David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. This is very little to ask this Congress to do--to agree, within 6 or 8 years, to do the hard work to balance our budget in return for giving the President more authority to borrow more money. We owe it to the American people to let them decide for themselves and let the States ratify it. This is a huge decision. All we are asking our Democratic colleagues to do is to let America decide if we should have a balanced budget. Let America decide if it is a radical, extreme idea that we live within our means and stop spending more than we are bringing in. I know how America is going to answer that question, and that is why I want to give them the chance to answer it. Mr. President, you have the money you need to meet our obligations, but once and for all we need to mean what we say and stop spending this country into bankruptcy. I thank the Chair. I yield.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I would like to close on my czar amendment and encourage strong bipartisan support. Mr. President, we have a bill before us about the Senate advice and consent process--the Senate confirmation process--and I think it would be a tragedy to consider any bill on that subject and not, in fact, address the biggest issue, the biggest problem with that process that exists now--certainly also in the eyes of the American people--and that is the abuse by the Executive, over several administrations but culminating in this administration, of appointing so-called czars as an end run around the U.S. Constitution, as an end run around the powers of the Senate and the balance of power of advice and consent and confirmation. My amendment would fix that. It would defund czars and their offices. It is carefully crafted, it is carefully defined, and it would say we are not going to allow these czars to operate when they are essentially taking the place and the function of what should be a Senate-confirmed position. Again, the language is careful. It is carefully thought out, it is carefully crafted, and there are exceptions in the language which are important, so I commend all my colleagues to look at that. But the main point is simple and clear and important: We shouldn't allow any Executive, any administration, to end-run the U.S. Constitution, to end-run the Senate's important and appropriate role of confirmation, or advice and consent. So I encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment. In closing, I thank several Members who have cosponsored the amendment--Senators Paul and Heller and Grassley--and I also thank very much Senator Collins, who has been a leader on this effort and has freestanding legislation on the topic which I support. We have and will continue to consult on this issue until we properly get the job done. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Barrasso be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I thank Senators Paul and Heller and Grassley for cosponsoring this amendment, which is about czars--this administration, any administration, usurping the appropriate role and authority of the Senate in the advice and consent process. This is, obviously, directly relevant to this legislation. As we debate this legislation designed to reduce the number of positions in the government that require Senate confirmation, we should also ensure that the Senate's role is not eroded by unconfirmed Federal czars in very significant positions which should be subject to advice and consent. That is what my amendment is about. That is what my amendment would correct. This amendment would ensure that any administration--not just this one, any administration, Republican, Democrat, other--is prevented from using so-called czars for similar positions to perform duties that are the responsibility of those positions subject to confirmation by prohibiting funding of those so-called czar positions. Specifically, the amendment would prohibit funding for these czar positions. The amendment does not unduly restrict Presidential advisory staff. We all agree the President is entitled to direct advisers. Instead, it focuses on ``the head of any task force, council, policy office or similar office established by or at the direction of the President.'' It is aimed squarely at positions created in order to circumvent the advice and consent role of the Senate. Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened at greatly increasing frequency over the last several years. It also carves out of the prohibition and allows two things: No. 1, any individuals who are serving in the position of Assistant Secretary or the equivalent position that requires Senate confirmation, that situation is living by the normal, appropriate advice and consent requirement. It also carves out the assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and we include this carve-out simply to ensure that national security concerns are not impacted. As a result of these carefully crafted exemptions, my amendment would not remove the President's ability to have advisory staff and keeps the focus on the intended targets and the real abuses--czars created to circumvent the scrutiny of the Senate and the advice and consent and the confirmation process. Under the current administration, we have seen dramatic increases in this practice--in the amount of power given to these so-called czars appointed directly by the President and not subject to advice and consent and confirmation by the Senate. Politico has written that President Obama ``is taking the notion of a powerful White House staff to new heights'' and he is creating ``perhaps the most powerful staff in modern history.'' President Obama has created many of these new czar positions. Some include a climate czar, a health care czar, a pay czar, and more. The power of implementing policy and directing Federal agencies was never meant to be put in these czar positions, subject only to the control of the President. That was always meant to be put in high-level administration positions, subject to the advice and consent role of the Senate and subject to Senate confirmation. So in this bill, which is all about advice and consent and which is all about the confirmation process, we should certainly address the single biggest problem with that process in the eyes of the American people, which is recent administrations--particularly the current administration--just doing a straight end run around the Constitution, trying to ignore the genius of the Constitution, trying to ignore one of the fundamental balances created by the Constitution through Senate confirmation. With that in mind, I urge all my colleagues, Democratic and Republican, to support this Vitter amendment. This isn't an amendment against the Obama administration; this is an amendment for the advice and consent role of the Senate. This is an amendment in support of balance of powers. This is an amendment to preserve the significance of the confirmation process. Every Member of this Senate should be for that, no matter whose administration it is. Unfortunately, this czar practice has reached new heights recently, which is all the more reason we need to act. But we need to act to preserve and defend the Constitution, to preserve and defend the appropriate role of the Senate under the Constitution, advice and consent and confirmation. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I call up and would make pending amendment No. 499, which is part of the agreement in terms of the debate on this bill.

Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the Community Foundation of North Louisiana on the occasion of its 50th anniversary on June 26, 2011. The Community Foundation of North Louisiana has had a widespread impact in our State, and I applaud its exceptional efforts to enrich Louisiana communities. Since 1961, the Community Foundation has been committed to providing emergency aid during disasters, strengthening communities and nonprofit organizations through programs like the Endowment Challenge Program, and establishing partnerships such as the Aspen Ideas Mini-Festival that bring citizens and local leaders together. Endeavors such as the Genius Fund, the Women's Philanthropy Network, and the Northwest Louisiana Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster are further examples of how the Community Foundation's generosity has successfully improved the community and the lives of so many Louisianans. Under the leadership of COL James Hellums Tucker, Jr., the foundation has grown from an organization with a modest $21,000 to one that has endowed more than $75 million. And through its goodwill and philanthropy, has awarded more than $40 million for more than 4,000 grants and scholarships so that organizations and students can achieve their goals and realize their dreams. Again, I am proud to honor and applaud the Community Foundation of North Louisiana, the oldest in the State, on 50 years of charitable giving and congratulate them for their many contributions to our State.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge two very special people who have reached a significant milestone in their lives, Mr. and Mrs. John Bearden Williams. This week, Mr. Williams and his bride, Gretchen Schilde Williams, celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. John and Gretchen's marriage has been very blessed. They were married on June 6, 1971, in Baton Rouge, LA, at the First Baptist Church. Throughout their marriage they have maintained a strong partnership, working together in ministry and giving of themselves to their church and community. They have been longtime supporters of the Louisiana School for the Deaf, and Mr. Williams and his children were all featured in the Louisiana Bar Journal for their many years of service to the Baton Rouge legal community. During Mr. Williams' more than 40 years of legal practice, Mrs. Williams was a constant and committed advocate, organizer, and friend. Their unbreakable alliance has served to encourage, uplift, and bring out the best in one another, and the longevity of their union shows their deep and abiding love and commitment to each other, growing stronger throughout their journey. They have raised three children, Stephen Schilde, John Richard, and Cynthia Williams Dashiell, and are now the proud grandparents of five grandchildren--Haley, Jack, Mary Gretchen, Martin, and Scott. I am pleased to recognize and honor John Williams and Gretchen Williams as they celebrate 50 years of marriage, and I hope their family continues to be blessed.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, American families all around the country, certainly including Louisiana, are suffering as the price at the pump goes up and up. It does so just as we are trying to get ready to enjoy a little vacation time with our families, use more gasoline maybe driving places. That is always tough. But it is not just a typical summer experience. This is worse than ever. I have the sinking feeling this is more permanent. I am afraid this is not a blip, that this is a long-term trend and it is hitting American families in the pocketbook hard. It is hitting Louisianans in the pocketbook hard. At the same time we see historic turmoil in the Middle East. We see so many signs that we need to get hold of our energy picture. So energy and the need for, among other things, increased domestic energy production is absolutely crucial. That is why it is so darn disappointing what we are going to do or, perhaps more appropriately, not do on this crucial subject in the Senate this week. First of all, it is disappointing because we are going to end up doing nothing. We are going to have some votes--we are going to have some debate--that are more or less messaging votes and nothing comes of it. That is disappointing because America needs leadership and action, not just posturing. Secondly, it is disappointing, in my opinion, when we look at the two proposals before us. Because I am deeply disappointed in them, I am going to vote against both proposals--the Menendez bill and the McConnell bill--although for very different reasons. The first vote will be later today on the Menendez bill. I am afraid this bill is just pure political demagoguery--attacking Big Oil because I suppose the author and some Members think that is an easy target and meanwhile doing nothing substantive about the real problem, providing no relief to Americans who are paying more and more at the pump. The bill purports to do away with taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil. Let me give the factual translation of that. The factual translation is to increase taxes on certain energy companies by disallowing them from claiming the same sort of deductions and credits that thousands of other American businesses and manufacturers can claim, some of which go back and are almost as old as the income tax itself. That is the factual translation. Let me also give the translation of what it would do, according to nonpartisan sources, such as the Congressional Research Service. It would decrease gasoline supply and increase price at the pump. What a great result. American families are suffering as it is going into the summer with historically high prices. Measures are being proposed on the floor that would actually decrease supply and increase price, exactly the opposite of what we need. I am completely open to doing away with all sorts of deductions and exemptions in the Tax Code, but we should do that overall, across all industries, across all groups in America as part of fundamental tax reform. We should not just demagog the issue and target one industry and a few companies. The President's own deficit commission suggested that brand of fundamental tax reform. I agree with that general approach. Unfortunately, so far the President has not led on that issue, perhaps because it would mean not just impacts on big oil but maybe favorite companies of his, such as GE, that might have to pay some taxes or maybe gold mining companies in Majority Leader Reid's State of Nevada would also have to sacrifice very attractive special tax benefits. Let's get serious about two serious issues: fundamental tax reform and let's look at that and lead on that and let's get serious about energy. I also have to say I am deeply disappointed with the McConnell bill. It does some positive things at the margin in terms of opening access. But meanwhile, the very first section of the bill, the very first substantive section, which is section 2, actually increases the regulatory burden in the permitting process. I can tell you, living in the gulf, we have been trying to slog through that overly burdensome permitting process to let energy companies get permits to begin with. That process is already too burdensome, too cumbersome, too long. It virtually shut down the gulf, produced less energy, and has thrown a lot of Louisianans and Americans out of work. We need to streamline that process. We need to accelerate that process, not add any new burdens and any new hurdles in it. Unfortunately, section 2 of the McConnell bill does exactly that. It increases the burdens and requirements and hurdles of even the new Obama regulations that have been put in place since the BP disaster. Specifically, since the BP disaster, the Obama administration has required containment plans to be presented and approved by the Interior Department before exploration plans and drilling permits are issued. This bill would go further than that and add a new layer and a new level and a new requirement that even before submission to Interior, these containment plans would have to be third-party reviewed. Again, I think this is a completely unnecessary extra burden, extra hurdle, extra layer of requirement. We need to make the permitting process smoother, more streamlined, more accelerated, not move in the opposite direction. Secondly, while the McConnell bill opens a little bit more access, it is very modest. It does not touch the eastern gulf. It hardly touches the Atlantic. It does not touch the Pacific coast. It does nothing onshore, including in our western shale areas, where there are enormous oil resources trapped in that western shale which we can access because of new and safe technology. I am also disappointed that the bill is so modest in terms of increased access. To summarize, this week is pretty darn frustrating for me. It is frustrating because we are not going to do anything. There is going to be a whole bunch of sound and fury, in the end signifying nothing--all too common an experience in the Senate. When we look at the two specific proposals, they are darn frustrating--the first pure demagoguery; the second moving in the wrong direction in terms of the permitting process and not being big and bold enough in terms of opening access. The United States