David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, pursuant to a conversation with the distinguished committee chairman, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending amendment to call up the Toomey- Vitter amendment.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I object.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the McConnell amendment No. 13 that would completely repeal President Obama's, in my view, unconstitutional health care bill. Of course, I was an active participant in the debate last Congress about ObamaCare and fought that tooth and nail. The day after it passed into law, I introduced a freestanding measure to repeal it completely. The first day of this new Congress that I could file bills, I reintroduced that measure. Of course, for all those reasons, I certainly support this amendment that accomplishes that important goal. Let me begin by responding to the suggestions of my distinguished colleague from Vermont. Everybody who wants to repeal this law, including me--we do not want to do away with the idea that you should not be shoved off insurance because of preexisting conditions, that you should not have portability, you should not be able to meet those obligations. We do not think that at all. We are, however, for complete repeal for a very simple reason. What is wrong with this bill, what is wrong with ObamaCare is not one detail here and one comma there, it is not at the periphery of the plan; it is at the heart of the plan, it is the essentials, it is the core of the plan. We can and should and must pass significant reforms such as protection for individuals with preexisting conditions. That is why we have introduced those measures. We have advocated those measures in a targeted way. That does not mean we can or should or must preserve the whole of ObamaCare, which has significant problems at the core of that gargantuan bill. Let me mention four of those core problems from my point of view. The first is--maybe most fundamental, most basic--there are important elements at the core of ObamaCare that are flatout unconstitutional. Even if they were not unconstitutional, they would be unwise because they are a dramatic expansion of the power and role and authority of the Federal Government. The most obvious is an absolute mandate in the bill, a mandate from your Federal Government that every man, woman, and child in the United States must buy health insurance. This is unprecedented. There has never been a mandate like that from the Federal Government or any level of government. There has never been this forced purchasing of a product in the private marketplace. Some people bring up the comparison with car insurance, but that is not a close comparison at all because at the State level that is not a forced mandate; that is simply saying: If you want the right, the privilege of driving a car, which is not some constitutionally guaranteed right, then part of the deal is you have to cover the damages from any accident. So that is not a good comparison. So this absolute mandate that every man, woman, and child in the United States go out and purchase health insurance, purchase a product in the private marketplace, is unprecedented, and for that reason it is unconstitutional. It is an unprecedented expansion of the power and role and authority of the Federal Government. In the last few days, there have been hearings--quite late to the hour, but there have been hearings in the Senate in the committees about the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of ObamaCare. Of course, this central question came up. I found the response of some of the witnesses at the hearings who favored ObamaCare or advocate for ObamaCare pretty startling on this point. One Senator in the committee asked them: Well, if we can mandate constitutionally that every American man, woman, and child buy health insurance, why can't we pass a law that says obesity is a real problem in this country--which it is--and therefore we are going to mandate that every man, woman, and child in America eat certain vegetables and certain healthy foods every day? Do you know what the response was from this advocate of ObamaCare? Well, I don't think you can mandate that they eat the food; you can only mandate that they buy the food. Great. Very reassuring. To me, that is not an argument for the constitutionality of ObamaCare; that is a clear argument for the unconstitutionality and danger of the ObamaCare Federal power overreach. There are many other aspects of ObamaCare which also pose serious constitutional problems. My point is, these are big problems, and they are not minor details which we can tweak with amendments. They go to the heart of this gargantuan bill. Similarly is the dramatic expansion of government and the cost of that expansion. Instead of controlling and lowering health care costs, ObamaCare is expanding government and expanding health care costs. In fact, the Senate Budget Committee estimates that the bill will cost $2.6 trillion for the first 10 years of full implementation. All of that new spending does not lower health care costs, and there are multiple sources affirming that. Yet President Obama continues to claim that the act will ``slow these rising costs.'' Maybe he did not see that CMS's Chief Actuary, Richard Foster, said that overall national health expenditures will increase by a total of $311 billion over the next 10 years under the law. Now, when the CMS Actuary was asked