David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. No, it would not.

Mr. VITTER. I think it is an exactly correct analysis of the FDA view based on the fact that the FDA, at least in this administration, is completely against reimportation, so they have defined FDA approval to specifically exclude reimportation.

Mr. VITTER. The FDA position is exactly as the Senator says. They are against reimportation, so they have defined FDA approval on technical grounds to exclude by definition anything that comes in from other countries. The point of my remarks is that these are exactly the same as FDA-approved drugs.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. VITTER. In its present form, the amendment would cover any country. We have a change in the amendment we are submitting to the desk to exclude a certain list of countries, including most of the countries the Senator mentioned.

Mr. VITTER. If I could respond, in claiming my time, I disagree with that wholeheartedly. Yes, the FDA has refused to take any action to do that. Can they? Absolutely, they can. Is it possible to do that, particularly in the modern age of packaging technology? Absolutely. Most of the drugs we are talking about, in fact, are manufactured either in this country or in the same manufacturing points as the drugs that are bought in this country. So I disagree with the premise the Senator has laid out. But that is certainly the FDA's position, not to attempt to do any of that and to be completely, 1,000 percent opposed to reimportation.

Mr. VITTER. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Florida, and I am happy to respond to the other points at some future time.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, at this point I would like to revise my amendment with the language which is at the desk.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I would respond to the chairman by saying that amendment after amendment after amendment has been directed at the FDA to do the right thing and create a sensible regime with regard to this issue, and the FDA is flatout opposed to this and has made no effort in that regard, even though there is clearly the technical capability to do that through packaging technology and the like. So this is an effort to make the entire administration--all aspects that need to be involved--do the right thing. But to say we have not asked the FDA to do this is ludicrous. We have been trying to drag them--kicking and screaming--to do the right thing for several years now. In fact, while they hide behind these safety arguments, I am afraid they are allowing safety issues to go by unaddressed. In fact, this practice is common. Whether this amendment goes on this bill, whether this activity of Customs and Border Protection continues, one thing is certain: Seniors will import, for personal use, prescription drugs from Canada and elsewhere. That will go on, to a very significant extent. Even if this amendment does not pass, Customs and Border Protection will never round up all of those drugs. This is a common and a growing practice because of the price issue. So the question is: When is the FDA going to wake up and truly address these concerns that the chairman brings up with some sensible regime? This amendment is designed to force them in that direction. But to suggest we have not asked them to do this, that we are going to the wrong agency, is a little silly because we have been asking them to do this for several years now. And we renew that request now.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, let me respond to the chairman's remarks with two comments. First of all, the FDA--right now, today, this hour, as we speak--has all the authority it needs to take any of the actions the chairman has described. It does not need any additional directive or authority. It has that authority. So the suggestion that somehow we need to act toward the FDA to give it that authority before it can move is absolutely not the case. In fact, we have been trying to get the FDA to act in this regard for several years because there are legitimate safety issues that should be met. Secondly, I compliment the chairman for trying to figure out a scenario in which this is a true top priority of Customs and Border Protection in a post 9/11 world. I just do not think it adds up, though. I do not think, with all the border security and terrorist threats we face as a nation, allowing the Customs and Border Protection agents to continue--to even escalate--their practice of taking away small amounts of prescription drugs from seniors crossing back from Canada, et cetera, is the right thing to do, is a right priority for Customs and Border Protection. With that, Mr. President, I yield back my time and look forward to the comments from my amendment cosponsor, the Senator from Florida.

Mr. VITTER. Will the Senator yield on that?

