David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the crucial issue we are addressing as a nation and as a U.S. Senate, this immigration question. I continue to have grave concerns about many of the provisions that are now before us. I am going to talk about some of those general concerns, and then I am going to outline two specific amendments I will be offering on the floor of the Senate that help meet them. It is often said that Americans have a very poor sense of history; we do not read history much; we do not remember past mistakes and past lessons; we don't learn from history. I am afraid much of the debate and activity on this question on the floor of the Senate is another example of that because we went through very much the same sort of debate in 1986, the last time the Congress addressed illegal immigration in a major way and passed a more limited amnesty program. It is instructive to look back and read those debates. It is enormously instructive to understand the arguments pro and con, during that debate in this very Chamber. And if one does that, one gets an eerie sense of history repeating itself. Unfortunately, it is a history of mistakes and missed opportunities which only made the problem worse. I encourage all of my Senate colleagues to go back to those debates, to read those words and statements and the arguments pro or con to get a sense of that history. In terms of supporters' arguments for the legislation in 1986, many of exactly the same arguments were made. If we deal with this problem one time, if we create this program and deal with then 3 million illegal workers and immigrants in this country, we can solve it once and for all, and then we will have a true enforcement mechanism that will never let the problem recur or grow again--an interesting set of arguments, the same arguments we are hearing now. What has happened since 1986? On that, the history and the record should be crystal clear. We didn't solve the problem back then. We passed major legislation which included an amnesty program, and the problem grew by 400 or 500 percent, a problem that was maybe 3 million illegal workers in our country back then. Even after so many of them were granted amnesty and given legal status, what do we face now? We face 12 million, perhaps more, illegal immigrants in this country. What is the simple lesson of that bit of history? The simple lesson is that we never got real with border security. We never got real with enforcement. And perhaps the most important lesson--that anything akin to an amnesty program is going to encourage a lot more of that illegal activity which we are still not fully prepared to deal with on our borders. The simple but basic conclusion I reached from that important history is that we need to address border security and enforcement first. We need to get real and prove ourselves on that side of the equation first because we have never effectively addressed that in the past, including 1986. My plea to all of my colleagues is that we address this major issue in a simple two-step approach. First, let's do what there is wide consensus on, let's pass important border security provisions. Let's pass important and vital enforcement provisions, including those which go directly at employers who break our law by hiring illegals. And let's prove to ourselves and our constituents that this can and will be done. Talk is cheap. And if it is cheap anywhere, perhaps it is cheapest, quite frankly, in the Congress. We talk a good game about this issue. We talk about enforcement in the context of this debate. But the simple fact is that we have never proven ourselves on the issues of enforcement and border security. Talk is cheap. When we talk about authorization language, we all know authorization language is one thing, but appropriating the money to have true border security and true enforcement is quite a different and more challenging step. So let's not just talk. Let's act and let's prove ourselves. Let's do that before we run headlong into other provisions that are being debated, such as provisions that would be tantamount to amnesty. I will offer two amendments--one a broad global amendment and one a much more focused amendment--that are both consistent with this general philosophy that talk is cheap and that we need to act and prove ourselves with regard to border security and enforcement before we run headlong into these other issues. My first amendment is No. 3264. It does several essential things with regard to the Specter substitute No. 3192 currently before the Senate. It would strike what is often called the temporary worker program in the Specter substitute. It would also strike the title VI amnesty program in the Specter substitute. It would direct different elements of our Government to study important issues that have come up in the debate so we have a fuller sense of the implications of what some would rush headlong into. Specifically, it would direct three studies to be done within 1 year of enactment of this bill. First, the Department of Labor would study the need for guest workers on a sector-by-sector basis and the impact of any proposed temporary worker program on wages and employment opportunities available to American workers. Clearly, in this country there are needs in our economy that are not adequately being met by American citizen workers. But just as clearly, opening ourselves full throttle with a very broad amnesty program or a very broad temporary worker program that would grow automatically over time has the risk of bringing down wages and opportunities for American workers. We need a much more careful and precise examination by some entity such as the Department of Labor on a sector-by-sector basis as to what the consequences of this would likely be. Secondly, my amendment would propose a GAO study establishing minimum criteria for effectively implementing a temporary worker program and determining whether the Department of Homeland Security has the capability to enforce such a program. If GAO determines that Homeland Security does not effectively have that capability right now, then they should determine what additional manpower and resources would be required to ensure effective implementation. Again, some on this floor are proposing a mammoth change to our immigration policy--a new temporary worker program--without our having a precise idea of what manpower and other authorities Homeland Security needs to implement and enforce such a program. We need to know that on the front end. We need to have that in place on the front end before we rush headlong into any temporary worker program. The third study my amendment would mandate is a Department of Homeland Security study to determine whether border security and interior enforcement measures enacted as part of this act are being properly implemented and whether they are effective in securing U.S. borders and curbing illegal immigration. We often talk a good game in terms of border security. We often talk a good game in terms of enforcing the laws presently on the books in the interior of the country. But we need a much more precise sense of what it will really take to bring enforcement to all of those provisions--proper, full implementation. We need to hear from DHS in a lot more detail about what they will need--manpower, authority--to actually implement and make this work before we rush headlong into temporary worker, amnesty, and other provisions. I will offer a second amendment on the floor. That will be No. 3265. That is a much more focused micro-amendment. The first amendment I described is a broad amendment to meet the major objections I have with the Specter substitute. The second amendment is much more narrow. It specifically addresses the following issue: Right now, the Specter bill requires that illegal aliens prove they have been employed since January 7, 2004, in order to take the next steps toward citizenship. How does one prove that? Well, they can show IRS records. That is one possibility. They can show Social Security records--that is another--or other records maintained by Federal, State, or local governments. Their employer can attest that they have been working. That is yet another possibility, although one has to wonder how often that is going to happen since we are talking for the most part about illegal workers. Their labor union, daycare center, and other organizations can attest that they have been dealing with these people inside the country since at least January 7, 2004. But that is not the only thing they can produce. If all else fails, they can do the following: They can have a nonrelative sign an affidavit, an attestation, that they have been in this country since January 7, 2004. Anyone who is not blood-related to them may do so. Clearly, this is an open-ended invitation to fraud and abuse. Clearly, having such an affidavit as a possibility with no supporting documentation, with no testimony from any Federal Government agency or State government or local government agency is a wide-open invitation for abuse. So my second amendment will simply close this door to fraud and strike the sworn affidavit or attestation provision in the language currently on the floor. I urge all of our colleagues to look carefully at these two amendments. More broadly speaking, I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about the lessons of history with regard to this particular issue. We have history to study. Let's not ignore it. Let's not ignore those lessons and plunge headlong into repeating the mistakes of history, particularly those of Congress's action in 1986, because the only difference in so many of the provisions now before us from those in 1986 is that this would be on a far broader and grander scale, the problem having at least quadrupled since those mistakes of 1986. