Floor Statements

Mr. President, I call up to my pending amendment No. 1228.

I ask unanimous consent to waive reading of the amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment was in the group of four that was the subject of the previous unanimous consent so I look forward to an ongoing debate and vote on this amendment, hopefully early next week, because we need to start voting on this topic and on amendments to this bill. The amendment is simple and in my opinion very important. It would mandate finally that we have an operational US- VISIT system to track visas coming into the country and exiting the country to guard against visa overstays.

This is an important part of security and enforcement, but one that is not talked about enough. We always talk about the border, as we should. We often talk about workplace enforcement, as we should. That is extremely important. This is the third leg of the stool that we do not talk about enough but we need to focus on because this goes to our national security as well as border security.

The 9/11 terrorists all were individuals who came into this country legally, with a visa, but what happened? They overstayed their visa by a lot and they plotted to kill and destroy, which unfortunately they successfully did on 9/11. Because of that, one of the top recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was to implement this visa entry-exit system using biometric data. We call the system that has been developed the US-VISIT system. The problem is full implementation of the US-VISIT system has never come close to occurring as the 9/11 Commission recommended that it be executed.

This amendment says simply we are finally going to do it. We have talked about it for years. We have lived through actual terrorist attacks that go to the heart of this need. The 9/11 Commission has rated it as a top recommendation, so we are finally going to do it. We are not going to move on to changing the legal status of current illegals in this country under this bill until we do it and until we verify that it has been done. That is a very simple idea.

I look forward to a continuing debate on this need, on this amendment, and a vote on this amendment early next week.

Second, I also want to mention a point of order I will be making on this underlying bill as soon as possible, hopefully also early next week. The point of order is simple. It is a point of order against the emergency designation provision contained in the bill in

section (d)(1). It is pursuant to section 403(e) of the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution.

We all consider spending and debt a big problem in this country. We put enormous focus and energy and debate and discussion on that issue. The problem is so often, after we set budget caps, after we set these limits with the very serious spending and debt issue in mind, whenever a big bill comes up they bust the caps. We put a so-called emergency designation on the spending and all of a sudden, like that, with that simple phrase we exempt that entire bill from the spending caps, from the provisions we have put in place to try to get spending and debt under control.

This immigration reform bill is another example of that because it would spend $8.3 billion and it calls all of that spending emergency spending. That is a sleight of hand. That is avoiding the caps and the limits we have tried to put in place to begin to rein in spending and debt.

This is not an emergency in any reasonable sense of the term. This is not an unforeseen storm. This is not an unpredicted earthquake. This is not an unpredicted attack on our country from a foreign power. This is a problem, for sure, but we have annual spending bills and a whole department of government that is supposed to be about this problem--the Department of Homeland Security. We have an annual Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, so this is not something unforeseen, a true emergency. To call this $8.3 billion emergency spending is a pure sleight of hand to avoid the discipline of the spending caps.

At least on my side of the aisle, when this exact same point of order has been made before on many other bills, we have upheld it. We have said: You are right, this is a sleight of hand. You are right, this is an end run around those budget provisions. You are right, this is just busting the budget cap by another name.

We should do the same here. We should respect the budget law. We should not do an end run around the budget caps. We should not essentially lie to the American people and say this is unforeseen, this is a true emergency, when it is not.

I will be raising this very important budget point of order regarding the emergency designation of $8.3 billion of spending in the bill at the earliest possible opportunity, when it is in order. I expect that to be early next week as well.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Yes, I withhold the quorum call.

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

Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to strongly urge consideration and passage of the first of several amendments I will be presenting on this so-called comprehensive immigration reform bill.

It is amendment No. 1228 and is about the US-Visit system, the entry- exit system that is supposed to be in place. It has been mandated by Congress many times to guard against visa overstays, which is a serious national security problem.

Why is this important? There is one simple way to underscore it to answer that question, and that is to remind us that the 9/11 terrorists, every single one of them, were visa overstays. They were dangerous people who came into our country on valid visas, overstayed their visas, plotted against us, and ultimately caused horrendous death and destruction on 9/11.

What do we do about that situation? We need a system of tracking visas of the people who come into the country, tracking when they should be leaving the country, and looking to see if they have exited the country. We need a system which has biometric data associated with it which can track those entrances and those exits.

This sort of system is technologically possible. It is definitely possible to fund and put in place. It is primarily a question of political will.

Unfortunately, even after Congress mandated this multiple times to no effect, even after 9/11 and other terrorist attacks, we haven't mustered the political will to demand to put this is in place. If 9/11 wasn't enough, the 9/11 Commission--which we appointed, we put into law and asked them to look at the horrible attack of 9/11 and give us recommendations--made this one of their top recommendations. Their specific recommendation was that ``the Department of Homeland Security, properly supported by Congress, should complete as quickly as possible a biometric entry-exit screening system.''

Again, Congress had talked about this years before, starting in 1996. Congress passed that mandate, and Congress repeated that mandate many different times over 17 years, with six additional votes. The 9/11 Commission said the tragedy of 9/11 was, in part, due to our not having that system and, Congress, the administration, you need to get this done. Still that important piece of border security is not in place.

This Vitter amendment No. 1228 is very simple. It will prohibit the implementation of any program granting temporary legal status in this bill or adjusting the legal status of anyone who is presently in our country unlawfully until this US-VISIT system has been fully implemented--full implementation. So no change in anybody's legal status happens until we finally, after decades, implement this US-VISIT system; until we finally, after years, heed the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission; until we finally, decades after 9/11, say this will never happen again.

Also, under my amendment, both Houses of Congress must pass a joint resolution of approval stating, yes, this is fully in place. Because, quite frankly, there isn't sufficient trust of just the administration saying so, some certification from any administration--not just this one but any administration. It has to happen and Congress has to say, yes, that is in place, and then that change in legal status can go forward.

We talk a lot about border security, and, of course, usually we focus on the southern border, for obvious reasons. That is where the numbers are. That is where the greatest flow is. But when it comes to national security, this is a vital component of enforcement. This is a vital component of border security, and so we need to get this right. We need to remember 9/11. We need to heed the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. It has been since 1996 when Congress mandated this, and we need to make it stick. The only way to make it stick, in the context of this bill, is to demand it is done, it is completed, verified, including by Congress, before any change in legal status happens.

In closing, I also wish to express strong concern and opposition to Leahy amendment No. 1183, which is currently on the floor and up for consideration. That amendment would grant exceptional priority and exceptional favor to particular O and P visa applications, which are generally for renowned professors, researchers, doctors, Oscar winners, entertainers, and performers. It would specifically waive a fee associated with this visa.

I think that is problematic because we depend on all of these fees to fund this system and this enforcement system which we are trying to improve. I find it ironic we would waive this fee for that class of individuals, who are absolutely the most well-heeled and the most capable of paying it. We would give that class of individuals special status and a waiver of a relatively modest fee and, in the process, hurt the funding for the entire enforcement system.

I think that is misguided when we are trying to build up enforcement, when we are trying to get this done and pay for all that enforcement. I think it is misguided to waive this fee for exactly the sort of visa applicants who are most in a position to pay it.

