Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, this week, March 10 to 16, has been designated Sunshine Week. What better time for it this year since President Obama has a brandnew nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency, and that agency is in desperate need of sunshine and transparency. In the midst of Sunshine Week, I wanted to talk about these very serious issues.

First of all, let's go back a little bit. The first day President Obama took office in 2009, the White House Web site declared that his administration would become ``the most open and transparent in history.'' The President issued high-profile orders pledging ``a new era'' and ``an unprecedented level of openness'' across the Federal Government. Those are great goals and great aspirations. Unfortunately, the record--particularly, as I said, at the EPA--is a lot different.

President Obama's EPA has earned a reputation for ignoring congressional information requests, ignoring and frustrating FOIA--the Freedom of Information Act--hiding elite e-mails, which is completely contrary to EPA policy, and hiding other important information from the public. Is it in desperate need of a new leader who will reverse these antisunshine, antitransparency practices and build a true culture of transparency and openness. Unfortunately, President Obama's nominee, Gina McCarthy, comes from inside the very troubled agency and she has been directly involved in many of these problem areas. That is why I think we need to talk about these concerns.

I wish to go through four important categories where the EPA-- including during Gina McCarthy's service--has exhibited a complete lack of transparency. It has been exactly the opposite of sunshine, openness, and transparency.

First of all, e-mails and the growing e-mail scandal. A lot of the EPA's troubles have surfaced through their dubious e-mail practices, e- mail practices that have been used, in my opinion, clearly to circumvent transparency laws such as FOIA and to circumvent congressional oversight. We have uncovered the use of alias e-mail accounts and private e-mail accounts to conduct official agency business.

What is the issue there? The issue is that clearly this is a way to avoid transparency, avoid these being produced through FOIA requests, and try to avoid producing these important e-mails when Congress has asked for them and to keep the public and Congress in the dark.

The most infamous example of this is Lisa Jackson, the former EPA Administrator's complete disregard for transparency through her Richard Windsor e-mails. Richard Windsor was an alias. I think, clearly in my opinion, she used this alias when it came to openness and producing documents, et cetera, that this was not necessarily her.

As it turns out, multiple EPA officials have been conducting business through aliases or through private e-mail accounts, and these private e-mail accounts are absolutely prohibited by the EPA. In spite of that, we have uncovered a pattern. This is not an isolated incident. It is not just Richard Windsor who has been used as an alias, but there is a pattern. The Acting Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, has used an alias private account. Region 8 Administrator Martin used me.com, a private account; Region 9 Administrator Blumenfeld used comcast.net, a former account; former Deputy General Counsel Yang, a lawyer for the EPA, used a gmail.com account. That is completely contrary to the clear rules of the EPA.

It doesn't stop with the use of these completely improper private e- mail accounts for official business. We have also uncovered high-level officials collaborating with environmental groups to push their biased agenda. Administrator Martin--since he resigned over all this when we had this come out--regularly communicated with far-left environmental groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund on his personal e-mail account to circumvent Federal transparency laws. His personal e-mails, which we have since gotten, exposed the EPA's efforts to further bury coal plants under crushing regulations.

Again, this is not just some technicality. These private accounts and aliases were clearly used to hide stuff from Congress, hide stuff from the public, and to try not to disclose all this collusion with outside environmental groups and what--in my opinion--is a far-left agenda.

Another very important category is FOIA. FOIA is the Freedom of Information Act. It was passed into law by Congress in 1966. It was passed for a very simple purpose: to direct sunshine onto the Federal Government. Here we

are in the middle of Sunshine Week, and FOIA is a classic example of an important tool to direct sunshine onto the Federal Government.

Under former Administrator Jackson's leadership, FOIA has become a joke at the EPA. Al Armendariz, the former EPA Administrator, had to resign after claiming it was EPA's policy to ``crucify'' domestic businesses. He actually called FOIA ``nonsense.'' As others at the EPA would try to have others think, Al Armendariz was not some rogue EPA official. In fact, this is the general attitude of the EPA.

The Obama administration again has tried to get away with the claim that they are ``the most transparent in history.'' Yet as the Associated Press has reported, they sometimes produce a lot of pieces of paper under FOIA, but ``more often than it ever has, it cited legal exceptions to censor or withhold the material, according to a new analysis.''

This is a perfect example. This is a document produced under a FOIA request. It is one of the infamous Richard Windsor e-mails. Guess what is produced. Nothing. It is one thing to redact a few words or a particularly sensitive sentence. They have produced absolutely nothing. There is not a single word from the body of the e-mail. This is routine. The EPA has regularly mismanaged FOIA requests. It is clearly in the business to frustrate these sorts of requests and not to follow the law.

I would like to show some other examples. Again, these are produced e-mails. Most of them are from the infamous Richard Windsor e-mails. Again, not a word in the body of any of these e-mails is produced. There is not a single word. This is another good example. There is not a single word produced. So we get plenty of paper, but what information do we have for the public? Nothing.

There is something else that is particularly outrageous. We have an e-mail that was produced from the Office of General Counsel to Region 6 officials. That e-mail talks about standard EPA protocol regarding FOIA requests. It is not about a particular FOIA request, which might be overbroad, inappropriate, and might have arguments against it. Again, this e-mail is from the EPA lawyers to an EPA region, and it is about how to deal with FOIA in general. That standard EPA protocol--according to this e-mail--is ``to alert the requestor that they need to narrow their request because it is overbroad, and secondarily that it will probably cost more than the amount of money they agreed to pay.'' Then when the requestor doesn't immediately respond to that, they just shut down any EPA response.

Again, this is outrageous. This was not a response to a particular request. This was the advice from EPA lawyers about how they should always consider responding. Just always say it is overbroad, just always say it is going to cost more money, and then shut things down, foot drag, and obstruct. That is absolutely ridiculous.

