David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple but it is important. It would finally demand and require execution and enforcement of the so-called US-VISIT system, an entry-exit system to catch visa overstays. This system was first mandated by Congress in 1996. We have had six additional votes by Congress demanding it then. The 9/11 terrorists were visa overstays. As a result, this system was strongly recommended, one of the top recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. We must put this in place as we act on immigration. This amendment would get that done. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, we have talked about this since 1996 and 9/11 happened. When are we going to do it if not now? I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Yes, I withhold the quorum call.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment was in the group of four that was the subject of the previous unanimous consent so I look forward to an ongoing debate and vote on this amendment, hopefully early next week, because we need to start voting on this topic and on amendments to this bill. The amendment is simple and in my opinion very important. It would mandate finally that we have an operational US- VISIT system to track visas coming into the country and exiting the country to guard against visa overstays. This is an important part of security and enforcement, but one that is not talked about enough. We always talk about the border, as we should. We often talk about workplace enforcement, as we should. That is extremely important. This is the third leg of the stool that we do not talk about enough but we need to focus on because this goes to our national security as well as border security. The 9/11 terrorists all were individuals who came into this country legally, with a visa, but what happened? They overstayed their visa by a lot and they plotted to kill and destroy, which unfortunately they successfully did on 9/11. Because of that, one of the top recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was to implement this visa entry-exit system using biometric data. We call the system that has been developed the US-VISIT system. The problem is full implementation of the US-VISIT system has never come close to occurring as the 9/11 Commission recommended that it be executed. This amendment says simply we are finally going to do it. We have talked about it for years. We have lived through actual terrorist attacks that go to the heart of this need. The 9/11 Commission has rated it as a top recommendation, so we are finally going to do it. We are not going to move on to changing the legal status of current illegals in this country under this bill until we do it and until we verify that it has been done. That is a very simple idea. I look forward to a continuing debate on this need, on this amendment, and a vote on this amendment early next week. Second, I also want to mention a point of order I will be making on this underlying bill as soon as possible, hopefully also early next week. The point of order is simple. It is a point of order against the emergency designation provision contained in the bill in section (d)(1). It is pursuant to section 403(e) of the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution. We all consider spending and debt a big problem in this country. We put enormous focus and energy and debate and discussion on that issue. The problem is so often, after we set budget caps, after we set these limits with the very serious spending and debt issue in mind, whenever a big bill comes up they bust the caps. We put a so-called emergency designation on the spending and all of a sudden, like that, with that simple phrase we exempt that entire bill from the spending caps, from the provisions we have put in place to try to get spending and debt under control. This immigration reform bill is another example of that because it would spend $8.3 billion and it calls all of that spending emergency spending. That is a sleight of hand. That is avoiding the caps and the limits we have tried to put in place to begin to rein in spending and debt. This is not an emergency in any reasonable sense of the term. This is not an unforeseen storm. This is not an unpredicted earthquake. This is not an unpredicted attack on our country from a foreign power. This is a problem, for sure, but we have annual spending bills and a whole department of government that is supposed to be about this problem--the Department of Homeland Security. We have an annual Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, so this is not something unforeseen, a true emergency. To call this $8.3 billion emergency spending is a pure sleight of hand to avoid the discipline of the spending caps. At least on my side of the aisle, when this exact same point of order has been made before on many other bills, we have upheld it. We have said: You are right, this is a sleight of hand. You are right, this is an end run around those budget provisions. You are right, this is just busting the budget cap by another name. We should do the same here. We should respect the budget law. We should not do an end run around the budget caps. We should not essentially lie to the American people and say this is unforeseen, this is a true emergency, when it is not. I will be raising this very important budget point of order regarding the emergency designation of $8.3 billion of spending in the bill at the earliest possible opportunity, when it is in order. I expect that to be early next week as well. