David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my Republican colleague from Alabama, as well as any other Members who may join us.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. That is what it sounds like to me. It sounds to me as though the trigger is meaningless. The amnesty and even full citizenship--to me, amnesty is any legal status, but they are actually talking about a path to full citizenship will happen ultimately, no matter what on the enforcement side.

Mr. VITTER. I thank the Senator from Alabama for his leadership on this issue and on the Judiciary Committee. There is, Madam President, an alternative way forward, a positive, productive way forward, a targeted, step-by-step approach that is appropriate, particularly given all the broken promises of the past. The American people need to be convinced, and who can blame them? Again, the landscape of this issue is littered with utterly broken promises. We need to rebuild that trust and rebuild that confidence, and we can only do that in a targeted, step-by-step way. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I am introducing today seven bills--actually, six bills, and I am joining Senator Grassley as a coauthor of a seventh bill--that would be important parts of this targeted, step-by-step approach. Let me briefly mention what those seven bills are. First of all, the STEM Jobs Act of 2013. This would make up to 55,000 visas available to qualified immigrants whom we need in this economy-- well educated, qualified. We have jobs here ready for them, and it would be an enormous economic boost. They would have a doctorate degree in the field of science, engineering, technology, or math from a U.S. doctoral institution and would have taken all doctoral courses in the STEM field while in the United States. We train, we educate those superqualified folks all the time and then, all too often, we send them back to their native countries and don't allow them to remain here to get on a pathway to citizenship and to contribute, as they would, to our economy. A child tax credit law. This would amend the IRS Code to simply put in place significant identification requirements for the child tax credit to require taxpayers to provide that valid ID, to cut out what is admitted to be rampant fraud in the system. The IRS itself and its inspector general office have said there is at least $1.3 billion of fraud a year in the child tax credit. These checks from the taxpayer, actual checks going out to illegal recipients who do not qualify under the law, in some cases, dozens, allegedly, at a single address, a single family, are clearly fraud. We must meet some basic requirements to cut out that fraud. The IRS itself, under this administration, has asked for those tools. We should give them those tools under this child tax credit legislation. Sanctuary cities reform would prohibit appropriated funds from being used in contravention of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1986. I am joined by Senator Grassley and Senator Fischer in that legislation. Too many jurisdictions in the United States are self-proclaimed sanctuary cities. By doing that, they are in contravention of Federal immigration law when they say they will not cooperate in the enforcement of that law in any way. That is unacceptable, and those cities should not get appropriated funds. E-Verify I mentioned is an initiative and legislation by Senator Grassley. I am proud to join him as a coauthor. I am an original cosponsor of that bill. It would take the present E-Verify system and make it mandatory and expand it so that is our workforce system of enforcement. E-Verify works. The problem is it is a pilot. It is not mandatory and it is not broad enough. We need to broaden and make mandatory that workable E-Verify system. The Voter Integrity Protection Act would amend the INA to make voting in a Federal election by an alien who is unlawfully in the United States an aggravated felony, which makes it a deportable offense. If a person is illegally participating in our elections, that is a serious offense to any democracy. That should be a deportable offense. The Birthright Citizenship Act would also amend the law to consider a person born in the United States ``subject to the jurisdiction'' of the United States for citizenship only if the person is born through at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful permanent resident alien in the United States or an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces. Right now it is, in my opinion, an accident of history and a mistake that any child physically born here, even of two parents here illegally and improperly, automatically becomes a U.S. citizen. Virtually no other country in the world has this rule. This reform would simply amend U.S. law to have the same basic rule as virtually every other country in the world I am aware of. A person doesn't automatically become a citizen just because they are physically born here; at least one parent has to have that legal status. Finally, US-VISIT reform, finally, after decades of promises, after decades of broken promises, to require that the US-VISIT system--the biometric border check-in/check-out system first required in 1996 that is well past its implementation date of 2005--be finished, be done, be fully in place before any of these other triggered aspects of so-called comprehensive reform happen. On that reform, I am proud to be joined by Senator Sessions and Senator Lee as coauthors. Again, I am introducing these six bills today. I am also an original cosponsor of Senator Grassley's E-Verify bill, a seventh bill. I think this is a targeted, step-by-step approach which is the right alternative to so-called comprehensive reform, which historically means immediate amnesty married to promises of enforcement that never happen, that never fully materialize. I urge my colleagues to look hard at these measures and hopefully support some or all of them. I urge them even more to go back home and listen to their constituents, to listen hard at the neighborhood coffee shop and the townhall meetings, because I think these sorts of concerns, as Senator Sessions and I have expressed today, are the core concerns, the core questions of a great majority of the American people. Thank you, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER. Absolutely. Unfortunately, that is the history, tried and true: lots of promises. No single major promise has been kept. Whether it is the fence, whether it is the US-VISIT Program, whether it is the overall promise of enforcement in 1986, none of those promises has been kept.