is the single most energy-rich country in the world, bar none. Only Russia even comes close. No Middle Eastern country--Saudi Arabia, anyone else--comes close to our overall energy richness, our resources. But we are the only country in the world that puts 95 percent of all those resources off-limits under law; says, no, can't touch the eastern gulf, can't touch the Atlantic, can't touch the Pacific, can't touch Alaska offshore, can't touch ANWR, going to make it difficult in western shale. Over and over we make it difficult to impossible to produce good, reliable American energy right here at home. Most recently we have done that by virtually shutting down the only productive part of the United States in terms of energy--the western Gulf of Mexico. That is what we need to change. We need to change that in a big way. In closing, let me say, I am a proponent of all of the above. It is not either/or. It is not just oil and gas. But it is also not just new, undeveloped, advancing forms of technology and energy. We need all of the above in a big way. Let's come together around that commonsense wisdom of the American people who favor all of the above, and let's start doing all of the above aggressively. But that surely has to include much more domestic production of energy, open access to all these vast resources we have. We can do it. We can do it safely. We need to do it to provide some relief to American families. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge and honor a very special group, the Louisiana HonorAir. Louisiana HonorAir is a not-for-profit group that flies as many as 200 World War II veterans a year up to Washington, DC. On May 28, 2011, a group of 85 veterans will travel to Washington as part of this very special program. I want to take a moment to thank all the brave veterans visiting our Capital for this trip: Mr. Jack A. Adams; Mr. Sidney L. Agnelly; Mr. Paul K. Anderson; Ms. Theresa J.R. Anderson; Mr. Walton H. Blanchard, Sr.; Mr. James C. Bond, Sr.; Mr. James E. Bowie; Mr. Warren B. Braud; Mr. Herman Broussard; Mr. Henry A. Buchholz, Jr.; Mr. Elmer H. Cates; Ms. Bonnie Clabijo; Mr. John S. Cordero, Sr.; Mr. Robert G. Daigle, Sr.; Mr. James P. Daigre; Mr. Albert J. Daube; Mr. Dudley J. David; Mr. Henry F. Deist; Mr. Dudley E. Duhon; Mr. Rene I. Duhon; Mr. Woodrow Duhon; Mr. Sherman Faught; Mr. Arthur C. Flory. Mr. Roman A. Guidry; Mr. Edwin Hardy; Mr. Ernest Haydel; Mr. Harold C. Hill; Mr. Lloyd E. Hogan; Ms. Lillian F. Hoover; Mr. Warren D. Huggins; Mr. Gordon L. Jarnigan; Mr. Eugene B. Johnson; Ms. Geneva R. Johnson; Mr. Hubert Lane Joyner; Mr. John M. Key; Mr. Julius J. Klos; Mr. Albert L. Klotz, Jr.; Mr. Fred C. Kraus, Jr.; Mr. Anthony Labruzza; Mr. Emile A. Lambert, Jr.; Mr. Joseph H. Lauff, Jr.; Mr. James LeBlanc; Mr. Robert D. Lowe; Mr. Curtis J. Marcello; Mr. Eustace A. Marionneaux; Mr. Joseph T. McKay. Mr. Stephen L. McMurray; Mr. Tanner A. Messina; Mr. Randolph J. Olano, Jr.; Mr. Roy Patton; Mr. Lawrence J. Pellegrin, Sr.; Mr. Earl J. Perere; Mr. Sidney J. Quatrevingt; Mr. William C. Rabalais; Mr. Ralph L. Richardson; Mr. Joseph J. Rockoforte; Mr. Alger J. Rodriguez; Mr. John T. Roshto; Mr. Benjamin Rush; Mr. Louis C. Salzer; Ms. Florence F. Smith; Mr. Charles C. Spence; Mr. Clifton J. Stutes; Mr. Percy Thibodeaux; Mr. Wallace W. Thibodeaux; Mr. Ernest G. Walden; Mr. Bobby E. Williams; Mr. Clifton O. Wilson. While visiting Washington, DC, these veterans will tour the World War II Memorial, Arlington National Cemetery, the Iwo Jima Memorial, and the Korean Memorial. This program provides many veterans with their only opportunity to see the great memorials dedicated to their service. Thus, today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring these great Americans and thanking them for their devotion and service to our Nation.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, tomorrow, May 6, will mark the 1-year anniversary of the formal moratorium placed on Gulf of Mexico energy production by President Obama and Secretary Salazar. I wish to speak on the eve of that occasion, particularly as our constituents continue to see the price at the pump go up and up, with really no end in sight. I think those two facts are deeply related because I think this moratorium, which continues as a de facto moratorium--a ``permatorium'' or a permit logjam to this day--is really one of the most poorly thought out, mismanaged, and ill-conceived energy decisions in terms of domestic energy production in our history. The first of these moratoriums in the gulf--there are actually three different formal moratoriums--was announced on behalf of President Obama by Secretary Salazar 1 year ago tomorrow, May 6, 2010. It was done, in retrospect, we find out, very hastily and without scientific backing and justification. I say that because after that first moratorium was put down on May 6, 2010, on June 22 a Federal judge, Martin Feldman, of the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled against this job-crushing moratorium. It banned drilling below 500 feet of water for 6 months. But Judge Feldman put it on hold because he found that under Federal law it had failed to properly weigh a number of factors, including the economic impact it would have on the industry and surrounding communities. I might add, in a hearing we had in the Senate about the administration's decision to place the moratorium in effect, it was shocking to hear administration officials say very directly--no holds barred--that they never considered any economic impact in the decision whatsoever. Again, failing to properly weigh the economic impact of the decision has been a chronic problem in some agencies, such as the EPA. Unfortunately, this administration seems to have brought that same knee-jerk reaction to the Interior Department with the same economic illiteracy. In the Interior Department's infinite wisdom, on July 12, Secretary Salazar issued a backup second moratorium. The court struck down the first moratorium on the basis of existing Federal law, so he just came and issued a second moratorium on deepwater drilling. The second moratorium would soon be met with resistance and disappointment as coastal Louisiana communities would realize there was nothing they could do to stop Interior, which seemed hell-bent on adversely impacting their jobs. On October 12, Secretary Salazar celebrated an illusory victory by lifting that moratorium, and at the time, he claimed that ``the policy position we are articulating today is that we are open for business.'' That is what Secretary Ken Salazar said on October 12. Unfortunately, those of us who live in Louisiana and along the gulf coast know that is not true. What he should have said is, the policy position we are articulating today is that we are open for business as long as you don't need a permit from the Interior Department, because that second formal moratorium was lifted, but that brought us to the initiation of the third moratorium--not a formal moratorium but a de facto one, a permatorium, a complete permit logjam in this administration and at the Department of the Interior. Again, this has been commonly and accurately referred to as a de facto moratorium, sometimes a permatorium, an absolute permit logjam. Secretary Salazar has perpetuated that, and Director Bromwich has perpetuated that. They repeatedly stated it doesn't exist, but the facts, the statistics, the numbers make bare that lie. It would not be for 4 more months--until February 28 of this year-- that the Interior Department would issue the very first permit to drill in deep water an exploratory well. So, again, big celebration, big announcements that the formal moratorium was lifted, but for 4 months zero permits and only 4 months later the first deepwater exploratory permit. To date, even since February 28 of this year, there have only been 12 deepwater permits issued in the gulf. That pace is well below the pace before the BP disaster--about 60 percent slower than the prespill pace. This is for shallow and deep water combined. The pace of only deepwater new well permits--permits that would increase domestic supplies and our reserves--is forthcoming at the average pace of one per month--just a trickle, just a tiny percentage of the predisaster pace. Tomorrow will be 1 year since the Obama administration implemented this moratorium policy, the first of three crushing moratoriums, two formal moratoriums, the ongoing de facto moratorium. The Energy Information Administration--and that is a nonpartisan division of the Department of Energy--is now estimating that the falloff in domestic production this year alone will be about 200,000 barrels per day--that is a lot of oil, 200,000 barrels per day--and an additional 200,000 barrels per day in 2012. To put this falloff in production that is expected from the Obama administration's policy in perspective, as a result of the permitting logjam, by 2012 we would lose as much production in the Gulf of Mexico as we currently import from Brazil and Colombia combined. These are the two countries, by the way, that are supported with taxpayer-funded guaranteed projects related to their energy production. This falloff in production in the gulf by 2012 is roughly equivalent also to what we imported in January from Iraq. There are several points I would like to