Mr. VITTER. I appreciate the suggestion. In fact, we have been talking to the chairman's staff about additional language, which we would ask be added to the amendment by unanimous consent, to create a list of countries to which this cannot apply and would specifically ask the chairman's staff for the appropriate list of countries for us to consider, a list from their point of view. So we will be happy to work on that and wrap this up before we end this floor debate.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment. I thank Senators Nelson and Coburn and others for their support. This is very simple and straightforward. It will simply say in the post-9/11 world to Customs and border security that they should not be spending precious time and precious resources confiscating prescription drugs from seniors as they come back into this country from Canada. That is the only thing the amendment does. It is only about Canada. It is only about the personal use of prescription drugs. It doesn't involve wholesale, and it doesn't involve large quantities which can be resold in this country. It is only about FDA-approved drugs or their equivalent or what would be FDA-approved drugs if FDA did not define their approval process to specifically exclude drugs from other countries. I ask for strong support of this very commonsense amendment.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I also wish to acknowledge the Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery. This year, they will celebrate their 75th anniversary, and I wish to take a few moments to highlight their contributions to Louisiana. As the only Federal fish hatchery in Louisiana, the Natchitoches station has steadily served the needs of the region. Founded in 1931, the Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery was originally established to provide recreation and food for the public during the depression and war eras. Today the hatchery dedicates itself to the restoration of depleted species, recovery of threatened or endangered fish, and management of interjurisdictional fisheries. Over the years, the Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery has been involved with raising 16 species of fish and has stocked more than 164 million fish. The station has been an invaluable resource to Louisiana's wildlife and fisheries. Federal fish hatcheries have been an important part of our Nation's resource management efforts for more than a century. Resource managers nationwide acknowledge hatcheries as a valuable tool for the preservation of our Nation's fisheries resources. Because of the importance of fisheries to Louisiana, the significance of the Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery can not be overstated. Today, I applaud the Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery on their 75th anniversary and wish them continued prosperity.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge the Louisiana Tech Chamber Singers for their participation in the 2006 Mozart Choral Festival in Vienna, Austria. As 1 of only 12 choral groups selected to perform in this festival, the Louisiana Tech Chamber Singers will stand among the most elite vocalists in the world. The Louisiana Tech choral program embodies the high standard of musical and artistic excellence in Louisiana's higher education system and represents the finest musicians the university and the Nation have to offer. Former members of the Louisiana Tech choral program have established national and international reputations as performing and recording artists in many musical genres. The 2006 Mozart Choral Festival is a celebration of the 250th anniversary of the birth of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. The participating choral groups are traveling from across the world to celebrate of one of the greatest musicians of all time by performing pieces of Mozart's most brilliant work. I applaud the Louisiana Tech Chamber Singers for their success and wish their program continued prosperity.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, the America flag is such an important symbol to our country that from the time we are children, we salute the flag with a hand over our hearts and pledge our allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. For the past two centuries, in battles all around the globe, the American flag has served as an inspiration and rallying point for our Armed Forces fighting for the ideals it embodies. We hold the flag with such reverence that it covers the coffin of America's military heroes who have dedicated their lives to the service of our Nation. Old Glory should be revered and protected because it represents American History, American sacrifice, and hope for our Nation's future. On the Fourth of July, especially, we are reminded of the sacrifices of our forefathers in founding this great Nation, and the American flag symbolizes that sacrifice. The act of burning or destroying the flag shows a tremendous disrespect for our forefathers and the countless men and women who have given their lives to make the United States what it is today. That's why I am an original cosponsor of the flag protection amendment, and I rise to speak in support of it today. By supporting this amendment, I believe that I am supporting the will of the people of Louisiana and the American people. I have received so many phone calls, letters, and e-mails from people in my home State of Louisiana in support of a constitutional amendment to prevent the desecration of our American flag. Polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that burning the U.S. flag