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent to waive reading of the amendment.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I call up to my pending amendment No. 1228.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to strongly urge consideration and passage of the first of several amendments I will be presenting on this so-called comprehensive immigration reform bill. It is amendment No. 1228 and is about the US-Visit system, the entry- exit system that is supposed to be in place. It has been mandated by Congress many times to guard against visa overstays, which is a serious national security problem. Why is this important? There is one simple way to underscore it to answer that question, and that is to remind us that the 9/11 terrorists, every single one of them, were visa overstays. They were dangerous people who came into our country on valid visas, overstayed their visas, plotted against us, and ultimately caused horrendous death and destruction on 9/11. What do we do about that situation? We need a system of tracking visas of the people who come into the country, tracking when they should be leaving the country, and looking to see if they have exited the country. We need a system which has biometric data associated with it which can track those entrances and those exits. This sort of system is technologically possible. It is definitely possible to fund and put in place. It is primarily a question of political will. Unfortunately, even after Congress mandated this multiple times to no effect, even after 9/11 and other terrorist attacks, we haven't mustered the political will to demand to put this is in place. If 9/11 wasn't enough, the 9/11 Commission--which we appointed, we put into law and asked them to look at the horrible attack of 9/11 and give us recommendations--made this one of their top recommendations. Their specific recommendation was that ``the Department of Homeland Security, properly supported by Congress, should complete as quickly as possible a biometric entry-exit screening system.'' Again, Congress had talked about this years before, starting in 1996. Congress passed that mandate, and Congress repeated that mandate many different times over 17 years, with six additional votes. The 9/11 Commission said the tragedy of 9/11 was, in part, due to our not having that system and, Congress, the administration, you need to get this done. Still that important piece of border security is not in place. This Vitter amendment No. 1228 is very simple. It will prohibit the implementation of any program granting temporary legal status in this bill or adjusting the legal status of anyone who is presently in our country unlawfully until this US-VISIT system has been fully implemented--full implementation. So no change in anybody's legal status happens until we finally, after decades, implement this US-VISIT system; until we finally, after years, heed the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission; until we finally, decades after 9/11, say this will never happen again. Also, under my amendment, both Houses of Congress must pass a joint resolution of approval stating, yes, this is fully in place. Because, quite frankly, there isn't sufficient trust of just the administration saying so, some certification from any administration--not just this one but any administration. It has to happen and Congress has to say, yes, that is in place, and then that change in legal status can go forward. We talk a lot about border security, and, of course, usually we focus on the southern border, for obvious reasons. That is where the numbers are. That is where the greatest flow is. But when it comes to national security, this is a vital component of enforcement. This is a vital component of border security, and so we need to get this right. We need to remember 9/11. We need to heed the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. It has been since 1996 when Congress mandated this, and we need to make it stick. The only way to make it stick, in the context of this bill, is to demand it is done, it is completed, verified, including by Congress, before any change in legal status happens. In closing, I also wish to express strong concern and opposition to Leahy amendment No. 1183, which is currently on the floor and up for consideration. That amendment would grant exceptional priority and exceptional favor to particular O and P visa applications, which are generally for renowned professors, researchers, doctors, Oscar winners, entertainers, and performers. It would specifically waive a fee associated with this visa. I think that is problematic because we depend on all of these fees to fund this system and this enforcement system which we are trying to improve. I find it ironic we would waive this fee for that class of individuals, who are absolutely the most well-heeled and the most capable of paying it. We would give that class of individuals special status and a waiver of a relatively modest fee and, in the process, hurt the funding for the entire enforcement system. I think that is misguided when we are trying to build up enforcement, when we are trying to get this done and pay for all that enforcement. I think it is misguided to waive this fee for exactly the sort of visa applicants who are most in a position to pay it. With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent to bring on to the floor and display a box of home keys, which I will explain in a moment.

Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 12 minutes.