highlight for tomorrow's anniversary of the initiation of this moratorium policy. First, the price of gasoline at the pump is now $3.98 a gallon. It has more than doubled since President Obama took office. There is perhaps not a greater antistimulus for our economy than the doubling of the price at the pump. Second, seven deepwater rigs have left the Gulf of Mexico. They are gone, and they are not coming back anytime soon. In addition, five are cold- stacked or without a contract. That is a total of 12 rigs. Ironically, that is exactly the same number of deepwater permits the Interior Department has issued--a trickle compared to pre-BP levels. Third, what minor credit I should give the Interior Department for this abysmal pace of permitting will be noted when I release my hold on the nomination of Dan Ashe. I am currently holding that nomination of a top-level Interior Department official. I said I would hold it until we got at least 15 deepwater exploratory permits. At the time I initiated that, there were zero. As I said, that is now finally up to 12. I said I would lift the hold when we got to 15. We are just three away. We will get there. I will lift the hold. But that is merely a trickle of what our pace needs to be. Fourth, today I will be introducing an important piece of legislation. It is called the Agency Overreach Moratorium Act. We need a moratorium. We need a moratorium on regulatory overreach, agency overreach, as we see in the Interior Department, in EPA, in many other agencies. This legislation is intended to prevent Federal action that would unilaterally destroy jobs on Federal lands on the OCS. That is happening every day at the Interior Department. Instead of issuing permits to find American energy, they are issuing regulations, the most recent on a whole new category of contractors--completely unnecessary because they were already regulating the drillers. That is regulatory overreach, and that is job-killing action. My Agency Overreach Moratorium Act will lay out the real moratorium we need on job-killing action out of Washington, out of this administration, not on domestic energy production. I thank all of my colleagues, and I hope we will all come together soon around a commonsense, proactive domestic energy policy. It needs to include a lot. I am a fervent believer in all of the above, but it certainly needs to start lifting the continuing de facto moratorium on U.S. energy production, on U.S. jobs, on good additional Federal revenue to the U.S. Treasury to lower our deficit if we are going to get on the right energy path. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge and honor a very special group of veterans. In appreciation of their selfless service to our country, Brookshire's Grocery and Super 1 Foods have sponsored a World War II Heroes Flight that will take 33 World War II veterans to Washington, DC, free of charge. A group of 27 veterans will be in Washington May 10-12, 2011, for this very special trip. I want to take a moment to thank all these brave veterans visiting our Capital city this trip: Peter Ballas, Shreveport, LA; Sam Canter, Blanchard, LA; Nick DeFatta, Shreveport, LA; Les Eckhard, Shreveport, LA; Chuck Fellers, Shreveport, LA; Mason Ferguson, Shreveport, LA; Dale Foster, Homer, LA; James Fraiser, Minden, LA; Bootsie Frazier, Shreveport, LA; Aubrey Gaston, Choudrant, LA; Frank Guraedy, West Monroe, LA; Bobby Harrell, Shreveport, LA; Snookie Harrison, Shreveport, LA; Ken Hawkins, Bossier City, LA; Robert Hawkins, Shreveport, LA; Gene Hodgkins, Monroe, LA; Pete Johnson, Shreveport, LA; Dorothy Kneipp, Keithville, LA; Glenn Murphy, Alexandria, LA; Don Odom, Homer, LA; Earl Owens, Shreveport, LA; Frank Porter, Shreveport, LA; Ray Rushing, Shreveport, LA; Grady Shows, Shreveport, LA; Don Tompkins , Bossier City, LA; Wilmer Warrington, Shreveport, LA; Fred Wells, Shreveport,

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today to explain why I am voting no on the budget deal later this afternoon. First and foremost, I am voting no because I do not think this is a meaningful, substantial start to getting our hands around what is the biggest threat and potential crisis we face as a nation--out-of-control spending and debt. I suppose $38 billion is more of a cut than we have ever done. But if we put it in any other context, it is very modest indeed. Take a look at the 8 days leading up to the announcement of this deal and those 8 days alone--barely more than a week. We as a nation racked up $54 billion of brandnew debt, way more than the $38 billion of cuts in just 8 days. That gives some perspective on exactly how modest and how limited in meaning this is. When you dig a little deeper to look at the details of the cuts, I am afraid the picture gets even worse. A lot of these cuts are paper cuts only--only cuts on paper that do not have a meaningful impact in the real world. There has been significant reporting about this. The Justice Department fund and other examples--that probably accounts for $12 billion or $13 billion of the cuts. In addition, yesterday the CBO issued a report that said only 1 percent of those cuts--$350 million or so--would have an impact this fiscal year. All the rest is pushed off well into the future. Because of that, I am voting no. I think we need a much stronger start to getting our fiscal house in order. In addition, I am very concerned about what this budget deal continues to fund in terms of policy, in terms of impact on Americans' lives. The clearest example of that for me is the continuing funding of Planned Parenthood. I believe it is morally wrong to end an innocent human life. I also believe it is morally reprehensible to take tax dollars of millions of pro-life Americans in order to fund organizations that do just that. Americans should not be forced to subsidize abortions, much less fund our Nation's largest abortion provider. That is what Planned Parenthood is, pure and simple. Opponents of defunding Planned Parenthood have argued in the news and even on the Senate floor that the organization provides many other health care services other than abortions, such as mammograms. We have seen recently that is a big fiction. Planned Parenthood's CEO repeated this assertion recently on news shows. She claimed: If this bill ever becomes law-- Meaning the defunding of Planned Parenthood-- millions of women in this country are going to lose their healthcare access--not to abortion services--to basic family planning, you know, mammograms. As I said, in recent days, this has been shown to be a huge fiction. Live Action, which is a pro-life group, recorded calls in the last several days to 30 Planned Parenthood clinics in 27 States. In each conversation, a woman calls in and asks if she can schedule an appointment for a mammogram. And in each conversation, without exception, the Planned Parenthood representative tells her they do not provide mammograms. Period. One staffer admits: We do not provide those services whatsoever. Another explains: We actually don't have a mammogram machine at our clinics. The staffer at Planned Parenthood in DC was perhaps clearest. She said: We do not provide mammograms . . . we don't deal with the health side of it so much. We're mostly a surgical facility. By the way, surgery means one thing: abortion. This Planned Parenthood staffer is exactly right: 98 percent of their services to pregnant women constitute abortions--98 percent. This chart lays this out very clearly. This pie chart represents 2009 Planned Parenthood services to pregnant women. The universe of services to pregnant women, abortions is in dark red, 98 percent. Adoption referrals is in blue. I apologize if you cannot see that. The sliver is that tiny. You have to be up close. And all other prenatal care is in green. That is the reality of Planned Parenthood. We have also seen a recent onslaught of ads that claim Planned Parenthood is simply a leading provider of women health services, but abortion accounts for roughly one-third of the $1 billion generated by its clinics. In fact, Planned Parenthood's annual report acknowledges it provides primary care to 19,700 of its 3 million clients. Number of clients: 3 million; those to whom it provided primary health care: 19,700. The provision to cut title X funding for health services, such as breast cancer screenings, HIV testing, counseling, and other valuable family planning services, would not block funding for those services at nonabortion providers. It would simply block funds from subsidizing America's largest abortion provider, and abortion is almost everything Planned Parenthood does. Furthermore, Medicaid spends $1.4 billion on family planning each year. Not $1 of those funds would be affected by this resolution and this proposal. The question we face today is not if family planning and women's health services will be provided but, instead, if we are going to use that as an excuse to fund the biggest abortion provider in the country which does little else. Although I personally believe abortion is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution, I recognize the sad reality that abortion on demand is legal in this country. Again, this debate is not about that. It is not about whether Planned Parenthood has the right to perform abortions, and it is not about funding true health