directly if President Obama's health care bill would hold down unsustainable medical costs just last week, that Actuary replied: ``I would say false.'' Last year, CBO also confirmed our concerns about the bill's inability to contain costs, stating, ``In CBO's judgment, the health legislation enacted earlier this year does not substantially diminish that pressure.'' In addition to increased costs for the government and present and future taxpayers, health insurance premiums will increase for Americans and their families. In fact, the CBO estimated that premiums will increase by $2,100 even though at least candidate Obama promised to lower premiums by $2,500 per family. So that big expansion of government and cost and health care costs, including taxes and health care premiums, is another big problem. Again, this is not a minor detail which we can fix with a perfecting amendment, with a few tweaks to the bill. This goes to the core of the entire plan. Another fundamental issue which goes to the core of the entire plan is the fact--and I think it is a well-established fact--that the ObamaCare plan will cost us not just money, not just increased taxes, not just increased health insurance premiums, it will cost us jobs. That should always be worrisome, but it should be particularly worrisome as we stand here today and debate this in a horrible economy, as we are trying to come out of the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Again, this is not just any period of time; this is a time of prolonged historic unemployment. This bill costs us jobs, and this bill absolutely decimates job creation. The bill taxes jobs and places more burdens on job creators. For instance, the National Federation of Independent Business, representing thousands of American small businesses, including many in Louisiana, my home State, said: If new taxes, new mandates and new government programs in

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I too am opposing the ratification of this New START treaty because I think it makes us less secure, not more secure, as a nation. Of course, that has to be the ultimate test. A toughly negotiated, balanced treaty with Russia which allowed for adequate and reliable inspections and data exchange could make us more secure. But this is not such a treaty. It is clear to me that President Obama went into negotiations willing to give up almost anything for a treaty, and that basic posture produced what it always will--a bad deal for us. The proponents of the treaty suggest as much when they lay out as their top arguments for ratification: a better relationship with Russia, the help from Russia on other issues that ratification could engender, and progress with world opinion. I think it is dangerous to count on any of that or to look at all beyond the four corners of the treaty--the pros and cons of the details and the substance of the treaty itself. When I look within the four corners of the treaty, I am particularly concerned about four cons of the treaty. First, serious roadblocks to missile defense: I think it is a fundamental mistake and a dangerous precedent for any treaty on offensive arms to even mention missile defense, and Russia has made it clear that any major progress on U.S. missile defense will cause them to leave the treaty. Particularly with President Obama in office, this creates real political obstacles to the full missile defense I support and the American people support in great numbers. Indeed, President Obama has already abandoned our missile defense sites in Eastern Europe to help produce an agreement on this treaty by the Russians. Second, fundamentally imbalanced arms reductions: In this treaty, we reduce our nuclear arms significantly; Russia stays where they already are. Meanwhile, we still aren't getting to the issue of tactical weapons, a category where Russia has a huge 10-to-1 advantage. We have talked about that for decades, and we still aren't getting there. Clearly, when the United States has leverage to commit Russia to reduce their tactical nuclear weapons as we do right now before this treaty, and those nuclear weapons are the most vulnerable to end up in terrorists' hands, we must use that leverage and not throw it away for U.S. and global security. Instead, proponents of this treaty argue that a further treaty addressing tactical nuclear weapons in the future will materialize, but the leverage we have to get there is being given up, essentially, with this treaty. Third, inability to verify: This treaty does not give us the inspections and data we need to verify Russian compliance, and we know Russia has cheated on every previous arms control treaty with us. Verification is clearly less under New START than in START I, but it now needs to be greater because the nuclear deterrent under this treaty would be much smaller and thus produce much less room for error. Fourth and finally, major but ultimately inadequate progress on nuclear modernization: Now, major progress has been made during the ratification debate on the administration's commitment and concrete plans for nuclear modernization. I thank everyone who has helped produce that, particularly the leader in that effort, Senator Jon Kyl, for his work which, again, did produce real progress. But, ultimately, neither the specificity of the administration's commitment, including on the nuclear triad issue, nor the proposed schedule is adequate to our security needs, so I will certainly continue fighting to get where we need to be. So, in closing, I urge my colleagues to look hard at this treaty and to ask the only ultimate question: Does it make us less secure or more secure? I think clearly for the four major reasons I have outlined, and others, it makes us less secure, and we need to do far better. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Five minutes.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I thank the Chair, and I certainly join my colleague from Louisiana in stressing the importance of this second year of a GO Zone extension and look forward to continuing to work with all of these folks in getting that done absolutely as soon as possible in 2011. I emphasize one major point, which is that this is not a new benefit to fund new projects which were never envisioned when the GO Zone was initially created. This is simply an extension to fund those crucial projects which were at the center of this provision from the very beginning and that have taken longer than was initially forecast because of labor and other shortages after Hurricane Katrina. So this is simply a time extension to get the very same crucial projects done, not to add on to that list. These projects are extremely important, including the wholesale renovation and reconstruction of four major housing projects in New Orleans post-Katrina that are being done using a dramatically different and better model--mixed income, lower density--not the old-style housing projects from the 1940s and 1950s which were, in my opinion, a horrible social experiment. So I certainly join this effort, and I have been working with all of these folks to try to get this second year extension in this tax bill. Unfortunately, we weren't able to do that because of a general decision that was apparently made that none of the extenders would go beyond the end of 2011. But working with these folks, and particularly Senator Kyl, we came to an agreement that we would absolutely work to include this in the first possible technical corrections or other measure that would be keyed up in early 2011. I thank everyone, particularly my Republican colleague, John Kyl, for that willingness and that commitment, and I look forward to getting that done at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an issue that is very important to Louisianians and folks along the gulf coast and very important to the entire country, which is continuing the de facto moratorium--the ``permatorium'' is what many folks have called it--in terms of drilling, energy production in the Gulf of Mexico. There is one particular headline I want to point out in this context that is very frustrating and baffling. If it weren't so serious, it would be comical. Over the last several months, Louisianians have grown increasingly frustrated with the Interior Department in particular--and in particular, what used to be called MMS but is now the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement or BOEMRE. Louisianians have come to pronounce that ``bummer.'' That is because that agency hasn't been doing its work to issue permits to get Americans back to work to produce American energy. Related to that, earlier this week I publicly announced a hold on Dr. Scott Doney to be chief scientist at NOAA until Interior and BOEMRE show that it is capable of responding to a letter I had sent it about this ``permatorium,'' the sad state of affairs, and until they are willing to explain to Congress findings in an IG report I had requested back in June. Since June of this year, not a single new exploration plan or deepwater permit to drill has been approved by these bureaucracies--not a single one--idling billions of dollars of assets and forcing companies to cut their 2011 investment in the gulf to one-third of what it was a year ago. Time and again we have heard from BOEMRE and Interior Secretary Salazar that they don't have enough people to issue permits. They need more staff and they need to dedicate resources. They need more money and they need to focus on this permitting program. I have also been told that Interior needs more money--specifically $100 million additional. In light of all these claims, all of these requests--more people and more money--and in light of the enormous frustration we feel in Louisiana and in the gulf, I want to get to this little newspaper headline I referenced a few minutes ago. It came out yesterday, and it reads: ``BOEMRE Team Returns from Papua, New Guinea Visit After Sharing Technical Expertise with Officials.'' It reads: Experts from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) recently completed a technical assistance workshop on offshore oil and gas regulatory programs for the Government of Papua, New Guinea. The workshop was sponsored by the U.S. Department of State's Energy Governance and Capacity Initiative. This is the same Interior Department that can't get a single exploration plan, not a single deepwater permit to drill out the door; the same Interior Department and BOEMRE that claims they need more money to hire more staff to get this job done. Apparently, they have plenty latitude and staff and money for a 3-day workshop in Papua, New Guinea, to discuss offshore permitting, which they can't get done in the United States. I think we need to take a little time to explain to the Government of Papua, New Guinea, that the last thing in the world they want to do, assuming they are interested in creating jobs at home through a workable permitting