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, as is obvious, the people of South Louisiana have been through a whole lot in the last several years-- Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita, many significant hurricanes since then, most recently Hurricane Isaac, and the BP oil disaster, to name just a few really trying tragedies. But now, having survived all of that, having endured through all of that, many residents of South Louisiana think they face a challenge which is even greater and which is completely wholly manmade; that is, the challenge presented by new changes to the National Flood Insurance Program that many South Louisiana residents fear could make staying in their homes that they built, following all the rules every step of the way, unaffordable. That is a crying shame. We must avoid that happening at all costs. First of all, let me underscore that I talk about the folks of South Louisiana because I represent them. They have been through so much. But this is a national concern which potentially affects tens of millions of residents all around the country, in every one of the 50 States. That too is a reason we must solve this problem. Again, it is simple. When we reauthorized the National Flood Insurance Program last year, when we finally got past only renewing that program by fits and starts for a very short-term period, we put into the law several reforms that were supposed to make the program fiscally sound. However, as some of those reforms are beginning to be implemented, they threaten to produce sky-high flood insurance premiums that no one at the time we debated these changes--no one at FEMA, no one in private insurance, and no outside expert--forecasted. These sky-high premiums, if they are allowed to happen, threaten two things: First of all, they threaten, as I said, many good, hard-working taxpayers, residents who have followed all of the rules every step of the way in building their homes, in renovating their homes, and buying flood insurance. They threaten their being able to stay in their homes. They threaten the affordability of living that big part of the American dream. Second, they threaten making the National Flood Insurance Program sound because if significant numbers of folks cannot stay in their homes, cannot afford flood insurance, cannot pay into the system and therefore leave the system, potentially turn over their keys to the bank, walk away, certainly leave the national flood insurance system, perhaps leave home ownership, that is a big defeat for the fiscal soundness of the National Flood Insurance Program as well. About 2\1/2\ weeks ago I was in Bayou Gauche, which is a middle-class neighborhood in St. Charles Parish, LA, up the river from New Orleans. I stood in the driveway of a home owned by homeowners who are facing just this crisis, just this challenge. As I said a few minutes ago, they have survived a whole lot over the last several years: Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita to their west, many major hurricanes since then, including most recently Hurricane Isaac and the BP oilspill, the BP disaster. They have survived more than they ever imagined was possible in a lifetime. Yet now they are fearful that their greatest challenge is yet ahead. Their greatest challenge is completely manmade--the fact that some of these new changes to the National Flood Insurance Program could cost them their house, could make their staying in that solid middle-class neighborhood and in their house unaffordable. When I was there, when we were talking about this challenge with many local residents and leaders, those homeowners presented me with this box of keys. It is pretty heavy, but I want the Presiding Officer and everyone on the floor to see it. These are hundreds of house keys that have been put in this box by homeowners who face the same threat, who say that if the right reforms and changes are not made, they are handing over these keys. They are handing them over to FEMA, they are handing them over to the Federal Government, they are handing them over to the bank because their homes will no longer be affordable. They have to have flood insurance if they have any mortgage. Virtually everybody has to have a mortgage to afford their house over time. If flood insurance rates go sky high and rates are really unaffordable, they will be handing over these keys for good. They all know and expect that there are going to have to be changes to the program and some significant increases for the program to be fiscally sound and pay for itself. They are not arguing with that. I am not arguing with that. What we are arguing against is completely unaffordable premium increases, things that will literally drive middle-class families out of their homes and out of their neighborhoods and make their American dream completely unaffordable. That should not be allowed to happen. That should not be allowed to happen because it is wrong to give them that uncertainty and that future when they have followed the rules every step of the way as they existed under the National Flood Insurance Program, under their mortgage, under everything else. It should not be allowed to happen because it will mean we will never achieve fiscal sustainability if tens of thousands and potentially hundreds of thousands of people around the country exit the program as they are threatening to do. We need to take action to be able to assure these homeowners that will not happen to them. With that goal in mind, I am pursuing several things. First of all, some of this can and must be fixed administratively at FEMA. I have led several