should be a crime. According to Fox News poll when asked, ``Do you think burning the American flag should be legal or illegal?'', 73 percent respondents said they thought it should be illegal. Before the Supreme Court issued its decision in Texas v. Johnson, declaring that flag burning is politically expressive conduct protected by the first amendment, 48 States, including Louisiana, and the District of Columbia, had enacted statutes prohibiting the physical desecration of the American flag. In my opinion, the Johnson decision is just one more example of unelected activist judges ignoring the will of the American people. In response to the Court's decision in Johnson, Congress enacted the Flag Protection Act. However, in U.S. v. Eichman the Court struck down the Flag Protection Act, holding that Government's interest in protecting this symbol did not outweigh the individual's right to politically expressive conduct. Since the Supreme Court issued these 2 decisions, all 50 States have passed resolutions asking Congress to pass a constitutional amendment that would provide some protection to the American flag. This is overwhelming evidence that the American people disagree with these activist decision and believe that the flag--the symbol of Our nation--should be protected. I believe that we as Senators owe it to our constituents--as their elected representatives--to support this amendment and give Congress the power to enact a law banning the physical desecration of the U.S. Flag. The Flag Protection Amendment gives Congress the power to enact laws prohibiting the ``physical desecration'' of the flag. This amendment does not ban flag burning--it doesn't ban anything. It merely gives Congress the power to enact legislation if and only if three-fourth of the States ratify the amendment within 7 years. Therefore, this amendment would place the power back into the hands of the American people, which, in my mind, is much better than leaving it in the hands of activist judges. Opponents of this amendment state that any laws prohibiting physical desecration of the flag, no matter how narrowly tailored, violate an individual's first Amendment right to free speech. However, while the first amendment grants Americans the precious right to free speech, that right is not without limitations. For example, the Supreme Court has held that certain types of hate speech and obscenity are not covered under the first amendment. Additionally, public school teachers may not espouse their personal religious views in the classroom, and attorneys and doctors cannot breach the confidence of their clients. The first amendment protects a number of avenues for individuals to voice their dissent, but it should not protect the physical desecration of the symbol that embodies the spirit of our Nation. It is time for the Senate to pass the flag protection amendment--an amendment that has overwhelming bipartisan support and 59 cosponsors. The House passed this amendment last year by two-third majority. Now it is time for the Senate to pass this amendment so that we can send it to States and give the American people a chance to vote on this very important legislation. Mr. President, I believe that protecting the symbol of our Nation is one of our duties as elected representatives of the American people, and it is too important to leave in the hands of activist judges.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I stand in strong support of this supplemental appropriations bill. There are many, many very important reasons to support it, and certainly one is because of the essential support it gives all of our Armed Forces around the world, particularly with regard to the crucial fight in Iraq. That is an essential reason to support it. Certainly the important money it puts toward border security, and we must do so much more with regard to border security. I stand first and foremost and primarily with a focus on the crucial challenge of hurricane recovery all along the gulf coast, including in my home State of Louisiana. I strongly and proudly support this bill because it is an enormous help, an enormous commitment at the Federal level of keeping true to President Bush's Jackson Square pledge to make sure we have a full and robust recovery on the gulf coast. This hurricane experience has been surreal for so many, literally millions who lived through it, including me. And it hasn't just been Hurricane Katrina which, of course, devastated southeast Louisiana as well as Mississippi and parts of Alabama. It has been Hurricane Rita, too, which damaged, devastated south Acadiana and southwest Louisiana just a few weeks after Hurricane Katrina. It has been quite an experience in terms of introducing me to my work in the Senate. I will never forget so many of the experiences I lived through and saw firsthand, obviously Hurricane Katrina hitting on August 29 and seeing the aftermath of that, the unbelievable devastation, particularly because of the levee breaches in the New Orleans area. After living there on the ground, working on those issues day in and day out, I finally returned to the Senate on September 13 and stood here on the floor and tried to communicate exactly what I saw, but it was difficult because, again, so many of those images were just so surreal, so outside the realm of anything I had experienced before. Then, just a few weeks later, September 24, it was almost unbelievable, but it happened. We were socked by a second devastating Hurricane Rita that went into the Texas-Louisiana border area, but really affected the entire Louisiana coast because it came in at an angle from the