RAPIDES REPUBLICAN PARISH EXECUT

Vitter Introduces Guantanamo Detainee Bill
Legislation would prevent former detainees from entering the United States

(Washington, D.C.) – U.S. Sen. David Vitter this week introduced the “Protection from Enemy Combatants Act,” a bill that would prevent any detainee from Guantanamo Bay from being admitted into the United States.

“I think all can agree that it would not be in the best interests of U.S. national security to release from Cuba detainees suspected of engaging in terrorist activities and allow them to enter the United States,” said Vitter. “This is absolutely a path that we should not tread. The detainees at Guantanamo are housed there because they represent a terrorist threat to America and, as activist judges continue to usurp our security measures through the judicial processes, we should lay the groundwork now to ensure that these individuals are not allowed to enter the United States.”

Vitter’s bill provides that no court of the United States may order the release or parole into America of any alien detained as an enemy combatant by the United States at Guantanamo Bay, except in the instance that the President determines that the waiver of such a restriction meets is consistent with matters of national security.

“As Chairman of the U.S. Senate Border Security and Enforcement First Caucus, I am gravely concerned with preventing illegal aliens from entering the U.S., specifically in those instances where the individuals were, and will likely remain, a threat to homeland security,” Vitter said. “We most certainly do not want a policy where we legally admit terrorists, or suspected terrorists, into our country. This legislation would prevent that.”

In the 110^th Congress, the Senate has already passed a similar, non-binding Sense of the Senate Resolution by a vote of 97-3 in favor of preventing Guantanamo detainees from being transferred to facilities in the United States.

(Washington, D.C.) – U.S. Sen. David Vitter today released the following statement expressing deep concern over news reports of widening bailout measures to other industries:

“On September 29, in announcing my strong opposition to the Wall Street bailout bill, I said that it was ‘an unprecedented government bailout that will almost certainly pave the way for even more, maybe sooner rather than later.’ Unfortunately, that's proving true in dramatic fashion as the U.S. auto industry and plenty of others outside the financial sector line up for taxpayer money,” Vitter said.

Vitter specifically referenced recent calls to provide additional federal dollars to the troubled automotive industry:

"Of course, the U.S. car companies' deep problems were around way before the present credit and financial crisis. To have any change of succeeding further government help would have to be accompanied by two things: the complete replacement of upper management by a qualified team from the outside, and the cancellation of the companies' huge cost burdens - like certain union obligations - that make them so uncompetitive," said Vitter.

Note: Thank you, Senator Vitter. The American taxpayer shouldn't have to bailout the United Auto Workers Union.

A Federal Communications Commission investigation of on-air military analysts is providing a glimpse of what Democrats and an Obama administration will do to critics once they capture Washington.

The FCC has sent letters to some of the nation's most prominent military analysts -- some of them pro-President Bush and pro-war -- suggesting they may have broken the law when they appeared on television stations to comment on and explain the war on terrorism.

The FCC investigation raises the question of whether a Democrat-controlled Congress and White House next year will investigate -- and perhaps criminalize -- all sorts of actions taken by the Bush administration. Obama is leading in all presidential polls, while Democrats are set to greatly increase their hold on the House and Senate.

The FCC letters came at the behest of two House Democrats, who say the analysts parroted on air the private briefings they received at the Pentagon. This may have broken the law, the lawmakers said.

The probe is sending chills through the ranks of military commentators, some of them decorated war heroes who share their expertise with millions of lay viewers. They see it as one in a series of moves the Left is making to intimidate and shut up its critics.

"We are seeing the dawn of a new era of the current Democratic leadership trying to muzzle free speech and the First Amendment," retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, a Fox News analyst, told HUMAN EVENTS. "It may be the most invasive intrusion that we have seen in our history. There will be more of these tactics to follow."

Said retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, one of Fox's first defense analysts, "It's an affront to freedom of speech. As retired officers, we're private citizens and can say anything we want under the First Amendment. The whole thing was to explain to the American people what was going on in war and analyzing it."