process, is to talk to these folks. These are the same folks who can't get a single deepwater permit or a single exploration plan out the door. As I said, this would be comical except it is not because it is dead serious, and it is losing American jobs and it is exporting economic activity from our country overseas. The Interior Department is crushing domestic energy production that is destroying good-paying jobs, losing revenue for the Treasury, and making America more energy insecure. If I can give one simple recommendation to BOEMRE this holiday season in regard to expediting the permitting process, maybe they should keep their staff planted in their seats at home. Maybe they should pass on the next trip to Papua, New Guinea, and the next workshop with our partners around the globe. Maybe they should focus on getting the first exploration plan and the first new deepwater permit out the door. Maybe they should get that job done and put Americans back to work producing American energy before more of these outrageous trips and expenses. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 3 minutes.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I come to the floor to strongly urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to oppose cloture on the so- called DREAM Act. That will be one of our votes in a few minutes. All these votes are important. That is the most important. The reasons we should oppose cloture are simple and basic. They all go to this past election. They all ask the question: Have we been listening at all to the American people? The American people have been speaking loudly and clearly on issues that pertain to the DREAM Act. I point to three in particular. No. 1, the DREAM Act is a major amnesty provision. There are no two ways about it. It grants at least 2.1 million illegals amnesty. It puts them on a path toward citizenship, which will also allow them to have their family members put in legal status. That means when we count all those people, there are probably two to three times that initial 2.1 million people who will be granted some form of amnesty. When we are not securing our borders adequately, when we are not putting a system in place to enforce workplace security, that is absolutely wrong. No. 2, we are in the middle of a serious recession. The American people are hurting. Things such as slots at public colleges and universities, things such as financial aid for those positions are very scarce and very sought after, more than ever before, because of the horrible state of the economy. These young illegals who would be granted amnesty would be put in direct competition with American citizens for those scarce resources. Are we listening to the American people about the struggles they are going through right now in this desperate economy? If we do that, the answer would clearly be no. Third, what about spending and debt? The American people have been speaking to us loudly and clearly about that. Yet the DREAM Act would increase spending and deficit and debt. Would we be listening to the American people about that, were we to pass the DREAM Act? Absolutely not. The DREAM Act has at least $5 billion of unpaid-for spending in it, by all reasonable estimates. If we grant amnesty to 2.1 million people and then down the road we double or triple that when counting family members, of course, there is cost to that in terms of Federal Government benefits and programs and spending. Reasonable estimates say that is at least $5 billion of cost, unpaid for, increasing spending, increasing deficit, increasing debt. If we did that by passing the DREAM Act, would we be listening to the American people? Absolutely not. Let's come to the Senate Chamber and perform our first and most solemn duty, which is to listen to the American people, listen to the citizens of the States, and truly represent them in this important body. Let's listen to them when they say no amnesty. Let's listen to them when they say how difficult their lives are in this horrible economy. Let's listen to them when they say control spending and deficit and debt. Don't increase it yet again. I propose we listen to them. I will listen to them and vote no on cloture on the DREAM Act. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I was truly disappointed to learn that Senator Reid intends to bring up a new version of the sweeping amnesty proposal, known as the DREAM Act. Disguised as an educational initiative, the DREAM Act will provide a powerful incentive for more illegal immigration by granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. The bill, which is unaffordable for taxpayers in many different ways, is a bad idea and comes at the worst possible time. As of recently, there are now plenty different versions of the DREAM Act on the legislative calendar, with different moving parts and revisions, but at the end of the day, it doesn't matter which one you focus on; they all have the same core, which is amnesty for a significant number of illegal aliens. Also with that amnesty would come very significant taxpayer-funded benefits for these folks, including instate college tuition. In these difficult economic times, it is an insult to legal, tax-paying citizens that President Obama and his allies in the Senate want to use their hard-earned money to pay for educational benefits for illegal aliens. The struggling economy has increased the demand for enrollment in public universities, as a growing number of families are