southeast to the northwest, in that direction, pushing flood waters all up and down, east and west of the Louisiana coast, but of course particularly devastating southwest Louisiana and south Acadiana. I remember in that entire period thinking many times, and I will be happy to admit this, none too proudly, that this was heavy, heavy lifting in terms of my new job in the U.S. Senate. I remember on more than one occasion e-mailing my wife Wendy that this just seemed so tough a haul in terms of what we needed to do, including through Federal legislation, particularly as it was hitting when understandable concerns about spending at the Federal level were at an all-time high. I noted in several of those e-mails that it just seemed like a very, very tough haul. After months and months of work and joining with so many others in the gulf coast and outside the gulf coast and all around the country, I am so delighted that we are really getting that job done in terms of this Federal support. What seemed like such an uphill battle so many months ago is finally coming together, in terms of very aggressive, very robust Federal help. Let me make clear, that is not primarily because of my effort. That is not primarily because of the effort of the rest of the Louisiana delegation--which has been completely united and which has worked very hard, yes--but that is primarily because of the leadership of others and their efforts. So I primarily come to the floor today to say thank you to those leaders. Of course, we have to start with President Bush, the President of the United States. On September 15 he stood in Jackson Square and addressed the Nation. I was there personally. I will never forget that moment. It was surreal, in some ways, because the entirety of the French Quarter was dark, uninhabited, but there we were in Jackson Square and the President was speaking to the Nation, making a firm commitment that New Orleans and Louisiana and the gulf coast wouldn't just come back but would be rebuilt smarter, better, stronger than ever. This legislation keeps that pledge. It makes good on that promise, and it only is happening because of the President's strong leadership in this regard. So in all my thanks--and we have many people to thank-- I want to start first and foremost with President Bush. He stated it unequivocally, boldly, strongly on September 15 in Jackson Square, and he has made good on that pledge and that promise. This legislation helps do exactly that. I also want to specifically thank all my fellow Senators, particularly leaders in this regard such as Senator Cochran, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. In the months following the tragedies of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, some of the most important work I participated in was getting fellow Senators, fellow Members of Congress, down to the devastated regions, allowing them to see the scope of the devastation firsthand. So many came and so many responded in terms of really getting it, really understanding exactly the unprecedented scope of this devastation. So I thank all my colleagues who did that, all my colleagues who joined together in this enormously important boost for the gulf coast and for Louisiana. Again, there are very many folks who worked hard on it, but none harder than the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran, himself, of course, from a devastated State. So I deeply and sincerely thank all those fellow Members of the Senate. What is it that we have accomplished? It really is a lot from the Federal level: passing the funding, the support, the help we need on the gulf coast for our full recovery. I am proud and happy to say in all of this the Senate has led the way through the leadership of Senator Cochran and others, in terms of passing the levels of support we need. The Senate led the way, the Senate bill led the way in the conference committee. Several categories are enormously important. First, in this bill $4.2 billion for Louisiana of community development block grant funding. That is enormously important. It will complete a $12 billion package for Louisiana primarily dedicated to homeowners, many of whom lost everything, and to housing needs. That is crucial in terms of revitalizing and rebuilding our community for the better. Another absolutely crucial issue as a threshold concept is rebuilding the levees far better than before to give everyone in the region peace of mind that we will have adequate protection in the future. Again, in this bill, $3.7 billion will go to the Corps of Engineers for their ongoing emergency levee repairs and reconstruction. Just as important is crucial authorization language that is necessary to allow them to get that work done immediately. Again, a crucial threshold issue. Nothing will happen in terms of a robust recovery in the New Orleans area without knowing that we will have the levees we need to give individuals, families, businesses real security in the future. Other important categories--$500 million for agricultural relief, focused on the gulf coast region where the devastation from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita happened. Again, I acknowledge Chairman Cochran, who kept that package in the bill--slimmed down, yes, but vitally important nonetheless--and preserved it in the conference committee negotiations. That was enormously important. Similarly, fisheries, $118 million for fisheries that were decimated all along the gulf coast, particularly in Louisiana and Mississippi, is another crucial component in the bill. This is so important and is vital particularly when coupled