Democrats have more in store to try to muzzle conservatives. They talk of reactivating the so-called Fairness Doctrine in which federal government bureaucrats monitor radio and TV programs and rule on their fairness. Conservatives say the real goal is to kill right-leaning talk radio.

Talk radio is the one medium conservatives can turn to for their point of view amid a sea of liberal dogma from the New York Times, Washington Post, Public Broadcasting, the TV networks and Hollywood. If the government forces Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to present liberal points of view, ratings will slip and the shows might be taken off the air.

"They're going to implement the Fairness Doctrine to basically do away with Right-wing radio," Vallely said. "In their minds, balance means Left wing. It's Socialists trying to infringe on our First Amendment rights."

Begun in 1949 as an FCC policy and then a regulation, the agency abolished the doctrine during the Ronald Reagan administration as an infringement on free speech. Democrats passed a bill to reinstate the policy as law, but Reagan vetoed it. There would be no Reagan to veto the next bill Democrats are likely to enact should Obama win the election.

In the analysts case, the FCC is looking at the practice of the Pentagon providing exclusive briefings on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to retired military officers, who would then use the information on the air.

In the Oct. 2 letters to 19 analysts and various TV networks, the FCC cited a New York Times article which accused the analysts of receiving the Pentagon information in exchange for positive commentary on the air. The letters, signed by Hillary S. DeNigro, chief of the agency's investigations and hearings division, said such an arrangement might violate the Communications Act of 1934.

The FCC sent the letters after receiving a complaint from Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro, (D-Conn.) and Rep. John Dingell, (D-Mich.). Dingell has a history of using committee staff to browbeat and investigate Republican administrations.

"In their complaint, Representatives DeLauro and Dingell express concern that the analysts and [TV stations] may have failed to disclose this exchange of consideration to the stations, as required by section 507 of the Communications Act of 1934," said the FCC letter. "They also suggest that the stations may have aired your commentary without making appropriate sponsorship identification announcements at the time such material was aired, as required" by the act.

Some analysts also work for defense contractors who produce weapons systems used in the war. There were suggestions in the Times article that analysts pitched those systems during TV appearances.

McInerney, a hawk on the Iraq war, said the information the Pentagon supplied him and other commentators was the same as provided to the news media.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has ended the private analysts briefings. Besides the FCC probe, the Pentagon inspector general is reviewing the program, which was started by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after the September 1, 2001 attacks.

The DeLauro-Dingell letter to the FCC says, in part, "Our chief concern is that as a result of the analysts' participation in this DoD program, which included the DoD's paying for their commercial airfare on DoD-sponsored trips to Iraq, the analysts and the networks that hired them could have run afoul of certain laws or regulations."

The FCC is giving the 19 analysts 30 days to respond to the charges. [HUMAN EVENTS Editor Jed Babbin was a member of the group of military analysts who met frequently with senior Pentagon officials and participated in the program. He did not receive a letter from the FCC.]

Mr. Scarborough is a national security writer who has written books on Donald Rumsfeld and the CIA, including the New York Times bestseller Rumsfeld's War.

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

Amendment No. 1---VOTE FOR this amendment; it places term limits on person serving or elected to the Public Service Commission, the State Board of Elementary & Secondary Education, the Board of Regents and all other college/university boards, Boards for technical colleges, the Louisiana Forestry Commission, the State Civil Service Commission and the State Police Commission. This puts these positions in line with others who are now term limited.

Amendment No. 2---VOTE FOR this amendment; it just makes the notification of a special screasfrom 5 days notice to 7 days notice.

Amendment No. 3---VOTE FOR this amendment; it let's our legislators who serve in the armed service of our country have a temporary substitute represent the people while the legislator is away during a time of war/conflict.

Amendment No. 4---VOTE FOR this amendment; this is the longest one on the ballot; it increases the amount of severance tax money the parishes get to keep where natural resources produce revenue for the state; in does not increase the amount of tax, but redistributes the current amount levied; it also sets up a new Atchafalaya Basin Conservation Fund with 5% of the severance tax money.