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I too rise to strongly support the general thrust of the President's border security bill. As the essential first step in this great challenge, we must take strong, meaningful action-- not just talk but action to prove that we can and will secure our borders and return to the rule of law with regard to our immigration system. I too rise as a descendent of immigrants to this country, and I am very proud of that. Both sets of my grandparents--on my mom's side and on my dad's side--came from France. They came first into New York but very soon thereafter to Louisiana where there are many other French immigrants, and they settled. What is so unique about this debate is that here in the Senate, every Senator rises and begins with a similar sort of story. We are all the descendants of immigrants. That is what makes America so magical and so unique. For a young country, we are an immigrant country, and we celebrate that. But we also want to preserve that. To me, that comes down to two fundamental traditions in this country--the two fundamental reasons I am supporting the Frist border security bill--and that focus as a first step in this great debate is one tradition, the tradition of immigration, but it is a proud, strong tradition of legal immigration throughout the history of our country, at least until recently. The other great tradition which I will base my vote on is the very important tradition--in fact, one of the leading reasons so many people, including my grandparents, came to this country--of the rule of law which forms the basis of so much of what we do. Let me talk briefly about those two traditions. First, the rule of law: It is at the heart of our entire system. It is at the heart of what is attractive to millions upon millions of people from every country around the world to become Americans, including my family. Law is at the center of our democratic traditions. Without proper law enforcement, written laws mean nothing. Failure to enforce certain laws, including our immigration laws, gives people the impression that the Federal Government will fail to enforce other laws. That tradition of the rule of law and enforcement is an essential component to comprehensive immigration reform. A recent poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News found that the huge majority of Americans agrees with what I am saying. Four in five Americans think the Government is not doing enough to prevent illegal immigration, with three in five saying they strongly hold that view. The same poll found that 56 percent of Americans believe illegal immigrants have done more to hurt the country than to help it, while only 37 percent believe illegal immigrants help the country. But the key is the illegal nature of that activity--not our proud tradition of legal immigration. Of course, this issue of the rule of law and the explosion of illegal immigration also has a very important national security component, particularly since September 11. Adequate border security and enforcement of our immigration laws was an issue on September 11. It goes directly to the terrorist attacks. It goes directly to our war on terror. In its report, the 9/11 Commission itself found weaknesses in immigration enforcement could have facilitated those terrorist acts. The Commission stated: . . . our investigation showed that two systematic weaknesses came together in our border system's inability to contribute to an effective defense against the September 11 attacks: A lack of well-developed counterterrorism measures as part of border security, and an immigration system not able to deliver on its basic commitments, much less support counterterrorism. Other studies have shown that 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers, including Mohammed Atta, should have been denied visas. At least three of them overstayed their visas. Clearly, lax enforcement was an important part, sadly, of that tragedy. There are also other issues within the country related to illegal immigration--not our proud tradition of legal immigration but illegal immigration. First, it is very important to say we are talking about millions upon millions of people, 11 to 13 million by most estimates, even more by some. It is important to say the great majority of those people are not dangerous criminals. However, some percentage of those folks do contribute enormously to our criminal issues in this country. A GAO report issued in April of 2005 says the number of criminal aliens incarcerated in the United States increased by 15 percent from 2001 to 2004. Those aliens constitute about 27 percent of all Federal prisoners. That is a cost to the Federal Government of about $1.2 billion a year. That specific year was 2004. It is an enormous cost to our country. Again, a small percentage of those balloon the costs to society. Violent gangs, composed mostly of criminal aliens such as the El Salvadoran-based MS-13, have been a very important and dangerous part of the criminal problem and violent crime in this country. Last March, ICE agents deported 37 criminal aliens rounded up in the Washington, DC area, two of whom had ties to MS-13. MS-13 has spread across the country. Over 2,000 members are in northern Virginia alone. For all of these reasons, real enforcement must come first in our meeting this challenge. It must come first because we need to get control of our borders. We need to get control of the serious repercussions this illegal problem has in our country, including on the criminal side. To do this, we must prove to the American people we are not just going to talk about it as window dressing to what is tantamount to an amnesty program. We are going to do it. We are going to put the resources behind it. We are going to deploy those unmanned aerial vehicles. We are going to do what is next in terms of manpower enforcement and other resources at the border. I am a fairly typical American when it comes to this issue. I have heard this enforcement talk in Washington for the last couple of years. I don't believe most of it. Quite frankly, we have never been true to it. We have never been serious about it. We have never turned the corner on this issue before. I believe it is our solemn duty and responsibility in terms of addressing this issue in a comprehensive way to first not only pass border security and significant enforcement measures, but to put them in practice, to fund them, to get agents on the border, to do whatever it takes to turn the corner on this issue and prove to the American people, prove to me and so many millions of others, we are serious about enforcement. There is another reason I believe we must start with enforcement, as the Frist measure does. It is because any measure that is tantamount to amnesty sends exactly the wrong message as we try to get our hands around this problem. We are a nation that believes in upholding the rule of law. We must reestablish respect for our laws, including border security and interior security. But provisions which are tantamount to amnesty send exactly the opposite message. It sends the message that you can break the law and over time you will basically be rewarded for doing so. These are not just theoretical or commonsense arguments. These are arguments that are borne out by history, as Senator Isakson, the previous speaker, pointed out. The last amnesty type of program enacted by this Congress was in 1986. There have been many studies about the effects of that since then. Across the board they show that act of basically granting amnesty to a class of illegal aliens in this country dramatically worsened the problem. It did nothing to solve the problem. In 1992, for instance, 6 years after the last illegal alien agricultural worker amnesty passed in 1986, the Commission on Agricultural Workers issued a report to Congress that studied the effects of that 1986 agriculture worker amnesty. They made a number of findings and recommendations. First, the Commission found that the number of workers amnestied under the bill had been severely underestimated. I fear many of the estimates we are talking about here today are underestimated. Second, the Commission found the agriculture worker amnesty only exacerbated existing problems. Six years after AIRC was signed into law the problems within the system of agricultural labor continue to exist . . . In most areas, an increasing number of newly arriving, unauthorized workers compete for available jobs, reducing the number of work hours available to all harvest workers and contributing to lower annual earnings . . . Third, the Commission stated that a guest worker amnesty program should not be the basis for future immigration policy. The Commission went on to say the only way to have a structured and stable market was to increase enforcement of our immigration laws, certainly including strong employer sanctions. So we have experience to guide us. We have concrete history to learn by. Why do we believe doing the same thing as we did in 1986, only on a much greater scale, is going to yield different results? The Frist bill is not perfect, but it is a good and an appropriate start. And start we must on the enforcement side of the equation to prove we can get real, get tough, get serious about enforcement as never before. Because, quite frankly, we have never, ever, in the history of this modern problem proven that we will be serious, that we will have the political will, that we will devote the manpower and other resources necessary to turn the corner on this issue. I urge all of my colleagues to start here where there is consensus, where we can come together around commonsense, meaningful, and appropriate enforcement actions as the important first step in addressing this very important challenge. The Senate is having a very important and responsible debate on this issue. It is crucial in this debate that we be respectful of each other and of everyone involved in this issue and not demonize any part of society. That applies equally to those who believe we must start with enforcement as it does to people illegally in this country. No one in this Senate, I believe, is anti-immigration. Everyone is a product of a strong and proud history of immigration in this country. But until recently it was a strong and proud history of legal immigration. I truly believe what most threatens that strong and proud history and the support in this country for that foundation of our society is the fact that illegal immigration has subsumed that tradition. If we want to continue to cherish that tradition, if we want to continue to have respect for all members of our society, no matter how they look or appear, we must get back to that important tradition of legal immigration. We must get back to the rule of law so we can defend that strong tradition and get hold of this very serious challenge our country faces. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. VITTER

