David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a true American hero. During a parade honoring our veterans on November 15, 2012, in Midland, TX, four of veterans lost their lives when their float was tragically struck by an oncoming train. Sixteen other veterans were also injured. That day, SFC Tommy Shoemaker was among the veterans being honored for their service, and his float was directly ahead of the one struck. Upon witnessing this tragedy, SFC Shoemaker jumped from his float that was traveling 40MPH. He, his fellow veterans, and other soldiers began immediately assisting those injured. Prior to ambulances arriving, they provided CPR and life-saving aid to stabilize those injured. SFC Shoemaker's selfless act of heroism not only saved lives but also is a testament to the special forces training he received. SFC Shoemaker entered the military in 1986 and later served in the Army Reserves in Monroe, LA, and also the Mississippi National Guard. In 2004, he was deployed to Afghanistan as part of an Embedded Transition Team. Unfortunately, his convoy unit was attacked twice in 2005 and again in 2006, the last a combination of road side bombs and an ambush. The incident left SFC Shoemaker severely injured and forced him to return home. Since, SFC Shoemaker has been working as an Associate Administrator at the Northeast Louisiana War Veterans Home, a position he held prior to deployment. He also lends his time at the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, and the Office of Public Health. He does all of this with permanent disabilities to 90 percent of his body, as a loving husband to his wife Pam, and their four daughters, Malissa, Kayla, Suzie, and Sierra. It is my privilege and honor to recognize SFC Tommy Shoemaker for his bravery and courage and for his service to the United States of America.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to note grave concern on behalf of a constituent of mine and his family. Elton ``Mark'' McCabe, a businessman from Slidell, LA, has been held against his will in the custody of South Sudanese officials since October 14--for several weeks now, going on a month, through Thanksgiving. Mark McCabe was in Africa, South Sudan, with business partners pursuing business opportunities, doing everything by the book, legally, ethically, and apparently, for reasons we don't yet fully understand, business competitors or business enemies of his had some sway with South Sudanese officials in a particular portion of the government with the security force, and he was taken into custody. He was charged with vague, very serious crimes and has been held against his will for these many weeks. I won't go into all the details, but it has been a long torturous experience. I have been on the phone constantly, virtually every day, with State Department officials, with the South Sudanese Ambassador to the United States, with others, trying to demand basic due process and basic justice. Things have gotten a little better in the last week, and a few days ago there was a hearing before a judge regarding these trumped-up charges. When the prosecution had basically no facts and no evidence to present, the judge virtually laughed in their face with regard to this lack of a case. Nonetheless, the prosecution asked for 3 more days to get its house in order, to get its notes in order, possibly just to try to save face by dropping these trumped-up charges against Mr. McCabe rather than having them thrown out against their will by the judge. We hope that is the case, we pray that is the case, but we don't know yet. The next hearing before this same judge is going to be this Thursday. So I come to the Senate floor to urge that judge and the South Sudanese Government to do the right thing, to do justice and immediately release Mark McCabe, who, again, has been held against his will, with no evidence, with no meaningful charges against him, since October 14. I want to repeat what I said directly to the South Sudanese Ambassador to the United States. For many years we have built a strong, positive, bilateral relationship, but that relationship depends on appropriate trust between the parties and appropriate action. And we are looking at this case very seriously. We are looking at this case as a test of their judicial system, as a test of their appropriate intentions. If this completely unjustified detention continues, I vow that I will personally make sure there are consequences and repercussions to that relationship because there should be. They have violated basic fundamental legal and human rights of U.S. citizens. I am hopeful based on what happened in South Sudan a few days ago, but, to quote President Ronald Reagan, trust but verify. And we are going to verify one way or the other come Thursday. The matter is very simple: Even though Mark McCabe has been held against his will for weeks and weeks, finally, at this late date, we fully expect this sorry state of affairs to end on Thursday. And if these trumped-up, frivolous charges continue, if he continues to be held against his will, I promise I will make those statements to the South Sudanese Ambassador ring true. I promise I will follow up and take action because this is absolutely outrageous. I know we all join to pray for justice, to pray for Mr. McCabe's safekeeping. He has a serious heart condition. Indications are that he actually suffered a mild heart attack while in the custody of South Sudanese officials. So we pray for him, and we very much expect and look forward to his quick return to his home in the United States. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, the price of gasoline at the pump is double what it was 4 years ago. The majority in this Senate has done nothing to address that problem, and this administration has done nothing to address that problem. In fact, we are moving in the wrong direction. The President's 5-year lease plan for offshore leases is half what the previous plan was. Production in the gulf is down following his imposed moratorium and it is beginning to go down further. It has gone from 1.55 million barrels a day in 2010 to 1.32 in 2011, and it is still headed down to 1.23 in this year. Two years before the moratorium, the Energy Information Administration, where all these numbers come from, said it would be 1.76 million barrels a day this year. We are the most energy rich country in the world, but this Senate majority, this administration will not allow us to access our own resources for our own good.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life, legacy, and contributions of Leo R. Segalla, Sr., who passed away on Monday, September 10, 2012. Mr. Segalla was a dedicated pro-life leader whose tireless efforts for many ministries and outreaches had a tremendous impact on the fight to defend the dignity of life. In 2007, Leo approached Louisiana Right to Life with the vision of creating a pro-life leadership training program for high school students. He developed the Louisiana Camp Joshua program on behalf of the Knights of Columbus and Louisiana Right to Life. Under his leadership, Camp Joshua flourished and grew to two camps, the first in Baton Rouge and the second in Lake Charles. Over the past 5 years, this program has trained hundreds of teens to speak effectively on life issues and has inspired young adults to be pro-life leaders in their communities. Leo also greatly contributed to the pro-life cause through his leadership in Baton Rouge Right to Life and as part of the Louisiana Life March Coalition. The pro-life community has lost a great friend and advocate, but his legacy will live on in the hundreds of young people who have been empowered to stand for the dignity and sanctity of all human life. It is with great sadness but also great honor that I recognize, commend, and celebrate the life and legacy of Leo Segalla. Leo was a champion of life who was unwavering in his defense of those who cannot defend themselves. I extend my deepest condolences to his family and friends in Louisiana.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I come to the floor, as many of our colleagues have done, to talk about this very significant and, for me at least, stunning U.S. Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare. First of all, I use the word ``stunning,'' not particularly because of the outcome. I would not have been shocked at either outcome--upholding the law or striking down the law. I considered both of those clear possibilities. I am stunned and shocked, somewhat confused, by the decision--by the nature of the decision, by the nature of the majority, and by the reasoning. I am not going to dwell on that. It is not my role or the role of other Senators to second-guess it or to claim we have some authority to rewrite it. But I do find that doing backflips beyond the significant power of the Court to completely recharacterize the individual mandate and parts of the law associated with it as a tax--it was never proposed as a tax. It was never debated as a tax. It was never written as a tax. It was never meant as a tax in any part of the ObamaCare debate or legislative action. So I certainly agree with Justice Kennedy who said out loud from the bench, which I think is significant, that to read it ``as a tax'' is not just reading the law a certain way, it is rewriting the law. Judicial rewriting of tax policy, judicial writing of the law to create a tax, is particularly worrisome. I absolutely agree with that. I do think the majority, led tragically by Chief Justice Roberts, did backflips to rewrite the law in order to uphold it. I think that is very unfortunate. What it also means for the country and for the policy debate and for us in the Congress is at least two things, which I think are also very important. No. 1, it means that if this is a tax, this is a massive tax increase on the middle class, which stands full square against the clear and repeated campaign promises of President Obama. So this is a huge tax increase, now that it is a tax, completely against everything he ran on and what he said over and over, campaigning for office. It also means something separate that is very significant. If this is all about taxes and spending, it means a different Congress next year-- hopefully, led by a different President--can repeal all of that with a simple majority of votes in the Senate through reconciliation. If this is all about taxes and spending, then it can all be undone through the reconciliation process. Of course, that is significant for one reason and one reason only: In the Senate, it means that lowers the requirement from 60 votes to a simple majority. If there is a Republican President, that would be 50 votes, plus the Vice President as the tiebreaker. So my bottom line is simple. It was my bottom line yesterday before the opinion, it was my bottom line over the last several months, and it was my bottom line the day after Congress passed ObamaCare and the President signed it into law. It may be ruled constitutional, but it is still a bad idea that is making things worse. It is putting an all- powerful Federal Government between the patient and his or her doctor, and it is costing us an enormous amount of money as individuals, as citizens, as a society, and as a government that we clearly cannot afford. Many of us made those arguments during the original debate. But I think all of those arguments have been validated and are even more clearly true and compelling in the months since ObamaCare was passed, in particular, because costs have been going through the roof. The suggestion that this was going to save us money and not cost us extra money--even the suggestion of that argument--has gone out the window. It is clear the opposite is true. Individual premiums have gone up as a result, family premiums have gone up as a result, and costs to the government and to society have gone up as a result. It has made the already staggering problem of health care costs worse and worse. It has made health care for everyday Americans less and less affordable. Because of that, I certainly renew my commitment to work with others to fully repeal ObamaCare lock, stock, and barrel. Under the Supreme Court's decision today, I restate again that I think it is very significant since it is all about a tax and all about taxes and spending that can be addressed early next year with a simple majority in the Senate if there is a President Romney and a Republican Congress to do it. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I expect this amendment to pass, but I know some Members expected a vote, and I certainly wanted to provide them that vote with a 60-vote threshold. I urge support of this bipartisan amendment. It does two things. First of all, it clears up a situation in the context of the film industry where there are certain unintended regulations of extras and actors bringing their pets on the set. All of a sudden that is being captured by regulation which is intended for zoo animals and circus animals, and things such as that. There is no opposition to this part of the amendment at all. Secondly, because of the modification, which adds a provision supported by myself and Senators Blumenthal, Kirk, and others, that would make it illegal under Federal law to attend an animal fight. It is already outlawed to help organize an animal fight under Federal law. It is also illegal to attend one under State law in 49 States. This will make Federal law similar to State law and will help Federal authorities work with local government in sting operations, and that is what they normally do. I ask support for this amendment.

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President. I oppose the nomination of Andrew Hurwitz to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals because I have serious concerns with his capability to serve in the role of a life-tenured Federal appellate judge. His public statements regarding, and past contributions to, previous Supreme Court decisions give serious pause as to whether we should confirm him to serve on a Federal appellate court. Mr. Hurwitz has effectively taken credit for helping develop the legal architecture for Roe v. Wade while serving as a law clerk to then-Judge Jon Newman. Judge Newman, a U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut, issued two 1972 decisions which are clearly reflected and expanded upon in the Supreme Court's opinion in Roe v. Wade. Mr. Hurwitz played a key role in authoring these decisions and he has publicly expressed great pride in this fact. He wrote a 2002 law review article praising Roe and bragged that he helped craft Newman's opinion that was reflected in ``almost perfect lockstep'' in the Supreme Court's decision. This concerns me because not only is Roe a constitutional abomination, but a moral abomination that has resulted in the killing of tens of millions of unborn children. Mr. Hurwitz has claimed credit for shaping a judicial decision that fundamentally disrespected human life and is completely unfounded in the Constitution. Roe v. Wade forever changed the debate about abortion in this country by creating a nationwide policy of abortion-on-demand through one of the worst cases of judicial activism in history. It is so poorly reasoned that both conservative and liberal legal experts and scholars acknowledge that Roe was a deficient opinion that lacks any legitimate legal reasoning in support of its holding. His willful failure to recognize the legal deficiencies of the Roe opinion and his self-promotion for playing a part in such an unfortunate event in this country's judicial history makes clear that he is not qualified to serve in the role of a Federal appellate judge. I believe we must support the dignity and sanctity of all human life and defend those who cannot defend themselves. This judicial nominee would do the opposite, which is why I must oppose Andrew Hurwitz's nomination to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Kyl. I support the nomination of Justice Andy Hurwitz to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice Hurwitz received his undergraduate degree from Princeton University (A.B. 1968) and his law degree from Yale Law School (J.D. 1972), where he was Note and Comment Editor of the Yale Law Journal. He served as a law clerk to Judge Jon O. Newman of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in 1972; to Judge J. Joseph Smith of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1972 1973; and to Associate Justice Potter Stewart of the Supreme Court of the United States in 1973 1974. Justice Hurwitz has served on the Arizona Supreme Court since 2003. Before joining the Arizona Supreme Court, Justice Hurwitz was a partner in the Phoenix firm of Osborn Maledon, where his practice focused on appellate and constitutional litigation, administrative law, and civil litigation. He is a member of the bar in Arizona and in Connecticut; he received the highest grade on the Arizona Bar examination in the summer of 1974. He argued two cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Hurwitz served as chief of staff to two Arizona governors--from 1980 to 1983 and in 1988. He was a member of the Arizona Board of Regents from 1988 through 1996, and served as president of the Board in 1992 1993. He has regularly taught at the Arizona State University College of Law, and was in residence at the College of Law as Visiting Professor of Law in 1994 1995 and as