with our earlier legislation, a big bill in December where we passed billions in December also in CDBG funds, in levee money, in health care--Medicare and Medicaid--in education, passing money that followed the evacuee child wherever that child went so we can pay for those extraordinary needs, and in higher education, in extraordinary help for local government where the tax base was decimated for the foreseeable future, jurisdictions such as Saint Bernard's, the sheriff's office, local government, the city of New Orleans, and others. Also, crucial legislation in December on the tax side of the equation--GO Zone legislation--to provide powerful incentives for businesses, families, and individuals to come back and rebuild and bring the jobs with them to revitalize our economy because that is at the core of our recovery as well. I say thank you to the President of the United States, to all of my Senate colleagues, to all who worked on this crucially important legislation. I say it with every piece of sincerity and heartfeltness in my body because this has just been a matter of survival, of life and death for all of us in Louisiana. The most important way I can say thank you is in continuing to work with folks on the ground in Louisiana to assure all of you, to assure the President of the United States, to assure the American people, that this money gets spent right on the ground; that it is not just thrown at a problem but actually helps fund positive change and reform on the ground in Louisiana because that is exactly the leadership we need to move in the direction we need to take. As we turn our attention to how that money is spent on the ground, I assure you I will be an active participant in that work, an active player in that debate. I will continue to use all of my leadership skills, everything I can muster, to make sure, again, that this enormous Federal support that everyone here--the President and others-- has made possible goes to fund positive change and reform on the ground in Louisiana. We certainly need it in a whole host of categories: political reform, levee board reform, health care restructuring, educational improvement through charter schools, and the like, and on and on. That is my pledge to my colleagues. That is, perhaps, the best way I can continue to say thank you for this vitally important help that will mean New Orleans, LA, including southwest Louisiana, decimated so hard by Rita, the entire gulf coast comes back--but also comes back better, stronger than ever. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I stand in strong support of this proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution to uphold and affirm traditional marriage. Several years ago, when folks who were focused on the health of marriage and the upbringing of children from around the country gathered to begin to attack this problem, they came to the Congress with the idea of proposing a constitutional amendment. They went to certain Members of both the House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats. I was in the House at the time, and I was honored that I was one of the four House Republicans--there were eight House Members in all, four Republicans and four Democrats--whom these leaders approached to be original coauthors of this constitutional amendment. I immediately agreed and have been very involved in the debate and the fight ever since then. I am very happy to bring this work to the Senate with so many other leaders such as Senator Allard, who has been leading the effort for some time. This is a very important effort because--it is often said, but it is very true and it is worth repeating--marriage is truly the most fundamental institution in human history. Think about that statement and the significance of it: It is the single most fundamental social institution in human history. Certainly, we should not rush, as we are at the present time through activist courts, to radically redefine it after thousands and thousands of years of living under the traditional definition. Mr. President, often in the Senate we get very wrapped up in our debate and our laws and proposals and Government programs. We think so much is changed by that and so much hinges on that. Yet what is so much more important and more fundamental are those enduring--hopefully enduring--social institutions such as marriage, community, church, and faith communities. We need to realize how central those sorts of institutions are and how important they are in terms of influencing behavior in our society--good and bad behavior. When we look at so many of the social ills we try to address in Congress with Government programs and proposals, serious social problems such as drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, and the like, perhaps the single biggest predictor of good results versus bad results is whether kids come from a stable, loving, nurturing, two-parent family, a mother and a father. That doesn't mean you cannot have success raising a child in other environments, such as in a struggling one-parent household. It means that the odds are so much more stacked against you when you move to that other sort of environment. So I think it is very appropriate and well overdue that we in the Senate focus on nurturing, upholding, preserving, and protecting such a fundamental social institution as traditional marriage. A lot of folks in Washington don't fully understand that. But I can tell you that real people in the real world, certainly including in Louisiana, get it. That is why 2 years ago, in 2004, we passed a State constitutional marriage amendment in