David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, if folks feel that way, they should come to Congress and change Federal law, not simply defy Federal law. This is another amnesty vote. Are we going to give folks in sanctuary cities amnesty for defying Federal law and refusing to cooperate, as Federal law demands, with Federal immigration officials?

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Reserving the right to object because I have no idea off the top of my head what all of those are, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, point of clarification. If an amendment is not on that list, is it cut off for the evening?

Mr. VITTER. I object.

Mr. VITTER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: Is that a unanimous consent request to accept those amendments, because if it is, I object and would request a vote on 4299.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's comments. I only add my final comments that I was here Tuesday morning with this amendment, ready to briefly talk about this amendment and get a vote on the Senate rules on this amendment. For 48 hours, we did nothing in terms of votes. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4299.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this is about reimportation. There is a clear majority in the Congress to pass reimportation legislation. I think there is a clear 60-vote majority in the Senate to do so. So why aren't we getting on with that business? Let's do it. This simply says we should take up a full-blown reimportation bill, with all the necessary safety provisions, and have that debate and vote on the floor of the Senate this year. It is as simple as that. We have the votes. Let's do that. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise today to join several of my colleagues to continue to focus on the enormous problem facing our country of illegal immigration. I am proud to not only rise with these colleagues, some of whom have been on the floor this morning, but also to actively work with them on important enforcement and other measures that we can and must push forward this year to make significant improvements, to take significant strides in moving forward to solve the problem. Yesterday, I announced, along with others, two things--first of all, the formation of a brand-new caucus in the Senate, which I organized. I am proud to say that now I believe the number is 12 Members have joined the caucus. It is the Border Security and Enforcement First Caucus. The purpose behind the group is exactly as the name implies: to push border security and enforcement first as the key, necessary first step in solving this enormous problem. We have tried the other approach over and over for decades, and that is the so-called comprehensive approach. All that has yielded is gaps of time--3 to 5 years--and then there is a comprehensive approach that was tried and completely rejected by the American people. That approach has only led to failure because it doesn't jibe with what the American people know is the right approach, which is taking this in steps and starting with crucial enforcement, proving to them that Washington is going to do what it has never done before--have the political will and get real about enforcement. Most recently, of course, the American people rejected that approach last July when they chimed in and had the Senate view its will to kill that last so-called comprehensive bill--a large amnesty bill with which they disagreed vehemently. So this is a new approach that can lead to progress, achievement, and success--enforcement first. Also, yesterday a broad group of Senators introduced a package of bills that moves us in that direction. I have two bills in that package, which I will briefly mention. The first bill would say that so-called sanctuary cities--local jurisdictions that set as official policy that they are not going to cooperate in any way with immigration enforcement and with our Federal immigration enforcement officials--will not get COPS funding. Instead, that COPS funding will go to the rest of the local jurisdictions in the country who do work with us in immigration enforcement. The second amendment simply says that matricula consular cards issued by the Mexican Government to their citizens in this country-- oftentimes, their citizens who are here illegally cannot be accepted by U.S. banks, to allow them to do things like open bank accounts and have credit cards. That is clearly a vehicle that is used now by millions of illegal aliens, allowing them to operate freely and effectively in this country. It should end for many reasons, security reasons and for enforcement reasons. My bill would do that. Again, I am proud to join with a number of Senators in this important push toward enforcement first and the formation of our new caucus, the Border Security and Enforcement First Caucus, and in introducing this important package of bills, which we can move and pass this year. I urge all of my colleagues to reject and defy the conventional wisdom that we cannot do significant things in a big election year. We can and we must because we face significant challenges, and certainly illegal immigration is near the top of that list. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I have one very quick point of clarification. My amendment does not mandate that the loser pays in every case. That would be a significant departure from tradition in American law. My amendment does not do that. My amendment gives the judge discretion to decide if the loser pays, only in both directions, not just in favor of the direction of the attorney general, as the underlying bill does. That is a very simple clarification. It is not a mandatory ``loser pays'' rule. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, since I have yielded back my time, to have 30 additional seconds to clarify my point, and then I will ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise again today in strong support of my amendment No. 4097. My amendment is very simple and very straightforward and, in fact, it conforms to present law, as well as to provisions in the House bill, with regard to the awarding of reasonable costs and attorney's fees. My amendment simply says that a judge can award reasonable costs and attorney's fees from the loser to the winner no matter which side wins and loses. So if an attorney general brings an action and prevails on that consumer product safety action, then it is in the judge's discretion to award costs and attorney's fees from the losing private party to the attorney general. But fairly, if the opposite happens, if the private party is vindicated, if the private party goes through this litigation, which is always significant, lengthy, and costly, and wins and is vindicated, then it is also within the discretion of the judge-- it is not mandatory--it is within the discretion of the judge that the private party be awarded reasonable costs and attorney's fees from the losing side; in that case, the attorney general. That, again, is essentially present law. It can go in either direction. It is up to the court. The words are a little different, but that is essentially the policy embodied by the House bill. I think that is even and that is fair. That does not create an undue push in either direction. Unfortunately, the underlying bill, the bill before the Senate is very different. It says that only the attorney general in prevailing can get reasonable costs and attorney's fees. The private party, even if it goes through very lengthy, very protracted, and very expensive litigation and is completely vindicated, can never get reasonable costs and attorney's fees, even if the judge thinks that is appropriate. I think that is wrong. I think it is imbalanced and unfair. It is very important that we act to promote consumer safety. It is very important that we pass some of the measures in this bill and many of the measures in the House bill which I supported as an alternative. In doing that, we need to not make certain problems worse, and one of the problems that has existed is a clog of activity before the Consumer Product Safety Commission and also in the courts. I feel this underlying provision in the Senate bill, which is all in one direction, could make that clog worse, could encourage lawsuits which are not thought through, and could encourage frivolous lawsuits. That adds to the workload of the courts and potentially the Consumer Product Safety Commission. We want to encourage lawsuits which are needed--not frivolous ones, ones which are fully thought through. The Vitter amendment will establish the even playing field that will encourage that rather than encourage lawsuits which have very dubious merits and could be frivolous. It is very reasonable, common sense to say that we are going to leave this all up to the discretion of the court, nothing is mandatory, but the court can award reasonable costs and attorney's fees to either side that prevails and not only in one direction, so that a private party who is completely vindicated after a long, expensive, and protracted litigation, can never, even if the judge thinks it is appropriate, be awarded reasonable costs and attorney's fees. I urge all of my colleagues to accept this very reasonable approach, the policy of which is embodied in both present law and the House bill, and reject creating the imbalance which I think would only clog our system with lawsuits of very questionable merit. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and to call up my amendment, No. 4097.