A third important category in this pattern of activity is EPA's use of secret data. This EPA, more than any other in history, has been promulgating rules and regulations which have a dramatic effect on major sectors of our economy. Obviously, this is a big deal and big concern, particularly when it costs us jobs or potentially shuts down businesses. Yet the EPA has been completely opposed to releasing any of the numbers, the science--the alleged science--and the data behind these decisions.

Again, many of EPA's regulations have big pricetags. Yet EPA refuses to publicize the basic scientific data underlying virtually all of what they have done. The new Clean Air Act rules are the biggest example. Implementing the Clean Air Act happens to be the responsibility, by the way, that Gina McCarthy has been directly overseeing since June of 2009.

The National Ambient Air Quality Standards, for example, are complex and sweeping in their nature. The law requires, as it should, that they be based on sound scientific data and that it be implemented through a robust decisionmaking process. Unfortunately, that has not been the case and recent standards have suffered from a rushed process, reliance on secret data, and biased scientific review.

The only way we can fully know what is going on and have a discussion about this is if EPA releases the underlying scientific data--the underlying numbers. I have personally asked for this. In fact, this request is 20 months outstanding. I asked for it almost 2 full years ago. Yet EPA has adamantly refused.

Recently, it has come to light that EPA fails to complete comprehensive economic analyses of a majority of its rules. A February 2013 study reveals that the Agency's disregard for economywide impacts, as well as any other discrete negative impacts, renders their cost- benefit analyses to be misleading and based on manipulated data. Again, this is a very important category.

If sunshine is to mean anything, if it is to have any real meaning as we stand here in the midst of Sunshine Week, we need to see the data behind these enormously important decisions. EPA cannot use secret data. That is contrary to the letter and spirit of the law. It is certainly contrary to the public having access to important information and to our responsibility in Congress on oversight.

The final category I wish to mention is the so-called unified agenda. Under Federal law, every agency is required to produce their regulatory agenda. In fact, they are required to produce it under law twice a year--once in the spring and once in the fall, and that is called the unified agenda. Again, every agency is required to produce that to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

The problem is this requirement is observed sort of like the requirement to pass the budget is observed in the Senate. In 2012, the EPA was 8 months late producing their spring 2012 regulatory agenda, and they have yet to submit their fall 2012 regulatory agenda. Again, I have asked EPA directly about this. More than 6 weeks after the deadline passed, EPA has yet to respond to the simple question of when they will submit their spring and fall regulatory agendas. We have not seen a bit of either of them yet.

This is important because it is about sunshine, openness, and transparency. It is about being fair and open to the American people and giving the American people--including through its representatives in Congress--full information. This is an important area that the nominee to head the EPA, Gina McCarthy, has to address. It is awfully basic and legitimate to say to Gina McCarthy: If you want to become the new EPA Administrator, you will need to answer these big, obvious, and pertinent questions. It is particularly important since you come from inside this very troubled, completely nontransparent agency and have been at the heart of many of these troubling areas.

One thing I will question her directly on is her active coordination with Al Armendariz, whom I mentioned earlier, in shutting down key energy projects. That direct coordination was highlighted in an e-mail we did get from Armendariz celebrating the death of a petroleum coke plant in Texas. Armendariz wrote in that e-mail: ``Gina's new air rules will soon be the icing on the cake.'' Shutting down jobs, shutting down American businesses is going to be the icing on the cake.

In conclusion, I want to underscore that President Obama's EPA, unfortunately, has been the worst example of how hollow his promise is of being the most open and transparent administration in history. As we begin to consider the confirmation of a new EPA Administrator, this needs to be a big focus of our attention. Surely she needs to commit in very concrete and specific ways to change this culture. I am concerned that she has been part of this culture. She comes from inside the agency. She is directly involved in many of these very troubling areas. So we need to hear how she is going to reverse this culture and usher in a new era of openness and transparency. I will have specific requests for her that will allow her to prove that commitment, and I know many other Members of the Senate have similar concerns.

I look forward to that discussion with Gina McCarthy. I look forward to continuing this discussion with the entire U.S. Senate. Transparency Week is an important time and an appropriate time to start that important discussion and to end these abusive practices by the current

Madam President, today I recognize the City of Thibodaux. This month, Thibodaux, LA, celebrates its 175th anniversary. First named Thibodauxville to honor Henry Schuyler Thibodaux, the city was both a trading post between New Orleans and Bayou Teche in the late 1700s and also a popular settling place for Acadians, Africans, Italians, and Spaniards coming to Louisiana during that time. However, it wasn't until 1838 that Thibodaux became the official name. In fact, city resident and Louisiana Governor E.D. White, Sr., commissioned the name change.

Thibodaux is also where the Battle of Georgia Landing was fought during the Civil War, and the Battle of Lafourche Crossing happened a few miles east. Affectionately known as the Queen City of Bayou Lafourche, Thibodaux's history can be seen in places such as the Laurel Valley Village, home of the oldest working sugar cane plantation in the United States, and the home of Governor E.D. White. Both are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Along with Governor White, Governor Francis T. Nicholls also was a native of Thibodaux, and Nicholls State University is named in his honor. Governor White's son, E.D. White, Jr., served as U.S. Senator from 1891 to 1894. Later, he was an associate justice and chief justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1894 until his passing in 1921. A statue of Chief Justice White stands in our U.S. Capitol commemorating his service to Louisiana and the Nation. These are just a few of the historically significant residents of Thibodaux.

The City of Thibodaux, its people, and Cajun heritage are at the heart of the culture and traditions that have made Louisiana great. Louisiana and the City of Thibodaux's history are represented through our culture, our traditions, and especially our food. They all symbolize who we are and the devotion we have to preserving our heritage.

Thibodaux's motto is ``Where Yesterday Welcomes Tomorrow,'' and it is my honor to celebrate the City of Thibodaux's 175th anniversary while looking forward to its bright future.

Madam President, I could not participate in the nomination of John Brennan to be Director of the CIA because of a family obligation in Louisiana.

I strongly support Senator Paul's filibuster, oppose the use of drones in this country, and oppose both cloture and the confirmation of John Brennan.