unable to afford other education. At a time when many Americans cannot afford to send their own children to college, this bill would clearly allow the government to provide Federal student loans to illegal aliens who will displace legal residents competing for taxpayer subsidies. I am opposed to this proposal because it would unfairly place American citizens in direct competition with illegal aliens for scarce slots in classes at State colleges. The number of those coveted seats is absolutely fixed. So every illegal alien who would be admitted as a result of the DREAM Act would take the place of an American citizen or someone who is legally in our country. It makes no sense to authorize Federal and State subsidies for the education of illegal aliens when our State schools are suffering, as higher education budgets are being slashed, admissions curtailed, tuitions increased. Enactment of the DREAM Act would be bad policy under any circumstances, but in the current economic climate, it would be a catastrophe for States facing already strained budgets. The DREAM Act will continue amnesty to millions of illegal aliens who entered the United States as minors and meet loosely defined ``educational requirements.'' Specifically, the bill grants immediate legal status to illegal aliens who have merely enrolled in institutions of higher education or received a high school degree or diploma. The sponsors say several things to try to mitigate this basic fact, but it doesn't. First of all, they have described the beneficiaries in this legislation as kids, boys and girls. In reality, the DREAM Act allows illegal aliens up to the age of 30 to be eligible to receive amnesty and qualify for Federal student loans. Second, Harry Reid and the bill's proponents argue that this new version of the DREAM Act has been narrowly tailored. I don't believe the American public would be convinced that dropping the age of eligibility from 35 to 30 transforms the core of this legislation or changes anything at its core. Third, the new and improved DREAM Act also requires that illegal aliens seeking relief undergo a background check and submit biometric and biographic data. Again, that doesn't change the core of the bill, which is about amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, thereby putting them in a position to compete for important taxpayer-funded benefits with U.S. citizens. Furthermore, the new version of the DREAM Act expands the waiver authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security, thereby negating any additional requirements for eligibility. The bar for eligibility is already extremely low, but even what little is required can be waived whenever that Secretary decides to do so. The American people have made it very clear--crystal clear--that they want to see the government fulfill its responsibility to enforce the laws and to take steps to control illegal immigration, not to reward bad behavior with amnesty and taxpayer-funded benefits. Amnesty and economic incentives only encourage more illegal immigration. This is certainly not the answer to our current, ongoing immigration crisis. It will only worsen our economic crisis. I am really outraged that any elected lawmaker would consider this proposal, particularly now, particularly when our States and fellow citizens are struggling to deal with economic hardship and budget cuts. The DREAM Act also includes no cap on the number of those who will be eligible to receive this amnesty. The economic ramifications would be profound and are simply unacceptable. Finally, there is absolutely no pay-for in this legislation, while it is beyond argument that the act will increase costs on the Federal taxpayer. So, bottom line, this bill is absolutely increasing the Federal deficit and the Federal debt--we don't know by exactly how much. To help answer that question, I am writing the Congressional Budget Office today and asking for an immediate score of the newest version of the DREAM Act. Whatever the number is--and it is important that we get that number--let me underscore that it is beyond debate that there is significant cost to this bill, without any pay-fors. That means the DREAM Act will also increase the Federal deficit and the Federal debt. As chairman of the Border Security Caucus, I will be fighting this measure every step of the way, doing everything I can to stop what is clearly, at its core, an amnesty proposal. I invite all Members of the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, to listen to the American people who have been speaking about this loud and clear and to heed their call and say no to amnesty and turn to what should be our clear priority, which is enforcing the laws on the books, enforcing the clear laws against illegal immigration. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I recognize Second Lieutenant Robert M. Kelly of Tallahassee, FL, who was killed November 9, 2010, from an improvised explosive device while on a foot patrol in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. Lieutenant Kelly is survived by his wife Heather, his sister Kathleen, and his brother John Kelly, who is also a marine. LT Robert Kelly was the son of Lieutenant General Kelly and Mrs. John Kelly. Lieutenant General Kelly is the commander of the Marine Forces Reserve in New Orleans. Lieutenant Kelly was engaged in his third combat deployment and was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division out of Camp Pendleton, CA. Following in his father's footsteps, Lieutenant Robert Kelly rose through the ranks during his service. He was commissioned as an officer in the Marine Corps on December 12, 2008, where he continued to honorably serve with distinction. A decorated marine, LT Robert Kelly's bravery is a testament to true American heroism. Having received multiple awards that include the Purple Heart, Combat Action Ribbon, Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, and Afghanistan Campaign Medal, Lt. Kelly deserves to be recognized. He also received the Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal, and the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon. There is no doubt that this tragic loss will not only be felt within the Kelly family but also the Marine Corps and this Nation. Our thoughts and prayers will continue to be with his family and friends. Today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring and remembering 2LT Robert M. Kelly, who made the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I was very disappointed to learn recently that Senator Reid intends to bring up a very significant amnesty proposal next week known as the DREAM Act. It is disguised as an education initiative, but it will provide a powerful incentive for more illegal immigration by allowing States to grant in-state tuition to illegal alien students. This is a bad idea at any time, but this is a bad idea right now, at the worst possible time. Unfortunately, this announcement isn't shocking given Senator Reid's and this administration's record of pushing policies on the American people that the people oppose. In these difficult economic times, it is really an insult to legal, taxpaying citizens that the President and Senator Reid would want to use their hard-earned money to pay for in- state college tuition for illegal aliens. This horrible economy has increased the demand for enrollment and help at public universities. As a growing number of families are unable to afford an education at a private university, they turn to public universities in increasing numbers, and they turn to that help, including in State tuition, in increasing numbers. At a time when many Americans cannot afford to send their children to college at all, this bill would allow States to provide in-State tuition to illegal aliens who would displace legal residents competing for those taxpayer subsidies. I am opposed to this proposal because of that--because it would unfairly place American citizens in direct competition with illegal aliens for very scarce slots in classes at State colleges and universities. The number of those coveted seats is fixed, so every illegal alien who would be admitted because of this through the DREAM Act would take the place of an American citizen or legal immigrant. It makes no sense to authorize Federal and State subsidies for education of illegal aliens, when our State schools are suffering, as higher education budgets are slashed, admissions are curtailed, and tuition is increased. Enactment of the DREAM Act would do just that, and it would be bad policy under any circumstances, but in the current economic climate it would be a catastrophe. Again, the DREAM Act would grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens who entered the United States as minors and who meet loosely defined so-called educational requirements. Specifically, the bill grants immediate legal status to illegals who have merely enrolled in an institution of higher education or received a high school degree or diploma. The bill's sponsors described the beneficiaries of this legislation as ``kids,'' boys and girls. In reality, the DREAM Act is far broader than that. It would allow illegals up to the age of 35 to be eligible to receive this amnesty and qualify for Federal student loans. The American people have made it very clear that they want to see the government fulfill its responsibility to enforce the laws on the books, take steps to control illegal immigration, not to reward bad behavior with tuition breaks. Amnesty and economic incentives, such as taxpayer-subsidized tuition, only encourage more illegal immigration. This is certainly not the answer to our current immigration crisis and will only worsen our current economic crisis. If Senator Reid does move forward with this proposal, I plan to file a second-degree amendment to strike the provision that allows States to grant in-State tuition for illegal aliens. It will be a very clear choice: Do you want these limited resources, this limited help, to go to U.S. citizens and legal immigrants or do you want illegals to compete for those and take some of those slots away from U.S. citizens and legal immigrants? As chairman of the border security caucus, I will be fighting this overall measure tooth and nail and also advancing this second degree proposal. This is common sense. This is certainly the sentiment and the will of the American people. I encourage all of my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--to talk to Senator Reid to dissuade him from the bill overall and, if it comes to the floor, to support this second-degree amendment so that American citizens and legal aliens are not having slots taken away from them by illegals in this matter. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend rule XXII, Paragraph 2, for the purpose of proposing and considering the following amendment: SA 4516 can be found in today's Record under ``Text of Amendments.''