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise in support of my filed amendment No. 3025. I will not formally call it up because some revisions to it are still being worked on in conjunction with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, and many other leaders in the Senate. But I will speak on this very important topic, and it has to do with meeting in a positive and responsible way our ongoing needs throughout all the coastal areas--not just Louisiana--for hurricane protection and other coastal needs. Obviously, we have faced many challenges since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. This is a responsible way to help meet those needs and to help future coastal needs of all coastal States and to do it in a way that we can afford and that we can build into the budget. Rather than having to come back here every 2 months, every 3 months for additional appropriations, wouldn't it be far better to have a stable revenue source that can help us meet these needs directly? The biggest part of that stable revenue source is royalty share, getting our fair share of what we produce off our coasts in terms of offshore oil and gas. This amendment is a first vital step in that direction because it would look to excess revenue, not anything built into the budget right now, but excess revenue in three areas to use for those vital purposes, not just for Louisiana but for coastal needs and coastal States in general. What are these three areas I am talking about? The first would be offshore energy production, future revenues that aren't built into the budget now. The second would be the Federal share of ANWR energy production, should we pass that and say yes to that in the near future. Of course, ANWR is the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. The third would be DTV revenue that comes in above the current projections for those spectrum auctions. Again, this is a vital first step that can get us on this path to self-sufficiency, to taking care of these crucial needs without constantly having to come here and look for direct Federal appropriations. We continue to work to perfect this amendment No. 3025 so it can gain support. Amendment No. 3078 I formally call up amendment No. 3078, which is a separate amendment.

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, very quickly, this is a separate amendment that would give us flexibility in the context of the budget to account for future levy and hurricane protection projects should the Environment and Public Works Committee pass out a bill that authorizes these important projects. It builds flexibility into the budget through a reserve fund without busting the budget, without doing any harm to the budget numbers and the overall caps. I look forward to my colleagues' support of this flexibility. I yield the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize Dr. Joe Aguillard, who will be inaugurated as the eighth president of Louisiana College on March 23. Dr. Aguillard has been serving as president of this Christian liberal arts school since January of 2005. Joe Aguillard has been on faculty at Louisiana College since 2000, but his personal history with the college is a long and storied one. Both of Dr. Aguillard's parents attended Louisiana College and met at the liberal arts school. He and his wife also met at Louisiana College, and all three of their children have attended their parents' alma mater. On top of having a close connection to Louisiana College, Dr. Aguillard also has a proven academic track record. In addition to a bachelor's degree from Louisiana College, he also has two master's degrees from McNeese State University, as well as a doctorate in education from Nova Southeastern University. Dr. Aguillard previously held the positions of chair of the Division of Education, coordinator of the Department of Teacher Education, and Associate Professor of Education. Joe Aguillard is a top notch educator whose ability is sure to lead Louisiana College to its greatest days. Under his leadership the Teacher Education Department has consistently received high marks from the Louisiana Board of Regents, among others. He also led a group of Louisiana College education students in researching and writing the curriculum for the Heart of Spain art exhibit at the Alexandria Museum of Art in 2003, and that curriculum was used by teachers and their students around the world. Dr. Aguillard has maintained a lifetime commitment to learning and educating, and his contribution to the state of Louisiana is greatly appreciated. I come to the Senate floor today to join the students and faculty of Louisiana College in personally commending Dr. Joe Aguillard and wishing him great success in his new post.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I defer to the manager of the bill.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today to again address the very important issue of lobby reform and to applaud the efforts of many, particularly the bipartisan working group on which I was proud to serve--coming together and working hard to produce good lobby reform packages that will very soon be on the floor of the Senate. As I have said since the beginning of this discussion spanning several weeks, in so many ways there is no more important threshold issue to the functioning of our democracy and the health of this institution of Congress than these important reform issues. Clearly, they go to the heart and soul of our integrity and our own credibility. How can we address any other major national issue, whether it is health care, prescription drugs, foreign policy, or defense unless we have that core, central principle of integrity and credibility with the people? Unfortunately, we have lost that credibility to some significant extent over the past years because of some horrible situations and scandals that have developed. It is very appropriate and very necessary that we act as an institution to address these abuses and potential abuses which we need to stop from happening in the future. As I said, I was very proud to serve on an informal working group-- Republicans and Democrats coming together with this common purpose to address these central questions, to bring real meaningful, strong reform to our institutions, to develop consensus, not to play political partisan games but to develop real consensus and pass important legislation that could have major support on both sides of the aisle. I very much enjoyed that work with leaders on this issue--Senators Collins, Lott, McCain, Santorum, Kyl, and Isakson--of course, all those Republicans--joined by Senators Lieberman, Obama, Dodd, and Feingold, Democrats, as well as myself, a Republican, coming together to address this very crucial issue. We are about to put this legislation on the floor of the Senate, hopefully, very soon, later today. I encourage all of my colleagues-- Republicans and Democrats alike--to again come together for an important debate, to make a proposal about how to improve this legislation but to support the underlying bills which include major systemic reform. That is what I am going to do. That is why I joined this working group from the very beginning. That is why I participated in the discussions and debate which led to the bills coming to the floor. In addition to that, I am going to do what I mentioned a little while ago, participate in the debate on the floor and make some proposals to strengthen the bill, to make it even better before we report it out from the Senate. In doing that, I am going to make three specific proposals in areas which I think we need to address that are not in the underlying bill. I again want to outline those three proposals very briefly. The first has to do with an unfortunate scenario which has happened in the past of spouses and children of Members of Congress, House Members, Senators, getting a paycheck off that Member's reelection campaign. This has happened in the past. It is not some theoretical issue. In fact, family members have made substantial sums in the past in some instances off the campaign of the family member who is also a Member of Congress. I talk to folks back home in Louisiana all the time. When these circumstances made the newspaper a few months ago, I can tell you what the universal reaction was. The universal reaction was this is abuse. There was no discussion about what these family members were doing, weren't doing, what hours they were lobbying, weren't lobbying. The universal reaction was this was a way for the Member of Congress to basically increase his family income through the political process and is an abuse. I think the solution is really simple. I will have an amendment that proposes that solution. It is simply this: Ban it; to say a Member of Congress, the House, or the Senate can't have a spouse, can't have a dependent child on the campaign payroll. That is the simplest way to address it. That is the most direct way to address it. That will put the whole issue to rest for once and forever. Certainly, the huge majority of Members should embrace this idea because it would never cross our minds, quite frankly, a huge majority of Members, to do this. Let us put this potential abuse and real abuse in the past to rest forever. I encourage all of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to support this floor amendment. The second floor amendment addresses another very