With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for up to 12 minutes.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent to bring on to the floor and display a box of home keys, which I will explain in a moment.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, as is obvious, the people of South Louisiana have been through a whole lot in the last several years-- Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita, many significant hurricanes since then, most recently Hurricane Isaac, and the BP oil disaster, to name just a few really trying tragedies.

But now, having survived all of that, having endured through all of that, many residents of South Louisiana think they face a challenge which is even greater and which is completely wholly manmade; that is, the challenge presented by new changes to the National Flood Insurance Program that many South Louisiana residents fear could make staying in their homes that they built, following all the rules every step of the way, unaffordable. That is a crying shame. We must avoid that happening at all costs.

First of all, let me underscore that I talk about the folks of South Louisiana because I represent them. They have been through so much. But this is a national concern which potentially affects tens of millions of residents all around the country, in every one of the 50 States. That too is a reason we must solve this problem.

Again, it is simple. When we reauthorized the National Flood Insurance Program last year, when we finally got past only renewing that program by fits and starts for a very short-term period, we put into the law several reforms that were supposed to make the program fiscally sound. However, as some of those reforms are beginning to be implemented, they threaten to produce sky-high flood insurance premiums that no one at the time we debated these changes--no one at FEMA, no one in private insurance, and no outside expert--forecasted.

These sky-high premiums, if they are allowed to happen, threaten two things: First of all, they threaten, as I said, many good, hard-working taxpayers, residents who have followed all of the rules every step of the way in building their homes, in renovating their homes, and buying flood insurance. They threaten their being able to stay in their homes. They threaten the affordability of living that big part of the American dream. Second, they threaten making the National Flood Insurance Program sound because if significant numbers of folks cannot stay in their homes, cannot afford flood insurance, cannot pay into the system and therefore leave the system, potentially turn over their keys to the bank, walk away, certainly leave the national flood insurance system, perhaps leave home ownership, that is a big defeat for the fiscal soundness of the National Flood Insurance Program as well.

About 2\1/2\ weeks ago I was in Bayou Gauche, which is a middle-class neighborhood in St. Charles Parish, LA, up the river from New Orleans. I stood in the driveway of a home owned by homeowners who are facing just this crisis, just this challenge. As I said a few minutes ago, they have survived a whole lot over the last several years: Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita to their west, many major hurricanes since then, including most recently Hurricane Isaac and the BP oilspill, the BP disaster. They have survived more than they ever imagined was possible in a lifetime. Yet now they are fearful that their greatest challenge is yet ahead. Their greatest challenge is completely manmade--the fact that some of these new changes to the National Flood Insurance Program could cost them their house, could make their staying in that solid middle-class neighborhood and in their house unaffordable.

When I was there, when we were talking about this challenge with many local residents and leaders, those homeowners presented me with this box of keys. It is pretty heavy, but I want the Presiding Officer and everyone on the floor to see it. These are hundreds of house keys that have been put in this box by homeowners who face the same threat, who say that if the right reforms and changes are not made, they are handing over these keys. They are handing them over to FEMA, they are handing them over to the Federal Government, they are handing them over to the bank because their homes will no longer be affordable. They have to have flood insurance if they have any mortgage. Virtually everybody has to have a mortgage to afford their house over time. If flood insurance rates go sky high and rates are really unaffordable, they will be handing over these keys for good.

They all know and expect that there are going to have to be changes to the program and some significant increases for the program to be fiscally sound and pay for itself. They are not arguing with that. I am not arguing with that. What we are arguing against is completely unaffordable premium increases, things that will literally drive middle-class families out of their homes and out of their neighborhoods and make their American dream completely unaffordable. That should not be allowed to happen. That should not be allowed to happen because it is wrong to give them that uncertainty and that future when they have followed the rules every step of the way as they existed under the National Flood Insurance Program, under their mortgage, under everything else. It should not be allowed to happen because it will mean we will never achieve fiscal sustainability if tens of thousands and potentially hundreds of thousands of people around the country exit the program as they are threatening to do.

We need to take action to be able to assure these homeowners that will not happen to them. With that goal in mind, I am pursuing several things.

First of all, some of this can and must be fixed administratively at FEMA. I have led several delegations to FEMA to talk about this, to demand that they do what they can under their authority--particularly under the so-called LAMP process--to make sure they get it right, particularly in drafting and issuing new flood maps. LAMP is the new process that is under way at FEMA under which they are supposed to take into account, in making new maps, all flood protections, all features that are there on the ground to provide homeowners under that terrain flood protection, even if it is less than a 100-year level of protection. FEMA is still in the midst of their LAMP process. They are not finished by a long shot. We have to make sure FEMA gets that right, builds all protection features into their new map before any of those new maps and any of those rates take effect. That is just the biggest example

of what FEMA needs to do to get it right, what they can do under their authority.

Part of this challenge is definitely administrative. That is why I have led those groups to FEMA and why FEMA needs to get it right. That is also why I will be presenting this box of home keys to FEMA later this week at the request of these Louisiana homeowners.

The other part of our challenge is that we get it right legislatively because, in addition to everything FEMA can and must do, there probably also needs to be changes to Biggert-Waters to ensure homeowners are not thrown out of their homes because flood insurance is now unaffordable. That is why I have teamed up with the senior Senator from Mississippi, Thad Cochran, in introducing the Vitter-Cochran measure to fix provisions in the National Flood Insurance Program. It will do several things, at least four that are significant:

First, it would ensure that communities that are developing new maps by the end of this year will be able to maintain the old grandfathered rates that are subject to change in section 207 of Biggert-Waters.

Second, the bill would allow a 5-year phase-in of actuarially sound rates for newly purchased homes to require a reasonable phase-in to those higher rates.

Third, the bill would authorize State and local governments flexibility to directly subsidize homeowners' flood-insured properties if that can be part of a solution as well.

Fourth, it would require that a minimum of 25 percent of mitigation funding go directly to homeowners in a given year for programs and help that directly impacts homeowners, such as home elevation.

I will be advancing that bill along with Thad Cochran and many other interested Members. We will also be looking for amendment opportunities to advance those ideas and those provisions as well. Certainly, I am joining with my other colleagues from Louisiana, from the Sandy-hit area in the Northeast, and from all parts of the country to advance these fixes.

Senator Landrieu has an amendment on the farm bill which is on the Senate floor now of which I am cosponsor, and I am certainly working with her and many other Members to get this fix, to get it done, to reassure these threatened homeowners that help is on the way. We need to do this. We need to preserve the American dream and treat these people right, not make their middle-class homes and middle-class neighborhoods all of a sudden, through no fault of their own, unaffordable. We need to do it for the very goal of putting the National Flood Insurance Program on fiscally sound footing because if we have tens or hundreds of thousands of residents exiting the program, turning their keys over, turning them in to FEMA, turning them in to the bank, the National Flood Insurance Program will never get to that fiscally sound basis. We will have people exiting the system, no longer able to pay premiums. We need to get it right for them. We need to get it right for the American dream.