care services. The question before us is whether millions of pro-life taxpayers have to fund this entity. Every year since 2000, the government has increased its funding of Planned Parenthood on average $22.2 million per year. As a direct reflection of that, the number of abortions they perform has dramatically increased, even though the overall abortion rate, thank God, in the United States has declined until 2008. This chart lays out the situation clearly. What is in green represents government grants and contracts to Planned Parenthood. It has consistently gone up and up, a significant increase virtually every year. What is in red represents abortions by Planned Parenthood. Very interesting. There is virtually the same slope of an increase, while at the same time for this entire period until 2008 abortions nationwide were actually going down. I do not understand how anyone can look at this and say there is not a connection, say we are not using taxpayer dollars to promote and fund abortion. This notion that it is not used directly for abortion services is a convenient fiction because it is a shell game, because it, in fact, funds Planned Parenthood, and 98 percent of what they do is about abortion. According to their latest annual report, Planned Parenthood boasted more than $363 million in taxpayer funding, the same year it performed an unprecedented 324,000 abortions. Planned Parenthood's abortion rate massively outpaces its adoption referrals in particular. In 2008, a woman entering a Planned Parenthood clinic was 134 times more likely to have an abortion than to be referred for an adoption. In fact, this final chart shows that as Planned Parenthood's abortion rate steadily increased to that staggering number of 332,000 in 2009, its adoption referrals actually decreased to 977 that same year. So again, abortions are in deep red, adoption referrals are in blue, and all other prenatal care is in green. What is the reality, what is the history, what are the facts? Abortions go up dramatically in Planned Parenthood, prenatal services go down, and adoption services go down as abortions go up. Planned Parenthood has made a profit every year since 1987, including a $63.4 million return in 2009. There is no justification for subsidizing Planned Parenthood's profitable venture with taxpayer dollars, particularly when roughly half or more of those taxpayers deeply disagree with abortion. The sanctity of human life is a principle Congress should proclaim at every opportunity, and the time has come to respect the wishes of so many millions of Americans who have adamantly opposed using taxpayer dollars for abortions by denying all Federal funding to this abortion machine. This is a social issue, of course. It is also a fiscal issue. Our Federal budget is out of control. We are facing unsustainable debt. So given that, in particular, isn't it time to stop funding an organization that millions of Americans have fundamental problems with? If our Federal Government has any hope of regaining fiscal restraint, we have to make significant cuts--more significant than are being proposed in the deal before us today. I refuse to believe that Planned Parenthood is the one sacred cow that should stand untouched and be untouchable. The time has come to change this situation and to respect the wishes of the huge majority of Americans who, whether they are pro-life or prochoice, think taxpayer dollars should not subsidize abortion. And that is clearly what is going on with Planned Parenthood. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleague Senator Landrieu in introducing today this RESTORE the Gulf Coast Act of 2011. I want to also thank her and compliment her on her leadership on this issue. Senator Landrieu has been developing this legislation tirelessly since the tragedy, working with many others who will soon be cosponsors, we hope, in this effort. I also want to recognize Congressman Steve Scalise and his Louisiana House colleagues for having similar legislation in the House. As we near this 1-year anniversary of the disaster, first we need to remember the victims, the human victims--the 11 people who lost their lives and their families. Those families still have a huge hole in their lives, and we need to continue to remember them and pray for them. But we also need to help restore the affected area. A lot of other lives were impacted through the environmental and economic devastation. We need to work on that as well. This RESTORE the Gulf Coast Act of 2011 would go a long way in restoring those lives, in healing those impacts. This was a horrible tragedy, and, of course, the physical, the environmental damage was borne by these five Gulf Coast States. Therefore, we think it is more than fair that 80 percent of the fines directly related to this event-- which would not have been incurred, would not be in existence but for this tragedy--be dedicated to restoration along the gulf coast. Senator Landrieu, with my support, and others, has worked out a very fair formula to impact all of the Gulf Coast States in a positive way. We think it is more than fair because it assures some minimum funding to all of the affected States and then has another pot of money that is specifically focused on direct impacts. We think this is a very fair way to go about it. It also dovetails with the work that has been going on in the States and federally through the President's commission on impacts. So we think this would be an excellent way to approach it. It is more than fair to the Federal Government and to the Federal taxpayer because the money retained that is still flowing to the Federal Treasury more than covers all the expenses of the Federal Government related to this event. It goes well beyond those direct expenses. Again, I thank my colleague for her leadership, and I ask all of our colleagues to come together around this effort. This concept has been explicitly endorsed by President Obama. This concept has been explicitly endorsed by the President's commission on the oilspill. All of those folks have absolutely said, yes, 80 percent of these Clean Water Act fines need to stay on the gulf coast for much-needed restoration. This legislation will get that done in a fair, straightforward way. I urge all of my colleagues to support it and help pass it in the next few weeks and months. Mr. President, with that, I turn the floor back to my colleague from Louisiana.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleague Senator Landrieu in introducing today this RESTORE the Gulf Coast Act of 2011. I want to also thank her and compliment her on her leadership on this issue. Senator Landrieu has been developing this legislation tirelessly since the tragedy, working with many others who will soon be cosponsors, we hope, in this effort. I also want to recognize Congressman Steve Scalise and his Louisiana House colleagues for having similar legislation in the House. As we near this 1-year anniversary of the disaster, first we need to remember the victims, the human victims--the 11 people who lost their lives and their families. Those families still have a huge hole in their lives, and we need to continue to remember them and pray for them. But we also need to help restore the affected area. A lot of other lives were impacted through the environmental and economic devastation. We need to work on that as well. This RESTORE the Gulf Coast Act of 2011 would go a long way in restoring those lives, in healing those impacts. This was a horrible tragedy, and, of course, the physical, the environmental damage was borne by these five Gulf Coast States. Therefore, we think it is more than fair that 80 percent of the fines directly related to this event-- which would not have been incurred, would not be in existence but for this tragedy--be dedicated to restoration along the gulf coast. Senator Landrieu, with my support, and others, has worked out a very fair formula to impact all of the Gulf Coast States in a positive way. We think it is more than fair because it assures some minimum funding to all of the affected States and then has another pot of money that is specifically focused on direct impacts. We think this is a very fair way to go about it. It also dovetails with the work that has been going on in the States and federally through the President's commission on impacts. So we think this would be an excellent way to approach it. It is more than fair to the Federal Government and to the Federal taxpayer because the money retained that is still flowing to the Federal Treasury more than covers all the expenses of the Federal Government related to this event. It goes well beyond those direct expenses. Again, I thank my colleague for her leadership, and I ask all of our colleagues to come together around this effort. This concept has been explicitly endorsed by President Obama. This concept has been explicitly endorsed by the President's commission on the oilspill. All of those folks have absolutely said, yes, 80 percent of these Clean Water Act fines need to stay on the gulf coast for much-needed restoration. This legislation will get that done in a fair, straightforward way. I urge all of my colleagues to support it and help pass it in the next few weeks and months. Mr. President, with that, I turn the floor back to my colleague from Louisiana.