delegations to FEMA to talk about this, to demand that they do what they can under their authority--particularly under the so-called LAMP process--to make sure they get it right, particularly in drafting and issuing new flood maps. LAMP is the new process that is under way at FEMA under which they are supposed to take into account, in making new maps, all flood protections, all features that are there on the ground to provide homeowners under that terrain flood protection, even if it is less than a 100-year level of protection. FEMA is still in the midst of their LAMP process. They are not finished by a long shot. We have to make sure FEMA gets that right, builds all protection features into their new map before any of those new maps and any of those rates take effect. That is just the biggest example of what FEMA needs to do to get it right, what they can do under their authority. Part of this challenge is definitely administrative. That is why I have led those groups to FEMA and why FEMA needs to get it right. That is also why I will be presenting this box of home keys to FEMA later this week at the request of these Louisiana homeowners. The other part of our challenge is that we get it right legislatively because, in addition to everything FEMA can and must do, there probably also needs to be changes to Biggert-Waters to ensure homeowners are not thrown out of their homes because flood insurance is now unaffordable. That is why I have teamed up with the senior Senator from Mississippi, Thad Cochran, in introducing the Vitter-Cochran measure to fix provisions in the National Flood Insurance Program. It will do several things, at least four that are significant: First, it would ensure that communities that are developing new maps by the end of this year will be able to maintain the old grandfathered rates that are subject to change in section 207 of Biggert-Waters. Second, the bill would allow a 5-year phase-in of actuarially sound rates for newly purchased homes to require a reasonable phase-in to those higher rates. Third, the bill would authorize State and local governments flexibility to directly subsidize homeowners' flood-insured properties if that can be part of a solution as well. Fourth, it would require that a minimum of 25 percent of mitigation funding go directly to homeowners in a given year for programs and help that directly impacts homeowners, such as home elevation. I will be advancing that bill along with Thad Cochran and many other interested Members. We will also be looking for amendment opportunities to advance those ideas and those provisions as well. Certainly, I am joining with my other colleagues from Louisiana, from the Sandy-hit area in the Northeast, and from all parts of the country to advance these fixes. Senator Landrieu has an amendment on the farm bill which is on the Senate floor now of which I am cosponsor, and I am certainly working with her and many other Members to get this fix, to get it done, to reassure these threatened homeowners that help is on the way. We need to do this. We need to preserve the American dream and treat these people right, not make their middle-class homes and middle-class neighborhoods all of a sudden, through no fault of their own, unaffordable. We need to do it for the very goal of putting the National Flood Insurance Program on fiscally sound footing because if we have tens or hundreds of thousands of residents exiting the program, turning their keys over, turning them in to FEMA, turning them in to the bank, the National Flood Insurance Program will never get to that fiscally sound basis. We will have people exiting the system, no longer able to pay premiums. We need to get it right for them. We need to get it right for the American dream. I look forward to working with all of our colleagues in doing so because, again, I started at the beginning talking about what South Louisiana has been through--many hurricanes and the BP disaster and more. But this is not a parochial issue. It is not a Katrina issue. It is not a Sandy issue. It is far broader than this. This movie is coming to a theater near you. I urge Members to learn about that threatened impact on their constituents, on their homeowners, and to immediately join me and many others in this effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss a very important topic and one that itself is coming to the Senate floor soon. That is the problem of illegal immigration and proposals for so-called comprehensive immigration reform. Specifically, of course, the Gang of 8 bill, as it has been dubbed, is being reported out of the Judiciary Committee. We will be debating that bill, and hopefully a lot of important amendments to it soon, in June, on the floor. Let me say at the outset, I think there are at least a couple of things we can all agree on. No. 1, I think we can all agree that the United States is an immigrant nation with a proud history of immigration--legal immigration. It is absolutely one of the core features of our Nation that makes us unique and that makes us strong. So I wish to say that upfront, very proudly, very strongly. I support that tradition, that history of being an immigrant nation. All of us are the children of immigrants--not a question of if, it is just a question of when, because that is the nature of America. That goes to the core of our strength. No. 2, the other thing I think we can all agree with is our present immigration system is broken. In fact, it is badly broken, and we need to fix the system. As I said a minute ago, we have a proud history of immigration, legal immigration. That is the tradition, the