David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to share the same sorts of concerns as my colleague from South Dakota. I share the concerns, more importantly, of citizens all across Louisiana who have echoed those same thoughts to me over and over again as I have traveled the State. Like so many of my colleagues, I have spent a lot of time these last few months reaching out to my constituents, my fellow citizens in Louisiana, in every part of the State. During the August recess, obviously, there were lots of townhall meetings around the Nation. I held 21 in Louisiana, in every corner of the State. Since then, I have held six more townhall meetings. I continue to do other types of outreach. For instance, yesterday--since we had a 1-day opportunity--I flew home specifically to do a few things, including having a roundtable of doctors, including two past presidents of the AMA, other health care providers, small business representatives, leaders in the pro-life community, and it was a roundtable discussion specifically to focus on the Reid bill. In all that process, since the August recess and even before, I have heard certain themes over and over again, no matter where I was in Louisiana. One of those themes was great concern about what this Congress is thinking of doing on health care but not just because of the significance of health care, which is vitally important, which is personal to every American, but also because of how it fits into a trend so many Louisianians and so many Americans are seeing over the past year--a trend of dramatically increasing Federal Government power and intervention and dramatically increasing Federal Government spending and debt. People have been passionate about health care. Again, part of that is because that is a very personal issue, and a bill such as this affects literally every single American. But, again, a big part of it has been that Louisianians are also connecting the dots. They see a bigger picture, which concerns them. Louisianians have been connecting the dots to a government takeover of banks and insurance companies and car companies, with the CEO of GM literally being fired and hired in the Oval Office, and now, potentially, one-sixth of the U.S. economy through health care. So there is a broader concern and theme I have heard over and over, which is an explosion of Federal Government power and intervention and an explosion of Federal Government spending and debt. This bill, unfortunately, does nothing except to confirm my constituents' worst fears in that regard. It is more of the same. It is more of that theme. It is another big dot they will be connecting in that trend, and I share that concern. One specific issue that goes to that concern is the so-called government option or public option because that strikes a lot of people, including me, as a big, open door to dramatically increasing the Federal Government's role and dominance in health care in our country--one-sixth of our economy. Why do I say that? I truly believe the government option--if this bill passed or anything similar to it passed--would be the dominant option overnight and, perhaps, the only option in a few years. Let me explain why. I will just point to one provision, which is the so-called pay-or-play mandate on business. Under this Senator Reid bill, as under previous versions of this idea, such as the Senate HELP Committee bill, a business--virtually any business in the country-- would, for the first time, have a legal mandate, and the mandate would be to provide health insurance up to a certain minimum defined by Federal bureaucrats or the business would have a choice. The choice would be, if you do not want to provide that health insurance, well, you can write a penalty or fee check to the government instead. What is wrong with that? Well, the penalty or fee check in this bill is pretty much set at $750 per employee per year. How does that equate into a business's bottom line in the choice businesses would face? Well, businesses that do provide health insurance nationally pay an average of not $750 per employee per year but $6,100 per employee per year. So what sort of choice do you think that is going to present to business? What sort of result would you expect? In this brave new world, if the bill passes, everyone is guaranteed coverage in some form or fashion, and business has a choice: $6,100 per employee per year or $750 per employee per year. I think, for a lot of small businesses under extreme competitive pressure, that is not going to be a hard choice. It is going to be an easy choice. The result for tens of millions of Americans who have coverage now they are reasonably satisfied with through their employer, the result is going to be getting dumped off that coverage, with businesses saying: Well, there are other options now. There is the government option. Good luck. We can't afford it. We have to be competitive. We have to go with our bottom-line decision--$6,100 per employee per year or $750 per employee per year. I think the clear result will be tens of millions of Americans getting dumped off coverage they have now that they are reasonably satisfied with. Do not take my word for it. Other outside experts, the Lewin Group and others, say dumping will occur and could, in fact, be massive; tens of millions of Americans--under their analysis of a previous bill that had largely the same provisions--over 110 million Americans. So that is a problem with regard to ballooning Federal Government intervention, power, domination of the marketplace. Again, as I said a few minutes ago, another part of that theme and concern I heard over and over was ballooning Federal Government spending and debt. Here again, this Reid bill does nothing to allay those fears. In fact, it does a lot to increase those fears. There has been a lot of talk and a lot of reports of the CBO score of $848 billion over 10 years. First of all, $848 billion is a lot of money. That is a lot of Federal Government spending and growth. It is hard to get your hands around that figure. What does that mean? If someone had started spending $1 million a day when Jesus Christ was born and kept spending $1 million a day, we would not yet be up to that figure. So that is a lot of money. But what is worse, that figure is artificially low. The true cost of the bill is much greater. There are a number of budget gimmicks the ranking member on Budget, Senator Gregg, and others have talked about that prove that $848 billion figure is truly low compared to the full cost of the bill. What am I talking about? Well, the biggest budget gimmick is the fact that the spending side of the bill does not kick in for the first 4 years. The tax side, of course, as always, kicks in immediately. So the tax increases, the fee increases, et cetera, kick in immediately. But the benefit spending side of the bill does not kick in for the first 4 years. So that is what will occur in the first 10 years of the bill's life, should it be passed. Therefore, in that CBO score of the first 10 years, what the CBO is scoring is 10 years of tax increases and only 6 years of spending. So that is a huge budget gimmick which helps produce that artificially low $848 billion or so. In fact, we should be looking at the first 10 years of full implementation; in other words, the first 10 years when not only all the tax provisions are kicked in but everything on the benefits spending side is kicked in. That is basically from 2014 to 2024. What are the numbers there when you look at the real first 10 years, the first 10 years of full implementation? The real numbers are not $848 billion--as big a figure as that is, spending $1 million a day since Jesus Christ was born and you still would not be up to it--but there the analysis is $2.5 trillion over 10 years. Again, Louisianians see this, Americans see this as another big dot to connect, part of a huge trend of exploding Federal Government power and exploding Federal Government spending