Mr. VITTER. That makes me very nervous and very uneasy. It is exactly what Senator Schumer said the very next day after the announcement: ``We're not using border security as an excuse or a block to the path to citizenship.''

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, Senator Sessions and I take to the floor to talk about immigration, which is obviously a very important and very hot topic. The first point I would like to make is just a simple statement and suggestion. There has been a lot of activity and a lot of discussion about immigration in the Senate and in the Congress and Washington, DC. If we merely listen to a lot of beltway, so-called mainstream reporting about this, they would give the impression that there is near universal consensus around a model we have tried before, which is a so-called comprehensive approach. First, I don't think there is anything near universal agreement. I don't think there is consensus. I think there are real questions and concerns among many of us in the Senate and in Congress but, much more importantly, in America and the real world. I think those fundamental concerns come down to one thing; that is, we have tried this so-called comprehensive approach before. We have tried proposals that marry an immediate amnesty with promises of enforcement. That model has not worked before. In fact, it has failed miserably. The most notable example was major immigration legislation in 1986. It was the same model. It had comprehensive and immediate amnesty with promises of enforcement. There were promises that we will have to do this just once, never have to look back, and the problem will be solved. Of course, the problem was not solved. It didn't even just continue. The problem has quadrupled. The amnesty did happen immediately. As soon as the bill passed, that virtually and immediately kicked in. The promises of enforcement were just that, promises. Those promises were not kept, and as a result what happened with that model? The problem of 3 million illegal aliens didn't go away and was not solved once and for all. It quadrupled and became the present problem of 11 or 12 million--or more--illegal aliens. That is the fundamental concern I have with most of the so- called comprehensive proposals being put forward. That is the fundamental concern of Louisianans I talk to every day. We want to solve the problem. We don't want to perpetuate it, much less quadruple it. I think it is important to discuss alternative, more effective, more workable approaches. I have several ideas about what those approaches might look like, and, in fact, I am introducing a package of immigration bills today. I will talk about that further, but I certainly want to recognize and thank my good friend and colleague, Senator Sessions from Alabama, for joining me on the Senate floor today.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Yes, I call up the motion to commit.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I have a very simple, straightforward motion to commit. It would commit the bill back to the Finance Committee for 7 days only with instructions to find savings--cuts-- equal to the amount this bill would increase the debt limit--very simple, very straightforward, and very reasonable. This would only take $30 billion to $40 billion a year, which is very doable. The American people are asking when we are going to turn to the spending side of the equation. President Obama talked all through the campaign about balance. Well, we have had the tax increases. Now we are having the debt increases. When are we going to have any new spending cuts? This would at least start, in a modest way, on some reasonable spending cuts.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the reading of the motion.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I am going to lay out and discuss a motion to commit which I have at the desk, and we are going to be voting on that motion to commit later today. It is very simple, very straightforward. In fact, I will read it: Mr. Vitter moves to commit the bill H.R. 325-- That is, of course, the debt limit increase which we have at the desk which we are debating-- to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate within 7 days with legislative language that makes changes in existing programs that reduce Federal spending by the increase amount required by section 2(b) . . . over the period of fiscal years 2013 to 2022. It is very simple. By whatever amount we are increasing the debt limit, so too would we reduce spending. The idea is to start actually paying for what we spend or at least paying for the extra we are going to borrow. It is a commonsense idea, a straightforward approach, and it is not Draconian. We can do it. It starts to put discipline into the process. This bill before us suspends the debt limit until May 18. That is estimated to mean between $300 billion and $400 billion in additional deficit spending. So under this motion to commit, that is the savings we would find. Those are the cuts we would make: $300 billion to $400 billion total over 10 years. Obviously, that is $30 billion to $40 billion a year. That is thoroughly doable. It is meaningful. It takes some work, but it is thoroughly doable, and those savings would be such a small percentage. The part for this year would only be about 3 percent of the deficit and around 1 percent of total Federal spending. If we can't find between $30 billion and $40 billion a year in savings, is there truly a way we can agree to major budget reforms? If we can't find those modest savings, should we be borrowing more money to just spend and spend and spend? Let me be clear. My limited motion is not enough. We need more spending cuts and we need more and fundamental budget reform and we need it now. But I am proposing a reasonable first step that is concrete and meaningful as a downpayment toward fiscal soundness. This bill is short term. It is a patch. It is for 3 months. But it puts us on the right path. It is a concrete, meaningful first step. Surely, we should have learned by now; Congress passed the last debt limit deal in 2011, but we got a credit downgrade anyway. As we continue to rack up more and more debt--without spending reform, without budget reform--a new downgrade has to be on the way. It is not a question of if; it is a question of when. All the credit rating agencies have maintained their negative outlook, including after the fiscal cliff deal. The problem, as it was with the deal passed on New Year's Day, is not that we are taxed too little; the problem is we clearly spend too much. Not enough folks in this building recognize that. Everybody in the real world recognizes that, and certainly the credit rating agencies recognize that. So why don't we take this reasonable, concrete first step? Again, my modest amendment is a small downpayment but an important step, concrete action during the time for which this bill would increase debt, as we work toward a more comprehensive solution. If we are going to raise the debt limit, we must at least show the taxpayers, the credit rating agencies, and the world that we are serious about getting our fiscal house in order. Without this type of amendment--or in this case a motion to commit--we are not saying that in any way, shape, or form with this bill. That is why without this sort of motion to commit or a roughly similar amendment, I cannot vote for this debt limit increase. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in a bipartisan way around this approach. I think it would be a step in the right detection. 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. Thank you, Madam President. With that I close and thank, again, my colleague from Tennessee.

Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Madam President. Through the Chair, I also wish to thank my distinguished colleague from Tennessee for joining me. Together, as he mentioned, we are writing the Attorney General today about a matter of real concern, and that is why we come to the floor. We are both very troubled by recent reports that the Department of Justice is targeting whom to prosecute for the incidental killing of migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. They are not targeting whom to prosecute by looking at birds killed; they are targeting whom to prosecute based on the type of business these various people are in--legal business--and, in particular, the type of legal energy these companies produce. What am I talking about? Well, on the one hand, oil and gas producers--traditional energy producers--are clearly being targeted. They are being targeted for prosecution, as I say, under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. They are being charged with the incidental killing--in a particular case that a court has dealt with--with the killing of four mallards, one northern pintail, one redneck duck, and one Say's phoebe. Now, in that case, the Federal judge involved correctly recognized that this prosecution was off-base because it wasn't about trying to kill these birds--it wasn't about any willful act. It was about a completely incidental killing of these birds because they were doing things in the normal course of business. Nobody wants any of these birds to be killed, but that is not what criminal sanctions under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act are about. As the judge said, ``then many everyday activities [would] become unlawful--and subject to sanctions--'' with ``fines'' under these sorts of prosecutions. The judge pointed out that ``ordinary activities such as driving a vehicle, owning a building with windows, or owning a cat'' could be subject to criminal prosecutions if this precedent were set. So that is on the one hand: the Department of Justice, I think, clearly targeting these companies who are oil and gas producers. On the other hand, they have a very different approach to other types of energy producers, such as wind producers. To our knowledge, there is not a single Department of Justice prosecution regarding the killing of birds because of windmills. That clearly happens. In fact, it happens a lot. I am not saying these wind producers want that to happen. I am not saying they are trying to kill birds, but it happens and it happens a lot. And to our knowledge, the Department of Justice has never launched a similar prosecution against a wind farm. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's fiscal year 2013 budget justification actually estimated the annual bird mortality from wind energy production. Do my colleagues know what the estimate was? It was 440,000. I just mentioned this criminal prosecution on the oil and gas side for seven birds. On that side, total, we have this estimate of 440,000. But wait; it gets even more ridiculous. It appears the administration is also choosing to sanction this in the case of wind production because they are actually considering granting permits to wind energy producers who state in their permits they will kill bald eagles. So in southeastern Minnesota the administration is considering a permit for a wind farm that states in its permit it has the potential to kill between 8 and 15 bald eagles each and every year. So on the one hand we have an oil and gas producer who is gone after with a criminal prosecution because they didn't intend but incidentally killed seven birds--of course, none of them the status of a bald eagle, none of them in danger. On the other hand, the administration is considering granting a permit where the wind producer says it is going to probably kill 8 to 15 bald eagles a year, the symbol of our Nation's greatness. It is pretty clear to us that what this is about is not evenhanded enforcement of the law. What this is about is targeting one type of energy producer and favoring a different type of energy producer. Here is a picture of a bald eagle. The wind farm has stated it will kill perhaps 8 to 12 of those a year. We also have photographs of birds that were unfortunately killed at a wind farm. This is one victim. We have another photograph of an eagle that was killed at a wind farm. This is not a bald eagle; this is a golden eagle, an absolutely beautiful bird. All of these bird deaths are bad, but all of them are unintended. The point is that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act did not intend criminal prosecutions for this unintended incidental effect. The judge ruled that. We think the judge is right. But the broader concern is that the Justice Department seems to be targeting the companies it goes after not based on what they do with regard to migratory birds but based on what they do as a legal business and what sort of energy they produce. Is this really a policy that reflects an ``all of the above'' energy strategy? We think not. We think it is pretty darn obvious it is not an ``all of the above'' approach. That is something very different than an ``all of the above'' energy strategy. It is strategy that says this sort of legal business, this sort of legal production of energy is evil and is to be gone after and combated in any way possible, and that sort of legal business, that sort of production of a different form of energy is to be favored in any way possible. That is our broader concern, and it is a pretty darn important one. This is important in and of itself. It is an important part of the law. It is important that prosecutions be appropriate and evenhanded, but the broader issue with regard to a true ``all of the above'' energy strategy is even more important. As I turn to my colleague from Tennessee, let me simply ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record of the Senate this letter which we are both sending today to Attorney General Eric Holder.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 8 minutes, and I ask the Chair to alert me when 6 minutes has elapsed.

Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Mr. President. Through the Chair, I wish to thank Senator Durbin for his courtesy in light of another engagement I have. I rise to join my colleague from Alabama and to join many others to express real concern on this topic of illegal immigration and the desperate need to fix this problem, to solve this problem. I believe we all want to cherish and hold up and continue the proud tradition of this country which is founded on immigration. One of the many things that make America unique is that we are a nation of--all of us--immigrants. None of us somehow has some blood oath or blood tie to this land that goes back from time immemorial. We all came here relatively recently in the grand scheme of things from other lands, all of our families. We are a nation of immigrants and immigration, and we cherish and celebrate that. But, of course, historically, that has been a system of legal immigration. It is so worrisome to me and so many others that over the last 30 years in particular, it has really evolved into a wide open, relatively little enforcement system of illegal immigration that flourishes and abounds and grows as our traditional legal immigration system gets less and less workable for the folks trying to follow the rules. That is my concern as I look at many of these immigration reform proposals, particularly proposals for so-called comprehensive reform such as the one outlined today. I think the test is pretty simple: How do we uphold our tradition of immigration and fix the problem, solve the problem, and not allow it to continue or, worse yet, grow and mushroom? To me, that is the bottom line. Will any proposal we make be debated--will the proposal outlined by some of my colleagues today fix the problem or will it perpetuate the problem or, God forbid, even grow the problem dramatically? What heightens my concern is that we have history as a guide, and history suggests that brand of so-called comprehensive immigration reform--this promise of enforcement as long as we have an amnesty--all of those things put together are a recipe for failure. Of course, the most notable case of this was in 1986 under President Reagan. There was a so-called comprehensive immigration reform proposal passed into law. The promise, the model was very simple: We are going to get serious about enforcement--we really, really are--and we are going to have a one-time leniency or amnesty. It will fix the problem once and for all. We will never have to look back, and that will be done. As we know from bitter experience since then, it didn't quite turn out that way. The promised enforcement never fully materialized. In fact, in my opinion, it never materialized to any significant extent. However, the leniency, the amnesty happened immediately. It happened the second that bill was signed into law. So did it fix the problem estimated at about 3 million illegal aliens then? No. It not only perpetuated the problem, it grew the problem to 12 million-plus--some people think as high as 15 million to 20 million illegal aliens now. So it grew the problem enormously because we had promised enforcement which never adequately materialized but an amnesty which happened immediately. That is the fundamental concern. That is the deadly scenario I am concerned about with regard to virtually all of these so-called ``comprehensive'' solutions. There is one thing--at least one thing--that has changed since 1986. It is this: Compared to 1986, we have a President and an administration in power which has proved time and time again that they have no will, no focus on real enforcement. Why do I say that? Well, this is the administration that sued States attempting to enforce immigration laws and get control of the border. It did mot support those States, did not try to find a Federal fix. It did one thing: sued States such as Arizona trying to deal with a flow across the border and all of the violence and crime that is an aspect of that. This is the administration that ended the 32 287(g) local law enforcement programs that were fairly effective, at least in focused limited ways, with regard to enforcement. They scuttled that program, completely threw it out the window. This is the administration, of course, that propagated the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal and still has not answered questions about that adequately, in my opinion.

Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Mr. President. This is the administration that unconstitutionally put into effect the DREAM Act by administrative fiat. Congress would not pass that. A Democratic House and a Democratic Senate failed to pass it. President Obama at the time said he did not have adequate powers to put it into law administratively, and yet when it came time to run for election, he did it by administrative fiat, in my opinion--in many people's opinion--well beyond his legal authority. So that is the main thing that is different from 1986. We have a President and an administration that has proved to be completely opposed to aggressive and real enforcement. So I hope, as we continue this debate with my distinguished colleague from Illinois and many others, we focus on that central question: Will this solve the problem? In my opinion, we have seen this movie before. We have tried this so- called comprehensive approach before--this marriage of promises of enforcement with leniency or amnesty. History suggests that does not work. The enforcement never adequately shows up. The amnesty immediately does. In this proposal, although it might not be immediate citizenship, it is immediate legal protection and many benefits that flow from that. Mr. President, I look forward to continuing this discussion.