Mr. VITTER

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

Mr. VITTER

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I watched with great interest President Obama's speech about our spending and debt crisis. That is what I would call it. He did not use as stark terms, unfortunately, but it is a spending and debt crisis. First of all, I am at least a little encouraged that he is finally beginning to enter the debate about this crisis. It is headed to a crisis. It is the greatest domestic threat we face as a nation. At least this speech acknowledges it is a huge threat and that his own budget submitted a few months ago was a pass on all of those big issues and he needed a redo. This is a great threat to all of our futures and prosperity. Let me try to put it in a little bit of perspective. Borrowing right now is at least 40 cents out of every $1 we spend. So for every $1 the Federal Government spends, 40 cents of that--over 40 cents--is borrowed money. We are spending $3.7 trillion a year, but we are only taking in $2.2 trillion. Because of that, we have recently been racking up over $4 billion of new debt every day. So every day: new debt of $4 billion a day. And a whole lot of that we owe to the Chinese, more than $1 trillion. That eventually has very serious consequences in terms of our prosperity, our future, the sort of country and vision and future we can leave for our kids. As interest rates go up--which they inevitably will if we stay on this path--that downright costs jobs. When interest rates go up 1 percent, Federal debt goes up $140 billion because the debt is so much. When those interest rates eventually go up, it makes it harder for all of us and our families to buy cars and homes, to pay tuition, to create jobs if we are a small business. ADM Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said: Our national debt is our biggest national security threat. The highest ranking person in uniform in charge of our national security says our biggest security threat is not Iran or North Korea or anyone else; it is actually this domestic debt issue. Debt at current levels--which is 94 percent of GDP--economists say that is already costing us about a million jobs because our debt level is so great. Again, at least the President, in his speech today--which is essentially a do-over of his budget from a few months ago--at least the President is beginning to acknowledge that fundamental threat, and that is good. But we need more than a speech, we need more than a vision. We need a real action plan, a detailed plan from the President, and we did not get that today. So my first reaction to the speech was that it was just that: It was a speech. It was a nice sounding speech. It had a lot of nice themes. But it was a speech. If the President, who is so quick to criticize Congressman Paul Ryan's budget--if he wants to enter the debate, he needs to enter it on a par with that level of detail, that level of specifics that Congressman Ryan and House Republicans gave. So the President needs to submit a new budget, a new detailed proposal, not just give a speech. Then we need to engage in a real debate and come up with a plan, an action plan, to tackle this spending and debt issue. And we need to do that before we vote on any debt limit increase. Speaking for myself, I am not going to consider increasing the debt limit, which the President wants all of us to do, unless and until there is tied to it a real plan to deal with this spending and debt crisis. So this speech today, perhaps, was a start. But my general reaction is, we need more than a speech. We need specifics. We need a new budget submission. Then we need to engage in a bipartisan discussion and negotiation. But we shouldn't wait until May, as the President suggested. That should start immediately--tomorrow--because we need to hammer out meaningful details before any proposal comes to the floor for votes to increase the debt limit. In terms of the general themes the President struck, I have to say I was disappointed because, to my ears, it was the same-old same-old. The first theme was increasing taxes. He has been at that theme over and over again, and that was absolutely the first theme he hit in his speech--increasing taxes. The problem is, if we look at the level of taxation we have, it is not extraordinarily low, it is not somehow way below normal historical averages. What is way above normal historical averages is spending. So if we just look at the data compared to history, we have a runaway spending problem; we don't have a taxation problem. The second big theme the President hit was cutting defense spending. Again, coming from a liberal, this is just the same-old same-old--a traditional, predictable theme to cut defense. I don't think that is really a new approach or a new discussion from the President. The third big theme was to cut tax expenditures. A lot of folks, at least in Louisiana, won't know what the heck that means, so let me translate. Cutting tax expenditures means increasing taxes. It means doing away with certain deductions and certain credits. It means your tax bill goes up. I am all for Tax Code simplification. I think we need an enormously simplified Tax Code. I do think we need to get rid of a lot of deductions and credits, but that should be used to lower the overall rate, particularly rates such as the corporate tax rate, which, in the United States, is the highest of any industrialized country in the world. In terms of the theme of real cutting, that theme was very short on specifics but very long on general statements, including that entitlement spending--things such as Medicare--would not be covered in reform in any way. So when we look at these broad themes--and that is all there was, broad themes, not specifics--it was, quite frankly, sorely disappointing. But perhaps at least it is a start. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I hope it is a meaningful start, but to be a meaningful start and to produce fruit, we need to go from a very broad, very general speech to a detailed submission. The President needs to resubmit his entire budget. This is a do-over, so he needs to resubmit a detailed budget which matches Congressman Ryan's proposal in the level of detail, in the level of specifics the Budget Committee chairman in the House has provided. Then we need to immediately get to a bipartisan discussion and negotiation. We shouldn't wait until May. That should start immediately for one simple reason: I don't think there is any chance of passing any increase to the debt limit without having attached to it major reform, major structural reform that ensures we are on a new path of lowering spending and lowering debt. Of course, I can only control one vote, but speaking for myself, I will say that I won't even consider those proposals to increase the debt limit unless and until there is a proposal that passes the Congress to actually decrease the debt. Ultimately, the problem isn't the debt limit; the problem is the debt. When an individual has a spending problem or a credit card problem, the solution isn't getting a higher limit on his credit card; the solution is to deal with the spending and the debt problem, which is the underlying, core problem. The same here. So we need to do that as we move forward in this debt-limit discussion. I hope we will all do that. I hope we will come together in a meaningful, bipartisan way to do that--to actually attack the problem, which is spending, which leads to the second problem, which is debt, and actually propose and pass real structural reform before we even have any vote on increasing the debt limit. I urge all of my colleagues to work constructively in that regard. I hope the President's speech is a start toward that, but, of course, time will tell, and actions versus words are what ultimately matter. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, as we were debating whether to move to this bill now on the floor, I sent a letter to the distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, and I was joined by several of my colleagues. We made a real simple point. The simple point was this: We have a spending and a debt crisis. We need to act and we need to act now. So rather than continue to bring up various cats and dogs bills, various matters that aren't related to that crucial, central spending and debt question before us, we should focus on the task at hand. We should focus on our greatest challenge: meeting this spending and debt challenge. Unfortunately, the distinguished majority leader did not heed that call. He proceeded with this bill. For the reasons I outlined, I and the other signatories of the letter voted against moving to this bill. Unfortunately, now, as we are on the eve of a potential government shutdown, I believe what has transpired has sort of made my point again. Why haven't we been focused on that crucial spending and debt challenge like a laser beam, to come together, to offer sensible solutions to avoid these eleventh or even twelfth hour negotiations? Because here we are and here we go again: Another crisis, another eleventh or twelfth hour negotiation; another potential government shutdown. While I am sorry we didn't focus like a laser beam on this central challenge sooner, now that we are here, I come to the floor to urge my colleagues to do what is reasonable and sensible and adopt what the House of Representatives is about to adopt, which is a plan to at least keep the government functioning smoothly for another week as we try to resolve the situation for the entirety of the remainder of the fiscal year. So I strongly support this 1-week continuing resolution that I believe