a New Orleans police officer--a female police officer--came and told me about the case of her father who, because of a lack of attention and time lapsed in the VA system, died, literally died directly related to that. Her name is Gwen Moity Nolan, and although she has lost her father, she wants to make sure that does not happen to any other veteran's family, that what happened to Richard Moity does not happen to others. Her case was looked at by the VA, and they admitted fault, they admitted negligence, and they actually reached a substantial settlement with her over their lack of attention to her father. But she really wants to make sure that does not happen to any other veteran's family. She came to me pleading: Can you make sure they have taken the necessary steps to fix those problems in the New Orleans VA? So I have written to the VA and said: I want to see the results of that investigation with regard to Richard Moity. You say you have taken corrective action? I want to understand exactly what that corrective action is. Time is money? No. In this case, time can be lost lives--the life of Richard Moity, the lives of veterans in Arizona, the lives of veterans around the country for whom inattention, delay, and lack of responsiveness in the VA system meant lost lives. So let's not delay here in the Senate. Where we have agreement, let's move, let's act. We have agreement on these clinics. We have agreement on action to address the VA backlog Senator Heller talked about. Let's act. Let's move because delay can lead to serious consequences in health care, even the loss of life. I thank Senators Inhofe and Rubio, who may be coming to the floor later to talk about these issues, for their determined work. I look forward to moving on this issue. I look forward to Senator Sanders hopefully reaching agreement on a broader set of proposals, including this clinics issue, in the very near future, and if not, I will be back to the floor demanding action on these clinics within a few days. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to discuss important veteran and VA issues--issues we are all properly focused on like a laser beam right now--and I will be joined over the next several minutes by Senators Rubio, Inhofe, and Heller, who share all of my concerns. I have been coming to the floor pretty relentlessly--because apparently that is what is necessary--to talk about one specific priority with regard to veterans in Louisiana; that is, moving--there is no good reason we can't move--on expanding outpatient clinics that are overdue in 27 locations and in 18 States, including 2 new expanded outpatient clinics in Louisiana, specifically in Lafayette and Lake Charles. These clinics have been planned for, on the books, and paid for for several years now. They are not being built, they are not being moved into purely because of an administrative glitch at the VA that delayed the whole process by a year. Then, in that intervening year, a so-called new scoring issue came up on Capitol Hill at the CBO. We have blown through all of that. We have solved those problems, finally, after a lot of delay. We have solved those problems, and now there is absolutely no reason to not take up a bill that has been passed by the House, put a simple amendment on the bill and pass it through the Senate, and get on with building these new and necessary expanded VA clinics at 27 locations around the country, in 18 States, obviously including the State of Louisiana. There are two locations there, as I mentioned--in Lafayette and Lake Charles. I again take the floor in the context of this much broader VA scandal to urge us to come together and act in this simple but important way. I have been coming to the floor to urge this action for months now--well before this current VA scandal erupted. But I think that new context of this national VA scandal makes bipartisan action on this and anything else we can agree on more necessary than ever. So I again urge all of my colleagues to come together to get this simple but important work done and to continue to work on all of the other very necessary changes we need at the VA. In terms of these 27 outpatient clinics, there is no disagreement about this. A bill has been passed through the House--with one dissenting vote--to get this done. It sits in the well of the Senate. There is no objection to the merits of the bill as long as we add one perfecting amendment that has been worked out with every Member of the Senate. There is no substantive objection to that. However, it has been held up and objected to by Senator Sanders, the head of the veterans committee, purely because he wants to use it as leverage to pass his much broader veterans bill on a host of other topics. As I have said many times before, those other topics are very important. Those broader topics have only been underscored in the last few weeks with this developing VA scandal. We need to address many areas, but we shouldn't hold veterans hostage and we shouldn't hold up progress in any area we can agree on simply to create a hostage to try to forge movement in these other areas. In fact, in terms of that general proposition, I think Senator Sanders agreed with me. Back on November 19 of 2013, Senator Sanders adopted and endorsed this approach with regard to other matters. There was another set of work on other veterans issues, and