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I recognize Ms. Victoria Michelle Hanzo, a bright and talented young Louisianian. Each year since 1743, the carnival celebration known as Mardi Gras, French for ``Fat Tuesday,'' has been celebrated by the people of New Orleans. The season officially begins on January 5, the Twelfth Night of Christmas and the Feast of the Epiphany. Also recognized in many countries around the world with large Roman Catholic populations, Mardi Gras is the final party prior to the ritual fasting of the Lenten Season, which begins on Ash Wednesday. Over the many decades that New Orleanians have celebrated Mardi Gras, ``krewes'' or private Mardi Gras social organizations have also contributed to the merriment and glee surrounding the festive season. In Greek mythology, Endymion was known for his everlasting youth and beauty. In 1966, the Krewe of Endymion was established and has annually paraded through the streets of New Orleans. Today, Endymion is known for being the largest parade in New Orleans, both for the number of members--more than 2,600--and also for the incredible size and spectacle of its floats. This krewe has meant a lot to me since I had one of my first jobs as a high school student painting Endymion's floats--white primer only, as I wasn't trusted with colors. During the Krewe of Endymion's 47th year, Ms. Victoria Michelle Hanzo will reign as queen. Ms. Hanzo is a senior at Archbishop Chapelle High School and has been on the distinguished honor roll each year while a student at Chapelle. She is also a member of the National Society of High of High School scholars, has been a student ambassador for 4 years, is a student representative for her senior class on the student council, and is an active member in Health Nuts, an organization that promotes fitness and nutrition. Lastly, Victoria is a member of the prolife club and has traveled to Washington, DC, recently with over 600 high school students from the New Orleans area for the March for Life Rally, an occasion and cause for which I will continue to be a strong advocate. She is the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. James Hanzo and the granddaughter Mr. and Mrs. Edmond J. Muniz, the founder and captain of the Krewe of Endymion. Next year she plans to continue her education at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge. It is exciting for such an accomplished young person to have this honor and will be something she will cherish for a lifetime. She joins a long line of family members who have also had the honor of serving as queen of Endymion: her mother Michelle in 1986, her Aunt Mary in 1984, her aunt Margie in 1991, and her cousin Erica in 2012. As we celebrate the 2013 Mardi Gras season, it is my pleasure to honor Ms. Victoria Michelle Hanzo as the 47th queen of the Krewe of Endymion.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I would like to recognize and honor the valuable contributions of Catholic schools in educating our youth throughout our great Nation. From January 27 to February 2, we will celebrate Catholic Schools Week to bring attention to the exceptional work and contributions to society that Catholic education programs across the country provide. These schools provide a comprehensive education that emphasizes moral, intellectual, and physical development in our youth and that fosters responsible individuals who positively contribute to our communities while leading lives grounded in the Catholic tradition. This year's theme, ``Catholic Schools Raise the Standards,'' demonstrates the high standard to which the Catholic schools of our Nation hold themselves and their unwavering commitment to promoting academic excellence and Catholic identity. Catholic schools in Louisiana have continued to support this tradition of academic excellence and physical and spiritual well-bring, while allowing families to be involved and supportive in the educational process. Today, more than 2 million students attend Catholic schools around the country. More than 99 percent of attending students graduate, with more than 85 percent pursuing college degrees at 4-year institutions. I am in strong agreement with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which stated: Education remains critically important in the formation of the human person by teaching how to live well now so as to be able to live with God for all eternity . . . Our schools serve both the faith community and society by educating children, young people and adults to contribute to the common good by becoming active and caring members of the communities, cities, and nation in which they live. As a Catholic school alumnus, I know that Catholic school educators and administrators deserve recognition for their steadfast commitment not only to educating minds, but also to shaping hearts and cultivating the virtues that make our country and local communities stronger. In that respect, I am hopeful that the Senate will again pass my bipartisan resolution recognizing the valuable contributions of Catholic schools in the United States. This week, we recognize the students, their families, teachers, administrators, all of our parish leaders, and our communities for their efforts to support our Catholic schools and continued achievement toward the education of our young people.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I would like to recognize Mr. Joseph M. Scimeca. This July, Mr. Scimeca will enter retirement after 44 years of dedicated service to the Catholic Diocese of Baton Rouge. Since 1969, when he began his career as a teacher, Mr. Scimeca has contributed to the moral, intellectual, and spiritual development of young people. His time in education has seen him serve as assistant principal, principal, and Assistant Superintendent of the Catholic Diocese of Baton Rouge, a position he has held since 1999. In 1997, he was presented with the Distinguished Secondary Educator award and also received the 1999 Saint Michael the Archangel High School Warrior award. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops stated, ``Education is one of the most important ways by which the Church fulfills its commitment to the dignity of the person and building of community.'' In Louisiana, our Catholic schools maintain high academic standards, foster a healthy learning environment for students, and encourage family involvement in the ongoing education of children. Mr. Scimeca has promoted these ideals with extraordinary leadership, professionalism and a vision to provide our children with the tools they will need to go out in to the world and become valuable members of society and their community. His efforts to bring together adults and children, educators and volunteers, business leaders, and elected officials in a learning environment highlights his ability to impart comprehensive curriculums that stress the importance of education as part of the mission of the Catholic Church and the importance of community in shaping our young people. While I know he will be missed after his departure later this year, I thank Mr. Scimeca for his selfless commitment to the education of our children, his outstanding contributions to the Catholic Diocese of Baton Rouge and the State of Louisiana, and extend to him our best wishes for continued success and happiness in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, more and more Americans from all walks of life, of both political parties, feel there is not just a pond or a sea but an ocean of difference between the real world