history we need to get back to. Unfortunately, right now we have a system of wide open illegal immigration, almost open borders in some cases and some areas, and that desperately needs to be fixed. Having said that, I have real and fundamental concerns with the so- called Gang of 8 bill, and they fall into five or six big categories. I want to talk about each of those important categories in turn. First and foremost, my biggest and my most fundamental concern, I think the so-called Gang of 8 bill repeats mistakes of the past because, at its core, it is amnesty now, enforcement later, and maybe never. We have tried that model before. We have tried it several times before, and it has never worked. The most clear example is the 1986 immigration overhaul. That bill, at its core, was the same model, amnesty now and enforcement later, and maybe never. In fact, much of that enforcement was never. That is why it didn't work. The amnesty kicked in immediately, the millisecond the bill was signed into law. That was a powerful message to invite more and more illegal crossings across the border, more and more illegal immigrants into the country. That part of the bill, that part of the message, was heard loudly and clearly. The promises of enforcement never fully materialized. Many of them never materialized at all. What happened when you had that combination of immediate amnesty with promises of enforcement that never materialized? Again, you attracted more illegal crossings, and you had no capability or will to do anything about them. The promise then was we are going to have to do this once; the system will be fixed; we will never have to look back. We will never have to look in the rearview mirror. The problem will be solved. What happened? Well, we all know the problem wasn't solved. In fact, the problem simply wasn't continued, the problem was quadrupled. What were 3 million illegal immigrants then were mostly made legal. But that number 3 million quadrupled, and now today we have 11, 12 million illegal immigrants, some think more. That, at its core, is the Gang of 8 bill, and immediate amnesty, promises of enforcement. That is not good enough, particularly when we have decades--decades--the Federal Government, Republicans and Democrats, who have promised us before and have never ever delivered. The American people say we will trust but we want to verify. Trust but verify. We need to see this enforcement in action before we move on to anything else. In fact, in some ways this Gang of 8 bill is worse in terms of that basic model than previous versions such as 1986. If you look at page 70 of the bill, it actually has a period of an enforcement holiday, so 2\1/2\ years of a pure enforcement holiday. Not only is this amnesty now and enforcement later, it may never apply to folks who are in the country illegally now. They can keep coming. The message will be sent out, and they can come the day after the bill passes, the week after the bill passes, the year after the bill passes, 2 years after the bill passes, and it is part of the same amnesty. They would get the benefits of that amnesty as well. That enforcement holiday, 2\1/2\ years, makes that combination of a big amnesty now, with promises of an enforcement later, even more potentially disastrous. The second big problem I have with the bill as it is currently put together is it doesn't enforce the law, and it doesn't enforce the border, particularly the troublesome southern border with Mexico. It doesn't enforce other enforcement provisions. It doesn't actually guarantee that those are put into place and executed in an effective way. The proponents of the bill talk about so-called triggers in the bill before the amnesty, before the new legal status is granted. When you look hard at what the triggers are, they are triggers on a toy plastic gun, not real triggers in any meaningful sense of the term. The triggers basically narrow down to two things. First of all, the Secretary has to submit two reports, two plans. The Secretary of Homeland Security has to submit plans or reports, a so-called comprehensive ``southern border security strategy,'' so she has to submit a strategy. Great. This was promised for three decades but now she has to submit a strategy, a piece of paper and a southern border fencing strategy, so that is one trigger. The other triggers are certification that the border strategy is ``substantially deployed'' and ``substantially operational.'' What is the problem with that? Two things. Who the heck knows what ``substantially deployed'' means and, No. 2, even more troublesome, do you know who has to certify that? The Secretary of Homeland Security, who has not been effective at enforcement to date in any way, shape, or form. Those so-called triggers are absolutely meaningless. The bill doesn't require a fence, as is actually required under present law, so we are weakening that. We are walking away from that. It weakens current law regarding border security. Operational control is the standard now, and that is being weakened, changed to effective control. It doesn't require a biometric data system for entry and exit screening. That has been pushed by Congress since 1996. Congress started mandating this in 1996, and it was one of the prime recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, full deployment of the US-VISIT system. The 9/11 Commission said that needs to be a high priority. That is exactly how the 9/11 terrorists got into our country and overstayed their visas. It doesn't do any of that. Again, there is an enforcement holiday for 2\1/2\ years and no border security now before the