will very soon pass the House. We all say we are against an unnecessary government shutdown. I certainly say that and mean it. If we all say it, and if we all mean it, I believe we will support this sensible measure as we try to come to an agreement--all of us--on a plan for the remainder of the fiscal year. This 1-week CR would keep the government functioning smoothly. It would avoid those disruptions and threats that are concerning to many Americans. That sensible, commonsense plan would also offer significant cuts to the current level of spending, $12 billion of cuts. What is important is those cuts are not very controversial. They come out of proposals mostly from the Democratic side. They mostly come out of the President's own budget proposal or the Senate Democratic plan for cuts or a series of nonpartisan suggestions made by the Congressional Budget Office. So I think it is reasonable to look to those sources of proposed cuts and work from those lists, and that is what this proposal does. The only other matter included in the proposal is two relatively noncontroversial so-called riders: one about Guantanamo Bay, which is pretty much current law right now because of language in the Defense authorization bill, and a second regarding abortions performed in the District of Columbia. With regard to that second rider, again, this should be relatively noncontroversial, particularly since this very language was in full force and effect from 1996 until 2009. It was the law for that extended period of time. President Bill Clinton signed that ban into law six times. President Barack Obama signed that very language into law in 2009. Vice President Joe Biden voted for the legislation, including this DC abortion funding ban language, seven times since 1995. Even minority leader Nancy Pelosi on the House side voted for legislation including this language 14 times. Here, the distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, voted for legislation including this language 10 times since 1995. So, again, this is not extremely controversial, and it is certainly no reason to shut down the government. So, in summary, I am sorry we haven't been focused on this central challenge and this central issue for the last 2 weeks as I had urged along with my colleagues. I think we should focus like a laser beam on spending and debt, and I think we should have been doing that for the last several weeks rather than bringing the bill before us onto the floor. But we are where we are. Given that, I hope we will do the reasonable, commonsense thing and continue negotiations for the rest of the fiscal year, but, in the meantime, pass the 1-week measure about to be passed by the House of Representatives. It continues the operations of the government. It also funds the Department of Defense for the entire fiscal year. It takes what should be beyond politics off the table. It protects our military. It gives full funding for our military men and women. It gives them certainty. We should all be for that. It cuts $12 billion from current funding levels but takes the vast majority of those cuts, again, from the President's own list, from Senate Democrats' own list, and from a nonpartisan list from the Congressional Budget Office. It only includes two so-called riders which have been granted wide acceptance in the past, including being passed, voted on, and supported by Senator Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and others multiple times since 1996. That is a reasonable path forward. That is a responsible way to prevent a government shutdown as we continue to negotiate for an overall resolution of this matter for the remainder of the fiscal year. I hope all of us, Democrats and Republicans, will listen to the American people and do the reasonable, commonsense thing and move forward in a reasonable way as we negotiate on broader issues in good faith. I hope we will pass this 1-week measure at a minimum right now as we continue to look for an overall resolution for the rest of the fiscal year. Mr. President, with that I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, America's illegal immigration problem is clearly way out of control. We can all agree that we desperately need to better protect our borders, ensure that only citizens and legal residents can be hired for jobs in this country, and reverse misguided policies that serve as a magnet for further illegal immigration. Today, I am introducing a bill that falls into that third category, to get rid of these magnets that encourage further illegal activity. The bill would amend the Immigration and Nationalization Act in order to change our current practice of granting automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens born on American soil. When it comes to U.S. citizenship, it is not just where an individual is born that matters, at least it should not be. The circumstances of the person's birth and the nationality of his or her parents are of at least equal importance. I simply do not believe our Constitution confers citizenship on children who happen to be born on U.S. soil when both of their parents are foreign tourists or illegal aliens. The Constitution does not mandate or require that. Yet that is our policy. Each year, 300,000 to 400,000 children are born in the United States to at least one parent who is an illegal alien or a foreign tourist. A significant subset of that number includes children born to two parents who are not U.S. citizens--the category my bill attacks. Despite the illegal status and foreign citizenship of the parent, the executive branch of our government now automatically recognizes these children as U.S. citizens upon birth. This practice is not mandated by Federal law or the Constitution. It is based on what I believe is a fundamental misunderstanding of the 14th amendment of the Constitution. As such, this policy is incompatible with both the text and legislative history of the citizenship clause. I don't think the 14th amendment grants this birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens. In fact, all we have to do is look at history and the actual text of the Constitution as our guide. The 14th amendment does not say all persons born in the United States are citizens, period, end of story. It states that citizenship extends to ``all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'' This latter phrase is important. It is conveniently ignored or misconstrued by advocates of birthright citizenship. But, of course, a fundamental rule in terms of constitutional interpretation is that words are assumed to be there for a purpose. If those words had no meaning, had no impact, then the Founders would not have written them into that part of the Constitution. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction a foreign government has over that person. That is why American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress actually passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. I am introducing today's legislation because it is apparent that Congress must reassert its plenary authority over naturalization and make clear that ``subject to the jurisdiction thereof'' does not include children born in this country to illegal aliens or foreign tourists. Those parents are clearly subject to the jurisdiction of foreign governments. My bill limits birthright citizenship to individuals born in the United States to at least one parent who is a legal citizen, a green card holder, or an active member of the U.S. Armed Forces. Congress clearly has the power to determine that children born in the United States to illegal aliens are not subject to American jurisdiction. As Judge Richard Posner, of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, held in a 2003 case: ``Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to this nonsense.'' That is exactly what my bill would do, put an end to this nonsense. Closing this loophole will not prevent anyone from becoming a naturalized citizen. Instead, it will ensure that he or she has to go through the same process as anyone else born of foreign national parents who wants to become a U.S. citizen. Our practice of birthright citizenship is clearly an incentive to illegal immigration. It does a disservice to every would-be citizen who is actually following the rules, applying to be naturalized, standing in line, often for a very long time. This misguided policy of birthright citizenship not only undermines the stability of our immigration system, but it has severe fiscal consequences as well as serious national security implications. Recent news reports have highlighted the growing popularity of what is known as birth tourism. Web sites actually advertise birth packages for foreign visitors so pregnant women can give birth in the United States and ensure automatic citizenship, under current practice, for their newborn children. Of course, with that automatic citizenship comes the full benefits thereof, including unlimited travel to the United States, educational benefits, and the ability to settle here as an adult and eventually, down the line, the ability to grab back the parents and get them into U.S. citizenship. One such agency that appeals to foreign mothers to be by describing the benefits of American-born children, pointing out that a one-time investment in a birth package will result in a lifetime of benefits for their family was in the news recently. Specifically, it says: Your children will be able to attend U.S. public elementary schools and they may apply for scholarships designated for U.S. citizens and they are entitled to welfare benefits--all of this explicitly spelled out in the advertising for this