a Distinguished Visitor from Practice in 2001. He was appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist in 2004 as a member of the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence and reappointed to a second term by Chief Justice Roberts in 2007. His easy to see why Justice Hurwitz was awarded the ABA's highest rating: Unanimous ``Well Qualified.'' During his 9-year tenure on the Arizona Supreme Court, Justice Hurwitz has consistently demonstrated a commitment to faithfully apply existing law and precedent regardless of his own policy preferences. A few examples are quite telling: In 2006, he upheld the constitutionality of a 200-year sentence for a man convicted of possessing twenty pictures of child pornography even though Justice Hurwitz personally felt that the sentence was too long. Responding to the dissent in State v. Berger, he wrote: As a policy matter, there is much to commend Justice Berch's suggestion that the cumulative sentence imposed upon Mr. Berger was unnecessarily harsh, and my personal inclination would be to reach such a conclusion. As a judge, however, I cannot conclude under the Supreme Court precedent or even under the alternative test that Justice Berch proposes that Berger's sentences violate the United States Constitution. In 2005, in State v. Fell, Justice Hurwitz, followed Supreme Court precedent and held that ``the Sixth Amendment does not require that a jury find an aggravating circumstance before a natural life sentence can be imposed.'' In so doing, he rejected a position similar to the one he had advocated for at the Supreme Court just 3 years earlier. Justice Hurwitz repeatedly reiterated his commitment to judicial restraint in his testimony to the Judiciary Committee. To briefly quote him: ``Judgments about policy matters are within the province of the legislature, and courts should not second-guess such judgments.'' Justice Hurwitz's steadfast commitment to this philosophy is likely the reason that no opinion written or joined by Justice Hurwitz has ever been overturned by the United States Supreme Court. I support the nomination of Justice Hurwitz to the Ninth Circuit because I believe that his abilities, experience, and commitment to judicial restraint will enable him to serve the residents of the Ninth Circuit as ably as he has served the people of Arizona. Today, I am very disappointed because a lot of friends of mine in the pro-life community are, to put it charitably, exaggerating one Law Review article that he wrote attributing to Justice Hurwitz all kinds of views which are not appropriate based upon the facts. It has to do with the pro-life issue. I want to set the record straight on Justice Hurwitz's article about Judge Jon O. Newman, which has unfortunately been blown out of proportion. About 10 years ago, the New York Law School Law Review solicited Judge Jon O. Newman's former clerks to write articles for a symposium dedicated to Judge Newman's first 30 years on the bench. Five clerks agreed, including Justice Hurwitz, who wrote about the most influential opinion written by Judge Newman while Justice Hurwitz was clerking for him. Justice Hurwitz wrote the Newman article to ``document the historical record about the effect of Judge Newman's decisions on subsequent Supreme Court jurisprudence.'' [Hurwitz Responses to the Written Questions of Senator Jeff Sessions, question 1(a), pg. 1.] He did not express his ``personal opinions'' on the merits of Judge Newman's reasoning in Abele I or Abele II, something that Justice Hurwitz believes would be ``improper for a law clerk to do, either then or now.'' [Hurwitz Responses to the Written Questions of Senator Jeff Sessions, question 1(a), pg. 1.] Although Justice Hurwitz ``assisted in the research,'' ``Judge Newman wrote the [Abele II] opinion, as he did all opinions which bore his name during the time [Justice Hurwitz] clerked for him.'' [Hurwitz Responses to the Written Questions of Senator Tom Coburn, question 8, pg. 5.] Further, as a law clerk, Justice Hurwitz was required to implement Judge Newman's preferences, not his own. Thus, Judge Newman's opinion cannot be attributed to Justice Hurwitz. If someone told me that Justice Hurwitz was pro-choice, I would believe that, though he has never said, and he did not express his personal opinions in the Law Review article about the decision that his previous boss, a federal judge, had written. His boss, Judge Newman, wrote an opinion that was part of the basis for Roe v. Wade, a decision with which I wholeheartedly disagree. Andrew Hurwitz wrote about that. Somehow my friends in the pro-life community have turned this into a federal case against him. What do they suggest? That he approved of Roe v. Wade. The point is that Andrew Hurwitz has never in his career on the Arizona State Supreme Court evidenced any inability to separate his own personal views from the judging that he is required to do. And I would defy any of these people who think they know more about it than I do to show me a case if they can find one where that is not true. Justice Andrew Hurwitz is known in Arizona as a very fair jurist who applies the law fairly and without regard to his personal inclinations. That is the kind of judge he will be on the Ninth Circuit of Appeals. If my reputation among my conservative colleagues means anything, I simply say I know the man; I have known him a long time; and my good friends in the conservative community have every confidence in Andrew Hurwitz. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that as part of this agreement that I be given 7 minutes before the vote.