Mr. VITTER. Yes. Mr. President, I wish to modify my unanimous consent request to include that.

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, the amendment is simple and straightforward. It establishes a ``loser pays'' rule for actions by attorneys general under the law. It doesn't make it mandatory, it makes it discretionary, or up to the court. But the court would be allowed to award costs and attorney's fees from the losing party to be paid by the losing party to the winning party. I think that is fair and reasonable. That essentially is the present law. It is also essentially the sort of provision that is in the House bill. In the Senate bill, the availability of fees and costs and attorney's fees is only available to the winner, if the winner is the attorney general. If the attorney general loses in those suits, if the private party prevails, the private party cannot get those costs and attorney's fees. I think that is unfair. Perhaps more important than it being unfair, I think it creates an imbalance that might encourage clogging the system, clogging the courts--perhaps most important, clogging the workload of the Consumer Product Safety Commission with unnecessary lawsuits that are not fully thought through. I think this reasonable provision--loser pays, whoever the loser is, up to the discretion of the courts, not mandatory, simply allowable, if the court decides--is the fair and balanced approach. In offering this, let me make clear that we need to do more to increase product safety. This bill does many good things in that regard. The House bill does many good things in that regard. I support that move. But as we do that, I don't want to create an imbalance or actually clog up the system, whether it is the court system or the CPSC workload, clog it up with unnecessary, perhaps frivolous, suits and litigation, and prevent us from getting to that goal. We should make sure we don't overburden the Consumer Product Safety Commission. One of the problems we have now that this bill and the House bill attempts to address is that of overburdening an inadequate staff and resources. So we need to make sure that as we fix those problems with one hand, we don't use the other hand to make them worse by creating incentives to increase the workload unnecessarily with lawsuits that are not thought through and that are frivolous. Again, I look forward to supporting and promoting greater consumer safety. I supported the amendment on the floor recently that embodied the House bill, because I think the House bill does that in a substantial way, without having some of the shortcomings--including this one--of the Senate bill. We do need to do more. One thing we don't need to do is create more lawsuits than actually accomplish the objective of safety or to encourage lawsuits that are not thought through, to encourage actions that can be frivolous. This is a reasonable, balanced way to prevent that. In closing, let me be clear that this doesn't mandate ``loser pays'' in every case. This says to the court that you can award costs and attorney's fees from the loser to the winner in whatever direction that works, no matter who the winners and losers are, but it is not mandatory. That is broadly consistent with present law and broadly consistent with the House bill, which I believe is a fairer, more balanced approach, which will avoid clogging up the system yet again, even as we try to give the system more resources. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I address the Senate today to announce the organization of a new caucus: the Border Security and Enforcement First Caucus. I am very proud to be joined today by several Members in this endeavor; specifically, Senators DeMint, Sessions, Inhofe, Burr, Dole, Chambliss, Isakson, and Wicker. In the next few days, or in a week or so, we will have additional Members join, I am confident, based on a number of meetings and conversations I have had. So, again, I am happy to announce this important caucus to further the debate about a pressing national challenge. Our point of view and our focus is clear: border security and enforcement first. Why join this caucus? Why form this caucus? Well, clearly, this problem is a major challenge for the country. Right now, 1 in 25 U.S. residents is here illegally. It is staggering when you think about it: 1 in 25, or 4 percent. The American people have voiced their enormous concern about this en masse, large-scale problem. They have also voiced their clear concern about some of the proposals put forward in Washington to allegedly solve the problem. One of those was shot down very clearly, very soundly last summer, and that is a solution that leads with a big, broad amnesty program. I believe this debate moved forward last summer because we defeated soundly on the Senate floor that approach because the American people were finally heard loudly and clearly. I believe the message was unmistakable, beyond debate: We don't want a big, broad amnesty; we do want enforcement first. We want enforcement first. This caucus will basically follow that lead of the American people and continue to push the viewpoint and specific, concrete legislation that puts enforcement first, both at the border and at the workplace, as the way to begin to solve this enormous illegal immigration challenge. So, first, our goal is simple: to push for border