Louisiana to uphold traditional marriage. We passed it with 78 percent of the vote. Folks in Louisiana want those values upheld. They don't want them redefined radically by activist courts, particularly people in courts in other States such as Massachusetts. And make no mistake, that is what is happening. That trend would have an impact not just in isolated States such as Massachusetts but throughout the country as marriage is redefined by liberal activist judges and others. So the people in Louisiana and a solid majority of people around the country want us to address this issue nationally through a constitutional amendment once and for all. That is why I strongly support this effort. I thank the Senator from Colorado and others again for leading this fight in the Senate. I was proud to help lead it in the House when I was there. I am proud to join other allies on the floor of the Senate. Again, rather than focus on all these new Government programs, new little ideas that we run to the floor of the Senate with every day, let's take time to remember and focus on truly significant, enduring social institutions, which are the greatest predictors and factors in terms of encouraging good behavior and success, discouraging bad behavior and failure. This is the way we can have the most impact on those problems we debate endlessly, such as drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, and the like. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in this effort. I predict that, while we may not reach the two-thirds vote we ultimately need with this vote this week, we will make important progress, we will pick up votes since the last time the Congress voted on this issue in 2004. I am one small example of that progress because my election in 2004 meant that this vote went from a ``no'' vote of my predecessor, John Breaux, to a proud ``yes'' vote of the junior Senator from Louisiana now. I look forward to casting that vote. I urge my colleagues to rally around enduring, positive social institutions that are so essential for the health of families, kids being brought up and, indeed, our society. With that, I yield back my time.

Mr. VITTER

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I stand in strong support of this budget point of order under section 407, which is being raised against the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to look very hard at this fiscal impact and this budget issue, because it has gotten very little attention in this entire debate but will have a dramatic impact on our country, our Government, and our budget for decades to come. Section 407 of the Budget Act specifically is about impacts on the budget of various legislation for the long term, and the point of order says: It shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion or conference report that would cause a net increase in direct spending in excess of $5 billion in any 10-year period between 2016 and 2055. That is $5 billion per decade. There is no argument. There is absolutely no argument of which I am aware that this bill is not above that mark. Everyone seems to agree--CBO, other experts--everyone seems to agree that this bill is above that mark, causing huge increases in spending--direct spending, Government liability, building into the budget forever and ever, particularly after 2016. The proponents of the bill were very smart. They specifically limited certain benefits that would be available to new citizens under the bill in the first decade because there are other budget points of order, more immediate budget points of order, more focused on that first decade after the passage of any bill. But even in that first decade, the expected net increase in expenses is very significant--about, perhaps, $52 billion in a 10-year window. But beyond that first decade, of course, it increases exponentially. It is much more, as previous speakers have said. I am disappointed, frankly, in the Congressional Budget Office. First of all, as I said, they make perfectly clear that this budget point of order is blown out of the water. The long-term impact is clearly more than $5 billion per decade. But that is all they said. I would have hoped, I would have expected the CBO would do a more precise analysis to give us more exact numbers, better numbers. They have not been able to do that. All they have been able to say is: CBO estimates that enacting S. 2611 would cause an increase in direct spending greater than $5 billion in each of the 10- year periods between 2016 and 2055. We are not only blowing that budget point for one decade or two decades, but we are doing it for every decade because that is going to be the permanent, everlasting impact, with no end in site on Federal Government expenditures and on the budget. Other folks outside of Government have tried to perform a more exact analysis. One of them, of course, is Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, who released a study on the welfare costs of S. 2611. In fact, his number, his study, goes way beyond this $5 billion per decade. He says, to sum up, that this would be the biggest increase in Federal Government spending, welfare spending, in at least 35 years. I find it particularly ironic that many of the leading proponents of this bill also are some of the very vocal proponents of things such as earmark reform, getting spending under control, looking at the budget-- the dangers of increasing automatic spending and entitlement programs without end. I agree with them about all of those concerns. I am not saying they are wrong about those things. They are exactly right. That is why I