Madam President, I could not participate in the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Calendar No. 13, Caitlin Joan Halligan, of New York, to be U.S. circuit judge for the District of Columbia Circuit. Had I voted, I would have voted nay.

Ms. Halligan has consistently espoused extremist positions on well- settled areas of the law including second amendment rights, abortion, and terrorist detention. I believe that Ms. Halligan's demonstrated propensity for judicial activism disqualifies her for the Federal bench where a judge must impartially apply the law.

Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Brown on the Senate floor to echo those comments. I agree that too big to fail, unfortunately, is alive and well, and that poses a real threat to all of us--to consumers and citizens everywhere and fundamentally to the American economy.

Coming out of the financial crisis, it seemed to me that the biggest threat and the biggest problem was continuing too big to fail. I think now, several years after the passage of Dodd-Frank, we have objective numbers and evidence that it did not bury too big to fail. Again, they are objective numbers and evidence and pricing in the market that too big to fail is alive and well.

I think the fact that Senator Brown and I are both here on the floor echoing each other's concerns, virtually repeating each other's arguments, is pretty significant. I don't know if we quite define the political spectrum of the Senate, but we come pretty darn close. Yet we absolutely agree about this threat.

I think Senator Brown's historical analogy is right. It is like the unfettered growth and power of the trusts in the late 19th century, and there too folks of all sorts of ideologies correctly recognized that threat--liberal Democrats as well as Senator Brown's Republican predecessor, Senator Sherman, and, of course, the biggest Republican trust-buster of all, Teddy Roosevelt. It is the same issue. It is the intense concentration of power. As a conservative, I am very suspicious and nervous about that, whether it is when it is in government or whether it is when it is in the private sector.

I think the sort of bipartisan consensus that, perhaps, we personify on the Senate floor is also growing outside Congress and outside this institution. Senator Brown alluded to some of it, but let me flesh that out.

We have, for instance, the Federal Reserve Board Governor, Dan Tarullo. He was appointed by President Obama. He was a prominent figure in drafting and implementing Dodd-Frank. He recently lamented:

. . . to the extent that a growing systemic footprint

increases perceptions of at least some residual too-big-to-

fail quality in such a firm--

Meaning a megabank--

notwithstanding the panoply of measures in Dodd-Frank and our

regulations, there may be funding advantages for the firm,

which reinforces the impulse to grow.

In a little more blunt terms, our colleague, Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is also a figure in coming up with Dodd-Frank, said recently in our Banking Committee hearing with Chairman Bernanke:

I'd like to go to the question about too-big-to-fail; that

we haven't gotten rid of it yet. And so now we have a double

problem, and that is that the big banks--big at the time that

they were bailed out the first time--have gotten bigger, and

at the same time that investors believe that too-big-to-fail

out there, that it's safer to put your money into the big

banks and not the little banks, in effect creating an

insurance policy for the big banks that the government is

creating this insurance policy--not there for the small

banks.

In a similar way, we have those concerns echoed in the real world outside this body on the right as well.

Recently, George Will said:

By breaking up the biggest banks, conservatives will not be

putting asunder what the free market has joined together.

Government nurtured these behemoths by weaving an improvident

safety net and by practicing crony capitalism.

Peggy Noonan, another well-known conservative, has said:

If you are conservative you are skeptical of concentrated

power. You know the bullying and bossism it can lead to. . .

. Too big to fail is too big to continue. The megabanks have

too much power in Washington and too much weight within the

financial system.

So I do think there is a real and growing consensus in this body, in Washington, and in the real world, as I have suggested by those observers' quotes, and I think we need to build on that consensus and act in a responsible way.

Senator Brown and I have been doing that, first with joint letters to Chairman Bernanke and others, focusing on the need for significantly greater capital requirements for the biggest banks. We think this would be the best and first way we should try to rein in too big to fail, to put more protection between megabank failure and the taxpayer, more incentive for the megabanks to perhaps diversify, perhaps break up, or at least correctly price their size and risk to the financial system.

We are following up on that initial work that was reflected in letters and specific suggestions to Chairman Bernanke with legislation that is quite far along, and I know we will be talking about more both today and in the near future.

With that, let me invite Senator Brown to round out his comments, and then I will have a few more words to say.

Again, I thank Senator Brown for his partnership. Senator Brown, with those posters, made crystal clear the facts. The fact is that since the financial crisis, the megabanks have only continued to grow in size, in dominance, and in market share. In fact, that has accelerated significantly.

Some folks will say: Oh, well, that was a preexisting trend. That is because of a number of factors.

It is certainly true there are a number of factors at issue. But the growth has only accelerated since the crisis and Dodd-Frank. It has not let up. In addition, there have been several recent studies that actually quantify the fact that too big to fail is a market advantage, is, in essence, a taxpayer subsidy, as Elizabeth Warren suggested, for the megabanks.

An FDIC study released in September says that. It says:

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection

Act of 2010 was explicitly intended to, in part, put an end

to the TBTF [too big to fail] de facto policy.

But it concludes that:

The largest banks do, in fact, pay less for comparable

deposits. Furthermore, we show that some of the difference in

the cost of funding cannot be attributed to either

differences in balance sheet risk or any non-risk related

factors. The remaining unexplained risk premium gap is on the

order of 45 bps [basis points]. Such a gap is consistent with

an economically significant ``too-big-to-fail'' . . . subsidy

paid to the largest banks.

Another recent study and working paper is an IMF working paper. It simply attempted to quantify that taxpayer too-big-to-fail subsidy. According to that study, before that financial crisis, the subsidy:

. . . was already sizable, 60 basis points. . . . It

increased to 80 basis points by the end [of] 2009.

Then, most recently, Bloomberg has tried to put pen to paper and refine that calculation, and Bloomberg's calculation is $83 billion--an $83 billion subsidy of the five biggest U.S. banks, specifically because of artificially cheap rates created by the market believing they are too big to fail.