I look forward to working with all of our colleagues in doing so because, again, I started at the beginning talking about what South Louisiana has been through--many hurricanes and the BP disaster and more. But this is not a parochial issue. It is not a Katrina issue. It is not a Sandy issue. It is far broader than this. This movie is coming to a theater near you. I urge Members to learn about that threatened impact on their constituents, on their homeowners, and to immediately join me and many others in this effort.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss a very important topic and one that itself is coming to the Senate floor soon. That is the problem of illegal immigration and proposals for so-called comprehensive immigration reform. Specifically, of course, the Gang of 8 bill, as it has been dubbed, is being reported out of the Judiciary Committee. We will be debating that bill, and hopefully a lot of important amendments to it soon, in June, on the floor.

Let me say at the outset, I think there are at least a couple of things we can all agree on. No. 1, I think we can all agree that the United States is an immigrant nation with a proud history of immigration--legal immigration. It is absolutely one of the core features of our Nation that makes us unique and that makes us strong. So I wish to say that upfront, very proudly, very strongly. I support that tradition, that history of being an immigrant nation. All of us are the children of immigrants--not a question of if, it is just a question of when, because that is the nature of America. That goes to the core of our strength.

No. 2, the other thing I think we can all agree with is our present immigration system is broken. In fact, it is badly broken, and we need to fix the system.

As I said a minute ago, we have a proud history of immigration, legal immigration. That is the tradition, the history we need to get back to. Unfortunately, right now we have a system of wide open illegal immigration, almost open borders in some cases and some areas, and that desperately needs to be fixed.

Having said that, I have real and fundamental concerns with the so- called Gang of 8 bill, and they fall into five or six big categories. I want to talk about each of those important categories in turn.

First and foremost, my biggest and my most fundamental concern, I think the so-called Gang of 8 bill repeats mistakes of the past because, at its core, it is amnesty now, enforcement later, and maybe never. We have tried that model before. We have tried it several times before, and it has never worked.

The most clear example is the 1986 immigration overhaul. That bill, at its core, was the same model, amnesty now and enforcement later, and maybe never. In fact, much of that enforcement was never. That is why it didn't work. The amnesty kicked in immediately, the millisecond the bill was signed into law. That was a powerful message to invite more and more illegal crossings across the border, more and more illegal immigrants into the country. That part of the bill, that part of the message, was heard loudly and clearly. The promises of enforcement never fully materialized. Many of them never materialized at all.

What happened when you had that combination of immediate amnesty with promises of enforcement that never materialized? Again, you attracted more illegal crossings, and you had no capability or will to do anything about them.

The promise then was we are going to have to do this once; the system will be fixed; we will never have to look back. We will never have to look in the rearview mirror. The problem will be solved.

What happened? Well, we all know the problem wasn't solved. In fact, the problem simply wasn't continued, the problem was quadrupled. What were 3 million illegal immigrants then were mostly made legal. But that number 3 million quadrupled, and now today we have 11, 12 million illegal immigrants, some think more.

That, at its core, is the Gang of 8 bill, and immediate amnesty, promises of enforcement. That is not good enough, particularly when we have decades--decades--the Federal Government, Republicans and Democrats, who have promised us before and have never ever delivered. The American people say we will trust but we want to verify. Trust but verify. We need to see this enforcement in action before we move on to anything else.

In fact, in some ways this Gang of 8 bill is worse in terms of that basic

model than previous versions such as 1986. If you look at page 70 of the bill, it actually has a period of an enforcement holiday, so 2\1/2\ years of a pure enforcement holiday. Not only is this amnesty now and enforcement later, it may never apply to folks who are in the country illegally now. They can keep coming. The message will be sent out, and they can come the day after the bill passes, the week after the bill passes, the year after the bill passes, 2 years after the bill passes, and it is part of the same amnesty. They would get the benefits of that amnesty as well. That enforcement holiday, 2\1/2\ years, makes that combination of a big amnesty now, with promises of an enforcement later, even more potentially disastrous.

The second big problem I have with the bill as it is currently put together is it doesn't enforce the law, and it doesn't enforce the border, particularly the troublesome southern border with Mexico. It doesn't enforce other enforcement provisions. It doesn't actually guarantee that those are put into place and executed in an effective way.

The proponents of the bill talk about so-called triggers in the bill before the amnesty, before the new legal status is granted. When you look hard at what the triggers are, they are triggers on a toy plastic gun, not real triggers in any meaningful sense of the term. The triggers basically narrow down to two things. First of all, the Secretary has to submit two reports, two plans. The Secretary of Homeland Security has to submit plans or reports, a so-called comprehensive ``southern border security strategy,'' so she has to submit a strategy. Great. This was promised for three decades but now she has to submit a strategy, a piece of paper and a southern border fencing strategy, so that is one trigger.

The other triggers are certification that the border strategy is ``substantially deployed'' and ``substantially operational.''

What is the problem with that? Two things. Who the heck knows what ``substantially deployed'' means and, No. 2, even more troublesome, do you know who has to certify that? The Secretary of Homeland Security, who has not been effective at enforcement to date in any way, shape, or form. Those so-called triggers are absolutely meaningless.

The bill doesn't require a fence, as is actually required under present law, so we are weakening that. We are walking away from that. It weakens current law regarding border security. Operational control is the standard now, and that is being weakened, changed to effective control. It doesn't require a biometric data system for entry and exit screening. That has been pushed by Congress since 1996. Congress started mandating this in 1996, and it was one of the prime recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, full deployment of the US-VISIT system. The 9/11 Commission said that needs to be a high priority. That is exactly how the 9/11 terrorists got into our country and overstayed their visas. It doesn't do any of that. Again, there is an enforcement holiday for 2\1/2\ years and no border security now before the amnesty kicks in.

No. 3, I am very concerned that we will continue the present status quo, which is significant benefits being available to these immigrants, which act as a magnet to incent other illegal immigrants to come into the country. The so-called Gang of 8 made all sorts of promises about certain promises not kicking in until full citizenship is granted down the road. Many benefits would kick in immediately, certainly participation in the Social Security system, certainly all those Social Security benefits, and their loopholes about these benefits. I think many illegal immigrants will clearly gain access to public benefits far sooner than any 13 years as advertised. That is another serious weakness of the bill.

Fourth, I am very concerned about the cost of this bill. Authors of this bill have been very clever. They saw that cost issue coming, and they devised the bill so the big costs of the bill are outside the 10- year budget window. Why is that important? Well, not to get into the weeds, but it is very important because CBO scores legislation primarily on its impact on taxes and spending in the first 10 years. The authors of the bill were very careful, very clever in devising a bill that would look OK in the first 10 years with regard to cost. After that first 10-year window, the costs explode and none of that will be reflected by this CBO score.

We have seen this movie before, because this is exactly the same approach to CBO scoring and costs of legislation, exactly the same approach the proponents of ObamaCare put forward. They were very clever to push many of the costs in the outyears beyond the first initial scoring window, and that is why they were able to wave CBO scores around to somehow suggest this would help lessen the deficit. It is perfectly clear now, ObamaCare is not going to make our fiscal situation better, it is going to make it far worse and far more onerous.

I believe exactly the same thing is true with this bill in terms of the costs, and I believe the proponents of the bill, quite frankly, have gamed the system in the same way to hide those costs, given the way CBO scores legislation.

In contrast to that, there is an objective study of the full costs of the bill, and that is a study by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation. He went into extreme detail tracking the full costs and fiscal benefits of the bill. His conclusion was that the full costs of the bill are $6.3 trillion over the full life and the full impact of the bill, $6.3 trillion, with a T. He concluded that the bill, because of all the folks it would legalize, would kick in $9.4 trillion in benefits. There are more government benefits we are going to have to pay out, $9.4 trillion.