agency. Just last month, authorities in California shut down a makeshift maternity clinic after discovering 10 newborns and one dozen Chinese women who paid as much as $35,000 to travel to this country to give birth to children who would automatically be recognized as U.S. citizens. Birth tourism, as amazing as this is, is not a new phenomenon, as women from other countries have long traveled to the United States legally, on tourist or student visas, and given birth while here. However, recent reports indicate that the practice is escalating. A new report by the Center for Immigration Studies finds that every year 200,000 children are born to women who were lawfully admitted to the United States on a temporary basis. Each of these children receive U.S. citizenship, despite their mother's allegiance to a different country and even if the father is not a U.S. citizen. Birth tourism is certainly a reprehensible practice, but it is not an illegal one. It is astounding that the U.S. Government allows individuals to exploit the loopholes of our immigration system in this manner. It is obvious that Congress has the authority and the obligation to put an end to it. In addition to this birth tourism--and by that I refer to focusing on tourists here legally under a tourist visa. Of course, there are tens or hundreds of thousands of children born in this country to two illegal immigrant parents, and those children, under the same practice, automatically become U.S. citizens. This, too, is a very dangerous practice, a magnet to attract more and more illegal activity across the border, when we say we want to do everything to stop that. Certainly, if we truly want to do everything we can to stop that, we need to unplug those magnets, stop that policy from attracting more and more illegal crossings across the border. So I introduce this important legislation today, and I thank Senators Paul and Lee and Moran for joining me in addressing this critical issue. I invite all the Members of the Senate to join me in doing this.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, America's illegal immigration problem is clearly way out of control. We can all agree that we desperately need to better protect our borders, ensure that only citizens and legal residents can be hired for jobs in this country, and reverse misguided policies that serve as a magnet for further illegal immigration. Today, I am introducing a bill that falls into that third category, to get rid of these magnets that encourage further illegal activity. The bill would amend the Immigration and Nationalization Act in order to change our current practice of granting automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens born on American soil. When it comes to U.S. citizenship, it is not just where an individual is born that matters, at least it should not be. The circumstances of the person's birth and the nationality of his or her parents are of at least equal importance. I simply do not believe our Constitution confers citizenship on children who happen to be born on U.S. soil when both of their parents are foreign tourists or illegal aliens. The Constitution does not mandate or require that. Yet that is our policy. Each year, 300,000 to 400,000 children are born in the United States to at least one parent who is an illegal alien or a foreign tourist. A significant subset of that number includes children born to two parents who are not U.S. citizens--the category my bill attacks. Despite the illegal status and foreign citizenship of the parent, the executive branch of our government now automatically recognizes these children as U.S. citizens upon birth. This practice is not mandated by Federal law or the Constitution. It is based on what I believe is a fundamental misunderstanding of the 14th amendment of the Constitution. As such, this policy is incompatible with both the text and legislative history of the citizenship clause. I don't think the 14th amendment grants this birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens. In fact, all we have to do is look at history and the actual text of the Constitution as our guide. The 14th amendment does not say all persons born in the United States are citizens, period, end of story. It states that citizenship extends to ``all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'' This latter phrase is important. It is conveniently ignored or misconstrued by advocates of birthright citizenship. But, of course, a fundamental rule in terms of constitutional interpretation is that words are assumed to be there for a purpose. If those words had no meaning, had no impact, then the Founders would not have written them into that part of the Constitution. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction a foreign government has over that person. That is why American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress actually passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. I am introducing today's legislation because it is apparent that Congress must reassert its plenary authority over naturalization and make clear that ``subject to the jurisdiction thereof'' does not include children born in this country to illegal aliens or foreign tourists. Those parents are clearly subject to the jurisdiction of foreign governments. My bill limits birthright citizenship to individuals born in the United States to at least one parent who is a legal citizen, a green card holder, or an active member of the U.S. Armed Forces. Congress clearly has the power to determine that children born in the United States to illegal aliens are not subject to American jurisdiction. As Judge Richard Posner, of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, held in a 2003 case: ``Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to this nonsense.'' That is exactly what my bill would do, put an end to this nonsense. Closing this loophole will not prevent anyone from becoming a naturalized citizen. Instead, it will ensure that he or she has to go through the same process as anyone else born of foreign national parents who wants to become a U.S. citizen. Our practice of birthright citizenship is clearly an incentive to illegal immigration. It does a disservice to every would-be citizen who is actually following the rules, applying to be naturalized, standing in line, often for a very long time. This misguided policy of birthright citizenship not only undermines the stability of our immigration system, but it has severe fiscal consequences as well as serious national security implications. Recent news reports have highlighted the growing popularity of what is known as birth tourism. Web sites actually advertise birth packages for foreign visitors so pregnant women can give birth in the United States and ensure automatic citizenship, under current practice, for their newborn children. Of course, with that automatic citizenship comes the full benefits thereof, including unlimited travel to the United States, educational benefits, and the ability to settle here as an adult and eventually, down the line, the ability to grab back the parents and get them into U.S. citizenship. One such agency that appeals to foreign mothers to be by describing the benefits of American-born children, pointing out that a one-time investment in a birth package will result in a lifetime of benefits for their family was in the news recently. Specifically, it says: Your children will be able to attend U.S. public elementary schools and they may apply for scholarships designated for U.S. citizens and they are entitled to welfare benefits--all of this explicitly spelled out in the advertising for this agency. Just last month, authorities in California shut down a makeshift maternity clinic after discovering 10 newborns and one dozen Chinese women who paid as much as $35,000 to travel to this country to give birth to children who would automatically be recognized as U.S. citizens. Birth tourism, as amazing as this is, is not a new phenomenon, as women from other countries have long traveled to the United States legally, on tourist or student visas, and given birth while here. However, recent reports indicate that the practice is escalating. A new report by the Center for Immigration Studies finds that every year 200,000 children are born to women who were lawfully admitted to the United States on a temporary basis. Each of these children receive U.S. citizenship, despite their mother's allegiance to a different country and even if the father is not a U.S. citizen. Birth tourism is certainly a reprehensible practice, but it is not an illegal one. It is astounding that the U.S. Government allows individuals to exploit the loopholes of our immigration system in this manner. It is obvious that Congress has the authority and the obligation to put an end to it. In addition to this birth tourism--and by that I refer to focusing on tourists here legally under a tourist visa. Of course, there are tens or hundreds of thousands of children born in this country to two illegal immigrant parents, and those children, under the same practice, automatically become U.S. citizens. This, too, is a very dangerous practice, a magnet to attract more and more illegal activity across the border, when we say we want to do everything to stop that. Certainly, if we truly want to do everything we can to stop that, we need to unplug those magnets, stop that policy from attracting more and more illegal crossings across the border. So I introduce this important legislation today, and I thank Senators Paul and Lee and Moran for joining me in addressing this critical issue. I invite all the Members of the Senate to join me in doing this.