I do not like huge size and dominance in market share, period. But certainly--certainly--we should not have government policy that is driving it, that is exacerbating it. It seems to me that should be a solid consensus left and right, Democrat and Republican.

Senator Brown and I are following up on our previous work and drafting legislation. Of course, we are not ready to introduce that today. But it would fundamentally require significantly more capital for the megabanks and would distinguish between megabanks and other size banks; namely, community banks, midsized banks, and regional banks. The largest banks would have that significantly higher capital requirement.

It would also try to walk regulators away from Basel III and institute new capital rules that do not rely on risk weights and are simple and easy to understand and are transparent and cannot be gamed the way we think Basel III can be manipulated and gamed.

Requiring this would do one or both of two things. It would better ensure the taxpayer against bailouts and/or it would push the megabanks to restructure because they would be bearing more cost of that risk to the financial system.

In addition, we are contemplating and discussing another section of this bill that would do something that I think is very important to do at the same time: create an easier--not a lax but a more appropriate regulatory framework for clearly smaller and less risky financial institutions such as community banks.

Again, I thank Senator Brown for his partnership. I thank him for his words today. I look forward to continuing to work on this project, as I believe a true bipartisan consensus continues to grow on this issue.

Mr. President, I could not participate in this Hagel nomination cloture vote because I had to return to Louisiana to attend a funeral. Had I been present, I would have voted no for two reasons.

First, I would like to state for the Record that I believe this process has been rushed and that very reasonable Member requests for information have been denied.

Secondly, I oppose the nomination on its substance in light of Senator Hagel's long history of troublesome votes and comments regarding the defense of Israel and related Middle East issues.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my Republican colleague from Alabama, as well as any other Members who may join us.

Madam President, Senator Sessions and I take to the floor to talk about immigration, which is obviously a very important and very hot topic. The first point I would like to make is just a simple statement and suggestion. There has been a lot of activity and a lot of discussion about immigration in the Senate and in the Congress and Washington, DC. If we merely listen to a lot of beltway, so-called mainstream reporting about this, they would give the impression that there is near universal consensus around a model we have tried before, which is a so-called comprehensive approach.

First, I don't think there is anything near universal agreement. I don't think there is consensus. I think there are real questions and concerns among many of us in the Senate and in Congress but, much more importantly, in America and the real world.

I think those fundamental concerns come down to one thing; that is, we have tried this so-called comprehensive approach before. We have tried proposals that marry an immediate amnesty with promises of enforcement. That model has not worked before. In fact, it has failed miserably.

The most notable example was major immigration legislation in 1986. It was the same model. It had comprehensive and immediate amnesty with promises of enforcement. There were promises that we will have to do this just once, never have to look back, and the problem will be solved. Of course, the problem was not solved. It didn't even just continue. The problem has quadrupled.

The amnesty did happen immediately. As soon as the bill passed, that virtually and immediately kicked in. The promises of enforcement were just that, promises. Those promises were not kept, and as a result what happened with that model? The problem of 3 million illegal aliens didn't go away and was not solved once and for all. It quadrupled and became the present problem of 11 or 12 million--or more--illegal aliens. That is the fundamental concern I have with most of the so- called comprehensive proposals being put forward. That is the fundamental concern of Louisianans I talk to every day.

We want to solve the problem. We don't want to perpetuate it, much less quadruple it. I think it is important to discuss alternative, more effective, more workable approaches. I have several ideas about what those approaches might look like, and, in fact, I am introducing a package of immigration bills today. I will talk about that further, but I certainly want to recognize and thank my good friend and colleague, Senator Sessions from Alabama, for joining me on the Senate floor today.

I thank the Senator, and I certainly agree. Again, the fundamental issue is, Is the model that has been tried before really going to work--an immediate amnesty with promises of enforcement? Unfortunately, history is littered with examples of that exact model failing and those promises of enforcement never being kept.

What do I mean by that? I mentioned 1986, which is the biggest historical example: An immediate amnesty where we are going to get serious about enforcement, we will never have to look back, and we will have to do this once. We will solve the problem.

Of course, it didn't solve the problem; it quadrupled the problem. There were 3 million illegal aliens back then. There are 11 to 12 million illegal aliens now. There have been promises of a U.S.-VISIT Program with an entry-and-exit system to track everyone entering the country and making sure they exit in time. That was first promised back in 1986. Ten years later, in 1996, Congress passed another act to require a fully integrated entry-exit system with full implementation by 2005. Guess what. 2005 has come and gone. It has been 30 years since that initial promise was made. We still don't have an operational and effective U.S.-VISIT system.

My colleague from Alabama mentioned another glaring example: the

Secure Fence Act of 2006, which we actually passed in legislation. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 promises to achieve operational control for the entire border. It defined ``operational control'' as ``the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.'' We have not achieved that.

In fact, we are so far from that goal, DHS has had to weaken the definition so it only now talks about effective operational control. They had to stick the word ``effective'' in there because we never had operational control. Who knows exactly what that means, but GAO tried to define and tried to measure it in a recent report.

In their recent report they found that only 44 percent of the southern border was under any sort of operational control. Only 15 percent of that is under full operational control. Even if we use the loosey-goosey word ``effective,'' we have less than one-half of the border under that control. More than one-half of the border is under what they call managed control, which often means no control. It means a lot of almost fully unfettered, illegal crosses.

Now we come to today with this debate, and the new promise: If you just give us immediate amnesty, we are going to have this enforcement. We promise, we promise, we promise. Again, we are concerned that we are reliving history in a negative way.

For instance, when the Gang of 8 declares they ``will ensure . . . a successful permanent reform to our immigration system that will not need to be revisited,'' that sure sounds like 1986, with this one fix that we will never have to look back. But, of course, we are looking back because the problem has grown. It is interesting to note that the very day after the Gang of 8 announcement, there was even disagreement between some of the gang members regarding what they announced and what they promised.