and debt. What does that represent in terms of that explosion of spending and debt? It also represents enormous new taxes, and that goes to the cost issue my distinguished colleague from South Dakota was talking about. When I talk to Louisianians specifically about health care--not just these broader trends and these broader concerns they are very focused on but specifically health care; OK, we have to fix certain issues in health care--what is the top issue? Virtually everyone in Louisiana says cost, ballooning cost. Whether they have coverage now or they are struggling to get coverage, the issue is cost. What can we do about cost? Again, this bill does nothing to fix that. It makes it worse. As was illustrated with Senator Thune's graph, it pushes the cost curve up and not down. Part of the reason it does that is, in that $2.5 trillion of activity there are enormous taxes, and those taxes become built into health insurance premiums. So premiums do not go down, they go up. They go up in a major way. What are some of these we are talking about--again, enormous tax increases, enormous tax increases across the board, taxes on choice and well-being. Flexible spending which allows individuals to have a tax- free account for medical needs, that is limited. That is downgraded and capped at $2,500 a year. Taxes on over-the-counter medicines that many patients' families and seniors depend on, that is a tax increase of $5 billion; reduced deductions for health expenses, again, another tax increase; higher Medicare payroll taxes; the rate on wages in excess of $200,000, a very large tax increase; over and over again, major tax increases. The bill would impose $28 billion in new taxes on employers that do not provide government-approved health care plans. There is a tax increase of $53.8 billion, over 10 years, in terms of the Medicare population. So, again, there are huge tax increases that are part of that, and that is the major reason that cost curve is not being pushed down. In fact, it is being pushed up. As I approach this bill, after looking at it carefully over the last few days, my first bottom-line question is: How does it respond to those dominant concerns I have heard over and over again from Louisiana citizens all across the State over the last several months? What does it do about ballooning Federal spending and debt? What does it do about the growth of government power and intervention and the cost of health care? Sadly, it fails on all those accounts. It moves us in the wrong direction on all those accounts. So I urge my colleagues to adopt a different approach, to vote no tonight, to not move to this approach, to adopt a far more focused, positive approach that responds directly to those concerns of the American people. I yield back my time.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to talk about the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill which, sadly, was reported out of the EPW Committee, contrary to its rules and precedents, without any discussion or amendment. First of all, let me underscore that I think it is very unfortunate that a 1,000-page bill, a bill with enormous potential impact on our economy--indeed, on our way of life--was pushed out of committee with no Republicans being present, with not a single amendment being considered, and, in my opinion, directly contrary to the very rules and precedents of the committee. But I want to focus on specific provisions of the bill that are particularly troubling to me that underscore how serious a matter this is and what an enormous impact it could have on our economy and, indeed, on our way of life. I guess in many ways the title of the presentation is ``Why Carbon Credits Don't Matter.'' So many folks, so many companies, so many people particularly within the beltway are concerned about their allocation of carbon credits. But because of these significant sections in the bill which also exist word-for-word in the Waxman-Markey bill, the carbon credits will not matter because sections 705 and 707 will shut down significant economic activity, no matter what carbon credits certain people and certain companies have. Let me explain what I am talking about. Section 705(e) and section 707 are very important in the bill. Basically, section 705(e) says that we are to track the global measurement of greenhouse gas emissions and specifically to see if they are held below a threshold set in the bill, a goal set in the bill of 450 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent. Then section 707 says that, beginning July 1, 2015, if the global concentrations are above this 450 parts per million line, then: . . . the President shall direct relevant Federal agencies to use existing statutory authority to take appropriate actions identified in the reports submitted under sections 705 and 706 and to address any shortfalls identified in such reports. What does that mean? That means if you bust this 450 parts per million line, the President does not have authority to take action; he is mandated to take every administrative action possible, to use every agency in the Federal Government under him--he shall direct them to address whatever shortfalls there are between that 450 parts per million line and where the measurements are. One significant factor in all of this, whether we can ever reach that goal of limiting greenhouse gases to 450 parts per million, is what other countries, particularly the developing world, are going to do. One thing that is really problematic with this entire plan is the G5 developing countries and Russia have made it crystal clear that they will not accept any hard caps. I cite here a clear quote from a top Chinese Foreign Ministry official, a clear quote from the Minister of State for Environment of India and the top economic adviser of Russia's President about that issue. All of these statements and many more make it crystal clear that the G5 and Russia will not accept any such hard cap. This is a pretty significant issue. Because of this, I wrote to the EPA on July 15 and asked several questions. One is basic to this issue: What does your modeling say if the G5 and Russia reject hard caps? That is a pretty significant scenario because it seems pretty clear that it is the scenario that will happen based on the statements of those countries. The EPA answered that it has not even analyzed that scenario. These other countries have made it clear they are going to reject hard caps. The EPA has not analyzed this scenario. Because of that, I then went to the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. That is the leading modeling expert in these matters that Federal Government agencies, starting with the EPA, depend upon. In fact, the EPA helped direct us to this laboratory. I asked the same question: What does the modeling say if the G5 and Russia reject hard caps as they have absolutely promised to do? The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory answered that none of the models they use--and they use 10 models--none of those models, under this scenario, produced global concentrations at or below 450 ppm of CO- equivalent greenhouse gases. So under all of those models we break through this goal set in the bill. This chart shows what DOE's specific Northwest National Laboratory model predicts when the G5 and Russia reject all hard caps. Already we are in the four hundreds. In about 1 year we break through the 450 limit--451. Then it goes up from there. What does that mean in the context of this legislation and, specifically, the sections I talked about a minute ago? Well, the legislation says that on July 1, 2015, if this green line is above 450, then the President is mandated to take whatever action is necessary: Use all tools available to get us back to this 450 limit. Under this scenario, the G5 and Russia rejecting hard caps, which is an absolute certainty based on their clear pronouncements, this mandate, under those significant sections of the