important area of campaign finance that has also been in the news; that is, with regard to Indian tribes. Again, this is not some theoretical discussion. This is not dreaming up a problem. This has been at the heart of the recent scandals and controversies which bring us to where we are today. In my opinion, a central problem is the fact that in current law Indian tribes, with regard to campaign contributions to Federal candidates, are treated in a whole different way than similar entities such as corporations, such as labor unions. With regard to corporations and labor unions, there are very clear and very strict laws that apply in terms of how those entities can raise PAC money, campaign funds that they can turn into political contributions and the overall limit that applies to a single corporation--a single labor union with regard to political contributions that election season. Those rules don't apply to Indian tribes. When it comes to Indian tribes, those rules I just referenced are out the window and basically no rules apply. There is no governance of how tribes collect and raise funds to give to political candidates. In fact, with so many having very lucrative casinos now, what they do is real simple. They write a check out of the casino operation and fund the entire political operation from which they give campaign contributions. Corporations can't do that--absolutely not. Labor unions can't even do that. I think the rules should be the same for Indian tribes. Likewise, the limits on campaign contributions should be the same as well. There should be an aggregate, an overall limit for what a specific tribe can give to Federal candidates just as there is for corporations through their PACS, just as there is for labor unions through their PACs. Again, I will offer a floor amendment that is pretty darned simple and pretty easy to understand. It will basically say those same rules that apply with regard to the sources of funds and disclosure and aggregate limits that apply to corporations and labor unions, those exact same rules will apply in exactly the same way to Indian tribes. Third and finally, I will propose on the floor another amendment which relates to Members' families and the ability in some circumstances of a Member to increase his family income through involvement in lobby shops by a spouse. I think it is very important in this instance to distinguish between what I consider two pretty different cases. The one case is where a spouse was a registered lobbyist, a professional with expertise and professional background well before the Member was ever elected to office, or well before the marriage between the Member and the spouse ever occurred. In my mind, that is a very different situation than when a spouse gets into the lobbying business after the Member is elected or after the marriage occurs with a Member already being elected. In the first case, that spouse was a professional with background and expertise in this area well before the marriage happened or the Member was elected. In the second case, the cart came way before the horse. It is that second case I am concerned about, and it is that second case on which I believe we should pass a blanket ban that such a person shouldn't get into the lobbying business even after the Member was elected. Again, I think people back home view that sort of case pretty darned simply. It is a way for direct family members to get involved in lobby shops, and through that route directly supplementing that Member's family income. That absolutely tears at the integrity, at the credibility of our institutions, and I believe we must act to restore that credibility and integrity. Again, this is not some theoretical discussion. I wish it were. This is not some problem made up out of the blue. This is a practice that has happened before, that has been in the headlines, that has been in the news. So let us address it directly, boldly, and be done with it. In closing, I thank all of the leaders who came together in the important working group on lobby reform that I mentioned, particularly Senators Collins, Lott, McCain, Santorum, Kyl, and Isakson, and Senators Lieberman, Obama, Dodd, and Feingold. I worked closely with them. I believe the product we will bring to the Senate very soon, under the leadership of the two committee chairs, Senators Collins and Lott, is a strong, meaningful, worthwhile product. I hope we all come to this important debate with additional ideas. I hope we add to the bill and improve it, including through the three floor amendments I just outlined, and then report an even stronger and even better bill out of the Senate to address this crucial issue. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes and that the time be charged to the Republican side. I further ask that Senator Stevens be recognized at 12:15 for up to 5 minutes and Senator Byrd then be recognized for up to 35 minutes.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the very important subject of lobbying reform. When you think of our role in our constitutional system and how important it is that that role be held in high regard and confidence by the American public, this issue certainly takes center stage as a very important one that we need to address. Again, it goes to the heart of who we are and what we are about and the heart of the crucial task of having the confidence of the American people in our system. Obviously, in the last year, in particular, that has been shaken-- shaken by some very real and serious scandals that have touched the Congress. Because of that, we need to address these issues of lobby reform, campaign finance reform, and other related issues very boldly and very directly. Again, why do we need to do this? For a very simple reason. This goes to the heart of our credibility, the heart of the central issue: Do the American people have confidence in our integrity, in our ability to put their interests ahead of the interests of narrow or special interests? I come to this set of issues with quite a bit of experience from Louisiana. These sorts of issues have been at the center of our political debate for quite some time because, quite frankly, we have fought our own challenges in terms of integrity and credibility. We have had a political culture and a political history riddled with corruption and cronyism. Many of us are working very hard to get beyond that. Before I came to the House of Representatives in 1999, I served in the Louisiana legislature. While I was there for about 7 years, these sorts of issues--reform issues, lobby reform, campaign finance reform--were at the very top of my agenda because, again, what could be more important than building the confidence of citizens in the integrity of their Government? Certainly, when I stepped into the Louisiana legislature in January 1992, that credibility and that integrity absolutely needed bolstering. When I first went to the legislature in 1992, we had a Governor named Edwin Edwards. We had an explosion of legalized gambling issues and legalized gambling concerns. That only fueled the need to address these central, ethical lobby and related issues. Issues such as the influence of gambling and gambling contributions came to the floor, and the influence of gambling entities on elected officials. Because of all this, I filed several formal ethics complaints against our then- Governor, Edwin Edwards. Many of those were successful to help draw attention to the very real problems that were persistent. And then several years later, that was actually followed by Federal prosecution of then-former Governor Edwards on gambling-related charges, and he now still serves a significant sentence in Federal prison. Other issues came before us, such as gambling contributions. We had an infamous incident of the president of the State Senate handing out gambling contribution checks on the floor of the Senate. This caught everybody's attention, and the good part of the incident--the only good part--is that it ushered in more reform, more cleaning house, if you will. So I was very involved in those issues for exactly the same reason. They went to the heart of what we are about. They went to the heart of voters' and citizens' confidence. They went to the heart of the question of our integrity. In part, because of that background and that experience, I was very interested in being involved in these ethics reform and lobby reform efforts on Capitol Hill. Very early on, I joined the working group in the Senate that was focused on these important issues. The group consisted of Senators Santorum, McCain, Lott, Kyl, Lieberman, Obama, Isakson, Dodd, Feingold, and Collins. It was a very strong, very sincere bipartisan working group to look hard at these crucial questions and to come up with a strong package that could gain bipartisan consensus support, and that we could pass through the Senate. In working with this group, we discussed a lot of issues and tried to hone in on the key abuses and, therefore, the key reforms we thought we needed to address. That led to our releasing a statement in favor of meaningful lobby reform, particularly with regard to the following areas: The revolving door between private lobbying and public service; privately funded travel, which has clearly been abused in the past; gifts from lobbyists; improved lobbying disclosure; earmarks and the abuse of earmarks and the need for transparency and some limit in terms of those earmarks; strengthened ethics guidelines, training, and enforcement. Again, I compliment all of my fellow Senators who worked on that important group--Senators Santorum, McCain, Lott, Kyl, Lieberman, Obama, Isakson, Dodd, Feingold, and Collins. We all worked together in a very aggressive and sincere way. I think we have made a lot of headway. That headway is being exhibited this week and even more next week. This past Tuesday, the Senate Rules Committee, chaired by Senator Lott, voted out a consensus package of important reforms. Now, today, the other committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, chaired