Many of the Republican members of that Gang of 8 emphasized that enforcement has to happen; otherwise, nothing else is triggered. Yet on the other side of the political spectrum, Senator Schumer--also a member of that Gang of 8--walked back any commitment to fully secure enforcement before citizenship happened. He said: ``We're not using border security as an excuse or a block to the path to citizenship.''

So there we have it. After the announcement, there is apparent inconsistency about how serious they are about ensuring enforcement, and that is the fundamental question. I think that is a very legitimate concern given the past history.

We have proposed a different path forward with a targeted, step-by- step approach to prove to ourselves and the American people that we are serious about these enforcement and related reforms, to do those, and to have them working before we move on anything else.

Today I am introducing a series of bills that fall into that targeted, step-by-step approach. I do not use the word ``comprehensive'' because I think that word is a negative. It is targeted, and it is step by step. I will outline those bills in a minute.

Again, I certainly want to thank and recognize the Senator from Alabama.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, that is the history, tried and true: lots of promises. No single major promise has been kept. Whether it is the fence, whether it is the US-VISIT Program, whether it is the overall promise of enforcement in 1986, none of those promises has been kept.

That makes me very nervous and very uneasy. It is exactly what Senator Schumer said the very next day after the announcement: ``We're not using border security as an excuse or a block to the path to citizenship.''

That is what it sounds like to me. It sounds to me as though the trigger is meaningless. The amnesty and even full citizenship--to me, amnesty is any legal status, but they are actually talking about a path to full citizenship will happen ultimately, no matter what on the enforcement side.

I thank the Senator from Alabama for his leadership on this issue and on the Judiciary Committee.

There is, Madam President, an alternative way forward, a positive, productive way forward, a targeted, step-by-step approach that is appropriate, particularly given all the broken promises of the past.

The American people need to be convinced, and who can blame them? Again, the landscape of this issue is littered with utterly broken promises. We need to rebuild that trust and rebuild that confidence, and we can only do that in a targeted, step-by-step way.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I am introducing today seven bills--actually, six bills, and I am joining Senator Grassley as a coauthor of a seventh bill--that would be important parts of this targeted, step-by-step approach. Let me briefly mention what those seven bills are.

First of all, the STEM Jobs Act of 2013. This would make up to 55,000 visas available to qualified immigrants whom we need in this economy-- well educated, qualified. We have jobs here ready for them, and it would be an enormous economic boost. They would have a doctorate degree in the field of science, engineering, technology, or math from a U.S. doctoral institution and would have taken all doctoral courses in the STEM field while in the United States. We train, we educate

those superqualified folks all the time and then, all too often, we send them back to their native countries and don't allow them to remain here to get on a pathway to citizenship and to contribute, as they would, to our economy.

A child tax credit law. This would amend the IRS Code to simply put in place significant identification requirements for the child tax credit to require taxpayers to provide that valid ID, to cut out what is admitted to be rampant fraud in the system. The IRS itself and its inspector general office have said there is at least $1.3 billion of fraud a year in the child tax credit. These checks from the taxpayer, actual checks going out to illegal recipients who do not qualify under the law, in some cases, dozens, allegedly, at a single address, a single family, are clearly fraud. We must meet some basic requirements to cut out that fraud. The IRS itself, under this administration, has asked for those tools. We should give them those tools under this child tax credit legislation.

Sanctuary cities reform would prohibit appropriated funds from being used in contravention of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1986. I am joined by Senator Grassley and Senator Fischer in that legislation.

Too many jurisdictions in the United States are self-proclaimed sanctuary cities. By doing that, they are in contravention of Federal immigration law when they say they will not cooperate in the enforcement of that law in any way. That is unacceptable, and those cities should not get appropriated funds.

E-Verify I mentioned is an initiative and legislation by Senator Grassley. I am proud to join him as a coauthor. I am an original cosponsor of that bill. It would take the present E-Verify system and make it mandatory and expand it so that is our workforce system of enforcement. E-Verify works. The problem is it is a pilot. It is not mandatory and it is not broad enough. We need to broaden and make mandatory that workable E-Verify system.

The Voter Integrity Protection Act would amend the INA to make voting in a Federal election by an alien who is unlawfully in the United States an aggravated felony, which makes it a deportable offense. If a person is illegally participating in our elections, that is a serious offense to any democracy. That should be a deportable offense.

The Birthright Citizenship Act would also amend the law to consider a person born in the United States ``subject to the jurisdiction'' of the United States for citizenship only if the person is born through at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or national or a lawful permanent resident alien in the United States or an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces. Right now it is, in my opinion, an accident of history and a mistake that any child physically born here, even of two parents here illegally and improperly, automatically becomes a U.S. citizen. Virtually no other country in the world has this rule. This reform would simply amend U.S. law to have the same basic rule as virtually every other country in the world I am aware of. A person doesn't automatically become a citizen just because they are physically born here; at least one parent has to have that legal status.

Finally, US-VISIT reform, finally, after decades of promises, after decades of broken promises, to require that the US-VISIT system--the biometric border check-in/check-out system first required in 1996 that is well past its implementation date of 2005--be finished, be done, be fully in place before any of these other triggered aspects of so-called comprehensive reform happen. On that reform, I am proud to be joined by Senator Sessions and Senator Lee as coauthors.

Again, I am introducing these six bills today. I am also an original cosponsor of Senator Grassley's E-Verify bill, a seventh bill. I think this is a targeted, step-by-step approach which is the right alternative to so-called comprehensive reform, which historically means immediate amnesty married to promises of enforcement that never happen, that never fully materialize.

I urge my colleagues to look hard at these measures and hopefully support some or all of them. I urge them even more to go back home and listen to their constituents, to listen hard at the neighborhood coffee shop and the townhall meetings, because I think these sorts of concerns, as Senator Sessions and I have expressed today, are the core concerns, the core questions of a great majority of the American people.