legislation, both Kerry-Boxer and Waxman-Markey, exactly the same language in both, this mandate goes into effect and would absolutely go into effect. What does that mean? Well, the first thing it means is carbon credits, which everybody is so focused on, so many people and companies are fixated on, carbon credits will not matter if your project, if your economic activity takes any discretionary Federal permit because, beginning July 1, 2015, the President will be mandated, not authorized, not encouraged, nothing is suggested, he will be mandated to take any action possible to get us down to that limit. That would include denying all discretionary permit requests. What else does it mean? It means, under that mandate in the law, you can bet that every leftwing environmental group in the world, much less in this country, will sue to block all economic activity that requires discretionary permits. Quite frankly, they will have a very compelling case. They will point to this legislative language, if it is enacted, and say: Time out. The President is not just authorized to do this, the President is not just encouraged to do this, the President is mandated to take every action he can, which clearly would include denying all discretionary permits to push that curve, that green curve, back down to 450 or as low as it can go. So what does that mean? That means carbon credits are meaningless if you need a discretionary permit for certain economic activity or for any new economic project. This is a very important aspect of the bill. Again, it is in Kerry-Boxer. Exactly the same language is also in Waxman-Markey as it passed the full House of Representatives. This gives an enormous mandate to the President of the United States to absolutely take action once those global greenhouse gas emissions get above 450. So my message is clear, particularly to the companies that have supported this legislation because they have been assured certain carbon credits. The message is clear: Carbon credits will not matter if any of your activities, if any of your new projects or proposed projects requires any discretionary Federal permit. To deliver that message, crystal clear, to those companies, in particular, tomorrow I am writing to a significant leading handful of those companies that so far have supported the legislation, pointing out the enormous impact of those sections, 705 and 707, and asking them to focus very clearly on what it means to their projects, to their economic activity, to their bottom line because, again, carbon credits will not matter once this enormous mandate and authority of the President goes into effect.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise again in strong support of my amendment No. 2644 to the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill. It is coauthored by the distinguished Senator Bennett from Utah, and it is strongly supported by many other Members. There has been a lot said about this amendment, most of it inaccurate, so let me step back and start with what the amendment says. It is pretty simple, pretty straightforward when you actually read it. The amendment simply requires the census that we are set to take next year to ask whether the respondent is a citizen. The amendment does not do anything but that. It simply says: The census should ask folks if they are citizens. It is very straightforward. We should count every person in the United States. The census should include everyone, but in so doing, I am encouraging, and my amendment would require, that the census ask if an individual is a citizen. Compared to that statement of policy, that simple goal, it is absolutely mind-boggling to me some of the statements that have been made about it. First, the distinguished majority leader Senator Reid admitted in several conference calls and statements to the press that he is trying to invoke cloture on this bill specifically to block out any vote, any discussion of the Vitter amendment. Secondly, in saying that, the majority leader called my amendment ``anti-immigrant.'' I honestly don't see how any reasonable person can say that when we take a census and we simply ask whether the respondent is a citizen or a noncitizen--and plenty of noncitizens are here legally--that is anti-immigrant. Third, and perhaps most outrageously, Senator Reid said my effort is akin to the activities in the 1950s and 1960s to intimidate Black citizens and try to get them to stay away from voting in the voting booth. I take personal offense to that. I think there is no reasonable comparison, and I ask Senator Reid to apologize to me for that outrageous statement on the Senate floor. As I said, what the amendment does is simple. It says that the census should ask whether a respondent is a citizen or not. Why is that important? Well, for at least two reasons. First of all, the census is an enormously important tool we in Congress are supposed to use-- information and statistics--as we tackle any number of significant issues and Federal programs. Certainly it is a very significant and important issue that we deal with the immigration problem and the issue of illegal immigration. And certainly it is useful to know, if we are going to spend $14 billion to do a census, who within that number are citizens and who within that number are noncitizens. Secondly, and even more important, the top thing the census is used for, the first thing the census is used for is to reapportion the U.S. House of Representatives, to determine after each census is done how many U.S. House Members each State gets. The current plan is to count everybody and not ask whether a person is a citizen or a noncitizen. So the current plan is to reapportion House seats using that overall number--using both citizens and noncitizens in the mix. I think that is wrong. I think that is contrary to the whole intent of the Constitution and the establishment of Congress as a democratic institution to represent citizens. I believe only citizens should be in that particular calculation for the reapportionment of the U.S. House of Representatives. This is a significant issue for many States, including my State of Louisiana. It has a very big and direct and concrete impact on Louisiana and certain other States. It comes down to this: If the census is done next year and reapportionment happens using everybody-- citizens and noncitizens--Louisiana is going to lose a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. We will lose one-seventh of our standing there, our representation there, our clout. If the census was done and only the number of citizens was used to determine reapportionment, Louisiana would not lose that House seat. We would retain seven seats. So that has a very big and direct impact on my State of Louisiana. I would also point out that it will have the same impact in seven other States: North Carolina, South Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Michigan, Iowa, and Indiana--excuse me, eight other States. So a total of nine States are in this position, Louisiana being one of them. So it is a very significant issue that directly impacts many citizens and many States. So I urge all of my colleagues to support getting a vote on the Vitter amendment by denying cloture on the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill. However you may vote, this is an important issue, and however you may vote, we need a full debate and a vote. In particular, I would urge my colleagues from North Carolina, South Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Michigan, Iowa, Indiana, and, of course, Louisiana to vote no on cloture so we can examine this very significant issue and so we can have a vote on the Vitter-Bennett amendment. There has been discussion in at least two areas that I wish to quickly address. One is some discussion in the press, including from my distinguished colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, who has indicated that what I just laid out in terms