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to strongly support the upcoming Bingaman-Vitter amendment, which is basically an amendment form that Bingaman-Vitter Fair Generics Act would stop an escalating trend in the drug industry which has pay-for-delay deals between a generic manufacturer and a big pharmaceutical manufacturer. Over the last several years we have seen a huge increase, and we have seen this trend grow from modest to a raging trend, and it is anticompetitive. It is pay-for-delay deals in which the brand-name drug dealer pays off or settles with the first-to-file generic drugmaker, often restricting generic market entry for years into the future. As prescription drug prices explode, they put real pressure and burdens on many Americans' budgets because they are making medications that should be more affordable in terms of coming onto the market. They are postponing those drugs, paying for the delay, and holding them off the market longer and longer. The FTC has compiled data and made clear that this trend is happening, and the FTC, an official government agency, said: The continued trends of record numbers of brands and generics resolving patent litigation prior to a final court decision [yields] significant numbers of such settlements potentially involving pay-for-delay. Those were the FTC's words. In 2004 the FTC had identified zero of those sorts of pay-for-delay deals. In 2006 it was up to 14. In 2011 it doubled to 28. Clearly it is a big trend. That is ``28 final settlements (that) contain both compensation to the generic manufacturer and a restriction on the generic manufacturer's ability to market its product.'' This fair generics bill, through this amendment, fixes the problem. That was the intent of the original Hatch-Waxman language, but there was a loophole that has been exploited in this pay-for-delay deal because the first filer is granted exclusivity even if the first filer is paid off and settles and doesn't pursue its ability to enter the market. The Fair Generics Act would fix that, and it would basically outlaw that sort of marketing of generics. It would realign and reaffirm the incentive and reward not just for filing first but for successfully challenging and invalidating a patent. So we would move the first filing exclusivity to a reward for filing and also successfully invalidating a patent. It is a realistic proposal. It would allow the first filer to follow through on that filing. It would encourage it, but also if that is not going to happen, it would allow subsequent filers to litigate and validate the patent and thereby gain ability to enter the marketplace. I really think this was the intent of Hatch-Waxman. Unfortunately, there is a loophole that has been exploited in Hatch- Waxman that has led to these serious pay-for delay cases. Again, this is an escalating trend that is still growing. I have no doubt that when we get the number for 2012, it is going to be significantly above the 2011 number of 28. So to simplify it, if the first filer does not enter into a settlement with the restricted and delayed market entry date and if it does diligently challenge and invalidate a patent, nothing changes under present law. The current 6-month market exclusivity reward remains. So that incentive, that reward absolutely remains. However, if that doesn't happen and the first filer just wants to settle or park its filing and is generic, a subsequent filer would have the ability to step up and challenge the patent and, if it won, it would have market access. This solution provides more litigation certainty. We propose basically a use-it-or-lose-it statute for the brand name to sue the generic within the 45-day window. Current law provides a brand manufacturer a 30-month stay if they sue the generic within the 45-day window but still allows a suit after. So, again, I believe this is a reasonable and measured approach. This is not as Draconian or dramatic an approach as other proposals in the Senate. I believe this is the middle ground, and I believe this honors and gets us back to the original intent on this subject of Hatch- Waxman. But it is a measured response to this escalating trend that we clearly see, that the FTC has objectively identified and measured--a so-called pay-for-delay arrangement. In conclusion, the goal of Hatch-Waxman was to bring generics to the market more quickly. This approach, the FAIR Generics Act, will do that. There are anticompetitive deals that are being struck more and more often--pay for delay--and they are becoming much more prevalent, and they are hurting American families. The mega-lobbyist pharmaceutical industry, of course, opposes this reform because, quite frankly, those pay-for-delay deals are a way to buy more exclusivity and keep generics off the market longer. But that is not in the interests of the consumer. It is time to stand up to them. It is time to have some courage, to stand up to Big Pharma and say: We are going to preserve your exclusivity for developing a drug, but we are not going to let you buy off generics and unfairly extend that time period. We are going to let generics come to market in a reasonable time. We are going to create incentives to make sure that happens. I urge all of my colleagues to support that proposal, which is embodied in the Bingaman-Vitter amendment, the FAIR Generics Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will not object. I want to ensure that I will have 10 minutes in support of the Bingaman-Vitter amendment prior to the vote as was promised to me.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, may I inquire to the Chair how much time is remaining.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader very much for this important announcement and this plan. It certainly meets two--