security and interior enforcement measures first, including workplace enforcement. That can be a main part of addressing this challenge and solving this problem. This caucus will be a platform to let Americans know that some in the Senate--a significant number--are continuing to make sure laws already on the books will be enforced and to push for stronger border security and interior enforcement legislation, and the funding, the mechanisms, and the systems we need in place to make that work. This caucus will act as a voice for those concerned citizens who have expressed that viewpoint--as I said, most clearly last July. Another big point this caucus will help make over and over is a simple message: attrition through enforcement. In this immigration debate, I believe it has been a stale debate dominated by a straw man. That is the false choice that either we have to grant a huge amnesty to folks in this country illegally or we have to turn around the next day and have the law enforcement and resources to arrest, as some people put it, 13 million people. That is the false choice that is so often harped on and presented on the Senate floor. That is a false choice. There is a third way, and that is attrition through enforcement or whittling down in a significant way this 13 million plus figure to something much smaller, much more manageable, through real enforcement measures, not only at the border which, of course, is necessary to make sure the numbers don't go up and up, but in the interior, specifically at the workplace. According to a recent Zogby poll, when given the choice between mass deportations, mass amnesty, and the third way, attrition through enforcement, a majority of Americans clearly choose attrition through enforcement. Of course, most polls leave out that option. Most polls promote the false choice. Most debate, quite frankly, on the Senate floor promotes the false choice, but it is false. There is this real alternative. How do we get there? Two main ways: border security--the good news there is we have begun to make inroads, spending $3 billion on significant new border security in the last appropriations cycle, and that was positive follow-on to the defeat of the amnesty bill last summer. But there is also a second key ingredient, a second key ingredient that has been largely ignored and not addressed in this effort, and that is interior enforcement, particularly at the workplace. In my opinion, that is the missing link, the missing piece of the puzzle to make all of this begin to come together. Border security is crucial. We have done significant work there. We need to do much more. But interior enforcement and enforcement at the workplace is at least as crucial. We need to have a real system that works for that security--a real-time database, not a system based on paper documents which can so easily be forged--to ensure that companies only hire folks in this country legally. When we have that system in place, that will change the dynamics overnight. That will begin this process of attrition through enforcement. That will bring that 13 million plus number down significantly, if we truly have the political will to produce a system, a real-time database, a nonpaper system to ensure that employers only hire folks in this country who are here legally. If they do otherwise, then, of course, they should be hit with significant criminal penalties. So, again, I am proud to announce the organization of this new caucus: the Border Security and Enforcement First Caucus. My colleagues will be hearing a lot more from us in the coming days and months as we repeat the message delivered by the American people last summer so loudly, so clearly: We don't want amnesty. We do want enforcement first, including workplace enforcement, including interior enforcement that can lead to attrition through enforcement. Hopefully, we can begin to get our hands around this very crippling, potentially debilitating problem of illegal immigration. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this mainstream amendment. The Vitter amendment codifies the Hyde amendment and simply says in Indian health care no taxpayer funds will be used to support abortions, with the normal exceptions of the Hyde amendment. Up to now, this has been the practice and the law, but only because the Indian health care law points to whatever the current appropriations language is on the subject in Labor, Health, and Education. And so it is a very tenuous policy that is subject to change and a vote and a change in policy every year. This amendment will solidify that policy. It will put the Hyde amendment in permanent Federal authorization law with regard to the Indian health care act, just as was done decades ago in the Defense authorization bill. It is a solid mainstream amendment, and I urge support from both sides of the aisle.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I do this to ask the distinguished Senator about the provision he is talking about. Maybe we can have a discussion about it rather than him vaguely alluding to it without pointing out the language and claiming nobody knows what it means.

Mr. VITTER. Reclaiming my remaining time, that was language I pointed out to the distinguished Senator 3 weeks ago when I introduced my amendment and we discussed it. So I think it is a little disingenuous to bring it up at this point.