amnesty kicks in. No. 3, I am very concerned that we will continue the present status quo, which is significant benefits being available to these immigrants, which act as a magnet to incent other illegal immigrants to come into the country. The so-called Gang of 8 made all sorts of promises about certain promises not kicking in until full citizenship is granted down the road. Many benefits would kick in immediately, certainly participation in the Social Security system, certainly all those Social Security benefits, and their loopholes about these benefits. I think many illegal immigrants will clearly gain access to public benefits far sooner than any 13 years as advertised. That is another serious weakness of the bill. Fourth, I am very concerned about the cost of this bill. Authors of this bill have been very clever. They saw that cost issue coming, and they devised the bill so the big costs of the bill are outside the 10- year budget window. Why is that important? Well, not to get into the weeds, but it is very important because CBO scores legislation primarily on its impact on taxes and spending in the first 10 years. The authors of the bill were very careful, very clever in devising a bill that would look OK in the first 10 years with regard to cost. After that first 10-year window, the costs explode and none of that will be reflected by this CBO score. We have seen this movie before, because this is exactly the same approach to CBO scoring and costs of legislation, exactly the same approach the proponents of ObamaCare put forward. They were very clever to push many of the costs in the outyears beyond the first initial scoring window, and that is why they were able to wave CBO scores around to somehow suggest this would help lessen the deficit. It is perfectly clear now, ObamaCare is not going to make our fiscal situation better, it is going to make it far worse and far more onerous. I believe exactly the same thing is true with this bill in terms of the costs, and I believe the proponents of the bill, quite frankly, have gamed the system in the same way to hide those costs, given the way CBO scores legislation. In contrast to that, there is an objective study of the full costs of the bill, and that is a study by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation. He went into extreme detail tracking the full costs and fiscal benefits of the bill. His conclusion was that the full costs of the bill are $6.3 trillion over the full life and the full impact of the bill, $6.3 trillion, with a T. He concluded that the bill, because of all the folks it would legalize, would kick in $9.4 trillion in benefits. There are more government benefits we are going to have to pay out, $9.4 trillion. These folks being legalized would pay some taxes into the system, which they do not pay now, and that would be $3.1 trillion. When you subtract 3.1 from 9.4, that obviously doesn't net out to zero. That is a net increase in the deficit, increased cost to the government, to society, to the taxpayer, of $6.3 trillion net. That is a serious impact on these budget and fiscal issues we are already very concerned about. The Robert Rector study is very credible, it is very detailed. I have seen no comparable study in terms of the detail of the analysis. I would challenge anyone who cares about this issue, wherever they are coming from, to put up any other study that can compete with the Rector study in terms of detail and analysis. I think currently that is the last and final word on costs of the bill. Two final points. A fifth big concern I have about the bill is I believe this bill is very unfair to legal immigrants and folks who are waiting in line in the legal immigration system now. It puts some people--not everybody who would be made legal, but some people--ahead of them in line and dishonors the fact that these would-be legal immigrants are following the rules now and following the law now. Sixth and finally--and this is no trivial matter--I am very concerned that this would depress wages in the United States for many hard- working Americans, legal immigrants, others who have followed the law who are working hard in a very tough economy now. I think it would depress the general wage situation and make that more difficult for them to deal with.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. VITTER. In closing, I urge all my colleagues to look carefully at these and other concerns and try to address them fully, directly, completely, on the Senate floor. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to present two amendments I have filed on this farm bill, and I will be pushing hard for votes on them right now. I hope these get a full and extensive debate and a vote. They are relevant and related to the farm bill in significant ways. The first amendment is with regard to the free government cell phone program, and of course that uses as criteria for eligibility the food stamp program and other benefit programs, so it is directly related to that aspect of the farm bill. Mr. President, as you know, this program has been exploding almost without limit, and I have some fundamental concerns about it. My fundamental concerns are pretty simple and pretty basic. They come down to two things: First of all, I think the whole program is an entitlement mentality gone wild; that we have started the notion that folks are entitled to the government, the taxpayer, providing them almost everything under the sun; and, secondly, and not unrelated, there has been widespread fraud and abuse in this program, and I am convinced it is at the core of this program and can't be