supported so many of those measures, including earmark reform. But this increase in spending under this bill will make those issues look penny ante, in dollar terms. This is of a magnitude far surpassing that in terms of their very real and very legitimate budget concerns. We are just coming out of an experience I hope we never see again, dealing with horrific hurricanes, Katrina and Rita, with that unprecedented Federal spending in response to those storms, about $100 billion. What concerns me even more is that this legislation threatens to build into our budget, particularly after the first 10 years, a Hurricane Katrina-like event in terms of Federal spending every other year forever, with no end in sight, just repeating that every other year, as if a Katrina came across our shores and caused that need and that amount of spending every other year forever. Of course those expenditures would only increase over time. Let me say, this is a very real, legitimate concern about this bill. I hope all of us focus on it more in the closing hours of this debate. It has gotten far too little discussion up until now, and I encourage everyone to focus on the very real and frightening budget and fiscal impacts of this bill. I yield back my time.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania and the Senator from Massachusetts for their encouraging and supportive words. Obviously, I welcome that. Obviously, I welcome this amendment being adopted. Without taking away anything from that statement, I simply add that, unfortunately, while these are very important cases we have identified in the bill that highlight these problems, these are not the only cases. Unfortunately, I think they are an example of the general nature in which many aspects of the bill were drafted. In a spirit of working toward the end all of us have said we fully support, I encourage all of the Members intimately involved in continuing to draft the bill, including if a bill should go to conference--and I will certainly include the Senators from Pennsylvania and Massachusetts--to continue to identify those problem areas in the bill language. I hope this amendment will be adopted and we will have addressed two of them. I will continue identifying more. I am encouraged by the comments that they will join us in that endeavor as this work product moves on. With that, I am prepared to yield back my time if we can proceed to voice vote.

Mr. VITTER. I don't have that in front of me. If you could read me the lines.

Mr. VITTER. The Senator is correct.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, yesterday on the Senate floor I briefly began to explain the purpose of this amendment. As was clear from yesterday's debate, I have grave and serious hesitations with many parts of this bill. One of those hesitations is about the huge loopholes and encouragements for fraud that exist in the bill in many different sections. We are very good on the Senate floor in debating, tossing around ideas, general concepts, broad principles, but I fear we are often very bad at really looking at the details of a proposal and walking through how it is going to work in the real world and in practice or, perhaps it is more appropriate to say, how it is not going to work. Again, this bill is a glaring example of that. Amendment No. 3964 does not correct all of those deficiencies. It does not close all of the loopholes to which I generally refer. It does not end all of that invitation to fraud. But it does do it in two significant respects which may be among the most significant examples of that in the bill. Let me explain what those are. Both of the issues my amendment addresses come under section 601. The first has to do with how an illegal immigrant proves that he has been in the country for over 5 years. Why is this important? The underlying bill deals with illegal immigrants in the country now by putting them in one of three categories: if you have been in the country over 5 years, if you have been in the country between 2 and 5 years, and if you have been in the country less than 2 years. The consequence of being put in one of these categories versus the others is significant; you are treated differently. Over 5 years is the best category to be in from the viewpoint of the illegal immigrant by far because that is the most guaranteed and automatic and clear path to citizenship. Between 2 and 5 years is the next best scenario. That also has a path to citizenship. Less than 2 years is by far the least attractive category. That is all fine and good, to make these distinctions and to have different consequences for people who fall into these different categories. Maybe that makes sense. But it is important to understand what proof an illegal immigrant needs to offer to be put in one category versus another. One might assume--and certainly the American public watching the debate might assume--with the significance of these three categories, how they color the entire picture of the pathway for that illegal immigrant--clear, objective documentary evidence is going to be required to go into the best category versus the second best versus the worst. That would be a pretty good assumption because these categories are important and lead to different consequences. Unfortunately, that is not the case. In the underlying bill, the illegal immigrant can present all sorts of things to be put in the best category. And one of the things he can present, if he says he doesn't have any of the others, is a simple statement that he himself signs. So at the end of the day, we are making all of these very important distinctions between has