These folks being legalized would pay some taxes into the system, which they do not pay now, and that would be $3.1 trillion. When you subtract 3.1 from 9.4, that obviously doesn't net out to zero. That is a net increase in the deficit, increased cost to the government, to society, to the taxpayer, of $6.3 trillion net. That is a serious impact on these budget and fiscal issues we are already very concerned about.

The Robert Rector study is very credible, it is very detailed. I have seen no comparable study in terms of the detail of the analysis. I would challenge anyone who cares about this issue, wherever they are coming from, to put up any other study that can compete with the Rector study in terms of detail and analysis. I think currently that is the last and final word on costs of the bill.

Two final points. A fifth big concern I have about the bill is I believe this bill is very unfair to legal immigrants and folks who are waiting in line in the legal immigration system now. It puts some people--not everybody who would be made legal, but some people--ahead of them in line and dishonors the fact that these would-be legal immigrants are following the rules now and following the law now.

Sixth and finally--and this is no trivial matter--I am very concerned that this would depress wages in the United States for many hard- working Americans, legal immigrants, others who have followed the law who are working hard in a very tough economy now. I think it would depress the general wage situation and make that more difficult for them to deal with.

In closing, I urge all my colleagues to look carefully at these and other concerns and try to address them fully, directly, completely, on the Senate floor.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to present two amendments I have filed on this farm bill, and I will be pushing hard for votes on them right now. I hope these get a full and extensive debate and a vote. They are relevant and related to the farm bill in significant ways.

The first amendment is with regard to the free government cell phone program, and of course that uses as criteria for eligibility the food stamp program and other benefit programs, so it is directly related to that aspect of the farm bill.

Mr. President, as you know, this program has been exploding almost without limit, and I have some fundamental concerns about it. My fundamental concerns are pretty simple and pretty basic. They come down to two things: First of all, I think the whole program is an entitlement mentality gone wild; that we have started the notion that folks are entitled to the government, the taxpayer, providing them almost everything under the sun; and, secondly, and not unrelated, there has been widespread fraud and abuse in this program, and I am convinced it is at the core of this program and can't be scrubbed out.

What is the program we are talking about? Well, it is the free government cell phone program. It was started in 2008, and in just those few years since then it has grown from $143 million that year, which itself is a significant amount of money, to nearly $2 billion now--an elevenfold increase. This program is paid for by you and by me. It is paid for through our land line and cell phone bills. We all get a charge on our bills. So if you actually pay your phone bill, land line, and/or cell phone, you get a charge and you pay that charge and that is what funds this program. So ratepayers, taxpayers, citizens, millions upon millions around the country pay for this program.

The FCC itself--and the FCC is in charge of the program--estimates that about 270,000 beneficiaries have more than one of these free government cell phones. That is interesting, that is important because that is completely against the law and against the rules--completely prohibited. The FCC also says the top five companies that benefit from the program could not confirm the eligibility of 41 percent of the folks they signed up. This is from a report in 2011. The FCC did some spot-checking and found that 41 percent of the folks these companies signed up couldn't be confirmed as eligible.

This has led one of my colleagues, Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, to say the program is rife for fraud, with a ``history of extreme waste and abuse.'' That is what my objections are all about-- rampant waste and abuse and a general entitlement mentality that I think has gone too far.

The amendment I offer on this bill, which is at the desk, would simply and completely end the program with regard to free government cell phones. Someone might argue: Oh, these programs are being fixed. We are making great strides.

Well, I was interested in seeing how far we have come, so this very weekend I was talking to a friend of mine back in Louisiana, Clarence, and he was interested in that too. So Monday--yesterday--he decided to go to one of these outlets that advertises free government cell phones and just see what his experience was.

So he walked in and simply told the truth; that he was interested in getting a free government cell phone. He was asked: Are you now on any government benefit program, such as food stamps?

He answered truthfully: No. He said: I have a job. I don't make a lot of money. That was the truth.

He was asked to produce two things: a driver's license and a pay stub. He showed the people at the counter both of those things. They looked at them. Interestingly, they certainly didn't make any copies. They certainly didn't create any documentation because that could potentially get them in trouble.

They looked at his documents and gave him a form he had to sign once, and then they immediately gave him a free government cell phone. The phone was on, it worked immediately, it had minutes on it that he could immediately use. He walked out of that storefront in less than 10 minutes with a free government cell phone.

He then looked up the precise eligibility criteria of the program, which he did not know before. Guess what. Surprise, surprise. He did not qualify. He should never have gotten one. So he is returning it today. It will also be interesting to see how long that phone is kept on even after he returns it because the provider gets $9.25 from the ratepayer and the taxpayer and the FCC every month for that account.

This is his, Clarence's, free government cell phone. This is his receipt. The charge is zero, absolutely free, and completely contrary to all of the rules of the program, which is why he is returning it today.

We have serious spending and fiscal challenges in this country, but we have an even greater challenge, which is we have lost the faith and confidence of the American people. We have lost it because of this. We have lost it because there are tents popping out on every street corner. They are handing out these free government cell phones like candy. And why is that happening? Because the people handing out the phones have a vested interest in doing that, have a vested interest in not worrying about whether eligibility criteria are met because every time they hand out a phone they get $9.25 per phone per month as long as they can sustain that gravy train.

They are the biggest welfare abusers of this--rich owners of companies who milk the system to get richer, whom I would call government welfare kings.

This abuse needs to stop. We need to recapture the confidence of the American people. My amendment would help do that.

I will also be presenting and pushing for a vote on an amendment to limit and bar certain people from receiving any food stamp benefits. Those are folks who have been convicted of violent and serious crimes such as violent rapists, pedophiles, and murderers. There is a misconception that ban is already in the law. In fact, it is not. In fact, the only ban that exists is for drug felons and in the law is an opt-out for States so the State can opt out of even that ban.

My second amendment is simple and straightforward. It would establish a complete ban in the program for anyone who has committed a violent rape, a crime of pedophilia or a murder. There would be no opt-out for States.

I hope we can form a bipartisan consensus around this basic idea and put that basic fundamental limitation in the law. I urge my colleagues to look at both of these amendments and support both of these amendments.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I also strongly support the amendment. This is a commonsense ``Buy American'' provision, which is completely consistent with what we did on the recent highway bill in a bipartisan way which created no controversy, no debate at the time. I support the amendment.

Madam President, if I could ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 seconds.

Madam President, I also strongly support this amendment. I think it is a very reasonable, commonsense amendment.

I thank the chairman for including this provision, and I would note that the Corps of Engineers has long worked to ensure the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint, ACF, River Basin and Alabama-Coosa- Tallapoosa, ACT, River Basins are able to meet the demands of users in Georgia, Alabama and Florida through its operation of dams and reservoirs, and performs an important role in regulating the flow of surface water in these basins. Further, it is the intent of WRDA Section 2015 to recognize that role and to assist the States' efforts to reach an end to their disputes. While the committee does not intend to express any opinion about reallocations under the existing authority of the Water Supply Act and its application to these basins, we do believe these States should work to come to an agreement. Additionally, the Chairman and I intend to express these same sentiments to the Corps of Engineers through a letter that will be submitted into the Record soon after passage of this bill.