issues were worked out so that a specific proposal could move forward by unanimous consent. Senator Sanders came to the floor and basically said: Yes, let's agree on what we can agree on. Let's move forward with what we can move forward on. I am happy to tell you that I think that was a concern of his. He was speaking about another Senator on this other veterans issue. We got that UC'd last night. So we moved that pretty quickly, and I want to try to do those things. Where we have agreement, let's move it. Senator Sanders was urging us, particularly in the context of the overall VA scandal and VA mess: Let's start acting. And where we have agreement, let's move it. We are not going to solve every veterans problem in one bill overnight, but we can start. A bite at a time, a step at a time, we can start to do positive work, and these 27 clinics in 18 States are very positive, very concrete. So where we have agreement--and we have complete agreement in this area--``let's move it''--a direct quote from Senator Sanders from late last year. I am sorry to say that Senator Sanders is not allowing us to move it. We have absolute agreement on the substance of these clinics. We can call that bill off the calendar right now. We can put the perfecting amendment on it. There is absolutely universal agreement on the substance of that bill with that amendment. But we are not moving it, apparently because he wants to use that as some sort of leverage for other VA proposals. I want to work on those proposals, but where we have agreement, let's move it. Veterans want us to come together in a bipartisan way. They want us to act not in a month or a year, not after more and more studies, they want us to start to act now where we can, where we have agreement. I think it is very important that we act. It is very important that we do so in a bipartisan way. This is one focused area where that is possible immediately, today, so I urge us all to do that. There are other areas where we need to act. Senator Sanders is in discussions with many of us, being led on the Republican side by Senators Burr and McCain. I hope that broader agreement comes together. I hope it comes together very soon. I have been assured by both sides-- by Senator Sanders on the Democratic side and Senators Burr and McCain on the Republican side--that certainly this clinic issue will be included in any such agreement. But let's come together here and now where we have agreement--and we do on these clinics. Let's act for veterans as soon as we can, and we can right now with regard to these clinics. I urge us to adopt that positive, commonsense approach: Act where we have agreement, immediately. Build consensus and continue to work on those areas where there is continuing discussion, and act and build agreement and build consensus as quickly as we can in those other areas. I urge us to do that as soon as we can, wherever we can, whenever we can, and that can start today--if Senator Sanders will let us--with regard to these 27 expanded outpatient clinics in 18 States. I see Senator Heller has joined us on the floor, and I will defer to him. I look forward to the comments of Senators Rubio and Inhofe as well about the broader veteran and VA challenges as well as this specific clinics issue. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. VITTER

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to Sharon Bowen's nomination to be a Commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Frankly, it amazes me that we are here today discussing basically a possible promotion for Ms. Bowen. Given my experience with her in her current job as Acting Chair of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation--SIPC--and before that as Vice Chair, I can say quite frankly that she does not deserve any promotion because she has not successfully safeguarded consumers, which is her job, her mission. Instead, she has fought to safeguard Wall Street money from just compensation to the legitimate victims of the Allen Stanford $7.2 billion Ponzi scheme. I have been involved in this Stanford issue for quite a while because it affects a lot of folks in Louisiana, but it affects a lot of folks in every State of the country as well. These folks first and foremost were victims of Allen Stanford and his completely fraudulent activity, his Ponzi scheme that literally defrauded hard-working Americans of $7.2 billion. But they were victimized again, quite frankly, by Federal agencies that didn't do their job--first by the SEC, which knew about this activity for 4 years before saying anything publicly, before warning anyone out there, before taking any action, and then by SIPC-- including Sharon Bowen at SIPC--by refusing to take appropriate action for the victims and instead acting as if their job, their duty was to safeguard Wall Street money, not to properly compensate victims under the law. If you read the letters and talk to the Stanford victims, as I have many times, it will just break your heart. Charles Cook of Baton Rouge said: My family, along with thousands of others who placed their savings in licensed brokers' hands, now faces absolute financial ruin simply because our government and government- appointed regulators did not perform their jobs of protecting us. These savings include retirement accounts, trusts for chronically ill family members, college