scrubbed out. What is the program we are talking about? Well, it is the free government cell phone program. It was started in 2008, and in just those few years since then it has grown from $143 million that year, which itself is a significant amount of money, to nearly $2 billion now--an elevenfold increase. This program is paid for by you and by me. It is paid for through our land line and cell phone bills. We all get a charge on our bills. So if you actually pay your phone bill, land line, and/or cell phone, you get a charge and you pay that charge and that is what funds this program. So ratepayers, taxpayers, citizens, millions upon millions around the country pay for this program. The FCC itself--and the FCC is in charge of the program--estimates that about 270,000 beneficiaries have more than one of these free government cell phones. That is interesting, that is important because that is completely against the law and against the rules--completely prohibited. The FCC also says the top five companies that benefit from the program could not confirm the eligibility of 41 percent of the folks they signed up. This is from a report in 2011. The FCC did some spot-checking and found that 41 percent of the folks these companies signed up couldn't be confirmed as eligible. This has led one of my colleagues, Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, to say the program is rife for fraud, with a ``history of extreme waste and abuse.'' That is what my objections are all about-- rampant waste and abuse and a general entitlement mentality that I think has gone too far. The amendment I offer on this bill, which is at the desk, would simply and completely end the program with regard to free government cell phones. Someone might argue: Oh, these programs are being fixed. We are making great strides. Well, I was interested in seeing how far we have come, so this very weekend I was talking to a friend of mine back in Louisiana, Clarence, and he was interested in that too. So Monday--yesterday--he decided to go to one of these outlets that advertises free government cell phones and just see what his experience was. So he walked in and simply told the truth; that he was interested in getting a free government cell phone. He was asked: Are you now on any government benefit program, such as food stamps? He answered truthfully: No. He said: I have a job. I don't make a lot of money. That was the truth. He was asked to produce two things: a driver's license and a pay stub. He showed the people at the counter both of those things. They looked at them. Interestingly, they certainly didn't make any copies. They certainly didn't create any documentation because that could potentially get them in trouble. They looked at his documents and gave him a form he had to sign once, and then they immediately gave him a free government cell phone. The phone was on, it worked immediately, it had minutes on it that he could immediately use. He walked out of that storefront in less than 10 minutes with a free government cell phone. He then looked up the precise eligibility criteria of the program, which he did not know before. Guess what. Surprise, surprise. He did not qualify. He should never have gotten one. So he is returning it today. It will also be interesting to see how long that phone is kept on even after he returns it because the provider gets $9.25 from the ratepayer and the taxpayer and the FCC every month for that account. This is his, Clarence's, free government cell phone. This is his receipt. The charge is zero, absolutely free, and completely contrary to all of the rules of the program, which is why he is returning it today. We have serious spending and fiscal challenges in this country, but we have an even greater challenge, which is we have lost the faith and confidence of the American people. We have lost it because of this. We have lost it because there are tents popping out on every street corner. They are handing out these free government cell phones like candy. And why is that happening? Because the people handing out the phones have a vested interest in doing that, have a vested interest in not worrying about whether eligibility criteria are met because every time they hand out a phone they get $9.25 per phone per month as long as they can sustain that gravy train. They are the biggest welfare abusers of this--rich owners of companies who milk the system to get richer, whom I would call government welfare kings. This abuse needs to stop. We need to recapture the confidence of the American people. My amendment would help do that. I will also be presenting and pushing for a vote on an amendment to limit and bar certain people from receiving any food stamp benefits. Those are folks who have been convicted of violent and serious crimes such as violent rapists, pedophiles, and murderers. There is a misconception that ban is already in the law. In fact, it is not. In fact, the only ban that exists is for drug felons and in the law is an opt-out for States so the State can opt out of even that ban. My second amendment is simple and straightforward. It would establish a complete ban in the program for anyone who has committed a violent rape, a crime of pedophilia or a murder. There would be no opt-out for States. I hope we can form a bipartisan consensus around this basic idea and put that basic fundamental limitation in the law. I urge my colleagues to look at both of these amendments and support both of these amendments. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I also strongly support this amendment. I think it is a very reasonable, commonsense amendment.