where they live and Washington, DC. They view--I think correctly--Washington, DC, as a different planet where normal rules do not seem to apply. That is why on the first day I could introduce new legislation in this new Congress, I chose to introduce a package of reform measures--measures aimed at bridging that gap, bringing those two worlds together, returning us--returning Washington to the real world and reconnecting with the American people. The American people are also concerned--rightly--about the bitter partisanship, the overly ideological tone of almost all of the debate we have here in Washington now, here in Congress. I believe these sorts of reform measures--the four bills I have introduced in particular--can also help bridge that divide because they are not ideological, they are not partisan, they are good-government reform, things that can and should and, hopefully, will bring us together and bring us together and reconnect us with the American people. Again, it is another reason I chose to introduce this package of four reform measures, four good-government bills on the first day I could introduce legislation this Congress. The first is a very simple and basic but fundamental idea: term limits for Members of Congress. I am honored to be joined by six other Senators right out of the gate, right out of the box in terms of cosponsoring this important legislation: Senators Paul, Ayotte, Coburn, Lee, Rubio, Cruz, and Johnson. I thank them for their cosponsorship and their support. This measure would limit Members of Congress in the House to three consecutive terms, a total of 6 years, and the Senate to two consecutive terms, a total of 12 years. It is a consensus measure supported by citizens groups very active and supportive of the concept of term limits. The idea, again, is simple: to reconnect Congress with the American people, to do away with the notion of legislating as a career, and to get back to the Founders' vision of citizen legislators. When I was in the State legislature, I authored and passed term limits for the State legislature. That required a State constitutional amendment--a big deal--a two-thirds vote in each body, and then a vote of the people. But because of the people's voices rising and being heard, we achieved that. With that reform, which was voted overwhelmingly into the State constitution by the people of Louisiana, we have a regular influx now of new, fresh blood, real experience from the real world that reconnects in a very healthy way the State legislature and all of us, the citizens, whom it is supposed to represent. That was needed for the State legislature, and if it was-- and it was--it is needed a thousand times more for Congress because that divide, that sea, that ocean, that difference between different planets in the eyes of so many Americans is even greater between Congress and the real world, Congress and the American people. The second bill I have introduced is a bill to do away with automatic pay increases for Members of Congress. That is present law, that we get regular increases of pay with no proposal, no bill put in the hopper, no debate, no need for an inconvenient vote. I think that is just outright wrong. I think it helps build that distrust on the part of the American people. I am joined by a bipartisan cosponsor, Senator McCaskill of Missouri. I thank her for her leadership and her support of this measure. Again, the measure is very simple: Just repeal, do away with any automatic pay increases for Members of Congress. If there is to be a pay increase, there should be a bill proposing it and open debate and a public vote. The third measure is also fully bipartisan. I am introducing it with Senator Bill Nelson of Florida. It is reform of the Corps of Engineers--something very important for our two States but also for, indeed, the whole country. In Louisiana, in Florida, and elsewhere, unfortunately, the Corps of Engineers has become a poster child for a dysfunctional Federal Government, a Federal bureaucracy, a Federal system that is just bogged down, does not work. It takes 10 and 20 years to study something, never ever getting to construction. We need to streamline and reform that process, and the Vitter-Nelson bill does just that by greatly streamlining the process by which Corps projects can come to fruition, putting State and local leaders more in charge of that effort, at first on a pilot basis. Hopefully, we will expand that in the future for important Corps of Engineers projects. Again, that is particularly important for our States of Louisiana and Florida, but it is important for so many States and for the country as a whole. Fourth and finally, I am introducing a measure that I have had before to reform Federal campaign finance law to prohibit PACs and campaign funds from employing Members' spouses or family members. That is just a way, quite frankly, in some circumstances for Members of Congress, politicians, to pad their family income. I think that is wrong, and that leads directly to the real suspicion and low regard in which so many Americans hold this institution. Again, this bill is simple, straightforward, but important. It would prohibit spouses and immediate family members of Members of Congress from receiving payments from that Member's campaign accounts or leadership PACs. That is a loophole and an area of abuse we must close. We must prohibit that abuse in the future. These four bills won't solve every problem out there. They won't be the be-all and end-all of important reform and good-government efforts, but they would be an important start. They would help us truly reconnect with the American people and narrow this divide, which is so vast right now, between the real world, real Americans, and this institution. They would be important, nonpartisan, nonideological reform efforts that we can gather around, Republicans and Democrats alike, to do something positive, to do something productive, and to reconnect with the American people. I urge my colleagues from both parties to support these measures, to come on as cosponsors. Many of you already have, and I thank you for that. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 2838, Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012, which we sent to the President late last week. This important bill provides authorization for all of the programs and missions of the United States Coast Guard, along with provisions important to the maritime industry. One important provision in the bill addresses the tonnage situation of the vessel Aqueos Acadian. The system of tonnage measurement, though arcane and complicated, is vital to the operation and economics of any vessel. In the case of the Aqueos Acadian, its original configuration in 1973 was certified in Coast Guard documentation to be 274 gross registered tons, GRT, which is the official domestic tonnage measurement. Later, the vessel had an addition of a closed-in shelter deck, which increased its domestic tonnage, as well as its international tonnage, which is measured differently than domestic tonnage under the International Tonnage Convention, ITC, rules. Later still, the modifications that increased the tonnage measurements were removed, and the vessel's official documents were issued by the Coast Guard and ABS to reflect that its GRT had been reduced to 275, almost exactly the original tonnage. Vessels with greater than 300 GRT have safety and manning requirements much more complicated than vessels at or below 300 GRT. At the time of the certification of the down-sizing modifications, the ITC tonnage was not reduced because the Coast Guard's ability to reduce international tonnage administratively is either extremely arcane or non-existent--even if the vessel's tonnage has in fact been reduced. When Aqueos Corporation in Louisiana purchased the vessel, its official documents reflected that the GRT had been reduced to below 300 GRT. Relying on those Coast Guard and ABS issued documents, the company sought Coast Guard administrative help to reduce the international tonnage commensurate with the GRT. The Coast Guard bill includes language that allows the company to keep operating the vessel under its current documentation and allows time to complete the tonnage-reducing modifications that were not done by the previous owners of the vessel but that the Coast Guard has said must be done. Unfortunately, the ITC tonnage reduction remains incomplete. The provision does not restore the vessel's ITC tonnage to that of the GRT. This second step would afford to the vessel the same result that other vessels in the Aqueos Acadian's class have, through a previous legislative grandfather provision, that allows those vessels' GRT and ITC tonnage to be the same. This second step would not give the vessel a competitive advantage relative to other vessels in the Acadian's class; rather, without it the company is at a competitive disadvantage with those other vessels. As time goes by, the vessel is losing out on potentially millions of dollars of domestic and international work. It is not yet clear whether such an administrative solution can be achieved. I understand the concern addressed by the ITC about vessels having substantially changed size, and I agree that a larger vessel should be regulated at a larger tonnage. Unfortunately, the way that the ITC addresses this situation is to forever assign a vessel a higher tonnage even if tonnage has been actually reduced. This vessel should be recognized to its lower tonnage and should not be forced into a regime that does not recognize its circumstance. I believe we should seek additional legislative language that would correct the international tonnage problem, but in the interim I look forward to continuing to work with the Coast Guard and encourage the agency to develop an administrative solution to this situation.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, as we continue to face enormous economic challenges and uncertainty, I rise to join with others in continuing to express concern about too-big-to-fail--a policy we saw clearly in large measure coming out of the 2008 crisis and a policy many of us think continues to this day and puts the American taxpayer and the American economy at great risk. This isn't a Republican concern or a Democratic concern; it is not just a conservative concern or a liberal concern. A lot of us on both sides of the aisle have this concern. A good example is a Democratic colleague I have been working closely with on these ideas--Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio. We both serve on the Banking Committee. We disagree on a lot of issues outside and within the Banking Committee's jurisdiction, but we agree on some things too, including real concern about too-big-to-fail institutions and the continuation of the implicit policy of too-big-to-fail. That is why he and I have come together on a number of fronts related thereto, including legislation we can pass this week before we end this Congress that would simply authorize a study. It is an important GAO study about too-big-to-fail and those institutions. The idea is very simple. We would ask the GAO--a clearly nonpartisan, clearly expert entity with a lot of smarts, with a lot of ability to do valid, unbiased research--to study whether there is an implicit policy of too-big-to-fail with regard to our largest financial institutions and, if so, what benefits that implicit taxpayer guarantee gives those institutions. Specifically, it would look at bank holding companies with $500 billion or more of consolidated assets, and it would look specifically at three things, among others: first, the favorable pricing of the debt of those institutions resulting from the perception that those institutions would again be bailed out during times of financial stress as they were during 2008; second, any favorable funding or economic treatment they received from increased credit ratings directly resulting from perceived government support; and third, the favorable economic benefit of the 2008 bailouts and existing safety nets of the Federal Reserve and FDIC. I think these questions are very legitimate, and having an unbiased, academic look at that would be very helpful in terms of our continuing work on these issues. We talk about this and debate this all the time. Wouldn't it be useful to have an unbiased, apolitical, expert source look at these questions: Do these big institutions with $500 billion or more in consolidated assets--are they considered too-big-to-fail by the market, and does that perception give them advantages, such as favorable pricing of debt, such as favorable funding or economic treatment from their increased credit ratings, et cetera? There is a lot at stake. It would be very helpful to have factual, unbiased answers to these questions. First of all, there is a whole question of too-big-to-fail continuing to exist, and I believe it does. This would put nonpartisan eyes on the question and give us a good sense of, do we have more work to do if, in fact, we want to get rid of too-big-to-fail, which we, virtually to a person in this Chamber, profess we want to get rid of. Secondly, to the extent too-big-to-fail continues as a policy and/or a perception, is it giving advantages to these institutions, market