funds, and pension plans. Byron Ratliff, also of Baton Rouge: Congress needs to be aware that the agency created by Congress to protect investors is using their fund to defy the federal government for the sake of denying protection to investors they helped defraud . . . We need your help now more than ever to block this ridiculous effort by SIPC. This is criminal. Gilbert Gossen, also of Louisiana: Has it changed our lifestyle? Yes, tremendously. Not only my wife and I have been deprived of our lifetime savings, my five children who have worked alongside with us have been unfairly deprived of their inheritance. Carolyn Smith in Baton Rouge goes to the core of the matter: I cannot believe this. This is killing me and my family. Fraudulent schemes unfortunately go on all the time, but, again, what makes this so heartbreaking is the victimization upon victimization. First came the original fraud; then came the SEC, which saw this going on and did not act and did not give victims and potential victims any notice for 4 years; and then after the SEC acted, after the SEC ordered SIPC to compensate victims, SIPC--Sharon Bowen included--in an unprecedented move, refused to follow that mandate by the SEC, requiring the SEC to sue SIPC, which is now tied up in court and continues to this day. That gets us back to the issue at hand--Ms. Bowen. The name of her current employer is supposed to be about investor protection--the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, SIPC--but she and her colleagues have acted in the direction of Wall Street protection. The fund is funded by companies that pay into it. They pay their dues to give potential investors peace of mind, and that confidence helps build a vibrant and positive marketplace. Make no mistake that those Wall Street member companies do not want SIPC to compensate these victims because they are worried that their dues will increase. Well, it is fine for them to have their concern; it is not fine for Sharon Bowen to make those concerns win out over the law and over the facts, to ignore a mandate from the SEC, and to not properly compensate the victims of the Stanford scandal. If, after all of this, Congress gives Ms. Bowen a promotion, condones her actions here today, and votes to support her, that will be yet another slap in the face to these victims and an action that will certainly undermine investor confidence and encourage more to follow Ms. Bowen's career path and the way she ran the Security Investor Protection Commission by advancing themselves and member companies rather than the real mission of following the law and properly compensating victims. This is not a partisan grudge match. This is not partisan at all. I am opposing Ms. Bowen's confirmation for one simple reason: I think she has proved that she is not qualified for the job based on her track record at SIPC as well as her performance at her confirmation hearing. Let me underscore the way in which this is not partisan at all because there are many folks who have been following this Stanford case who are directly involved who have written to Senators on both sides of the aisle urging--urging in the strongest terms possible--opposition to this nomination. Let's take a letter written by a self-proclaimed and lifelong Democrat from Ann Arbor, MI, a constituent of Senator Stabenow. Senator Stabenow is the chairman of the Senate agriculture committee. That certainly has a significant role in this nomination. The letter says: I've been writing to you over the past days regarding the growing opposition to the nomination of Sharon Bowen to the CFTC. I am writing once more to stress that this is not merely an effort to block an Obama nominee. As a lifelong Democrat I would not get behind such an initiative if I thought that's what it was. Opposing Ms. Bowen's confirmation is not a partisan issue. Simply put, it makes no sense to appoint a regulator who is being sued by another regulator (SEC vs. SIPC)! In this climate of growing cynicism toward our financial regulators, can we really afford to put one more fox outside the hen house? In a similar way, a constituent of Senator Nelson of Florida wrote Senator Nelson and said: We hope you will vote AGAINST confirming Ms. Bowen as a CFTC Commissioner as she does not support protecting investors. Sharon Bowen's loyalty to Wall Street instead of hard-working people like us has devastated our lives because her actions resulted in us not being able to recover our savings. A constituent of Senator Pryor's wrote him in a similar vein: Based on the facts set forth below, I certainly hope you will vote against confirming Ms. Bowen as a CFTC Commissioner in order to protect the investors who rely on the CFTC's regulatory supervision. In a similar way, Madoff victims have also weighed strongly into this matter. They have written their Senators urging them to oppose the Bowen nomination. One Madoff victim wrote: SIPC Chairwoman Sharon Bowen is neither a qualified nor appropriate nominee for the all-important Commodity Futures Trading Commission. As a SIPC board member, SIPC Chairwoman and an attorney representing members of the financial industry, Ms. Bowen has demonstrated repeatedly that her interest is in protecting Wall Street's interests. Again, frauds happen all the time. It is always tragic, but it does happen. What makes this case so ``tripley'' tragic