of the impact on reapportionment isn't true. Well, I think every expert who has looked at this, every demographer who has looked at this agrees with what I just said, that this factor is the difference between Louisiana losing a House seat or not and these other States losing a House seat or not. I would point out three experts, but there are many others. Dr. Elliott Stonecipher, demographer from Louisiana, has been leading the charge on this issue. I compliment him for his tenacity and his hard work. But there are others as well. In an October 27, 2009, New York Times article, my numbers were again confirmed by Andrew Beverage, professor of sociology at Queens College, New York. He did an independent analysis and said exactly the same thing, that, yes, this issue of whether we use citizens and noncitizens in reapportionment does make that huge difference for those States. And last week, my analysis and my numbers were confirmed yet again by an independent and well-respected demographic expert--again in my State of Louisiana--Greg Rigamer with GCR and Associates. And that is very significant. Secondly, I wish to briefly address this cost issue. It is interesting that in this debate, the other side has been flailing around for an argument against my amendment, though nobody has argued-- or nobody whom I have heard--that reapportionment should be done counting citizens and noncitizens, and that is more consistent with the notion of Congress being the representative body of citizens of the United States. So folks on the other side are wildly flailing around for some argument, and the one they have come across is cost: Oh my goodness, the census would have to incur additional cost to add this to the form. Well, it is certainly true that it would cost some more. I can't give you a precise dollar figure, but it would cost something more. It is certainly true it would have been better for this to have been caught and debated earlier rather than later. Unfortunately, the committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which reviews the census forms, did not bring this issue up in a significant way. I agree with that. I don't agree with this wild figure that it would cost $1 billion. Let me point out a couple of things. First of all, the cost of the census has ballooned from the last census. The last census was $3.4 billion; this census is going to be $14 billion. So the first thing I would say, quite honestly, is that it is pretty ironic for an agency that has had a budget balloon from $3.4 billion in the last census to $14 billion this census to say they can't squeeze in that question, that they can't do it right for $14 billion. Secondly, quite frankly, the Census Bureau has a horrendous record in terms of cost estimates. When they threw out this very large, very round figure of it costing an additional $1 billion, I called them and said: OK, can you give us the rationale for that, the background on that cost estimate? After 3 weeks of asking for the data behind that $1 billion claim, they sent us one piece of paper with 10 bullet points on it, all very general statements and suggestions, with a final bottom line being a nice even round figure of $1 billion--very unimpressive, in my opinion, in terms of any precise accounting for $1 billion. I would also draw everyone's attention to an October 7, 2009, GAO report delivered to the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security. It was about the census. In that report, the GAO said: Given the Bureau's past difficulties in developing credible and accurate cost estimates, we are concerned about the reliability of the figures that were used to support the 2010 budget. In another example, the Office of the Inspector General filed a report in 2008 about the census. In that report, the office inspected a particular cost estimate from the Census Bureau that came up to $494 million for a certain portion of their activity, and they said: We think this is a wildly inflated figure, and we can immediately identify cost savings that bring it down to $348 million--a significant savings of almost $150 million. When the Census Bureau was confronted with that, they had to agree and they had to adopt the lower figure. So, Mr. President, the bottom line is simple: We do a census every 10 years. It is a very important event. We need to do it right, and to do it right, we need a full debate and a vote on this central question embodied by the Vitter-Bennett amendment. So I urge all of my colleagues to vote no on cloture of the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill to demand a reasonable debate and vote on the Vitter-Bennett amendment. This is an important question, and we simply shouldn't forge ahead. Americans have a fundamental problem with not even asking the citizenship question and therefore forging ahead with a plan to reapportion the entire U.S. House of Representatives by putting noncitizens in the mix, when the whole notion of our representative democracy and of Congress is to represent the citizens of the country. I urge my colleagues to support that position, and I thank my colleagues who have done so thus so far. In particular, I urge my colleagues from North Carolina, South Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Michigan, Iowa, Indiana, and certainly Louisiana to stand up for their States, to stand up for their interests, to stand up for their clout and their representation in the U.S. House of Representatives. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I absolutely agree with my colleague. I would point out in that vein, the Sessions amendment got broad support. When the Democratic leadership handling the bill on the floor asked to table the amendment, that was rejected 53 to 44. In a similar way, they attempted to table the amendment of our colleague from South Carolina, and that motion was defeated 54 to 44. My amendment was adopted by unanimous consent. Yet with that clear support from the Senate floor, the leadership on the other side apparently went to conference and took out those amendments in the dead of night. I find that worrisome. I find it worrisome in terms of the process. I find it worrisome in terms of immigration reform and where we are apparently headed. Again, as I said, these were three significant amendments put in this bill on the Senate floor. All three have been stripped out of this conference report. Let me focus for a minute on my proposal. When the bill was on the Senate floor, my amendment, which was Senate amendment No. 1375, was passed by unanimous consent. So literally no one in the entire body, Democratic or Republican, objected. Essentially, everyone agreed to put this amendment on the bill. The amendment was to prohibit funding to the Department of Homeland Security if they implemented any changes in a final rule requiring employees to follow the rules of the Federal Social Security no-match notices. This, as E-Verify, is an important piece of the puzzle. It is an important piece of the solution. In August of 2007, the Department of Homeland Security introduced its no-match regulation. This clarified the responsibility of employers who receive notice that their employees' names and Social Security numbers don't match up with the records at Social Security. So under the rule, employers receiving these notices who did not take corrective action would be deemed to have constructive knowledge that they are employing unauthorized aliens. So, in other words, the intent and the way the rule worked was very simple and straightforward. If records went in to the Department of Homeland Security, if a name and a Social Security number didn't match according to Social Security records, then the Federal Government would notify the employer and would say: Time out; you have a problem. You need to do something about it. If it is a mistake, we need to figure that out, but otherwise it seems as though you are hiring an illegal. So stop and either clear up the