Thank you, Madam President. 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 am going to lay out and discuss a motion to commit which I have at the desk, and we are going to be voting on that motion to commit later today. It is very simple, very straightforward. In fact, I will read it:

Mr. Vitter moves to commit the bill H.R. 325--

That is, of course, the debt limit increase which we have at the desk which we are debating--

to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the

same back to the Senate within 7 days with legislative

language that makes changes in existing programs that reduce

Federal spending by the increase amount required by section

2(b) . . . over the period of fiscal years 2013 to 2022.

It is very simple. By whatever amount we are increasing the debt limit, so too would we reduce spending. The idea is to start actually paying for what we spend or at least paying for the extra we are going to borrow. It is a commonsense idea, a straightforward approach, and it is not Draconian. We can do it. It starts to put discipline into the process.

This bill before us suspends the debt limit until May 18. That is estimated to mean between $300 billion and $400 billion in additional deficit spending. So under this motion to commit, that is the savings we would find. Those are the cuts we would make: $300 billion to $400 billion total over 10 years. Obviously, that is $30 billion to $40 billion a year. That is thoroughly doable. It is meaningful. It takes some work, but it is thoroughly doable, and those savings would be such a small percentage. The part for this year would only be about 3 percent of the deficit and around 1 percent of total Federal spending.

If we can't find between $30 billion and $40 billion a year in savings, is

there truly a way we can agree to major budget reforms? If we can't find those modest savings, should we be borrowing more money to just spend and spend and spend?

Let me be clear. My limited motion is not enough. We need more spending cuts and we need more and fundamental budget reform and we need it now. But I am proposing a reasonable first step that is concrete and meaningful as a downpayment toward fiscal soundness.

This bill is short term. It is a patch. It is for 3 months. But it puts us on the right path. It is a concrete, meaningful first step.

Surely, we should have learned by now; Congress passed the last debt limit deal in 2011, but we got a credit downgrade anyway. As we continue to rack up more and more debt--without spending reform, without budget reform--a new downgrade has to be on the way. It is not a question of if; it is a question of when.

All the credit rating agencies have maintained their negative outlook, including after the fiscal cliff deal. The problem, as it was with the deal passed on New Year's Day, is not that we are taxed too little; the problem is we clearly spend too much. Not enough folks in this building recognize that. Everybody in the real world recognizes that, and certainly the credit rating agencies recognize that.

So why don't we take this reasonable, concrete first step? Again, my modest amendment is a small downpayment but an important step, concrete action during the time for which this bill would increase debt, as we work toward a more comprehensive solution.

If we are going to raise the debt limit, we must at least show the taxpayers, the credit rating agencies, and the world that we are serious about getting our fiscal house in order. Without this type of amendment--or in this case a motion to commit--we are not saying that in any way, shape, or form with this bill. That is why without this sort of motion to commit or a roughly similar amendment, I cannot vote for this debt limit increase.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in a bipartisan way around this approach. I think it would be a step in the right detection.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have a very simple, straightforward motion to commit. It would commit the bill back to the Finance Committee for 7 days only with instructions to find savings--cuts-- equal to the amount this bill would increase the debt limit--very simple, very straightforward, and very reasonable. This would only take $30 billion to $40 billion a year, which is very doable.

The American people are asking when we are going to turn to the spending side of the equation. President Obama talked all through the campaign about balance. Well, we have had the tax increases. Now we are having the debt increases. When are we going to have any new spending cuts? This would at least start, in a modest way, on some reasonable spending cuts.

Yes, I call up the motion to commit.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the reading of the motion.

Thank you, Madam President.

Through the Chair, I also wish to thank my distinguished colleague from Tennessee for joining me. Together, as he mentioned, we are writing the Attorney General today about a matter of real concern, and that is why we come to the floor. We are both very troubled by recent reports that the Department of Justice is targeting whom to prosecute for the incidental killing of migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. They are not targeting whom to prosecute by looking at birds killed; they are targeting whom to prosecute based on the type of business these various people are in--legal business--and, in particular, the type of legal energy these companies produce.

What am I talking about? Well, on the one hand, oil and gas producers--traditional energy producers--are clearly being targeted. They are being targeted for prosecution, as I say, under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. They are being charged with the incidental killing--in a particular case that a court has dealt with--with the killing of four mallards, one northern pintail, one redneck duck, and one Say's phoebe.

Now, in that case, the Federal judge involved correctly recognized that this prosecution was off-base because it wasn't about trying to kill these birds--it wasn't about any willful act. It was about a completely incidental killing of these birds because they were doing things in the normal course of business. Nobody wants any of these birds to be killed, but that is not what criminal sanctions under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act are about.

As the judge said, ``then many everyday activities [would] become unlawful--and subject to sanctions--'' with ``fines'' under these sorts of prosecutions.

The judge pointed out that ``ordinary activities such as driving a vehicle, owning a building with windows, or owning a cat'' could be subject to criminal prosecutions if this precedent were set.

So that is on the one hand: the Department of Justice, I think, clearly targeting these companies who are oil and gas producers. On the other hand, they have a very different approach to other types of energy producers, such as wind producers. To our knowledge, there is not a single Department of Justice prosecution regarding the killing of birds because of windmills. That clearly happens. In fact, it happens a lot. I am not saying these wind producers want that to happen. I am not saying they are trying to kill birds, but it happens and it happens a lot. And to our knowledge, the Department of Justice has never launched a similar prosecution against a wind farm.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's fiscal year 2013 budget justification actually estimated the annual bird mortality from wind energy production. Do my colleagues know what the estimate was? It was 440,000. I just mentioned this criminal prosecution on the oil and gas side for seven birds. On that side, total, we have this estimate of 440,000.

But wait; it gets even more ridiculous. It appears the administration is also choosing to sanction this in the case of wind production because they are actually considering granting permits to wind energy producers who state in their permits they will kill bald eagles. So in southeastern Minnesota the administration is considering a permit for a wind farm that states in its permit it has the potential to kill between 8 and 15 bald eagles each and every year.