Mr. VITTER. Yes. I have no intention of his losing the floor. I just want to thank him for the announcement. From my perspective, it meets the two main goals we have been in search of: first of all, making sure in the short term there is not a lapse of the program; that would be disastrous; that would cancel, as the majority leader suggested, thousands of good closings, really put a hiccup in the economy for no good reason--and, in addition, getting to a permanent bill in the next work period. So I appreciate the leader's announcement. I would also note, as he did, that there has been great work and great progress in narrowing the field of relevant amendments. I certainly hope that leads to a limited and reasonable number of amendment votes, as he does, on the floor. I understand what he said about, if that becomes unwieldy, we will just proceed with the bill as is. But that certainly it is my expectation. I will continue to work on that amendment list so we can have a reasonable opportunity for relevant amendments.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, Senator Sessions and I come to the Senate floor today to discuss the Child Tax Credit Integrity Preservation Act, the bill I introduced last year, to address a real problem with IRS enforcement allowing illegal aliens to access the additional child tax credit. The reality is, because of this enforcement problem and this loophole in terms of how the child tax credit is enforced, illegal aliens who pay no taxes and are not entitled to this check from the government received $4.2 billion in 2010 alone. These are checks from the government through the Child Tax Credit Act. There have been several studies under the President Obama administration that say this is ridiculous, this is unintended, we need to stop this. I am proposing we do and that we move forward in a simple, bipartisan, commonsense way to stop it. Let me briefly note some of those studies. In March of 2009, the Treasury Department said: As it now stands, the payment of Federal funds through this tax benefit appears to provide an additional incentive for aliens to enter, reside, and work in the United States without authorization, which contradicts Federal law and policy to remove such incentives. In July 2011, the Treasury Department, through its inspector general, issued a report that was actually entitled ``Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.'' So, again, under this administration the Treasury Department and the IRS underscore that this is a huge problem to the tune of $4.2 billion every year. I urge all of us to come together in a straightforward, commonsense, bipartisan way to fix this problem. The IRS and the Treasury Department have told us that the fix is simple, and it is clear. We simply need to mandate that folks applying for the credit use valid Social Security numbers. That will cut off the fraud, and that will cut off $4.2 billion going improperly to illegal alien families. It will not cut off the benefit going to anyone who deserves it under the law. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 577

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 577, the Child Tax Credit Integrity Preservation Act, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, before the distinguished majority leader has to leave, I would just ask, through the Chair, if we can get some clarification and hopefully come to some consensus, is he suggesting that illegal aliens in the country should continue to receive the credit? Is he suggesting that citizens who qualify for the credit but happen to live outside the country should not get it? It seems to me the problem is illegal aliens receiving the credit, wherever they are physically, not the people outside the country who are receiving the credit, some of whom qualify for the credit. If I could bring that point up through the Chair.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, if I could respond through the Chair. I absolutely agree with the Senator from Alabama. Too often folks in Washington want to make things overly complicated. Some issues debated in the Congress are complicated. Other issues are not complicated, but they are made a whole lot more complicated than they need to be made, and this is one of those. All we are saying is folks who qualify for this benefit under the law should get it, but folks who don't qualify, including illegal alien families, should absolutely not get it. The law is clear on that. What we have is an enforcement problem. We also have the Obama administration, through the Treasury Department, absolutely agreeing that this is an enforcement problem and that this bill is the legitimate and proper solution. Again, in March 2009 the Treasury said: As it now stands, the payment of Federal funds through this tax benefit appears to provide an additional incentive for aliens to enter, reside, and work in the United States without authorization. . . . That means it is a magnet to draw more illegal crossings into the country. Again, in July 2007, the Treasury inspector general had a whole report, and the title was ``Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.'' That inspector general said what we need is fixed legislation just like this. In fact, this is what we do with regard to the earned-income tax credit. We require a valid Social Security number for that separate tax credit. We are simply applying that valid fix to this different tax credit. Again, let's not make a pretty straightforward situation difficult. Let's fix a glaring problem. As the Senator from Alabama said, it is a $4.2 billion-a-year problem. We come to the floor every day to talk about soaring deficits and debt, to talk about impending cuts in defense and other areas, and yet we have this glaring $4.2 billion savings that we are not taking advantage of. The House has acted. The House recently acted and passed exactly this provision. Let's act in a bipartisan, commonsense way in the Senate and tell the American people we are going to stop wasting $4.2 billion a year for this completely unauthorized purpose.