by Senator Collins, will take a look at their side of these matters--those matters in this general category that fall under their jurisdiction. I think they are going to come out today with a strong and significant package in terms of matters that come from their jurisdiction. Of course, as I said, Senators Lott and Collins were very active, very forceful, and contributing members to the working group. I look forward to supporting these two packages that will come together next week on the Senate floor. But as I do, I also look forward to strengthening the package, perhaps here on the Senate floor, perhaps through separate legislation, on other crucial questions, which I truly believe we also need to address in a bold and direct and forceful way to gain the confidence of the American people. I want to highlight three of those additional issues today. The first has to do with a very important matter of Indian tribe campaign contributions. Now, this, as everyone knows, is not some theoretical concern. This issue has been at the heart of the recent scandals that have plagued the Congress and the country with regard to lobby reform and campaign contributions. So this is not a theoretical or abstract concern. What is the problem? The fundamental problem, as I see it, is that the rules are very different and very tilted for Indian tribes, as opposed to other entities such as corporations. How is that true? Let me give you a few examples. The first is that Indian tribes are treated as ``persons'' under Federal campaign finance law, and because of that they are allowed to contribute up to $2,100 per election to a candidate. But they are not considered what are called ``individuals'' under the law. For that reason, there is no aggregate limit in terms of how much money they can give to Federal political campaigns overall in an election cycle. For other entities, such as corporations, there is absolutely an overall limit of $101,400. That is a lot of money but understand that tribes have no such limit, so they can go beyond that and give absolutely as much as they want, without limit, to Federal campaigns. The second area of difference I think is even more significant, and that is because most Indian tribes are unincorporated, they are not subject to any rules or ban on using corporate treasury funds to fund all of this or to any rules with regard to mandatory disclosure of the source of the funds they use and where they go. That is a huge difference. Corporate PACs, of course, have to collect money in very certain ways. They cannot write a check out of the corporate treasury. An Indian tribe can and, in doing so, doesn't have to disclose in any meaningful way where the money came from or where it is going. The second issue I want to highlight is the ability of some incumbents, some Members of Congress, in the House and Senate, to pay their spouses or dependent children for work on their own political campaign. Why is that a problem? It is a fundamental problem, in my opinion, because it gives Members of Congress the ability to increase their salary if they want to abuse that right to write checks to their own personal bank account from their campaign account by ``hiring'' a spouse or even a dependent child or both. Again, this is not a theoretical concern; this has been a practice in the past and is, to at least a limited extent, a practice now. There may be some spouses or some kids who do a lot of work for that paycheck, who do a full day's work for a full day's paycheck. But, clearly, this is an area that is wide open to abuse and, in fact, in my opinion, has been abused in the past. So how do we fix it? I think it is pretty simple. I think to gain the confidence of the American people and to do ourselves a favor, we fix it in a very simple and direct way, which is by completely banning spouses or dependent children from being on the payroll of a Member's campaign or on the payroll of a Member's leadership PAC. The final issue that I quickly want to highlight is the issue of Members' spouses being able to lobby Congress. Again, I think in the real world, in the heartland of America, this causes average citizens and average voters a lot of concern. The concern, again, is obvious. A Member's spouse has a unique ability to lobby, No. 1. No. 2, that relationship, if a Member's spouse is on the payroll of a lobbying firm, means that the lobbying firm is writing a check, which basically goes directly into the family banking account of that Member. How do we address this? We need to be very careful to address it responsibly and carefully and also to take into account the fact that some spouses may have been a true lobbyist with true expertise, earning an honest day's work, before they were ever spouses of a Member of Congress. So I believe the way to address it is to ban that activity if the spouse was not a registered lobbyist a year or more before the Member was elected to Congress or the marriage between the spouse and the Member occurred. I think that is a responsible, fair way to address a very real concern, a very real issue in the hearts and minds of the American people. I close by again saying I appreciate all of the work of my fellow members of the working group on which I serve. I look forward to that legislation coming to the floor next week, and I also look forward to us addressing other crucial issues that may not be in that underlying package, such as campaign contributions of Indian tribes, such as spouses and dependent children being on the payrolls of campaigns, and such as lobbying by Member spouses. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I would like to offer my comments in support of The Title X Family Planning Act, which I introduced today. I am very pleased to have Senator Santorum and Senator DeMint join me as original co-sponsors of this very important legislation. The Title X Family Planning Act prohibits the distribution of taxpayer dollars, through Title X family planning funds, to those that provide abortions. I believe that this important legislation is very timely, because this week thousands of pro-life advocates gathered in our Nation's capital for the March for Life, some of which came all the way from my home State of Louisiana. In 1970, Congress enacted Title X of the Public Health Service Act, which is a program designed to make contraceptive supplies and family planning services available to those unable to afford them without government assistance. Originally, family planning services were not allowed to include abortions, and currently, Federal dollars cannot directly fund abortions. Current law prohibits the use of Title X family planning funds ``in programs where abortion is a method of family planning''; and current regulations require some form of separation between federally-funded family planning services and abortions. 42 U.S.C. 300a-6 (1970). However, the current regulations do not contain a descriptive standard of what constitutes ``separation.'' 42 CFR part 59 (2000). It only requires that these activities be separated by something more than mere bookkeeping. This level of separation--separation of accounting records and separation of facilities within the same building--is not enough. When Title X money goes to clinics that perform abortions, even though the money cannot directly fund abortions it is being used to indirectly facilitate abortions. For example, abortion providers are using Title X funding to offset operational costs, which, therefore, frees them to use monies that would otherwise be allocated to operational costs, towards funding abortion. The Title X Family Planning Act would restore the original intent of Title X by prohibiting the distribution of Title X family planning money to grantees that perform abortions and to grantees whose subgrantees perform abortions, unless a physician certifies that the abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. The bill specifically exempts hospitals. In order to ensure that grantees who provide abortions do not obtain funding, the bill also requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to give to Congress a list of grantees that provided abortions in the preceding fiscal year. Grantees that appear on the list would not be eligible to receive Title X family planning funds, unless the grantee submits a certification to the Secretary of Health and Human Services that neither the grantee nor its subgrantees perform abortions. The rationale behind this prohibition is simple: when abortion is so divisive an issue, when so many Americans have grave moral reservations about it, why should we sustain and underwrite private abortion providers with taxpayer funds? The Title X Family Planning Act denies no one family planning services. In every locality where a private abortion provider is receiving Title X funds, there are alternative sources for family planning services, inducing both public agencies and private agencies that do not offer abortions. The Title X Family Planning Act does not cut one penny from family planning funds. It only ensures that those funds are used for actual family planning services. The Title X Family Planning Act does not infringe upon the right to free speech. In fact, it does not contain language regarding counseling, advocacy, information or expression. The Title X Family Planning Act does prevent our Federal tax dollars from going to abortion providers. It will save the lives of millions of unborn children. I ask my colleagues to join Senator Santorum, Senator DeMint, and myself in supporting this bill, because the U.S Government should not force taxpayers, many of whom are anti-abortion, to fund abortion.