the person been in the country over 5 years or between 2 and 5 years or under 2 years, but when it comes down to the actual workings of how this will operate in the real world, all that person has to do is write out a fairly simple statement--``I have been here for over 5 years''--sign his name to it, and under the details of the bill that is good enough. To me, that makes a mockery of the entire system that is being proposed. That makes an open invitation for fraud. Why would a person who is in an admittedly difficult and strenuous, stressful, even desperate situation, why would a person put himself in category B or category C when all he has to do is sign a piece of paper to get in the best category, the clearest route to citizenship, category A? It makes no sense. Of course, a lot of folks in that desperate situation will do exactly that. This is a loophole, an invitation to fraud which we need to close. Under a similar provision of the bill, also in section 601, there is a similar glaring loophole and open invitation to fraud in terms of the type of evidence that a person may present to get in the second category, being in the country between 2 and 5 years. I don't know why this is so much an issue because if I were the person, I would immediately rush to the best category, sign a simple piece of paper, and have the clearest route to citizenship. But still, in the evidence accepted in category B, between 2 and 5 years, a person can supply a simple statement, a piece of paper signed by a nonrelative third party. Again, the requirements for that are so loose, it is a glaring loophole and an open invitation to fraud. If this system is to have any meaning, if these distinctions in terms of how long a person has been in the country are to have any significance, if this plan is to have any hope of working in practice, rather than just being something pretty to talk about on the floor of the Senate, we need to close these loopholes. We need to end these outright invitations for fraud. That is what my amendment would do in important respects. To summarize, my amendment would do five specific things that would close these loopholes, shut down these very wide open invitations to fraud. No. 1, it would strike the language allowing an alien to prove employment history by providing a self-signed, sworn declaration; in other words, nothing more than a piece of paper that he himself signs. No. 2, it would require that sworn affidavits from nonrelatives who have direct knowledge of the alien's work--and that is a phrase in the underlying bill--can be corroborated by the Secretary of Department of Homeland Security and should include contact information of the affiant, the name, the address, the phone number, the nature and duration of the relationship, so that the Department has some hope, some ability of looking into this declaration, cross-examining the affiant to determine if this is trustworthy and if this declaration is truthful. No. 3, the amendment would make the types of ``other documents'' provided to prove work history the same for those illegal aliens who have been living in the United States over 5 years and for between 2 and 5 years. So there would be uniformity, and we would be talking about objective documentary evidence. No. 4, the amendment would strike the provision stating that Congress believes the Department of Homeland Security should ``recognize and take into account the difficulties encountered by aliens in obtaining evidence of employment'' because of their illegal status. That quote is in the underlying bill, that the Department must ``recognize and take into account the difficulties encountered by aliens in obtaining evidence of employment.'' In other words, the bill itself is telling the Department: Let it slide. Anything that is stated, you virtually have to accept. That is ridiculous, and we would remove that directive from the bill. And No. 5, the amendment would clarify that the alien has the burden of proving his or her employment history by ``a preponderance of the evidence.'' It is very reasonable, and, in fact, there is no other workable way to do it, to put the burden of proof on the illegal alien to prove the amount of time he has been in the country. Any lesser burden of proof, any other way of going about it will be a glaring loophole and an open invitation for fraud. Let me underscore the general thrust of my amendment. It goes to some of my broad concerns about the bill. We are very good, all of us, both parties in the Senate, in making arguments, talking about broad values, outlining generalities, and talking about how a new system of laws should work. In my opinion, we are very bad, almost always, at actually designing a concrete system and paying attention in excruciating detail to the words we pass into law to make sure that system can actually work in the real world and not simply be unworkable beyond being able to be administered full of glaring loopholes, full of invitations to fraud. I believe this bill, unfortunately, is an example of that. I believe in many aspects, including many that are not covered by our amendment, this is going to prove very unworkable in the real world and be wide open with loopholes you can drive a truck through, with open invitations for fraud. My amendment simply highlights perhaps the two most obvious or egregious examples of that and tries to close those loopholes, close down those open invitations for fraud. With that, I am happy to hear from Members who would like to debate the amendment pro or con. I reserve the remainder of my time.

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