mistake or do not hire that person. This rule provided employers with clear guidance on the appropriate due diligence they should undertake if they received that sort of letter from the Federal Government. So employers who received no-match letters would know they have a problem: Either their record keeping needs to be improved or they have hired illegal workers. The DHS no- match rule gives companies that want to follow the law a clear path to safety. Companies that prefer to ignore the problem or have chosen to run their business with illegal labor cannot be forced to act responsibly, so they do so at their peril under this rule. Since the Social Security letter leaves a clear record for DHS investigators to build a case against employers, it makes the entire system far more workable. My amendment simply said we are going to keep that new rule in place. It is important for enforcement. It is important for workplace enforcement. It is important to get our hands around the problem of illegal immigration because of the common sense behind that concept. My amendment was adopted on the Senate floor unanimously, by unanimous consent. As I said, Senator Sessions had an important amendment which he just talked about to expand the E-Verify system. That amendment was actually opposed by some, and there was a motion to table the amendment, but that motion to table was defeated 53 to 44. Similarly, Senator DeMint of South Carolina had an important immigration enforcement amendment. He will be coming to the floor to talk about that this afternoon. His amendment required the completion of at least 700 miles of reinforced fencing along the southwest border by December 31, 2010. Again, his amendment was opposed by some liberals on the Senate floor. They moved to table that amendment but, again, by a significant vote that motion to table was defeated 54 to 44. So if these amendments are adopted by comfortable, if not unanimous, margins in the Senate, why are they being stripped in the dead of night in the conference committee report? Unfortunately, I think it is clear this Congress, under the Democratic leadership, and this administration want to take a very different approach to immigration, and they are not serious about any of these enforcement measures. I think that is a shame because these three amendments and other good enforcement ideas I believe represent the common sense of the vast majority of the American people. To me, this harkens back to the major immigration reform debate we had in the summer of 2007 when a big so- called comprehensive immigration reform bill came to the floor of the Senate. It didn't have enough enforcement, in my opinion. It did have a huge amnesty program instead. So by the end of the debate, the American people spoke loudly and clearly. They said: No, we want enforcement. We want to do everything we can on the enforcement side first. We don't want a big amnesty. That so-called comprehensive bill was defeated by a wide margin. After that seminal event, so many on the Senate floor, including many who had backed that bill, Senator McCain among them, said: OK, we heard the American people. We heard you loudly and clearly. We need to start with effective enforcement. We need to start with commonsense measures, such as a certain amount of fencing, such as E-Verify, such as the Social Security no-match rule. Yet when we put those commonsense measures in this bill, what happened? In this Congress, led by Democratic leadership, under this administration, it was just stripped out of the conference committee report. Sure, it got big votes on the Senate floor; sure, it has widespread House support; sure, the Vitter amendment was adopted by unanimous consent. We don't care. We are going to strip it out. The message is loud and clear. The message is, we don't care what the American people have said. We don't care what they said in the summer of 2007. We don't care what they say over and over and over again about these issues--no-match, E-Verify, fencing--we are just going to oppose any of those commonsense enforcement measures. I truly believe the second half of where the leadership in this Congress and this administration is coming from is the same thing as the second half of that immigration reform bill in 2007: a big amnesty program with little to no enforcement, a big amnesty program. We need to listen to the American people. We don't need to play games and say we are supporting provisions and then have them stripped out of conference reports. We need to be more straightforward, more honest in what we are truly about in attacking this problem. Unfortunately, this conference report is an example of exactly the opposite. I urge my colleagues to pay attention to what is happening because so many folks in this body are speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They are saying: Oh, yes, fence, sure; E-Verify, absolutely; social security no-match, sure. Then they get certain leaders of the conference committee to do their dirty work and just strip those provisions. They are ignoring the will of the American people. They are rejecting commonsense enforcement, and according to many reports, the Obama administration and its leaders in the Congress are going to attempt another push for broad-based amnesty. We need to listen to the American people and not play games. In particular, we need to stop this game playing overall. Senator Sessions, my distinguished colleague from Alabama, was right when he said these sorts of antics--talking out of both sides of our mouths on this issue, stripping so-called popular amendments from a conference committee report--these antics are exactly what is eroding confidence in Congress overall. This is exactly what the American people are so frustrated and, in fact, so scared about with regard to many other issues, such as health care. I believe this is of real concern as we go into the health care debate because, quite frankly, what does it matter what we adopt on the Senate floor when the conference committee work is going to be handled, perhaps, just like this Homeland Security conference committee was. People can have little confidence based on our votes on the Senate floor. The conference committee work can be diametrically opposed to it on significant issue after significant issue, just as it was on no match, on E-Verify, on fencing. We need to stop eroding public confidence in that way. We need to do what is, in fact, our first job in the Congress, House and Senate, which is to listen to the American people and, yes, represent the American people. I am afraid this DHS conference report, with its significant omissions in the area of Social Security no match, E-Verify, and fencing, is a sign that this leadership in Congress and this administration are not prepared to do any of that. I lament that. I urge all of our colleagues to come back together and demand progress on E-Verify, on no match, and on fencing, and to stop this game playing as we move to other crucial issues, including health care. Mr. President, I yield the floor. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to join my distinguished colleague from Alabama, as well as our colleague from South Carolina, who will come to the floor soon to talk about this Department of Homeland Security Appropriations conference report and specifically the major provisions which had broad bipartisan support which were stripped out of the conference report in the dead of night. I wish to thank my colleague from Alabama for all his work on this issue in general, particularly the E-Verify system. I strongly support the E-Verify system. I strongly support expanding it aggressively. It is part of a solution. It is not the whole solution; no one item is. But it is an important part of the solution to get our hands around immigration enforcement, particularly at the workplace. So I thank my colleague for that work.

Mr. VITTER. Absolutely, I will yield.

Mr. VITTER. Absolutely.