is that the victims of the original Allen Stanford fraud were victimized again by failed bureaucracies and regulators who failed to do their jobs and continued to fail to carry out their true mandate of protecting investors. First, the SEC dragged its feet and took way too long to take any action in this matter or to give anyone in the real world notice of what was clearly happening in the Stanford case--4-plus years--and then the SEC finally acted and agreed that these victims required compensation under the law. They told SIPC to set about giving them this compensation, and in a completely unprecedented way, never before and never since, Sharon Bowen of SIPC said: No. We are not doing what the SEC has told us to do. We are refusing to do that. They had to be sued by the SEC, and that legal matter is still tangled up in court with the victims of the Stanford mess, and they still have not gotten any compensation. We can't prevent every bad thing from happening in the world, but surely we can ensure that agencies in Washington and regulatory bodies do their jobs, follow their mandates and their missions and work for investors and citizens and not be captured by narrow interests--in this case, Wall Street interests. Surely we can do that, and that, ultimately, is what this vote is all about. Are we going to do that or are we going to promote someone who has failed at her current job? Are we going to promote someone who has proved in her current job that she does not have the right mindset, the right understanding of a pro- investor, pro-consumer mission to handle that job or any other? I urge all of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats--and there is nothing partisan about this--to oppose this Sharon Bowen nomination. The victims of the Stanford scandal need some justice. They need to see that someone cares and that someone is fighting on their behalf. The victims of the Madoff scandal need exactly the same and feel exactly the same way. Please oppose this nomination. Please vote for those consumers, those Americans, and those investors. Please vote to begin to right the ship and fix the regulatory system. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I thank my friend from Alabama, Senator Sessions, for his work on the WRRDA conference report and on this long-running dispute in the Southeastern United States. As the top Republican on the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the lead Republican Senate conferee on the conference committee for WRRDA, I agree with his understanding and interpretation of the language in section 1051 of the WRRDA conference report. Senator Sessions' work through the development of the Senate version of this bill to investigate and document this conflict provided useful clarity throughout the conference committee's deliberations. As we await the development of a water compact that is satisfactory to Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, I will work with my friend from Alabama to continue oversight of the Corps' implementation of the Water Supply Act.

Mr. VITTER. I share Chairman Boxer's and Senator Whitehouse's understanding of section 4014, and will address subsection (d) of that provision, ``Request for Projects.'' Subsection (d) is an important provision because it requires approval by the governor or chief executive officer of a State before the Corps can carry out any project identified under this section.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I would like to thank my friend from Texas, Senator Cornyn. As the top Senate Republican member of the conference committee for WRRDA, I agree with his understanding and interpretation of the language in section 1046(a) of the WRRDA conference report. Multipurpose dams and reservoirs in Texas are crucial to the well-being and economic viability of Texas, particularly in areas that have experienced severe droughts over the past several years. This provision is explicit in that the Secretary shall coordinate with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as public and private entities that may be affected by those reviews and activities. This provision also prohibits any changes to the authorized purposes of any Corps dam or reservoir and only allows the Secretary to carry out recommendations or activities pursuant to existing law. As the Corps implements this provision, I will work with my colleague from Texas to monitor the Corps' activities and ensure there are no adverse effects to dams and reservoirs in his State.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I urge a ``yes'' vote also. This is a strong bipartisan bill. There were only four ``no'' votes in the House and a strong positive editorial in the Wall Street Journal. Vote for infrastructure and jobs.