I thank the chairman for her assistance with this provision.

Harbor Maintenance Taxes

Madam President, I join in all of the comments of the distinguished chairman of the committee, and I strongly support this bill as well.

This is a jobs bill as well as a water maritime infrastructure bill that is

good for the economy, and it does it in a way that doesn't increase the deficit a penny. This bill contains no earmarks. It institutes important reforms to deauthorize projects that are not moving forward, so it should even be authorization net neutral. It provides reforms which are needed in terms of the Corps of Engineers.

This is a very strong bipartisan bill. I hope it is also some little suggestion of how we can move forward in this body, work in a bipartisan way, and have real debate, amendments, and votes on the floor, which is another whole aspect of this experience that has been very positive.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Madam President, I stand to echo all of those thoughts.

Let me start with a lot of overdue thanks. First of all, let me thank a great partner in Chairman Boxer. As she said many times, we do not agree about a lot, including important issues within the jurisdiction of our committee, but we can come together constructively, really productively, on the infrastructure side of our committee--both highway infrastructure and water infrastructure. And that is what we wanted to do from the very beginning on this bill.

The crucial element to any success is the will and the determination to do it. We both had that, but I really thank her for her leadership in that regard and being a great partner.

I certainly echo all of her thoughts about the staff work. I am deeply indebted to all of the staff work, particularly on my side, that went into this bill. The chair and I personally dealt with probably a couple dozen issues and semicrises that would crop up over time.

But if we did that with a couple of dozen, our staffs did that with hundreds and solved those problems to the satisfaction of a huge number of Members. That was reflected in the vote. I thank both staffs, but I am particularly indebted to my staff for all of that hard work, particularly Zak Baig, Charles Brittingham, Chris Tomassi, Sarah Veatch, Rebecca Louviere, Jill Landry, Luke Bolar, and Cheyenne Steel. They all put in enormous hours--of course, Charles much more than anyone else, but they all put in enormous hours. I thank them for their excellent work.

I also want to emphasize what a positive bill this is. I talked a few minutes ago, right before the vote, about the strengths of the bill from a national point of view: jobs, waterborne commerce, reform of the Corps of Engineers. This bill is also very important for my home State of Louisiana. I just want to underscore that in closing.

In three areas it is particularly important. First of all, we have a lot of important flood control, hurricane protection projects. This bill moves a number of those projects forward in a crucial way; projects such as the Louisiana Coastal Area Ecosystem Project, Morganza to the Gulf, which is vitally important to the protection of Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes and surrounding areas, also the West Shore Hurricane Protection Project. That is right in the middle of where Hurricane Isaac hit. We need to get that done. It is now moving forward, the Southwest Louisiana Coastal Hurricane Protection Study.

Finally, although it is not as far along, there is very important work with regard to Saint Tammany and other coastal parishes achieving flood protection, including a barrier at the lake or near Lake Pontchartrain for Saint Tammany. That concept will move forward because of this bill.

The second big category in the bill is Corps of Engineers reform and accountability. Those of us who lived through Hurricane Katrina saw some of the best and, unfortunately, some of the worst of what the Federal Government has to offer. On the side that needs improvement, we need streamlining and reform at certain agencies, including the Corps of Engineers.

This bill brings that reform to the Corps of Engineers in a number of important areas, such as the proposal Senator Nelson of Florida and I have. It also streamlines and expedites the process, particularly with regard to environmental review. That is very important.

Third, and finally, this bill advances waterborne commerce by dredging our harbors and ports and rivers, and getting that work done, which is vital, which is necessary, if marathon commerce is going to move forward and

help drive the engine of our economy. We have major reforms in this bill with regard to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, major reforms in the bill with regard to the Inland Waterway Trust Fund, dredging what we need to dredge, moving forward on key harbors and ports and waterways. That is important for our Louisiana maritime sector, which is a big part of the national economy.

So there are a lot of positives to this bill. That is why I was proud to help develop it and support it. That is why I am very pleased today that it got overwhelming bipartisan support.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to very briefly agree with two key points made by my colleague from Louisiana. First of all, as far as the substance of this amendment goes, I wholeheartedly agree with her, and that is why I am a sponsor of this amendment as well.

We will visit this issue again because it is vitally important that we get it right--not just for the tens of thousands of folks from Louisiana but for millions of Americans across the country. We need to get this right, and we don't yet have it right.

Secondly and also very importantly, I absolutely agree that we should have debate and votes on the Senate floor. I don't think any Member should object to just having a vote on a matter.

My colleague, the Senator from Pennsylvania, has been a leading advocate to have an open amendment process on the Senate floor, to allow votes, and I agreed with that. I fought with the chair of the committee to have an open amendment process in the context of this bill, and we got it. Now, at the end of the day, he objects to even having a vote on a particular amendment he doesn't like. The Senator cannot have it both ways. If the Senator wants an open amendment process on the floor, as I do, then he will have to accept that he may have to take votes on amendments he doesn't agree with. I accept that; I wish he would accept that. I hope it will continue and grow from here.

Mr. President, first of all, let me thank my colleague from California, the chair, and all of my colleagues for allowing us to move forward with a very open amendment process. It is not quite as open a process as I would have wanted--namely on the Landrieu amendment because of the objection from my colleague from Pennsylvania. By any Senate standard, this has been a very open amendment process, and that is very healthy.

I join the chair in urging all of our colleagues who would like to debate upcoming votes to come to the floor now. The time is between now and 5 p.m. Please come to the floor. I am doing that right now. I want to talk about one of those amendments on which we will vote, the Barrasso amendment, which is about waters of the United States. This is an important issue.

John Barrasso and I and many others believe the EPA should not be able to define and expand its regulatory jurisdiction--in this case, we are talking about the Clean Water Act--without undertaking a formal rulemaking process that provides individuals, businesses, and other stakeholders the opportunity to give meaningful input.

The Clean Water Act authorizes the EPA to regulate the discharge of pollutants into ``navigable waters.'' Again, that is a very clear term--``navigable waters.'' The act defines ``navigable waters'' as ``the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.'' The trouble is clearly understanding what constitutes the waters of the United States. For decades, courts have considered the meaning of ``the waters of the United States,'' and yet uncertainty still remains.

Recently, in 2006--about 7 years ago--in the Rapanos decision, the Supreme Court considered whether the Army Corps of Engineers properly determined the wetlands in Michigan as being waters of the United States. Although the Court determined that the corps viewed its regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act too broadly, a majority of the Justices still could not come to a precise agreement into exactly what ``waters of the United States'' means. So they agreed about what it didn't mean in the context of that case--that the corps had gone too far afield--but they didn't clearly agree on exactly what it meant.

More recently, Justice Alito, in the Sackett case, observed that the reach of the Clean Water Act remains ``notoriously unclear.'' Justice Alito and others have called on Congress to examine the Clean Water Act statutory language to make it precise and clear up the confusion. He also noted that EPA ``has not seen fit to promulgate a rule providing a clear and sufficiently limited definition of the phrase''--that phrase being ``the waters of the United States.''