Mr. VITTER. Absolutely.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, the point is very simple. A big decennial census is coming up next year. Under the current plans of the Census Bureau, we are going to count everybody in the country--and that is fine--but we are not going to distinguish, we are not going to know the difference between citizens and noncitizens. I think that is not fine, I think that is crazy, and I think it will lead to some dangerous results. First of all, the whole purpose of a census is to give us maximum information, maximum tools we can use in a whole host of policy debates and Federal programs. Certainly, it is useful to know both the overall number of persons in the country but also the subcategories of citizens and noncitizens. That is particularly relevant because the immigration debate is important, and we need to get our hands around that issue. Secondly, and even more important, it is important because I believe when we use the census for congressional redistricting for determining how many U.S. House seats each State gets, we should count citizens, but we should not count in that context noncitizens, including illegal aliens. I think it is crazy, nutty, and I think the average American certainly agrees that we would determine how many U.S. House Members every State gets to represent it in the Congress and count noncitizens, including illegal aliens. I do not think the Founding Fathers set up a democracy--in many ways one of the most important democratic institutions in history in the U.S. Congress--to represent noncitizens. Why are we not adding in the entire population of France or Belgium or Brazil? For obvious reasons, because this is a democracy to represent citizens of the United States. Of course, we can only avoid that in terms of congressional reapportionment if we know the subcategories of the count, citizens versus noncitizens. I urge all of my colleagues to support having a vote on this Vitter amendment to the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill and then, of course, when we get to a vote--and we will--hopefully, on this bill but sometime in the near future--I assure you, we will--to support in a bipartisan way this amendment. Let me make two final points. First of all, I have made every reasonable attempt to get this vote. I had two other amendments on the list for votes on this bill that were important to me and I think are important substantively. I have told, through our representatives, the majority leader and his office that I will forgo votes on those two other amendments. We need a vote on this crucial amendment. Secondly, I remind particular Senators from eight States that their States will lose representation in the U.S. House if we count noncitizens versus if we were to do congressional reapportionment only counting citizens. I believe everybody should be focused on this issue. I believe everybody should support my commonsense position. But surely the Senators from those eight States would want to vote for their States' self-interest. Those States are Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, North Carolina, and, of course, my State of Louisiana. Again, I particularly appeal through the Chair to the Senators from those eight States--Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Louisiana. Obviously, for the very interests of your State, please support getting a vote on the Vitter amendment. Please support the Vitter amendment. Your State's representation in the U.S. House hangs in the balance. Of course, that means please do not vote for cloture on the CJS bill until we can have such a vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I stand to urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to support having a vote on Vitter amendment No. 2466 to the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill. Unfortunately, the majority leader and others have been working quite hard to block that vote. I believe this issue demands attention, demands focus, demands reasonable debate, and a vote. What is this issue? This is the revised version of my amendment to that appropriations bill: None of the funds provided in this Act or any other act for any fiscal year may be used for collection of census data that does not include a question regarding United States Citizenship. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record my amendment.

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 rise to talk about my pending amendment to the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, amendment No. 2644. Apparently, this has created some interest and some opposition. It apparently is one of the major, if not the major, reason the majority leader felt the need to file cloture on the Commerce-Justice-State bill rather than simply come to an agreement regarding pending amendments and votes. It saddens me that--although that agreement was all worked out, basically--it was out the window, and he just decided to file cloture and bar votes on all of those amendments, including my amendment No. 2644. I think we should have a reasonable debate on my amendment and then a straightforward vote on the amendment because it is an important topic, directly related to that bill. What does the amendment do? My amendment is about the next census. It simply says no funds in that appropriations bill can be spent on the next census unless we ask about citizenship. I believe that is a basic requirement for the next census, to give us adequate tools to deal with a whole host of issues, including illegal immigration, including properly handling congressional reapportionment. Again, I find it very sad and, frankly, telling that the majority leader is going to such lengths to avoid having a vote on that simple concept, that simple idea. Why should we ask a question about citizenship? A couple of reasons. First of all, the census is supposed to give us in Congress important information, detailed information, the tools we need regarding how to handle a host of Federal programs and Federal issues. Certainly a major issue we need to deal with in this country and in this Congress is immigration, including illegal immigration. It seems like basic information we would want to collect. How many folks covered in the census are citizens and how many are noncitizens? That is basic information that would help us in a whole host of ways with regard to Federal programs and with regard to dealing with the immigration issue. There is another even more important reason, in my opinion, we should collect this information, and that is because one of the most important things any census is used for is reapportioning the U.S. House of Representatives; determining how many House seats each State in the Union gets in terms of representation. As it stands now, the plan is to do the census, to not distinguish in any way between citizens and noncitizens, and therefore to have noncitizens counted in congressional reapportionment. I think this is crazy and goes against the very idea of a representative democracy, people being elected by voters to represent citizens in the Congress. I don't think the Founding Fathers set up our democracy to have noncitizens represented in the Congress. As it stands now, without asking that simple, basic, fundamental question, noncitizens will be counted in congressional reapportionment. That means States with a particularly large number of noncitizens, including illegal aliens, will be rewarded for that, will get more representation, more say, more clout in the House of Representatives. States that do not have that issue will be hurt. They will get less say, less clout, less Members of the House of Representatives. I think that is fundamentally wrong. I also have a very specific interest in finding against that because Louisiana is one of nine States that would specifically be hurt. There are at least nine States that will have less representation in the House of Representatives if we count all people in congressional reapportionment, including noncitizens, versus if we just count citizens. It is important to say what those nine States are, and I specifically reached out to the Senators representing those nine specific States to make it clear to them that their States lose out in terms of that equation. Those States are Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oregon, and Louisiana. Those nine States would have less representation, less say, less clout in the House of Representatives if all people, including noncitizens, are counted in congressional reapportionment versus if only citizens are counted. Once again: Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oregon, and Louisiana. I particularly implore my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, from those States to be aware of that, to support the Vitter amendment, and so we get to a vote on the Vitter amendment, No. 2644, to vote against cloture on the entire bill. Unfortunately, there are several Senators from those States who voted for cloture yesterday. I hope they will reconsider. I hope they would see, if they vote for cloture again, that they would be preventing us getting to this issue. They would be preventing us getting to a reasonable and full debate and vote on this issue. I implore all Senators from Indiana, including Senator Bayh, who voted for cloture previously; from Iowa, including the Senators there who voted for cloture previously; the two Senators from Michigan; the two Senators from Pennsylvania; the Democratic Senator from North Carolina; the Democratic Senator from Louisiana--please don't vote for cloture again until we can get a reasonable vote on this amendment. Let me specifically address some of the arguments that have been made against this amendment because I think they are completely erroneous. One argument is this will intimidate folks and discourage noncitizens from filling out the census form. I think it is important to note, No. 