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge Coach Alton ``Red'' Franklin for his dedicated service to Louisiana and in particular to Haynesville High School in northern Louisiana. I would like to take some time to make a few remarks on his accomplishments. Throughout his distinguished career as the Haynesville High School football coach, he won 27 district championships and participated in the State playoffs 31 times. The team had 8 undefeated seasons and 191 shutouts. Coach Franklin led the team to 11 State championships in four decades winning four consecutive State championships from 1993 to 1996. Coach Franklin was inducted in the Louisiana High School Coaches Association Hall of Fame in 1991. He was also named State coach of the year 6 times and district coach of the year 23 times throughout his career. When Coach Franklin retired in January of 2002, he retired as the second most winningest football coach in Louisiana history and number 15 nationally. Coach Franklin had accumulated a remarkable record of 366 wins, 76 losses, and 8 ties. Even after his outstanding career, Red Franklin continued to be actively involved in his community, returning to Haynesville High in 2003 as a volunteer assistant coach for his son David, the current head coach. In 2009, Red Franklin won his first State championship as an assistant coach to his son. On July 10, 2010, Red Franklin received the high honor of being inducted into the National Federation of State High School Associations Hall of Fame Class of 2010. Thus, today, I honor a fellow Louisianian, Coach Alton ``Red'' Franklin, for his exceptional and distinguished service to Haynesville High School and to our State.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Mr. Jim Funk for his leadership and dedication to the Louisiana Restaurant Association. Mr. Funk has served as the president and chief executive officer of the Louisiana Restaurant Association for almost 30 years, and announced his retirement earlier this year. I would like to take some time to remark on his work and his contribution to the State of Louisiana. First founded in 1946, the Louisiana Restaurant Association promotes, protects, and serves the interests of Louisiana's food service and hospitality industry. Now one of the premiere associations in the Nation, the Louisiana Restaurant Association has grown in membership and status with Jim Funk at the helm during the past three decades. Through recessions, hurricanes and the most recent oil spill, Mr. Funk has led the industry through a business climate that has challenged Louisiana's restaurants on many levels. Mr. Funk has also been recognized nationally for his success in association management, for his clout in Louisiana's politics, and for his dedication to culinary education. In 2007, he received the industry's highest honor--induction into the National Restaurant Association Educational Foundation College of Diplomats. Mr. Funk was also an impressive advocate for the employees of the hospitality industry. As the head of the Louisiana Restaurant Association, he created the LRA's Self Insurer's Fund for Worker's Compensation, which provides important and necessary insurance to Louisiana restaurants and their workers. The fund now ensures more than 2,300 restaurants and hotels in Louisiana. Mr. Funk also fought to protect the integrity and reputation of Louisiana restaurants and food products. At the National Restaurant Association Show on May 22 of this year, he stressed the need to protect the wetlands and Louisiana's prominent fishing and seafood industry. Having guided the LRA through the devastating destruction of Hurricane Katrina and the current oilspill threatening our shores, Mr. Funk has shown laudable leadership. The profile of Louisiana's restaurants industry and culinary traditions has been significantly enhanced during Mr. Funk's tenure as president of the Louisiana Restaurant Association. Thus, today, I am proud to honor Jim Funk and thank him for his dedication to the Louisiana Restaurant Association and to the State of Louisiana.