Instead, the EPA has done something different. Unfortunately, this is a trend at the EPA. The EPA issued what it calls guidance on this issue. Now, according to the EPA, the guidance ``clarifies how the EPA and Corps understand existing requirements of the Clean Water Act and the agencies' implementing regulations'' in light of relevant decisions.

The problem is this: Guidance is short of what the EPA should do, which is to promulgate rules and regs. It is short of that for a very particular reason--because there is no clear-cut, nailed-down process for guidance. The EPA can just make up what it wants without having to take input from affected parties. Under the law, there are clear-cut guidelines and rules for promulgating rules and regulations, and that is what the EPA should do.

In this instance, there are two problems. First of all, the guidance is simply mistaken. It is way too expansive, in the view of many folks, including myself and the author of this amendment, Senator Barrasso. Also, very importantly, guidance doesn't have to go through a process. Guidance doesn't illicit input from citizens, impacted parties, and stakeholders. That is another crucial issue involved.

This Barrasso amendment would clear up that point on two fronts. It would go to the substance of the guidance--and we think EPA is getting it wrong with regard to that substance--but it would also help underscore that there is a process for the EPA to issue rules and regulations, and that is what the EPA should be doing on important matters such as this--not shortcutting, circumventing that process by simply issuing guidance.

So if the EPA wishes to examine the meaning of ``waters of the United States'' in the Clean Water Act, it needs to do so in a fair and transparent manner, and in a way that provides all Americans the chance to offer meaningful regulatory input. Guidance doesn't do that. This guidance gets it wrong. But, just as importantly, guidance doesn't fulfill the need for transparency and openness and the ability to accept input. This Barrasso amendment would provide EPA with precisely that opportunity: Make them accept

input and make them get it right. That is why I strongly support the Barrasso amendment.

Again, I invite all of our colleagues to come down to the floor to debate any part of this bill, any aspect of pending amendments. We are open for business now until 5 p.m. I think that is going to be a lot of time. We will have a series of votes starting today and going into tomorrow, and I very much appreciate the chair of the committee and others who have allowed this very open amendment process on the floor of the Senate.

With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise for two reasons. First of all, I look forward to supporting the confirmation of Shelly Dick to become a judge in the Middle District of Louisiana, and I look forward to that vote in 5 minutes. As I have said before, I believe she will serve well.

Secondly, I also wanted to come to the floor to add my support to the Landrieu flood insurance amendment. I am a cosponsor, and we are working very hard on clearing a path for an important, substantive version of that amendment.

Senator Landrieu and I have talked, and we have talked to others, including Senator Boxer and many other supporters. We are working very hard not to get into the weeds but to take care of some technical issues, some budget points of order, and some other issues so we can clear the path for a strong, substantive version of this amendment.

This is a big deal. It is a big deal for the country. It is a big deal for any coastal area and certainly a big deal for South Louisiana. We need to ensure that as the new Flood Insurance Program is administered, it is done in a fair and reasonable way and that we don't price anybody who has been following the rules out of their home because their flood insurance rates increased so astronomically. That is the fear, but that has not played out. The new rates are not out, but that is the legitimate fear. Senator Landrieu and I are working with our entire delegation to make sure we avoid that.

Right after this vote, I am going to travel to northern Virginia to meet with a Louisiana group at the FEMA offices to talk about this very issue. I am convinced FEMA has some authority under law already to mitigate these issues in many ways but including by making sure they get their LAMP process right and take into account all flood barriers and protections in a given area as new areas are mapped. I am going directly from this judge vote to that important meeting, and we will all be following up in important ways to make sure we get it right, make sure FEMA gets it right, hopefully including a good, workable amendment that can be passed on this bill. We are all working toward that goal.

I thank my colleague from Louisiana for that joint effort.

I yield back to the Chair.

Madam President, through the Chair, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I briefly want to say two things: No. 1, I too am very supportive of this bill, which I do think is a strong bipartisan and a reform-oriented effort. I think the best proof of that is that it came out of our EPW committee 18 to 0. We have a committee that reflects the wide spectrum of opinion of the entire Senate. The waterway infrastructure bill is important, so I am very supportive of it.

No. 2, I am also very glad we have this open amendment process. I think it reflects a lot of work and goodwill on a lot of folks' part, including the Chair and myself. I welcome this debate and vote. We want to take up and vote on amendments.

With that show of good faith, I hope Members can focus on germane--or at least relevant--amendments, and that is what we will be turning to in our next set of amendments.

I hope this open process and show of good faith engenders that response. I look forward to all of these amendments and debates and votes.

With that, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for the time.

Amendment No. 805 to Amendment No. 799

Mr. President, I join my colleague in rising in support of this strong, bipartisan, reform-oriented Water Resources Development Act bill. In doing so, I thank and salute Senator Boxer for her leadership. More than anyone else, she got us to the floor today with a strong, solid bill.

As Senator Boxer mentioned, very early on in our discussions about the work of the EPW Committee in this Congress, we set a good, solid, bipartisan, reform-oriented WRDA bill as our top immediate goal in terms of something the committee could produce and actually pass into law. In fact, those discussions even started between her and myself, in particular, before the start of this Congress. Of course they continued and they ramped up in a meaningful and substantive way. Through that give-and-take and through that real commitment to work in a bipartisan fashion on infrastructure, on jobs, on issues on which we can agree, this bill resulted.

Again, as she mentioned, we do not agree on everything. We do not agree on everything in the committee, and that committee is often very contentious and divided along ideological lines. But this is a subject where we can agree and work productively together because this bill is about infrastructure and jobs. Certainly we can come together around that. That is what it is fundamentally about--water infrastructure, commerce, and jobs. That is why the Alliance for Manufacturing said almost 24,000 jobs will be created for every $1 billion invested in levees, inland waterways, and dams. This bill does several billion dollars of that. That produces jobs because it is building the necessary infrastructure we need for waterborne commerce. Ultimately that core, that theme, that common goal is what brought us effectively together.

The proof of that is seen in the committee consideration of this bill. As you may know, the EPW Committee is a divided committee. On many key issues before us we are very divided between Republicans and Democrats. Yet because of this focus in the bill on maritime commerce, jobs, infrastructure, we won an 18-to-0 committee vote to report the bill out favorably and bring it to the floor.

Let me talk for a few minutes about exactly what is in the bill. I want to go through the highlights. I think they can best be summarized by focusing on 10 specific points, what is in the bill, what the bill does, sometimes, just as importantly, what is not in the bill and what the bill does not do.

First of all, the bill does not increase deficit and debt in any way. There is no negative impact on deficit and debt. Related to that, No. 2, there are no earmarks in the bill. The current rules of both conferences are not to support and sponsor earmarks. There are no earmarks in the bill.

What does the bill affirmatively do? No. 3, it authorizes 19 significant projects for flood protection, navigation, and ecosystem restoration. Yet at the same time, even on the authorization side, we create a mechanism--I thank Senator Barrasso for contributing this important element to the bill--we create a BRAC-like commission to deauthorize some old projects which are not being acted upon, which are not getting built. Because of that new BRAC-like deauthorization commission, even on the authorization side, we should have a net- neutral impact on authorizations. The way we have structured it, we should not be increasing overall net authorizations.