1, this citizenship question is asked on the long form. The long form gets millions of responses, and the census has never noted any difficulty in getting folks to fill out the long form. This question is also asked in the American Community Survey which the Census Bureau does. Again, the same citizenship question is asked here, and we get plenty of responses. The Census Bureau has never noted a big problem in terms of getting those responses. To make this perfectly clear, I am perfectly willing to revise my amendment so that we only focus on citizenship, not immigration status. I will be happy to revise my amendment so it only mentions and only focuses on citizenship versus immigration status. The other argument, that the Census Bureau itself has apparently made, is that this would be cumbersome and cost money at this stage in the census. Frankly, I find this pretty ironic coming from a bureaucracy which is spending $13 billion on this new census, up from $4.5 billion from the last census. Here is a bureaucracy where the cost of the new census versus the last census has tripled. The last score they are getting $13 billion, but asking this one question, which they already ask in the long form, which they already ask in the American Community Survey, is a huge problem and will cost too much money. That simply is silly on its face. It is important to do this right. Certainly asking a basic question about citizenship is central to doing it right. In summary, I urge all my colleagues to demand a vote on this important issue and to vote against cloture on the bill until we get that vote. Then, when we get that vote, I urge all my colleagues to support the Vitter amendment, No. 2644. It is very simple and straightforward. It will say: Ask the citizenship question. Let us know how many folks in the overall count are citizens and how many are noncitizens. That is absolutely essential, No. 1, so we can use the census information as a full tool in many of the programs and policies we debate and implement in Congress. No. 2, it is particularly important for congressional reapportionment. I do not believe noncitizens should be counted in congressional reapportionment. I don't believe States which have particularly large noncitizen populations should have more say and more clout in Congress because of that than States that do not, and that States such as Louisiana should be penalized. I don't believe those nine States in particular--Louisiana, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oregon--should be penalized by including noncitizens in congressional reapportionment. I certainly do not believe Senators representing those nine States should vote either for cloture, cutting off a vote on my amendment, or should vote against my amendment. Again, I particularly urge all Senators from those nine States to stand up for their States, to vote for the interests of their States, to vote for their States getting full and proper representation, to vote against their States being penalized in terms of the census and in terms of congressional reapportionment. It is a simple issue but a very basic, fundamental issue. The census is an important tool. It only happens once every 10 years. We need to get it right for a whole host of reasons, particularly with congressional reapportionment in mind. I daresay if any Members of this body go back home to their States and have a discussion in a diner, have a townhall meeting, just ask a representative group of citizens: Did you know that noncitizens, including illegal aliens, are not only counted in the census-- but we do not discriminate--we do not know the numbers of noncitizens versus citizens? And, because of that, did you know all of those noncitizens are factored into determining how many House seats each State gets so that States with very large noncitizen populations, including large numbers of illegal aliens, are rewarded for that; they get more clout and say and vote in the House of Representatives, and other States, particularly the nine States I mentioned, are penalized because of that? I daresay the average citizen would be stunned about that and would say, hardly with any exception: That is not right. We should know those numbers, and we should not count noncitizens in terms of House representation. I certainly think citizens and voters in Indiana, in Iowa, in Oregon, in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Louisiana would certainly say: Wait a minute, we are being penalized because noncitizens are being counted or being worked into the formula for representation in Congress? That is crazy. It is crazy. It doesn't meet the smell test, it doesn't meet the commonsense test of the American people, and we should act to make sure the next census is done right, starting by having a vote on the Vitter amendment, No. 2644, and by passing that amendment to the bill. With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and to call up Vitter amendment No. 2644.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I will read the amendment to explain what it is about: None of the amounts made available in this title under the heading ``COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES'' may be used in contravention of section 6429(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. That is the entire amendment. What does that mean? That Illegal Immigration Reform Act is about the mandate that local government has to fully cooperate with Federal immigration officials with regard to immigration enforcement. It doesn't mean that local governments become immigration agents, that they have the affirmative responsibility to do all of that work for the proper Federal authorities. It does mean that when they come across illegal immigrants and arrest them, for instance, for local law violations, they are dutybound under Federal law to properly inform Federal authorities. The problem is, in several select jurisdictions, so-called sanctuary cities, they have made the affirmative public statement and decision that they are not going to do that. They will not comply with Federal law. They are going to ignore Federal immigration law, and they are not going to cooperate in any way with Federal immigration enforcement authorities. We can debate whether that is good policy or bad, but we don't really need to get to that level of debate because it is present Federal law that cooperation must be extended by local police agencies and local governments. These sanctuary cities--it is beyond debate--are violating current Federal law. They are taking Federal law and saying: Too bad. We are not going to have anything to do with it. We will violate Federal law. We will not cooperate in any way with Federal immigration enforcement. My amendment says if you violate Federal law, you will have to live by some consequences. Specifically, you will lose COPS funding for your specific jurisdiction. If you want to do that, if you want to flaunt the law, there is going to be a meaningful consequence. You will lose community policing grants. I believe this is reasonable and necessary because there are a number of sanctuary cities that have made the affirmative decision that they are going to flaunt and ignore and violate Federal law, have nothing to do with proper enforcement of Federal immigration law and the necessary cooperation between those Federal agencies and local law enforcement. Nobody wants to make local law enforcement immigration enforcement. Nobody wants to place on them some affirmative duty to do the work of Federal immigration offices, which is significant. We are not trying to place that additional burden or some unfunded mandate on them. But existing Federal law does say they need to cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement. They can't have an affirmative policy that when they arrest, for a local charge, somebody who is in the country illegally, they forget about that, turn their eye to it, and never notify Federal authorities. Tragically, this bad sanctuary city policy has had tragic results. I will mention one such instance. This involved an illegal alien, Edwin Ramos, who is currently being charged with three counts of murder in San Francisco. That is because he shot and killed Tony Bologna, 48, and his two sons--Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16--after they were driving home from a family picnic last June. Apparently, this dispute started after Tony Bologna blocked the gunman's car from completing a left turn. That was enough to merit getting out of the car and unloading a semiautomatic weapon on Bologna's vehicle, killing him and both of his sons. Ramos is a native of El Salvador. He was in the country illegally. He is a reputed member of the gang MS-13, and had previously been found guilty of two felonies as a juvenile; not exactly misdemeanors either, a gang-related assault and the attempted robbery of a pregnant woman. Ramos had been arrested at least three times before this triple murder. He was living illegally in the United States. There was no documentation of legal status, no temporary visa status. So why wasn't he deported when he was arrested, particularly on violent charges? Because San Francisco is a sanctuary city. They have made the affirmative determination that established a policy of breaking Federal law and not having anything to do with immigration enforcement. That led directly to a triple murder of three innocent American citizens. This is one tragic story. There are others. The bottom line is, we have a Federal law that should prevent that. We need that law enforced and lived by, by all local jurisdictions. The Vitter amendment will put some reasonable teeth behind enforcement and some meaningful consequence when local authorities choose to completely ignore and violate Federal law. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, reasonable amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up Vitter amendment No. 2630.