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the service of COL Alvin B. Lee as he relinquishes command of the New Orleans District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Colonel Lee, the New Orleans District's 60th commander and district engineer, took command on July 20, 2007, and has served in that position for the past 3 years. The New Orleans District is the largest district within the Corps of Engineers. The complexity and magnitude of the issues dealt with in this command are staggering. In addition to the normal operating budget of $550 million, this district includes the $14 billion hurricane and storm damage risk reduction system, HSDRRS, program for the Greater New Orleans Metropolitan area. No other colonel in the Corps of Engineers is given responsibility even remotely close to this. Previous to his service as commander, New Orleans District, Colonel Lee served in other key command and staff positions which include: Company Commander, 317th Engineer Battalion, 3rd Brigade, 24th Infantry Division, Mechanized; Commander, Alaska Projects Office, Cold Regions Research Laboratory; Battalion Executive Officer of the 10th Engineer Battalion, and the Engineer Brigade Operations Officer, Third Infantry Division, Mechanized. Colonel Lee also served in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom as the Deputy Commander for the Afghanistan Engineer District. This resume serves as a testament to the character of Colonel Lee. While it is no secret that I do not see eye-to-eye with the Army Corps of Engineers as an organization, I can say that I greatly appreciate the efforts of Colonel Lee individually. Colonel Lee earned the respect of many within the local Louisiana communities over the past three years through his strong leadership and hard work. He is a fine officer who has given much in service to the Nation. I wish him well in future endeavors.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I congratulate Mr. J. David Daniel, a resident of my home State, as he nears the end of his term as the 105th chairman of the Nation's largest insurance association, the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, IIABA. Mr. Daniel was elected to the IIABA's executive committee in 2004 and was installed as the association's chairman last September. Founded in 1896, IIABA, or the Big ``I'' as it is better known, is the Nation's oldest and largest association of independent insurance agents and brokers, representing a network of more than 300,000 agents, brokers, and their employees. During his term as chairman of the Big ``I,'' David Daniel has been a leader on a number of issues for the association including health care overhaul legislation and financial services regulatory reform. In a time of tectonic shifts in the financial services industry landscape, Mr. Daniel has proven to be a strong leader and a steady hand for the association and the insurance industry as a whole. David Daniel is president of Daniel and Eustis Insurance in Baton Rouge, LA. Prior to his election to the IIABA Executive Committee in 2004, he served on the board of directors of the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of Louisiana, IIABL, for eight years before becoming president in 1997. Daniel served as Louisiana's national board director beginning in 1998 and has acted as the State association's representative to the Louisiana Insurance Rating Commission. Mr. Daniel is also the recipient of IIABL's Lifetime Achievement Award and the Outstanding Committee Chairman Award. On the national level, Mr. Daniel has served on IIABA's Technical Affairs Committee and was chairman of the Governance and Communication Task Force. David Daniel has long been praised for his work in Baton Rouge as well as the insurance industry. For 28 years he has been a member of the Capital City Kiwanis and was once awarded the George R. Hixson award for community service. As a pioneering member of the Christmas on the River Committee, Daniel worked to revitalize the riverfront area in Baton Rouge. He has been a volunteer youth basketball coach for the YMCA and is a founding member of the Vision 21 Foundation, an organization that collects and distributes grant money to nonprofit groups in the Baton Rouge area. I would like to sincerely thank David Daniel for his commitment to his profession, his community, and the state of Louisiana. His efforts are greatly appreciated, and I wish Mr. Daniel, his wife Janet, and their family all the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, reserving my right to object and I will object in a minute, I guess this exchange is at least useful because it illustrates the gamesmanship that is continuing to go on. My distinguished colleague is giving me this opportunity. My distinguished colleague is holding a gun to my head, trying to say you have to vote to balloon the deficit, trying to say you have to vote for other irresponsible action if you simply want a necessary program for your State and the Nation, which does not cost anything in terms of increased deficit spending, to move forward. I thank my distinguished colleague for holding the gun to my head for that wonderful opportunity, but I reject it and I think the American people reject it, so I object.

Mr. VITTER. Certainly.

Mr. VITTER. If that package is paid for. I will be happy to produce all of the pay-fors. I will be happy to produce ways to responsibly pay for that package. If that package is handled responsibly that way, absolutely yes.