No. 4, we have made substantial progress and reforms to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and spending on dredging and other Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund projects.

As Senator Boxer mentioned, it has been an enormous frustration to many of us that this so-called trust fund is raided every year so that even in a good year, half of the supposedly dedicated revenue from the industry in those trust funds is used for other purposes. Again, this is revenue from the maritime industry. It is supposed to be protected and dedicated for dredging and other delineated purposes, but even in a good year, half is used for other things, with deficit spending.

We have negotiated with all Members of the Senate, including the leaders of the Appropriations Committee, and I think we have made substantial progress. I think we have made a big move in the right direction so we ramp up harbor maintenance trust fund spending for dredging and other delineated purposes.

In a few years--between now and roughly 2019, 2020--we have a steady ramp-up. We spend more of that trust fund on the agreed-upon delineated purposes every year. We are building toward full spend-out of the trust fund. Again, this is a product of a lot of discussion and goodwill negotiation with other Members of the Senate, including leaders of the Appropriations Committee, which is a major and positive element of this bill.

No. 5, we also made important reforms and changes to the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Again, there has been real frustration that those inland waterways trust fund projects have been languishing and have not properly received the resources they need to be completed and get off the books. We have made real reforms on the Inland Waterway Trust Fund side that will have important and positive impacts to get those important projects built.

No. 6, we provide non-Federal sponsors of many of these projects more project management control in both the feasibility study and the construction phases of projects. This has been an idea in a stand-alone bill of Senator Bill Nelson of Florida and myself. We incorporated that reform--that pilot project--into this WRDA bill.

In several significant cases, on a sort of experimental basis, we are going to ask the non-Federal sponsors to take over project management control. We think that is going to allow these projects to get built quicker and more efficiently for less money.

No. 7, we require more accountability of the Corps of Engineers on project schedules. We increased public disclosure of internal Corps decisions, and we actually penalized the Corps for the first time ever when they missed significant deadlines. Again, Senator Boxer mentioned this.

We had discussions right out of the box and came to the agreement that we are not going to lower the bar about environmental review; we are not going to substantively change any environmental or other requirements. What we are going to do is make sure that agencies which are involved do their work in a timely and expeditious way, and that has to start with the Corps of Engineers in terms of these projects. We do that with much heightened Corps accountability.

No. 8, in a similar vein, we accelerate the NEPA and project delivery process to ensure that projects are not endlessly held up by government bureaucracy, tangles, and redtape. Again, it is exactly the same approach and agreement I mentioned with regard to point No. 7. We are not changing standards or lessening our requirements. We are appropriately streamlining the process and saying: Everybody works on deadlines, and the Federal agencies involved have to work on and respect those deadlines as well. If they miss them over and over and over, there will be negative consequences, and that is an important reform element to this bill.

No. 9, as Senator Boxer mentioned, we provide an innovative financing mechanism for water resource projects as well as water and wastewater infrastructure projects. It is called WIFIA because it is modeled on the TIFIA Program on the transportation side, and it is very much the same basic idea. TIFIA has long been a model to build public-private partnerships and has helped to finance important transportation infrastructure projects.

On the last highway bill last year that I helped work on and Senator Boxer led on, we expanded the TIFIA Program. Here we are using the same positive model for a WIFIA program.

Finally, No. 10, we provide more credit opportunities for non-Federal sponsors either in lieu of financial reimbursement or cross-crediting among projects so they can more reasonably meet their wetlands mitigation and other needs.

Wetlands mitigation requirements have grown much more onerous and expensive over time in a lot of places of the country, including Louisiana. This is simply intended to give people, local government, private industry, and others, more options. It is not to lower the standard for that mitigation, but it allows for more options to meet the standard and goals in a more efficient

and less costly way. So we do that through these credit opportunities.

Those are the important and 10 key highlights of the bill. Again, I think it is a genuine bipartisan reform-oriented effort that is, at its core, about water infrastructure, waterborne commerce, jobs, and hurricane and flood protection.

As I mentioned at the beginning, the clearest proof of that is committee consideration and committee vote. There are not many things that ever get an 18-0 vote in the Senate EPW Committee, but this did. Strong conservatives and strong liberals voted with a result of 18-0. I am very proud of that, and I think that gives us a very productive path forward.

Speaking of the path forward, let me underscore and emphasize what Senator Boxer has laid out. We want to have votes; we want to process amendments. There is no goal here to frustrate that in any way by me or Senator Boxer or anyone. In my opinion, to get that ball rolling, the best way to get there is to start taking up amendments and having votes so we can build on that momentum. What we are going to propose in the very near future is that our substitute amendment be adopted by unanimous consent to be the underlying bill. It is noncontroversial. It incorporates the ideas and suggestions of dozens of Senators. There is nothing controversial in it. In fact, the only thing it does is remove some potential controversy in the bill. So we are going to ask the full Senate allow us, by UC, to adopt that as the underlying bill.

We are also going to immediately ask to have debate and votes on three or four beginning amendments. I believe those, in fact, are going to be nongermane amendments. I think that underscores and illustrates our goodwill about processing amendments, getting it going, taking amendments, having votes, and getting through this process.

I would suggest, as Senator Boxer did, that we try to continue to focus on the important subject matter of the bill and not endlessly or needlessly go far afield. But I do think that proposing these amendment votes straight out is an important gesture of goodwill to set the right precedent and tone for a full and open debate on the floor, and so that is what we are going to do.

As soon as that UC request is drafted and ready, I will come to the full Senate with that. If we can gain consent for that, I think it will start us on a very productive path, both to consider the bill and to process amendments and have votes.

Clearly those amendments would not be the end of it, by far. We are already keying up some amendments to come forward right after that so we can debate those maybe tonight. If we do that, we can vote on those as soon as possible, perhaps in the morning, and go from there. That is my goal and expectation in terms of the near future, which Senator Boxer shares. Hopefully we will return to the full Senate quickly with that request.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island.

Madam President, I thank my colleagues from Missouri and Florida for this very worthwhile amendment. I will certainly be supporting it. The plan is to have this in the second set of amendments for votes, absolutely, as soon as we can proceed to votes. That is the plan, which I fully expect to be executed. I thank them for their work and for their contribution.

In the same vein, we are expecting Senator Inhofe to join us on the floor to also present without formally calling up his germane amendment. That way, we will have that discussion ahead of time, and that also will be all teed up for the second set of amendments we hope to have on this bill.

I hope what this underscores is that we have a pretty good plan to move forward quickly, to start having votes. Sometimes around here we want to settle every possible discussion about every possible amendment vote out there. In my opinion, it is more productive to start because you can't finish unless you start. I think we want to start having important votes, including nongermane votes, and get to absolutely every amendment we can. I think we are on that path. Hopefully we will be doing that today and then formally presenting and voting on the Blunt-Nelson amendment as well as the Inhofe amendment and other amendments tomorrow.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I again thank my colleagues from Arkansas and Oklahoma. I support their measure. I thank them for coming down and

laying out the argument explaining their measure even before it is formally presented because that will help expedite the process. We are absolutely working on that formal consideration and vote as soon as possible, just as we are on the amendment we talked about a few minutes ago, the Blunt-Nelson amendment.

I thank them for their work. I thank them for coming to the floor to expedite debate. We are absolutely working on proceeding to get to formal consideration of their amendment and a vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 689.