advantages, market distortions--which, by the way, if they are the winners, there also by definition have to be losers, which are the smaller institutions that are at a competitive disadvantage because of these market distortions, because of these advantages that too-big-to-fail gives these mega- institutions. So I hope this is pretty much a no-brainer. It is a study. It doesn't mandate any actions, and it asks valid questions to which getting unbiased answers would be very helpful in our continuing work. That is why Senator Sherrod Brown and I have come together in a bipartisan way to ask these questions. We have developed legislation mandating this GAO study, and we are trying to get what we consider to be very noncontroversial legislation passed before the end of the year. As it stands now, we have cleared this legislation on the Republican side. Every Republican Member is perfectly willing to let this pass by unanimous consent. That process has just begun on the Democratic side. I urge all of my colleagues to follow the lead of Sherrod Brown to allow us to ask and get unbiased answers to these very legitimate questions. I urge everyone on that side to clear it themselves, to join us on our side in clearing it so we can pass it through the Senate and get this passed in the House, hopefully on the consent calendar, which we are already working on. That clearing process will take a little bit of time, but I look forward to coming back and having it cleared by UC. I will probably ask for a live UC at some appropriate point tonight or tomorrow when everyone has clearly had a chance to look at the study legislation. I look forward to our coming together, I think in a very sound way, asking these legitimate questions, asking a nonpolitical expert entity to give us valid answers to these questions so we can move forward with the proper policymaking. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my Senate colleagues. Yesterday, we passed a reauthorization of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Act. That is very significant for my State of Louisiana, particularly southeast Louisiana. Today I expect that package will be similarly approved by the U.S. House and passed into law to fully reauthorize this important restoration program. In a minute I will get into why it is important and positive and noteworthy. Let me mention in passing its significance to me. It happened to be the first bill I ever passed in Congress. I came to the U.S. House in a special election in 1999, and very soon after that we passed into law in my freshman term this legislation in 2001. More important, it has been a very positive, productive program cleaning up a big part of Louisiana and parts of Mississippi. The Lake Pontchartrain Basin is about 16 parishes in Louisiana, four counties in Mississippi and southeast Louisiana. Lake Pontchartrain and the areas surrounding Lake Pontchartrain are the most populated part of our State--at least 1.5 million residents. When I was a kid, unfortunately Lake Pontchartrain had come into a sad state and was visibly dirty. Nobody would have thought of swimming there at the time. Soon after that, however, a positive grassroots effort started to clean up the lake. It wasn't some big government program, it wasn't some edict from the EPA or anyone else. It was a grassroots citizens effort. It was embodied by a great organization that was founded and still exists: the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation. That nonprofit, private foundation, that group of active citizens and stakeholders got together around the need to clean up the lake and make it a suitable lake once again and clean up all the surrounding parishes in that watershed. That effort had great success from when I was in high school for the next several decades. Then, as I was coming to the Congress, we wanted to take the next step and amplify those efforts. So with an enormous amount of input from that citizens group and other local stakeholders, we came up with a model, a completely voluntary, proactive cleanup effort housed in the EPA focused exclusively on the Lake Pontchartrain Basin. That is when we acted, 1999 and 2000, and passed that legislation in 2001. It has had an enormously positive impact. It created a real partnership--again, built from the ground up, from local stakeholders, from that local group of civic activists--and it generated restoration efforts, similar statuses, and other important restoration efforts around the country, and over the last many years it has had real impact. As Carlton Dufrechou, then head of the Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Executive Committee, said: It's been the catalyst for over 100 projects that have reduced pollution from sewage plants, dairy operations, and helped preserve Louisiana's fragile coast. And the results are quantifiable. Lake Pontchartrain is again fishable and swimmable. That is really the ultimate test. That is the ultimate measure, when citizens can go out and swim in the lake as they can now; when they can go out and actively fish in the lake in a way they never did to that extent a decade and two decades ago. That is the ultimate validation. That is the ultimate measure. We did reauthorize the program in 2006. Now, in 2012, we are reauthorizing it, basing it on the same continuing model, a from-the- ground-up enterprise, a proactive voluntary effort; not some Washington bureaucrat throwing a huge cumbersome rule book at local stakeholders but building from the ground up through voluntary proactive restoration efforts, getting those stakeholders together, the people who know the lay of the land the best, and acting based on their priorities and their recommendations. That was the model from the beginning. That was the model before this legislation, with the grassroots effort that preceded it and that continues. That is the model we will continue to use. I hope, in some small way, that can be the model we use more and more actively in environmental cleanup around the country. Certainly, that is the positive perspective I will bring as the new ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee. So I again thank my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--for passing this reauthorization. It is important and productive and positive and will continue to be on the ground in southeast Louisiana. I very much look forward to that reauthorization passing the U.S. House and being signed into law so that those activists and stakeholders and citizens on the ground in southeast Louisiana can help lead that important continuing work. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.