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act. We are going to be considering the final conference report on that legislation and voting on it in a few hours. This WRRDA bill is a strong, bipartisan bill. It is a jobs bill. It is very much needed in our weak economy. That is why we need to move forward and finally pass this into law. It is also a pretty good example of how this place should work, how we can work in a bipartisan, constructive way, how we can move forward as an institution and find common ground on these sorts of important matters. Earlier this week the House passed the WRRDA bill 412 to 4. That is pretty much unheard of. I am not sure resolutions expressing admiration for Mother Teresa passed by that vote in the House, so that is a strong testament to the broad, bipartisan, pro-jobs nature of the bill. Again, it is because WRRDA has a sharp focus on what our country desperately needs right now: job creation, as well as improved storm and flood protection, and enhanced national commerce, particularly in our maritime sector. This bill invests in our Nation's waterborne assets and landside infrastructure to grow jobs and to keep us competitive in global markets. Ensuring our ports and waterways are operated and maintained, thereby improving the flow of commerce in that way, will create jobs. Being prepared for the Panama Canal expansion will increase imports and exports, and that will create jobs. Providing flood and storm damage protection for communities large and small and businesses all along our Nation's coasts and waterways is necessary, it is important, and will also create jobs. So let me underscore: The WRRDA bill will not only grow our economy, it will directly put Americans back to work. Let me mention some of the specifics of the bill. Before I talk about what the bill does, let me start with what it doesn't do. It absolutely does not increase the deficit. It absolutely does not contain any earmarks as defined under our rules or the House rules. In fact, the Wall Street Journal recently editorialized in strong support of the bill as a fiscally responsible way to address infrastructure needs. In fact, the bill even has a deauthorization provision--a mechanism to provide authorization offsets for the important and necessary positive authorizations the bill contains. Now what does the bill do? Well, Corps of Engineers reform and accountability, No. 1. That is very important. It includes commonsense solutions to streamline project delivery and environmental decisionmaking. The bill went to great lengths in making the Corps transparent and accountable to Congress and their non-Federal partners. For instance, this WRRDA requires the Corps to open their financial ledgers to show how taxpayer dollars are being spent and mandates timeframes and costs for feasibility studies which have taken several years and millions of dollars to complete. So it narrows those issues and constrains them. To strengthen the project delivery timeline, the bill includes language to speed up the environmental review process to ensure there are not unreasonable delays in getting projects built. The bill will also implement, for the first time ever, monetary penalties on the Corps for missed deadlines and reports. Failure to provide a specific report means funds from the general expenses account of the Civil Works Program are subtracted from that part of the Corps, and they go to the division of the Corps with responsibility for getting the work done. So there is appropriate penalty and incentive to make sure the work is done. WRRDA also authorizes 34 Corps projects for navigation, flood protection, and ecosystem restoration. But, as I said, it also includes a real deauthorization process to decrease the nearly $60 billion construction backlog and offset these new authorizations with equal or greater deauthorizations. I thank Senator Barrasso for this key provision. He authored it. It was refined and expanded by our colleagues in the House. I think it is a very important initiative. We also include a provision that began as a stand-alone bill by myself and Senator Nelson last year. It puts significant project management control in the hands of State, local, and private entities to try that on a pilot basis and to see if it leads to reduced delays and reduced costs. That is what we do with most highway projects. The Federal Highway Administration is not the project manager of those projects. It doesn't take the lead. That is what we should do with water projects as well and not demand that an already overburdened Corps of Engineers has to be the lead project manager on all of those projects. The second important category in this bill is the harbor maintenance trust fund. In order to advance our Nation's waterborne commerce and help drive our Nation's economy, this bill makes sweeping reforms to that trust fund. It is no secret that the harbor maintenance trust fund is grossly mismanaged and that in a good year half of the revenue going into that so-called trust fund is stolen--taken out--for completely unrelated purposes, even though that revenue is supposed to be dedicated for the purposes of the trust fund. We have to stop that. So WRRDA changes that status quo and requires a ramp-up in annual funding, incremental increases over 10 years to get to a full spend-out of trust fund revenue in 2025. Additional yearly harbor maintenance trust fund monies will be prioritized with ports which move 99 percent of our Nation's commerce--those high- and medium-use ports getting the highest prioritization. But there is also a limited but important low-use and underserved port set-aside to ensure adequate maintenance there and economic growth. WRRDA also adds additional metrics to the harbor maintenance trust fund, in addition to commercial tonnage. We now include oil and gas activity, commercial fishing, and transportation of persons--important metrics that were ignored previously in an unfair