Mr. President, there have been at least three independent studies now recently that underscore that too-big-to-fail is still alive and well, and that too-big-to-fail policies give Wall Street megabanks a subsidy in comparison to their competitors--an unfair advantage, creating an uneven playing field. And not coincidentally, that is why these megabanks dominate the market--the biggest market share ever in history.

This amendment is very simple. It says we should do away with the Federal policies that create that subsidy, the uneven playing field. It doesn't say we forcibly break up the banks, it doesn't say we tax them, it just says that.

I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Brown of Ohio.

Mr. President, we believe this is an important matter, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, point of information.

I would like to ask the distinguished budget chair through the Chair what delay or what conflict with any other event could this possibly pose until at least 6 or 7 a.m.? I don't understand what delay that would cause, to allow more votes on amendments, or what conflict that could possibly pose with any other events, including airplane flights, at least until several hours from now. None of us wants to delay the process, and none of us wants to prevent a vote. Clearly, that is not an issue for several hours. I would just ask that of the distinguished chair.

Mr. President, this amendment would require photo IDs to participate in Federal elections, which is allowed now by States. However, the Justice Department is trying to virtually shut down this practice unreasonably by opposing it in many States. This would be a clarification to mandate the Federal IDs, just as we do in many other less consequential acts such as air travel.

I certainly thank the honorable chairwoman for that kind note, but I do wish to move forward with my amendment.

This amendment is simple. It ends the cell phone welfare entitlement. I yield back my time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I come to the floor on this budget debate and will specifically highlight several amendments that I am presenting that will be voted on in the context of the debate. We address several provisions that I think are important as we vote on moving forward with the budget.

One issue is a reform idea. It is very simple, but it is very basic, and I think it is important in terms of our leading through these fiscally tough times; that is, ending automatic pay raises for Members of Congress. I am joined in this amendment by Senator McCaskill of Missouri, and I thank her for her leadership. There is existing Federal law that establishes automatic pay raises for Members of Congress. We don't have to put in a bill, we don't have to debate the measure on the floor, much less vote. I think that is offensive to the American people, particularly in tough economic times such as these.

To Congress's credit, we have passed stopgap legislation to refuse pay raises since 2009, but we need to go the next legitimate step. We need to end all automatic pay raises and have the courage, if it is ever justified over time with inflation, to put in a proposal, to debate it, to vote on it, not to have automatic pay raises for Members of Congress. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

A second amendment would require photographic IDs for voting in Federal elections. This is largely provoked by the actions of the Obama administration's Justice Department which has been fighting States that are trying to institute photo IDs. That is allowed under Federal law, and several States

are doing that and doing it properly, including Texas and South Carolina, but this Justice Department is trying to shut that down, even though it is allowed by Federal law. Interestingly, that assault on States trying to do their job, trying to do things properly, has been made by the head of the Civil Rights Division at Justice, Thomas Perez, who is now nominated for a Cabinet position--Labor Secretary. This amendment and this proposal would clarify it by actually requiring photo IDs for voting in Federal elections.

We require photo IDs for traveling in airports. We require photo IDs for going into a conference. We require photo IDs for a myriad of things, including visiting the White House. Surely it is a very legitimate, simple requirement that doesn't disenfranchise anyone to make sure the integrity of our election system is preserved. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Third, another amendment I will bring would finally require the US- VISIT system to be properly and fully executed and put in place. The US-VISIT system, as the Presiding Officer knows, is an entry and exit control system to track foreign nationals who are properly visiting our country with visas, so it tracks them as they come in and go out, and if they don't go out in time, if they overstay their visa, it brings up a red flag that is sent to law enforcement officials.

This is not a small matter because, as we all remember, the 9/11 terrorists overstayed their visas. A proper US-VISIT system would have tracked that, would have caught them, would have done something about it. There has been a crying need since at least 1996. In 1996, Congress passed legislation that mandated the executive branch, within 2 years, establish this sort of system. Of course, it wasn't done in time for 9/ 11. After 9/11, the 9/11 Commission specifically went back and recommended that we get on this, that we finish the work, that we fully establish the US-VISIT system. It said:

The Department of Homeland Security, properly supported by

the Congress, should complete as quickly as possible a

biometric entry/exit screening system.

Yet, even now, over a decade after 9/11, 12 years after 9/11, we don't have that system fully in place. We need that system, and this amendment would not just mandate the system but it would say that the Department of Homeland Security cannot grant legal status to those illegally present within the United States until we all comply with Federal law relating to the entry and exit data system required under the law originally passed in 1996.

In the context of immigration reform, I don't think we should consider granting legal status to those here illegally until we have this US-VISIT system, which is an absolutely essential component of enforcement.

A fourth amendment I have that we will be voting on over the next few days is in support of the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act. This amendment would support that act and express the sense of the Senate that Congress should enact it. What does that act do? It provides that whoever knowingly performs an abortion that is sought based on sex or gender selection would be guilty of violating the law. So it prohibits discriminating against the unborn in the form of abortion sex selection.

A lot of folks don't realize it, but, again, this is not a theoretical issue. This, unfortunately, is an ongoing practice. There are at least four studies from universities--not from ultraconservative think tanks; UC-Berkeley is not a conservative think tank, University of Connecticut, Columbia University--there are at least four studies that found there is a strong son bias within certain American communities, a bias toward having sons, not daughters. These studies say that is ``clear evidence of sex-selection, most likely at the prenatal stage.''

That is sort of academic speak. What does it mean? It means that parents are selecting and using abortion to that outcome. It is always selection against women, against girl babies, in favor of sons. That is outrageous and it is tragic. We need to follow other countries that have prohibited this practice.

Other countries--the United Kingdom, India, China--have enacted these sorts of bans. The medical community, including the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, and the President's own Council on Bioethics, have all condemned sex selection abortions.

In 2007, the United States even spearheaded a resolution to condemn these sorts of sex selection abortions at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. Yet we are doing nothing about it in this country. So we should start doing something about this horrible practice in this country. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

Fifth and finally, I will have an amendment with regard to China, India, and Russia, and greenhouse gas regulation. The amendment and the idea are very simple. It creates a point of order against funding for greenhouse gas regulations until the administration can certify that China, India, and Russia are similarly implementing greenhouse gas regulations to reduce their own emissions.

There are big disagreements and debates about global warming, climate change, greenhouse gas regulation. I wish to forego all that and put it to the side. No matter what one thinks about that--causes and effects, trend lines, or lack of trend lines--one thing is perfectly clear and beyond dispute; that is, whatever the United States does is irrelevant if major players globally, such as China and India and Russia, don't do the same. Clearly, our action is irrelevant unless all three of those countries do the same. China has just surpassed the United States as the world's largest producer of CO2. China now produces more than the United States and Canada combined. India is now the world's third largest offender of CO2, and Russia is fourth. So unless these three countries adopt some sort of similar regime, our actions do zero in terms of the environment. But our actions would do a lot in terms of costing us jobs, killing jobs, and suppressing economic growth.

This is a very commonsense regulation. It shouldn't matter what one thinks about climate change with regard to how a Senator votes, because, again, our actions will have zero effect if China, India, and Russia are not taking similar action. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.