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish to thank very much my colleague from Alabama for his leadership on the Budget Committee and his leadership on issues such as this. I want to encourage the distinguished majority leader to look at the actual details of the problem and this legislation. When he does, he will see that this legislation is very finely tuned to the actual problem, and it is an outrageous problem. There has been quite a bit of media attention on this abuse over the last several months. A lot of it came out of Indiana. A tax preparer there brought cases in Indiana and said he got no response from the IRS when he tried to report completely fraudulent returns using fake income and documents. He pointed to a number of actual tax forms in which illegal aliens were exploiting this. He said: ``I can bring out stacks and stacks. It is just so easy, it is ridiculous.'' An illegal alien who was actually interviewed admitted in another case that his address was used by four other illegal aliens who didn't even live there. All told, they claimed 20 children were living in one trailer, and they received checks from the government through this program totaling over $29,000. Only one child was ever observed at that mobile home. Twenty other children who live in Mexico have never even visited the United States. Again, let's not make a simple fix overly complicated because it is not. This is an outrageous abuse. The Obama administration Treasury Department has said so. They have endorsed this fix. The House has passed this fix. Let us in the Senate pass this fix on a bipartisan basis and save the American taxpayer $4.2 billion each and every year. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. I would say, through the Chair, thank you for that clarification. We have exactly the same goal in mind, and I believe this approach of the Vitter bill--the House has already passed this approach recently, and its budget outline actually accomplishes that. By requiring a valid Social Security number, we allow everyone who truly qualifies for the credit to get it, and we stop it from going to illegal alien families who do not deserve the credit under the law. I invite my distinguished colleague from Alabama to add to the discussion.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I will.

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to debate and oppose the two Federal Reserve nominees President Obama has sent to the Senate. First, let me say I think it is very important, very good, very healthy that we are having this debate and we are having these votes. That is how the Senate should operate, particularly on very important Presidential nominations, and these certainly fit into that category. The Federal Reserve is an extremely important body for all sorts of reasons, but I will mention three in particular. First of all, it sets monetary policy, and that is a very important economic tool and set of economic policies. Right now this Federal Reserve, under Chairman Bernanke, has an unprecedented policy of zero-interest rates--easy money for an extended period of time--which is historically unprecedented. Secondly, the Federal Reserve is the primary regulator of our Nation's biggest banks, including Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and another that has been in the news quite a bit in the last few weeks, JPMorgan Chase. Obviously, all of these entities were involved in the recent economic crisis, so, again, the Federal Reserve is extremely important as those megabanks' primary regulator. We should be talking about that. Finally, the Federal Reserve has other important authority and responsibilities, including in situations where they have taken action to bail out these megabanks. They have that authority. They also have authority to issue regulations under Dodd-Frank. All of these points are reasons why these two nominations are extremely important. That is why I demanded this debate and these votes. Fundamentally, I demanded this debate and these votes for two reasons. First of all, I oppose these nominations. I am voting no. There was a UC promulgated, and that UC, had it been accepted, would have meant a ``yes'' vote for me. I couldn't vote that way for the reasons I will explain. Secondly, more broadly, I think it is important we have this debate and we have these votes, and this used to be the norm in the Senate. Between 1994 and 2000, all but two nominations to the Federal Reserve Board were voted on by the Senate. Yet since 2001 that has flipped, for some reason. Since 2001, only two nominees have received votes and 10 nominees were confirmed to the Board of Governors without a recorded vote. I think that is unfortunate. I think this is the proper way for the Senate to do its business, particularly when such important issues are at stake. Now let's talk about those issues. First of all, monetary policy. The Federal Reserve's primary responsibility--one of its two huge mandates--is to set healthy, proper monetary policy for the United States. Personally, I think that should be its only mandate--there are efforts here in the Congress to move the law to that position--but it certainly is a major role of the Federal Reserve and is extremely important. Once more, this Federal Reserve, under Chairman Bernanke, in this economy has set monetary policy in an unprecedented way, and that is not editorializing. That is a factual assessment, a factual description. Because this Federal Reserve has set essentially a zero- interest rate policy, an extremely easy money policy for an extended period of time, a very long period of time, without any end in sight, and that has never before happened. There are many experts, economists, and commentators who think this is very dangerous policy, and I share their concerns. I do not pretend to be an expert, as they are. I do not pretend, quite frankly, to have the economic training and background of Chairman Bernanke and others. But many of those who do have grave concerns with this unprecedented easy money policy. Let me mention a few. Dr. Allan Meltzer, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, sees signs of this building up future inflation and a weakening dollar and believes the Fed did great harm in these categories with its Quantitative Easing 2, so-called QE2. Dr. Meltzer has read Fed minutes for years and has written the definitive ``History of the Federal Reserve'' and says the central problem is there is a lack of discussion of alternatives and consequences of their policies. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City President Thomas Hoenig said the Fed's plan to push down long-term interest rates may produce very adverse accidental outcomes and policymakers risk creating real ``imbalances'' in the economy. He said: I have real concerns about trying to fine-tune and micro- manage the economy when monetary policy is a blunt tool. Richard Fisher of Dallas said he believes the Federal Reserve's monetary policy has yet to show evidence of working. He is the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas president. He says in particular, the Fed's plan to buy $400 billion of long-term bonds while selling the same amount of short-term debt is benefiting financiers and not aiding job creation. Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser, in a speech on economic outlook to the Business Leaders Forum at the Villanova School of Business, expressed extreme skepticism with that so-called Operation Twist, trading long-term debt for short-term debt, and he did not think it would encourage business investment or consumer spending. He said: I dissented from these decisions because I believe that they will do little to improve the near-term prospects for economic growth or employment and they do pose risks. So there are very legitimate, strong concerns which I share on the current monetary policy of this Federal Reserve, and it is very clear from the statements of these two nominees that these two nominees will support that policy, will support that direction for the foreseeable future, will not provide dissent, will not provide alternative viewpoints. In addition, let me mention three other things about the Fed. As I mentioned, the Fed in general is the primary regulator of the megabanks, and, still, I believe we do not have adequate focus and adequate regulation in that category. I would only point to the recent disastrous announcement of JPMorgan Chase. Also, the Fed, with five affirmative votes, passes regulations under Dodd-Frank under its authority. That process is ongoing right now. Why are these two nominations significant in impacting the development of those Dodd-Frank regulations one way or the other? Well, it is pretty simple. Those Dodd-Frank regulations coming out of the Fed need five affirmative votes. Right now, there are five members of the Board of Governors, so they need to reach complete unanimity with regard to those regulations. When the possible negative impact of those regulations is such a threat, I think that required unanimity is actually very healthy and a real protection. These two new members of the Fed change the map, change the requirement from needing five out of five to needing five out of seven. I think that will significantly push these regulations to the left, if you will, and require and therefore produce less consensus, which those with economic viewpoints such as mine wish to see continued. In the same vein, the Fed is certainly significant in not only regulating the megabanks but, in instances like 2 years ago, bailing out the megabanks. They have that authority and they have that role. Just as with Dodd-Frank regulations, that requires five affirmative votes of the Fed Board. Again, right now, before these two confirmations, that would need five out of five. It would require unanimity. I think that is healthy, actually, with regard to such an extreme measure as huge taxpayer-funded bailouts, as we have seen in the last 3 years. If these two new nominees to the Board are confirmed, that math, again, would change in exactly the same way: The requirement would move from five out of five to five out of seven. It would shift the outcome to the left, if you will. It would make it much more likely that the Fed would act sooner to bail out megabanks with taxpayer funds. I have all of these concerns about these nominations. These two nominees are fine, decent men. They are smart. They are qualified in the professional sense. However, they clearly also support the current direction of Chairman Bernanke and the Fed. For that reason, I cannot support the nominations, and I have real concerns. But, in closing, let me say that at least I think it is positive we are having this debate and we are voting. As I cited, that used to be the norm in the Senate, including with regard to Federal Reserve Board of Governors nominations. These are very important nominations because of monetary policy, because of their regulatory authority, because of bailouts, and Dodd-Frank, and all the rest. It is more important--now more than ever--because of the unprecedented nature of Chairman Bernanke's and the Fed's monetary policy and because of the history of the last 3 years. We need this debate. We need these votes. I do not think spending about 2 hours on it on the floor of the Senate is too much to ask, so I am glad I asked for that. I am glad I demanded that. With that opportunity, I will be voting no. Mr. President, I yield back my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I now call up Vitter amendment No. 2103, which is at the desk.