Mr. VITTER. I thank the chairman for her assistance with this provision. Harbor Maintenance Taxes

Mr. VITTER. I thank the chairman for including this provision, and I would note that the Corps of Engineers has long worked to ensure the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint, ACF, River Basin and Alabama-Coosa- Tallapoosa, ACT, River Basins are able to meet the demands of users in Georgia, Alabama and Florida through its operation of dams and reservoirs, and performs an important role in regulating the flow of surface water in these basins. Further, it is the intent of WRDA Section 2015 to recognize that role and to assist the States' efforts to reach an end to their disputes. While the committee does not intend to express any opinion about reallocations under the existing authority of the Water Supply Act and its application to these basins, we do believe these States should work to come to an agreement. Additionally, the Chairman and I intend to express these same sentiments to the Corps of Engineers through a letter that will be submitted into the Record soon after passage of this bill.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, if I could ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 seconds.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I also strongly support the amendment. This is a commonsense ``Buy American'' provision, which is completely consistent with what we did on the recent highway bill in a bipartisan way which created no controversy, no debate at the time. I support the amendment.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I join in all of the comments of the distinguished chairman of the committee, and I strongly support this bill as well. This is a jobs bill as well as a water maritime infrastructure bill that is good for the economy, and it does it in a way that doesn't increase the deficit a penny. This bill contains no earmarks. It institutes important reforms to deauthorize projects that are not moving forward, so it should even be authorization net neutral. It provides reforms which are needed in terms of the Corps of Engineers. This is a very strong bipartisan bill. I hope it is also some little suggestion of how we can move forward in this body, work in a bipartisan way, and have real debate, amendments, and votes on the floor, which is another whole aspect of this experience that has been very positive. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I stand to echo all of those thoughts. Let me start with a lot of overdue thanks. First of all, let me thank a great partner in Chairman Boxer. As she said many times, we do not agree about a lot, including important issues within the jurisdiction of our committee, but we can come together constructively, really productively, on the infrastructure side of our committee--both highway infrastructure and water infrastructure. And that is what we wanted to do from the very beginning on this bill. The crucial element to any success is the will and the determination to do it. We both had that, but I really thank her for her leadership in that regard and being a great partner. I certainly echo all of her thoughts about the staff work. I am deeply indebted to all of the staff work, particularly on my side, that went into this bill. The chair and I personally dealt with probably a couple dozen issues and semicrises that would crop up over time. But if we did that with a couple of dozen, our staffs did that with hundreds and solved those problems to the satisfaction of a huge number of Members. That was reflected in the vote. I thank both staffs, but I am particularly indebted to my staff for all of that hard work, particularly Zak Baig, Charles Brittingham, Chris Tomassi, Sarah Veatch, Rebecca Louviere, Jill Landry, Luke Bolar, and Cheyenne Steel. They all put in enormous hours--of course, Charles much more than anyone else, but they all put in enormous hours. I thank them for their excellent work. I also want to emphasize what a positive bill this is. I talked a few minutes ago, right before the vote, about the strengths of the bill from a national point of view: jobs, waterborne commerce, reform of the Corps of Engineers. This bill is also very important for my home State of Louisiana. I just want to underscore that in closing. In three areas it is particularly important. First of all, we have a lot of important flood control, hurricane protection projects. This bill moves a number of those projects forward in a crucial way; projects such as the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Project, Morganza to the Gulf, which is vitally important to the protection of Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes and surrounding areas, also the West Shore Hurricane Protection Project. That is right in the middle of where Hurricane Isaac hit. We need to get that done. It is now moving forward, the Southwest Louisiana Coastal Hurricane Protection Study. Finally, although it is not as far along, there is very important work with regard to Saint Tammany and other coastal parishes achieving flood protection, including a barrier at the lake or near Lake Pontchartrain for Saint Tammany. That concept will move forward because of this bill. The second big category in the bill is Corps of Engineers reform and accountability. Those of us who lived through Hurricane Katrina saw some of the best and, unfortunately, some of the worst of what the Federal Government has to offer. On the side that needs improvement, we need streamlining and reform at certain agencies, including the Corps of Engineers. This bill brings that reform to the Corps of Engineers in a number of important areas, such as the proposal Senator Nelson of Florida and I have. It also streamlines and expedites the process, particularly with regard to environmental review. That is very important. Third, and finally, this bill advances waterborne commerce by dredging our harbors and ports and rivers, and getting that work done, which is vital, which is necessary, if marathon commerce is going to move forward and help drive the engine of our economy. We have major reforms in this bill with regard to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, major reforms in the bill with regard to the Inland Waterway Trust Fund, dredging what we need to dredge, moving forward on key harbors and ports and waterways. That is important for our Louisiana maritime sector, which is a big part of the national economy. So there are a lot of positives to this bill. That is why I was proud to help develop it and support it. That is why I am very pleased today that it got overwhelming bipartisan support. I yield the floor.