So on the one hand we have an oil and gas producer who is gone after with a criminal prosecution because they didn't intend but incidentally killed seven birds--of course, none of them the status of a bald eagle, none of them in danger. On the other hand, the administration is considering granting a permit where the wind producer says it is going to probably kill 8 to 15 bald eagles a year, the symbol of our Nation's greatness.

It is pretty clear to us that what this is about is not evenhanded enforcement of the law. What this is about is targeting one type of energy producer and favoring a different type of energy producer.

Here is a picture of a bald eagle. The wind farm has stated it will kill perhaps 8 to 12 of those a year. We also have photographs of birds that were unfortunately killed at a wind farm. This is one victim. We have another photograph of an eagle that was killed at a wind farm. This is not a bald eagle; this is a golden eagle, an absolutely beautiful bird.

All of these bird deaths are bad, but all of them are unintended. The point is that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act did not intend criminal prosecutions for this unintended incidental effect. The judge ruled that. We think the judge is right. But the broader concern is that the Justice Department seems to be targeting the companies it goes after not based on what they do with regard to migratory birds but based on what they do as a legal business and what sort of energy they produce.

Is this really a policy that reflects an ``all of the above'' energy strategy? We think not. We think it is pretty darn obvious it is not an ``all of the above'' approach. That is something very different than an ``all of the above'' energy strategy. It is strategy that says this sort of legal business, this sort of legal production of energy is evil and is to be gone after and combated in any way possible, and that sort of legal business, that sort of production of a different form of energy is to be favored in any way possible. That is our broader concern, and it is a pretty darn important one.

This is important in and of itself. It is an important part of the law. It is important that prosecutions be appropriate and evenhanded, but the broader issue with regard to a true ``all of the above'' energy strategy is even more important.

As I turn to my colleague from Tennessee, let me simply ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record of the Senate this letter which we are both sending today to Attorney General Eric Holder.

Thank you, Madam President. With that I close and thank, again, my colleague from Tennessee.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 8 minutes, and I ask the Chair to alert me when 6 minutes has elapsed.

Thank you, Mr. President. Through the Chair, I wish to thank Senator Durbin for his courtesy in light of another engagement I have.

I rise to join my colleague from Alabama and to join many others to express real concern on this topic of illegal immigration and the desperate need to fix this problem, to solve this problem.

I believe we all want to cherish and hold up and continue the proud tradition of this country which is founded on immigration. One of the many things that make America unique is that we are a nation of--all of us--immigrants. None of us somehow has some blood oath or blood tie to this land that goes back from time immemorial. We all came here relatively recently in the grand scheme of things from other lands, all of our families. We are a nation of immigrants and immigration, and we cherish and celebrate that.

But, of course, historically, that has been a system of legal immigration. It is so worrisome to me and so many others that over the last 30 years in particular, it has really evolved into a wide open, relatively little enforcement system of illegal immigration that flourishes and abounds and grows as our traditional legal immigration system gets less and less workable for the folks trying to follow the rules. That is my concern as I look at many of these immigration reform proposals, particularly proposals for so-called comprehensive reform such as the one outlined today.

I think the test is pretty simple: How do we uphold our tradition of immigration and fix the problem, solve the problem, and not allow it to continue or, worse yet, grow and mushroom? To me, that is the bottom line. Will any proposal we make be debated--will the proposal outlined by some of my colleagues today fix the problem or will it perpetuate the problem or, God forbid, even grow the problem dramatically?

What heightens my concern is that we have history as a guide, and history suggests that brand of so-called comprehensive immigration reform--this promise of enforcement as long as we have an amnesty--all of those things put together are a recipe for failure. Of course, the most notable case of this was in 1986 under President Reagan. There was a so-called comprehensive immigration reform proposal passed into law. The promise, the model was very simple: We are going to get serious about enforcement--we really, really are--and we are going to have a one-time leniency or amnesty. It will fix the problem once and for all. We will never have to look back, and that will be done.

As we know from bitter experience since then, it didn't quite turn out that way. The promised enforcement never fully materialized. In fact, in my opinion, it never materialized to any significant extent. However, the leniency, the amnesty happened immediately. It happened the second that bill was signed into law.

So did it fix the problem estimated at about 3 million illegal aliens then? No. It not only perpetuated the problem, it grew the problem to 12 million-plus--some people think as high as 15 million to 20 million illegal aliens now. So it grew the problem enormously because we had promised enforcement which never adequately materialized but an amnesty which happened immediately. That is the fundamental concern. That is the deadly scenario I am concerned about with regard to virtually all of these so-called ``comprehensive'' solutions.

There is one thing--at least one thing--that has changed since 1986. It is this: Compared to 1986, we have a President and an administration in power which has proved time and time again that they have no will, no focus on real enforcement. Why do I say that?

Well, this is the administration that sued States attempting to enforce immigration laws and get control of the border. It did mot support those States, did not try to find a Federal fix. It did one thing: sued States such as Arizona trying to deal with a flow across the border and all of the violence and crime that is an aspect of that.

This is the administration that ended the 32 287(g) local law enforcement programs that were fairly effective, at least in focused limited ways, with regard to enforcement. They scuttled that program, completely threw it out the window. This is the administration, of course, that propagated the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal and still has not answered questions about that adequately, in my opinion.

Thank you, Mr. President.

This is the administration that unconstitutionally put into effect the DREAM Act by administrative fiat. Congress would not pass that. A Democratic House and a Democratic Senate failed to pass it. President Obama at the time said he did not have adequate powers to put it into law administratively, and yet when it came time to

run for election, he did it by administrative fiat, in my opinion--in many people's opinion--well beyond his legal authority.

So that is the main thing that is different from 1986. We have a President and an administration that has proved to be completely opposed to aggressive and real enforcement. So I hope, as we continue this debate with my distinguished colleague from Illinois and many others, we focus on that central question: Will this solve the problem?