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

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

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

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I present this amendment on behalf of myself and my distinguished colleague from Utah, Mr. Bennett, who will speak after me. It is a very simple but, I believe, a very important amendment. It says we are not going to do a census that doesn't ask some basic questions about citizenship and immigration status. Specifically, the amendment reads: None of the funds provided in this act or any other act for any fiscal year may be used for collection of census data that does not include questions regarding United States citizenship and immigration status. I believe this is a vital amendment for two reasons. If we don't adopt this amendment or other legislation, the census will move forward and will not distinguish in any way between citizens and folks in this country legally and noncitizens. That, in my opinion, is absolutely crazy, again, for two reasons. No. 1, the census is done every 10 years to give Congress an important tool in terms of many things that Congress and other bodies of government do: funding, public policy, different programs. Clearly, we need accurate, specific information about the illegal alien question in this country. I assume we will all agree, however we come down on the issue, that illegal immigration is a big issue and a big problem. We debate that issue, we try to solve that issue in different ways all the time in this body. Yet we would do a census, we would spend tens of billions of dollars on a census, and we wouldn't ask the question: Are you a citizen and, if not, are you in this country legally or illegally? That is absolutely crazy. The census does ask those questions in the long form. They are able to get the long form completed. They are able to compile information, but that is not the full census; that is a tiny percentage of the full population. So if we are going to spend tens of billions of dollars every 10 years to do a major census, it seems absolutely a no-brainer that we would get full and accurate information about the number of illegals in this country. Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, the single most important thing we use the decennial census for is to reapportion the House of Representatives, to decide how many House Members each State gets. Under the Federal plan, the way the census is designed, the House would be reapportioned counting illegal aliens. States that have large populations of illegals would be rewarded for that. Other States, including my home State of Louisiana, would be penalized. I believe it is very clear that when the Founders set up our representative democracy, they didn't think of the basic fundamental institutions of our government as representing folks who come into the country breaking the law, staying here illegally. I think it is shocking to most Americans when they hear we would even consider reapportioning the House of Representatives counting illegals, but that is exactly the plan now. Of course, we would have no opportunity to debate that or to adopt a new plan unless the census distinguishes between citizens and legals and illegals, which my amendment would demand we do. This isn't some theoretical issue. This is a very concrete issue, a very meaningful issue about how much representation each State has in the House of Representatives. There are many States that will lose representation from what they would otherwise have if illegal aliens are counted in congressional reapportionment. Specifically, the States of Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina would lose out. So I wish to specifically speak to my colleagues in this body--Republicans and Democrats alike--from those States: Please support the Vitter and Bennett amendment No. 2644. It has a direct impact on whether you are going to have less representation in the House of Representatives or more. Let me be even more blunt. If you vote against this amendment, you are voting against the interests of your State. If you vote against this amendment, you are voting for your State having less representation in the House of Representatives than they would if illegals are not counted in reapportionment. Again, with that in mind, I wish to repeat the list: Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. For Senators from those States, it is a vote directly about their State's own interests and their State's representation in the House of Representatives. More broadly speaking, I think the huge majority of Americans would certainly take the view I am suggesting, which is we should not apportion Members of the House based, in part, on illegals. We should not reward States for having large illegal populations and penalize States that do not. I think that is on a different planet from where our Founding Fathers were in setting up the basic Democratic institutions of our country, and there is no more basic and no more Democratic institution than the House of Representatives. With that, I urge all my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to support this amendment. I yield time to my distinguished colleague from Utah, Mr. Bennett.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I will be brief. I wish to compliment my distinguished colleague from Maine on her amendment. It was very well tailored and very carefully put together. I do think it is a shame that it won't be able to come to any vote because of this procedural move by the assistant majority leader. I want to underscore three points: No. 1, maybe we can talk about some other universe when we debate the Beck amendment, but we are not debating the Glenn Beck amendment, we are talking about the Collins amendment, and we will get to vote on the Vitter amendment. What all of us have been talking about are appointees of the President whose offices were not created by statute in any way and who were never Senate confirmed. No. 2, I also want to underscore the point that this is clearly a bipartisan concern, as evidenced by Senator Byrd's letter of February and the recent comments of Senator Russ Feingold. It is a very serious and very bipartisan concern. No. 3, we will have an opportunity to vote on this issue today under my amendment. The climate change czar is one of those 18, and she clearly threatens to supercede and overshadow Senate-confirmed Cabinet members such as the head of EPA. My amendment is very simple. It says EPA shouldn't have to carry out orders of the climate change czar when it is supposed to be headed by a Cabinet member, a Senate-confirmed appointee, directly at EPA. So again I compliment the Senator from Maine on her efforts. I will certainly pledge ongoing support on the issue, including through my amendment. I yield back my time.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of recognition before we move away from this issue.

Mr. VITTER. Through the Chair, my answer is no, I don't believe that. My amendment has nothing to do with that, and, by the way, that position is created by statute.