way. Without the full utilization of the harbor maintenance trust fund, negative impacts will be felt by manufacturers, producers, shippers, and carriers throughout America. They ultimately contribute to this trust fund to get dredging and other work done. We need to live up to our end of the deal and make sure that money is used for its intended purpose. That has never been more important than now with the expansion of the Panama Canal. We need to do the dredging. We need to be prepared for that economic opportunity. A third important category in the bill is the inland waterways trust fund--another trust fund also with significant but different problems. WRRDA looks beyond our harbors to address serious concerns related to the delivery of projects on that inland waterway system and helps accelerate the construction of aging locks and dams, many of which have far exceeded their project design life. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the average age of our locks is over 60 years old and that continues to cause unwanted delays in the shipment of goods. By the year 2020, more than 80 percent of these locks will be functionally obsolete. This is extremely concerning, considering that more than 70 percent of our imports and exports travel this inland waterway system. Again, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that underinvestment in this inland waterway system cost our businesses $33 billion in 2010, and that could rise to $49 billion in 2020 unless we act. This WRRDA bill takes action in the inland waterway trust fund, clears out some of the backlog and clears out some of the things preventing important projects under that trust fund from getting done. Another very important category which I certainly deeply care about, considering the State I represent, is flood protection and levee safety. Not only does WRRDA authorize critical flood protection projects, but it also strengthens levee safety initiatives to provide critical funds to State and local agencies to make sure levees and flood protection systems stay up to par. There are over 15,000 miles of Federal levees and almost 100,000 miles of non-Federal levees protecting communities all around the country. However, many are graded as in unsatisfactory condition. These levees protect nearly 43 percent of the Nation's population, so we need to make sure they are strong and adequate. This levee safety initiative will provide national and local leadership the resources they need to promote sound technical practices and to keep up with aging levee and protection systems. Most important for this program is levee rehabilitation funding. It is imperative that our non-Federal sponsors have the ability, both technical and financial, to repair and rehabilitate levees. Storm surge and floodwaters are damaging to our economy. We must address this. In the experience of Hurricane Katrina, for instance, about 80 percent of the catastrophic flooding of the city of New Orleans was due directly to breaches in the levee system due to inadequate design or maintenance--flawed design at the beginning and inadequate maintenance continuing. Literally 80 percent of that catastrophic flooding was completely avoidable, completely manmade--that part of the disaster. We need to make sure that never happens again. Certainly, in all of these categories I am talking about, there are major benefits to Louisiana. I thank all of my Louisiana partners who have done so much to give me the information and the expertise we needed to address these important areas, including Morganza to the gulf, which is very important to Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes, as well as our ecosystem restoration projects under the Louisiana Coastal Area Program, and many other important Louisiana priorities. Again, we could only address those properly with the full help and partnership of those Louisiana partners. In closing, I wish to thank many folks, and I will start with those Louisiana partners. As I said, they were instrumental in helping us get the Louisiana piece right, and I thank them, and that work will continue and that partnership will continue. I thank Chairman Barbara Boxer, a Washington, DC, partner on this bill. As she has said many times, the two of us don't agree on a whole lot of things, but we do agree on infrastructure needs and we do agree on this WRRDA bill, and we came together, as a result, very constructively, very productively on this infrastructure work, as we are doing right now on the next highway bill. Certainly that has been an important tradition at the EPW Committee, which we are continuing. The crucial element there is the will and determination to do it, and she always provided that will and determination, as did I. I thank her for being such a great partner. We also had great House partners: Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall. They exhibited real leadership in getting a House bill done to begin with and then working with us on a productive conference committee. I thank them and their staffs for all of their work. Speaking of staffs, I am deeply indebted to all of the staff work that went into this bill. It was very significant. The chair and I personally dealt with probably a couple dozen issues and semicrises that would crop up over time. Our staffs, in contrast, did that multiple times over--hundreds and