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I would like to offer my comments in support of The Title X Family Planning Act, which I introduced today. I am very pleased to have Senator Santorum and Senator DeMint join me as original co-sponsors of this very important legislation. The Title X Family Planning Act prohibits the distribution of taxpayer dollars, through Title X family planning funds, to those that provide abortions. I believe that this important legislation is very timely, because this week thousands of pro-life advocates gathered in our Nation's capital for the March for Life, some of which came all the way from my home State of Louisiana. In 1970, Congress enacted Title X of the Public Health Service Act, which is a program designed to make contraceptive supplies and family planning services available to those unable to afford them without government assistance. Originally, family planning services were not allowed to include abortions, and currently, Federal dollars cannot directly fund abortions. Current law prohibits the use of Title X family planning funds ``in programs where abortion is a method of family planning''; and current regulations require some form of separation between federally-funded family planning services and abortions. 42 U.S.C. 300a-6 (1970). However, the current regulations do not contain a descriptive standard of what constitutes ``separation.'' 42 CFR part 59 (2000). It only requires that these activities be separated by something more than mere bookkeeping. This level of separation--separation of accounting records and separation of facilities within the same building--is not enough. When Title X money goes to clinics that perform abortions, even though the money cannot directly fund abortions it is being used to indirectly facilitate abortions. For example, abortion providers are using Title X funding to offset operational costs, which, therefore, frees them to use monies that would otherwise be allocated to operational costs, towards funding abortion. The Title X Family Planning Act would restore the original intent of Title X by prohibiting the distribution of Title X family planning money to grantees that perform abortions and to grantees whose subgrantees perform abortions, unless a physician certifies that the abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. The bill specifically exempts hospitals. In order to ensure that grantees who provide abortions do not obtain funding, the bill also requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to give to Congress a list of grantees that provided abortions in the preceding fiscal year. Grantees that appear on the list would not be eligible to receive Title X family planning funds, unless the grantee submits a certification to the Secretary of Health and Human Services that neither the grantee nor its subgrantees perform abortions. The rationale behind this prohibition is simple: when abortion is so divisive an issue, when so many Americans have grave moral reservations about it, why should we sustain and underwrite private abortion providers with taxpayer funds? The Title X Family Planning Act denies no one family planning services. In every locality where a private abortion provider is receiving Title X funds, there are alternative sources for family planning services, inducing both public agencies and private agencies that do not offer abortions. The Title X Family Planning Act does not cut one penny from family planning funds. It only ensures that those funds are used for actual family planning services. The Title X Family Planning Act does not infringe upon the right to free speech. In fact, it does not contain language regarding counseling, advocacy, information or expression. The Title X Family Planning Act does prevent our Federal tax dollars from going to abortion providers. It will save the lives of millions of unborn children. I ask my colleagues to join Senator Santorum, Senator DeMint, and myself in supporting this bill, because the U.S Government should not force taxpayers, many of whom are anti-abortion, to fund abortion.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I am supporting Judge Alito's nomination because he is, No. 1, superbly qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, and, No. 2, and as important, he possesses the right view of the role of a judge, the right judicial philosophy, which I think is essential in terms of taking a seat on that high Court. The appointments clause, article II, section 2, clause 2, of the Constitution gives the President the plenary power to nominate certain high-level officials and, as important, bestows on the Senate a crucial role, a crucial constitutional role, of advice and consent. Like, I hope, every Member of this body, I take that constitutional duty of advice and consent very seriously. I owe it as high as any duty to the Louisiana people I represent. In line with that, I will neither provide a rubberstamp of approval for all of President Bush's nominees nor will I automatically disapprove any Democratic President's nominees for the Supreme Court or any other Federal court. I think I have shown my seriousness of purpose in that regard in my short time in the Senate. I have studied the qualifications and legal writings of all nominees to see whether they possess a consistent and well-grounded judicial philosophy and have the right credentials and qualifications. I was very upfront about being mindful of that responsibility when Harriet Miers was nominated. I looked very carefully at her qualifications and her judicial philosophy and, quite frankly, I expressed some real reservations about that. That is why, after Judge Alito was nominated, I focused on those qualifications and that judicial philosophy just as hard. I met him personally. I watched his confirmation hearings. I read his record. That is the process I used to reach this conclusion, that, No. 1, he is eminently qualified in terms of credentials and background, and, No. 2, he has the right judicial philosophy, the right view of the role of a judge in our society. Let's talk, first, about those basic legal qualifications. Again, Judge Alito is superbly qualified. His academic achievements and his distinguished career make that clear. He has a bachelor's degree from Princeton University and a J.D. from Yale Law School. After graduating from law school, Judge Alito began his career in public service as a clerk for Judge Leonard Garth on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and is now a colleague of his on that court. He served as an assistant U.S. attorney, Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey. He has argued specifically before the U.S. Supreme Court 12 cases, at least two dozen court of appeals cases; direct, relevant and impressive experience in terms of that sort of high-level litigation. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush nominated Judge Alito for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and he was confirmed by unanimous consent in this body because of his strong credentials and clear and overwhelming qualifications. Of course, today those qualifications are even greater because he has served as a judge on that circuit court for the past 15 years. After being nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, the ABA rated Judge Alito as ``well qualified.'' That is the highest rating possible. Everyone recognizes the ABA is not some conservative political group by any stretch of the imagination. If its membership has a slant, it is probably to the left. That is the gold standard, that rating of judicial qualifications and credentials. Again, Judge Alito received the highest rating. Then he had his confirmation hearings. Despite some ugly questioning, frankly, and some smear tactics, in my opinion, he had an impressive performance. He demonstrated clear humility and indepth understanding of legal matters. And perhaps most impressive in terms of what he faced from the minority side, he maintained his composure in an unfortunately partisan atmosphere. As I said at the beginning, those credentials and qualifications, that legal background is the first important matter I look to. But it is not the only matter. The second equally important matter I look to is a person's judicial philosophy. Do they understand the correct role of a judge in society? I have thought a lot about that regarding all nominees who have come before this body. I thought Judge Roberts expressed that role precisely right when he talked about being an umpire and not a pitcher or a batter. Judge Alito has that same view of the appropriate role of a judge. Throughout the debate over judicial nominees, this notion of whether a nominee possesses the right judicial philosophy has been asked a lot. Some may ask what this term means and why it is important. Again, it is important because it goes to the heart of the role of a judge and how this democracy works. I believe what it means is a commitment to the rule of law, a commitment to the Constitution as written, and a commitment not to let one's personal political views or personal political leanings or prejudices enter into any of those important decisions on the Court. It requires a judge to be openminded, to analyze the law carefully, to analyze the facts of each case based on the Constitution and the law. It requires a judge not to do what can be tempting--intoxicating in terms of the power a judge can hold--not to make new law based on personal opinion, not to play legislator but to follow the law as enacted by the Congress or the State legislature. Judge Alito has demonstrated that right judicial philosophy. He has demonstrated his unwillingness to change the law to fit his personal beliefs. He stated clearly: There is nothing that is more important for our Republic than the rule of law. No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law, and no person in this country is beneath the law. What is vital and embedded in the concept of the rule of law is the application of the law as written, not judges becoming kings or legislators and imposing their views and legislating from the bench. I believe this is the second and crucial matter we must look to in the confirmation of judges, particularly those who would be Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. I have great confidence in Judge Alito's correct understanding of the role of a judge. It has troubled me that throughout this