In my opinion, we have seen this movie before. We have tried this so- called comprehensive approach before--this marriage of promises of enforcement with leniency or amnesty. History suggests that does not work. The enforcement never adequately shows up. The amnesty immediately does. In this proposal, although it might not be immediate citizenship, it is immediate legal protection and many benefits that flow from that.

Mr. President, I look forward to continuing this discussion.

Mr. President, today I recognize Ms. Victoria Michelle Hanzo, a bright and talented young Louisianian.

Each year since 1743, the carnival celebration known as Mardi Gras, French for ``Fat Tuesday,'' has been celebrated by the people of New Orleans. The season officially begins on January 5, the Twelfth Night of Christmas and the Feast of the Epiphany. Also recognized in many countries around the world with large Roman Catholic populations, Mardi Gras is the final party prior to the ritual fasting of the Lenten Season, which begins on Ash Wednesday.

Over the many decades that New Orleanians have celebrated Mardi Gras, ``krewes'' or private Mardi Gras social organizations have also contributed to the merriment and glee surrounding the festive season. In Greek mythology, Endymion was known for his everlasting youth and beauty. In 1966, the Krewe of Endymion was established and has annually paraded through the streets of New Orleans. Today, Endymion is known for being the largest parade in New Orleans, both for the number of members--more than 2,600--and also for the incredible size and spectacle of its floats. This krewe has meant a lot to me since I had one of my first jobs as a high school student painting Endymion's floats--white primer only, as I wasn't trusted with colors.

During the Krewe of Endymion's 47th year, Ms. Victoria Michelle Hanzo will reign as queen. Ms. Hanzo is a senior at Archbishop Chapelle High School and has been on the distinguished honor roll each year while a student at Chapelle. She is also a member of the National Society of High of High School scholars, has been a student ambassador for 4 years, is a student representative for her senior class on the student council, and is an active member in Health Nuts, an organization that promotes fitness and nutrition. Lastly, Victoria is a member of the prolife club and has traveled to Washington, DC, recently with over 600 high school students from the New Orleans area for the March for Life Rally, an occasion and cause for which I will continue to be a strong advocate.

She is the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. James Hanzo and the granddaughter Mr. and Mrs. Edmond J. Muniz, the founder and captain of the Krewe of Endymion. Next year she plans to continue her education at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge. It is exciting for such an accomplished young person to have this honor and will be something she will cherish for a lifetime. She joins a long line of family members who have also had the honor of serving as queen of Endymion: her mother Michelle in 1986, her Aunt Mary in 1984, her aunt Margie in 1991, and her cousin Erica in 2012.

As we celebrate the 2013 Mardi Gras season, it is my pleasure to honor Ms. Victoria Michelle Hanzo as the 47th queen of the Krewe of Endymion.

Mr. President, today I would like to recognize and honor the valuable contributions of Catholic schools in educating our youth throughout our great Nation. From January 27 to February 2, we will celebrate Catholic Schools Week to bring attention to the exceptional work and contributions to society that Catholic education programs across the country provide.

These schools provide a comprehensive education that emphasizes moral, intellectual, and physical development in our youth and that fosters responsible individuals who positively contribute to our communities while leading lives grounded in the Catholic tradition. This year's theme, ``Catholic Schools Raise the Standards,'' demonstrates the high standard to which the Catholic schools of our Nation hold themselves and their unwavering commitment to promoting academic excellence and Catholic identity.

Catholic schools in Louisiana have continued to support this tradition of academic excellence and physical and spiritual well-bring, while allowing families to be involved and supportive in the educational process. Today, more than 2 million students attend Catholic schools around the country. More than 99 percent of attending students graduate, with more than 85 percent pursuing college degrees at 4-year institutions.

I am in strong agreement with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which stated:

Education remains critically important in the formation of

the human person by teaching how to live well now so as to be

able to live with God for all eternity . . . Our schools

serve both the faith community and society by educating

children, young people and adults to contribute to the common

good by becoming active and caring members of the

communities, cities, and nation in which they live.

As a Catholic school alumnus, I know that Catholic school educators and administrators deserve recognition for their steadfast commitment not only to educating minds, but also to shaping hearts and cultivating the virtues that make our country and local communities stronger. In that respect, I am hopeful that the Senate will again pass my bipartisan resolution recognizing the valuable contributions of Catholic schools in the United States.

This week, we recognize the students, their families, teachers, administrators, all of our parish leaders, and our communities for their efforts to support our Catholic schools and continued achievement toward the education of our young people.

Mr. President, today I would like to recognize Mr. Joseph M. Scimeca. This July, Mr. Scimeca will enter retirement after 44 years of dedicated service to the Catholic Diocese of Baton Rouge.

Since 1969, when he began his career as a teacher, Mr. Scimeca has contributed to the moral, intellectual, and spiritual development of young people. His time in education has seen him serve as assistant principal, principal, and Assistant Superintendent of the Catholic Diocese of Baton Rouge, a position he has held since 1999. In 1997, he was presented with the Distinguished Secondary Educator award and also received the 1999 Saint Michael the Archangel High School Warrior award.

The National Conference of Catholic Bishops stated, ``Education is one of the most important ways by which the Church fulfills its commitment to the dignity of the person and building of community.''

In Louisiana, our Catholic schools maintain high academic standards, foster a healthy learning environment for

students, and encourage family involvement in the ongoing education of children. Mr. Scimeca has promoted these ideals with extraordinary leadership, professionalism and a vision to provide our children with the tools they will need to go out in to the world and become valuable members of society and their community.

His efforts to bring together adults and children, educators and volunteers, business leaders, and elected officials in a learning environment highlights his ability to impart comprehensive curriculums that stress the importance of education as part of the mission of the Catholic Church and the importance of community in shaping our young people.

While I know he will be missed after his departure later this year, I thank Mr. Scimeca for his selfless commitment to the education of our children, his outstanding contributions to the Catholic Diocese of Baton Rouge and the State of Louisiana, and extend to him our best wishes for continued success and happiness in all of his future endeavors.