hundreds of problems and issues before they developed to the Member level, literally hundreds and hundreds. I thank both staffs, but I am particularly indebted to my staff for all of their hard work, particularly Charles Brittingham, Zak Baig, Chris Tomassi, Sarah Veatch, Rebecca Louviere, Jill Landry, Luke Bolar, and Cheyenne Steel. They put enormous hours into this bill and I truly appreciate their work. I certainly want to also recognize and thank Chairman Boxer's staff, particularly Bettina Poirier, Jason Albritton, Ted Illston, Mary Kerr, and Kate Gilman. In closing, I strongly commend this WRRDA bill to the Senate. It is a strong bipartisan jobs and infrastructure bill. It is what we need to do more of, and it is the model we need to adopt more in the Senate: working together on important projects across party lines. One key reason we were able to do it successfully is we had a strong bipartisan process and an open process that invited participation from all sides, including significant floor amendments to the Senate bill. That was absolutely crucial to moving the bill in a productive way through the process. We will try to implement the same approach with the highway bill. We reported a strong bipartisan highway bill out of our committee unanimously last week, but we need to bring it to the Senate floor. We need to act well in advance of the highway trust fund running out of money around August. I hope we expand on this work. I hope we use this model, including an open-floor process, in many other areas on many other bills. I urge all of my colleagues to support this WRRDA bill. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I have a pending unanimous consent request and I would like to inquire how I proceed to have a ruling on that and, hopefully, have it passed through the Senate.

Mr. VITTER. If I may reclaim the floor and reclaim my time, I would like to respond. I think it is really unfortunate. As we all agreed to today and in previous appearances on the floor, there is absolutely no objection on the merits of this proposal. The only objection from the distinguished Senator from Vermont is that a far larger bill, which does have significant opposition--around 44 Members, almost half of the Senate-- people have concerns about that. So if he can't play the game exactly his way, he is going to take his ball and go home, and he is going to block 27 community-based clinics on which there is no substantive objection, on which the leaders of national veterans organizations have pleaded with leaders of the Senate and House to act in a bipartisan way. I am particularly concerned that today what I hear is an even higher bar that we are going to have to meet to act on these clinics that are not objected to on their merits. Previously the Senator from Vermont talked about his far broader bill. Today he talked about all of health care. Apparently I am going to have to agree with Senator Sanders about all of health care reform before we can move forward on these 27 community-based clinics on which there is no substantive objection. The Senator from Vermont said he will do everything he can to deal with these issues. Well, we can do something right here, right now, to deal with these issues. It is not solving every problem in the world. It is not solving every problem in health care. It is not solving every problem in the VA. But it is doing something real and meaningful and substantial in 27 communities and 18 States. We can move forward with these community-based clinics. We can try to do those things on which we have agreement. Let's move it. We can do that. That is all I am asking. And I think it is really counterproductive to take the view that until we agree about all of the VA or about all of health care or whatever, we are not going to do any of that. I think that is really sad and counterproductive. I will keep coming to the floor. I will keep working on this vital issue. I will keep working on other vital issues. I will keep talking to the Senator from Vermont about his broader bill. But I have to say that these scandals in Phoenix and elsewhere don't alleviate my concerns; they only heighten my concerns about a broader bill that is going to push many more patients, overnight, into a system that is obviously broken. So I will continue working and talking about it all. I will continue working in the bipartisan working group on the VA backlog. But let's do what we can do now. Let's start with one step and then two and then five, and then maybe we can start to jog and then we can start to run. I think that is the productive path forward. I urge my colleague to reconsider and let us move forward with these important clinics.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I had a unanimous consent request. It has been objected to. May I reclaim the floor and reclaim my time? In doing so, I will be happy to respond to the Senator.

Mr. VITTER. I would again ask unanimous consent that the Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3521 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that my amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I object on behalf of myself and 43 other Senators.

Mr. VITTER. If not for any other reason but because of the substantive concerns with the bill.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, a point of parliamentary inquiry.