confirmation process, some of my colleagues and many outside interest groups, many members of the press, have demonstrated a different view of the role of a judge. One way they have demonstrated that is by treating Judge Alito more akin to a candidate for political office than a nominee for the highest Court. They have talked about judges taking sides, being on this side versus that side, taking the side of labor versus management, taking the side of environmentalists versus business groups, taking the side of the little guy versus the big guy. In talking in those terms, many Members of this body and many liberal interest groups and many members of the press have demonstrated a completely different view of the role of a judge which is inappropriate. Other than the fact that many of their characterizations of Judge Alito in these terms are false-- for instance, he has decided in favor of employment discrimination plaintiffs in 22 percent of the cases, whereas the national average is 13 percent--it troubles me that the public is being led to believe that we should think of judges as legislators, that it should be a results- oriented discussion. This goes to the heart of the confirmation process. The role of the judiciary is to interpret the law and to apply it to the facts of each case. It is not to elect legislators, politicians to go on the bench and vote certain interests or certain political philosophies. I believe Judge Alito has the correct view, the opposite view, quite frankly, as has been demonstrated by some Members of this body and certainly by the liberal press and liberal interest groups. In his confirmation hearing, the judge made this clear. He described his disagreement with keeping a scorecard of how many times a judge rules for or against a particular party. He stated: I don't think a judge should be keeping a scorecard about how many times that judge votes for one category of litigant versus another in particular types of cases. That would be wrong. We are supposed to do justice on an individual basis in the cases that come before us. I wish to touch on one other specific type of case because I believe Judge Alito has been smeared in this category, and that is with regard to his strong record and experience in the area of civil rights. I have been disappointed that some of my Democratic colleagues have chosen to paint Judge Alito as having anything less than the stellar record on civil rights that he has. In doing so, they don't really cite any evidence for this accusation. They think if they just keep repeating this smear, one dreamt up by far-left groups such as Ralph Neas' People for the American Way and the Alliance for Justice, if they keep repeating the lie over and over, the American people will fall for it. The American people are smarter than that. The American people are listening to some distinguished people, including distinguished African Americans, with whom Judge Alito has served. To cite a couple of examples, the late Judge Leon Higginbotham, the first African American to serve on the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and whom the L.A. Times called ``a legendary liberal and scholar of U.S. racial history,'' had said of Judge Alito: Sam Alito is my favorite judge to sit with on this court. He is a wonderful judge and a terrific human being. Sam Alito is my kind of conservative. He is intellectually honest. He doesn't have an agenda. He is not an ideologue. Former Third Circuit Judge Timothy K. Lewis, an African American, testified in support of Judge Alito. He joked that it was no coincidence he was sitting on ``the far left'' of the panel. He said: I was then--as I am now--a committed and active Democrat. I learned in my year with Judge Alito that his approach to judging is not about personal ideology or ambition. He is not result oriented. He is an honest conservative judge who believes in judicial restraint and judicial deference. And Judge Lewis emphasized: If I sensed that Sam Alito during the time that I served with him or since then was hostile to civil rights as a justice of the United States Supreme Court, I absolutely would not be here today. I hope the smear tactics will end, particularly on an issue as important and sensitive as civil rights. I am confident the American people are hearing from those sound voices, including African-American voices, who have served directly with Judge Alito, many of them are politically liberal. Many of them are Democrats who say Judge Alito is fair. He is impartial. He is not results oriented. That returns me to the central factor I have focused on in this process: Does Judge Alito have the right view of the role of a judge? Does he have the right judicial philosophy? Is he committed to the Constitution as written, to the rule of law as it is written not by him but by legislatures and the Congress? Is he committed to that and is he committed to not legislating from the bench? I believe his record and testimony and all of the evidence supports a firm conclusion that he is committed to that proper role of a judge. For that reason, I am proud to be supporting the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito. I am confident he will serve as a very distinguished member of the Supreme Court. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I am pleased that we have passed the Deficit Reduction Act today. It is a good first step to curbing run away spending in our entitlement programs, and it provides essential Medicaid relief to hurricane victims in my state. However, I am deeply concerned with the provision in the bill that repeals the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, also known as the Byrd amendment. Many of my colleague and I signed a letter to the conferees urging that this repeal be excluded from the final bill. This important law helps counter unfair trade practices of other countries by using revenues from duties collected to compensate injured industries. In Louisiana, most of our seafood industries have been severely affected by illegal dumping from China and other nations, and the Byrd amendment is one of the few things that could effective help the families in these industries, who are now also reeling from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, to survive in their business and maintain our unique culture and way of life. I have been very frustrated with the Commerce Department and the Customs Department efforts to comply with the Byrd amendment as it stands now. Commerce does not properly set the duty collection rates, and Customs is severely lax in collecting tariffs that are due. Seafood tariffs uncollected stand at over $200 million from China alone right now. As these tariffs are not collected as they should be, illegal dumping continues, and our seafood and other industries are not being paid what they are due under the law. This bill supposedly has a phase out of CDSOA for 2 years, in which pending cases are supposed to be paid. I fear with the current record of collections and distribution, this 2 year phaseout won't give much relief. I do not feel that this phaseout is adequate, and the repeal this important law should not have been included in this bill. It is not right to use industries that are victims of illegal trade practices to carry a large burden of balancing the budget. I urge my colleagues to help me force the bureaucrats to do their work, collect these tariffs, and make the already due payments under the Byrd amendment. While the law may be unwisely repealed in this bill, the previously due payment should be paid and paid quickly.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I stand in strong support of the motion to invoke cloture, and I ask all of my colleagues to come together, put the interests of the country, including the interests of the citizens of the gulf coast, first, ahead of politics, ahead of partisanship, and move this important legislation forward. In the last 48 hours, we have heard a whole lot about this package and about this upcoming vote. So much of it has been about partisan ideology and politics and procedure. Let me tell you what this vote is about in my home in Louisiana. It is about another ``P'' word. It is about people, real people trying to live and survive and rebuild in the real world. Nearly 4 months ago, 1,000 people, my fellow Louisiana citizens, were killed during the devastation of Katrina. Today, 4 months later, nearly a million people are still reeling. They remain lost because of our continuing delay and inaction, people who have no homes, no cars, no jobs, in many cases all of their personal possessions gone. My hometown was flooded. The city of New Orleans, once a thriving city of 450,000 people, is today, almost 4 months later, under 100,000 people. My neighbors want to come home. We want to rebuild in earnest. Tens of thousands of businesses want to reestablish themselves and offer jobs again to their hundreds of thousands of employees. This vote is crucial for that to happen. That is why it is not about partisan ideology and politics and procedure that we have heard about for so many days; it is about people, real people with enormous and real challenges in the real world. The question is simple. It is, in Louisiana, whether those people will be flooded a third time. Why do I say a third time? The first time was because of mother nature, because of the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina causing untold flooding and damage in southeast Louisiana. But the second time was the day after Hurricane Katrina when the levees broke. That wasn't the biggest natural disaster in American history. That was the biggest manmade disaster in American history because of fundamental design flaws in that system. Now we are on the Senate floor debating whether those same people will be flooded a third time, flooded by inaction, flooded by the results of partisan ideology and politics and getting all tangled up in arcane procedure. Let's not flood these good people a third time. Let's act--yes, late, but not too late--to give them a clear vision forward so they can rebuild their lives. I urge all of my Senate colleagues to put real people, facing real challenges, the biggest of their lives in the real world, ahead of partisan ideology and politics and procedure. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on cloture. I yield back my time.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to speak this morning on the great success of the conference committee in reaching this package and urge all of my colleagues in the Senate, Republican and Democrat, to come together to have these necessary votes and to pass this important legislation. Let me start by thanking and recognizing the vital work of the two leaders in this endeavor. Senator Thad Cochran, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, has worked tirelessly on this package. Of course, he had all the motivation in the world coming from Mississippi, but he has also reached out to all of us from all of the devastated areas, certainly me and my colleague Mary Landrieu from Louisiana. I want to thank him for all of his great work and for being so generous with his time, thoughts, and efforts with regard to helping us meet our Louisiana needs as well. I also thank and recognize the vital work of my chairman of the Commerce Committee, Ted Stevens, who spearheaded another crucial component of this overall package. Ted came down at my invitation, as he mentioned on the floor a few minutes ago, to tour the devastated area in greater New Orleans. Nobody can come down there and see the devastation on the ground in New Orleans--or Mississippi, for that matter--and not help but be truly moved and have their whole perspective changed. Perhaps the single best example of that is Ted Stevens. He was very helpful and very sympathetic even before that visit in early November. But when he was there on the ground, when he saw that devastation, particularly in Lake View and the lower Ninth Ward, when we were standing there together and he saw the levee breach on the Industrial Canal and just hundreds upon hundreds of homes everywhere as far as the eye could see ravaged as a result of that, his level of understanding and his commitment grew even more. He has clearly been a vital partner in this important work. So I thank and recognize his work, along with that of Chairman Cochran. I urge all my colleagues in the Senate, Republican and Democrat, to come together to make sure we have these crucial votes as soon as possible and to make sure we pass this important package. I have been disappointed to hear some of the comments from the other side of the aisle, particularly those of the minority leader. He has expressed outrage at some of the procedures that are involved in passing this crucial bill. I chuckle a little bit when I hear those comments, for two reasons. The first reason is that every procedure involved, every step that we will take this year to complete this important work, has been done before in the Senate and has been done before in the Senate with his support. He has voted for these same procedures in the past, every single one, every step of the way. This is regular order. This is all under the Senate rules. So for him to express this level of outrage is ironic at best. Second, what he proposes in rejecting moving forward is to reject everything in this bill save Defense appropriations. It is not simply to reject ANWR, which is the focus of his wrath, it is to reject all of the hurricane relief, the entire package Senator Cochran has worked so hard to put together and fashion with his House counterparts. It is to reject all of the revenue from not only ANWR but DTV, which would also go to the devastated region. It is to reject all of that. What Senator Reid is proposing is to reject $2 billion for LIHEAP funding, which is absolutely crucial for our citizens in the Northeast and elsewhere. What he is proposing is to reject crucial funding for communications interoperability, which is a key need and a key priority for homeland security. Let's be clear. The path Senator Reid is urging us to go down is not simply to vote against ANWR. We have had votes on ANWR. We are free to vote for or against ANWR. We had a clear and fair vote on ANWR earlier this year, and it passed, no ifs, ands, or buts; perfectly fair. So he is not really just talking about that. He is talking about everything in this vital package save Defense appropriations. He is talking about all of the hurricane relief. He is talking about all of that DTV and ANWR revenue that would also go to the devastated region. He is talking about all that crucial help for LIHEAP, $2 billion upfront additional money into the future. It is very important for Northeastern States and citizens and for others. He is talking about the crucial interoperability piece for our first responders, a very important, top priority for homeland security. We must do all that work now, this year, before Christmas, before we leave. The way we get this work done is to have these important votes. Every Member of the Senate will be free to vote for or against. Every Member of the Senate will be free to vote as their conscience deems they should on all of these procedural matters. Again, Senator Reid has voted for all these procedures in the past. Let's be clear about that. So I urge us to put the politics aside, to not make this yet another Washington partisan political fight. Far too much is at stake for us to do that. Far too much in my State of Louisiana. Far too much in the devastated State of Mississippi and Alabama and Florida, with Wilma, and Texas with Rita, and southwest Louisiana with Rita. If there is ever a time for us to look at the substance and the national good and not Washington politics, it is now. That is what people sent us here to do, not play these partisan games. I urge everyone to put that substance first, to put the American people first, to put the people of the devastated regions of the gulf coast first and have these votes and pass this crucial package of relief. Let me be clear. ANWR is directly related to this relief because significant revenues from ANWR would go to the devastated region for crucial needs in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, and Florida. That is very much a part of this hurricane package. Let me close as I began, by thanking the chairman of Appropriations, Senator Cochran, and Senator Stevens, the chairman of the committee on which I am proud to serve, the Commerce Committee, for their vital leadership, for their vital work. But for them, we would not be in this moment of huge opportunity to meet the crucial needs of the still suffering citizens of the gulf coast. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask that the Record show that I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 354, the DeWine motion to instruct conferees on S. 1932. I continue to support the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, and I agree that its repeal should not be included in the conference report.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Frank M. ``Mark'' Newton, assessor of Grant Parish. Mr. Newton retired on October 31, 2005, after 45 years of service to Grant Parish. Today, I want to take a moment to offer warm thanks for his years of service to the State of Louisiana and Grant Parish and thank him for all of his endeavors. A life long resident of Grant Parish, LA, he was the youngest child of Will and Laura Newton and graduated from Dry Prong High School in 1953. After proudly serving in the U.S. Marine Corps for 3 years, he immediately enrolled at Northwestern State University in Natchitoches, LA. Upon graduation in 1960, he became an involved and dedicated teacher in the Grant Parish school system. Soon becoming the business manager for the Grant Parish school system, Mr. Newton served proudly in this position until 1977 when he became the chief deputy tax assessor of Grant Parish. He proudly retained this position until his retirement at the end of October. Known as someone who would always lend a helping hand, Mr. Newton developed and maintained numerous relationships that have lasted a lifetime. During his tenure as a public servant, not only did Mr. Newton create a wonderful working relationship with all of his employees, but he also became known as a dependable and well respected leader of Grant Parish. Mr. Newton was recently quoted saying ``during my work years, I have tried to follow this motto--follow the law, use common sense, and have compassion for people. Suffice it to say, it's been a good trip.'' All of the citizens of Grant Parish have come to know that he has honorably and courageously stuck by these words. I now come to the Senate floor today to join the residents of Grant Parish in personally commending, honoring, and thanking him for his 45 years service to central Louisiana.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, with Senator Landrieu's consent, I request the Landrieu amendment be withdrawn, and we call up the Stevens-Vitter- Landrieu-Domenici amendment.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I present this on behalf of Mr. Stevens, the main author, as well as myself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Lott, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Craig, and others. This will not change our budget numbers or our goal of deficit reduction in any way. In fact, it could enhance it. This amendment says if and when--and only if and when--the spectrum auction produces more than is forecast, the first $1 billion over that amount would go to deficit reduction, the next $500 million would go to interoperability, the next $1.2 billion, in that order, goes to a coastal program under Commerce jurisdiction, and the remainder, if at all, would go to deficit reduction. This could, in fact, enhance deficit reduction. Of course, it is very important to coastal States, including Louisiana, to beef up the coastline and to protect us in the future from major storms like Hurricane Katrina. I yield the remaining time to Senator Landrieu.