Amendment No. 5---VOTE FOR this amendment; this lets a property owner who loses his land through government expropriation transfer the special tax assessment to the owners new property they had to buy.

Amendment No. 6---VOTE AGAINST this amendment; this would remove the current "first refusal to buy back" provision from the law when your property is expropriated from you by the government and they have to offer it back to you first when they get ready to sell the property to a third party; (any time property is "taken" through expropriation, the original owners should be given the first chance to buy it back).

Amendment No. 7---VOTE FOR this amendment; this allows excess money which is not being used to fund retirement programs or pensions to be invested at higher interest rates.

(Washington, D.C.) –

U.S.

Sen. David Vitter yesterday joined eight senators on a letter to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey in support of an FBI investigation into allegations of widespread voter fraud by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

“It’s certainly no secret that ACORN has been plagued with allegations of this sort for some time now. Voter fraud is a very real threat to our electoral process, and systematic, widespread voter fraud can affect the outcome of elections from the city level all the way up to a presidential race.

“We are now two weeks away from the Nov. 4^th election, and it is crucial that the FBI uses all possible resources to determine whether ACORN is engaging in organized voter fraud and, if so, to what extent and to what end. It is equally important that the Attorney General provide the FBI with the resources to conduct this investigation.

“Our democracy is based on the principle that each and every individual is accorded his or her own vote. Registering fake names or deceased voters, or falsifying information to register otherwise ineligible voters amounts to nothing less than the corruption of the very democratic principles upon which this country was founded,” said Vitter.

More from Senator Vitter, from the Senate floor, regarding the Senate version of the bailout bill.

Washington, D.C.) – U.S. Sen. David Vitter today issued the following statement regarding the new bailout plan being considered by the Senate.

“Twelve days ago, we were struck with two bolts almost out of the blue – the suggestion that our financial system is on the verge of collapse, and a proposal under which unprecedented power, discretion, and taxpayer dollars are given to the federal government, essentially in the form of one person – the Treasury Secretary.

“There have since been several amendments to the plan, and much talk about taxpayer protections ‑ most of it well-intended, thoughtful…window dressing. So make no mistake, if Congress passes this bill, it will be passing – a mere twelve days later – an unprecedented expansion of government power and discretion – along with $700 billion of hard-earned taxpayer funds.

“After listening to many people I deeply respect – including thousands of hard-working Louisianans ‑ I will – I must – vote no.

“I won’t vote no because I don’t think we face very serious economic challenges. We do. Credit is drying up. And that presents a real threat to average Americans.

“I won’t vote no because I don’t think the federal government needs to act. It does – as soon as responsible action is possible.

“I will vote no because we don’t need to use hard-earned taxpayer dollars in this way, cross this line, set this precedent.

“We need to stabilize the market and increase liquidity, not replace the market with unprecedented government intervention at taxpayer risk and expense. We need to minimize the pain on average Americans who did nothing wrong, not wipe it away from politicians, lenders, and yes, some borrowers who did plenty wrong, who were plenty irresponsible.

“My fundamental concerns with the Paulson plan are only heightened by the fact that, to implement it, tens of thousands of judgment calls will have to be made as to what to buy and for how much. And these judgment calls will be made by teams of new bureaucrats who came from Wall Street and who want to go back. This assures bias and even corruption.

“And my deep general unease is only fueled by the fact that there has been no real discussion of the fundamental, long-term reforms that are needed ‑ like breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, demanding real money down for all home purchases, and establishing aggressive, pro-growth tax and economic policy. What’s worse, there’s probably been no real discussion of this because neither this Congress nor the one about to be elected will pass any of it.

“A week ago, I may have voted no in anger. Although that is still there, I act with a profound sense of sadness and disappointment – because this unprecedented expansion of government intervention at taxpayer expense is the product of an appalling lack of political leadership. First, crying fire in a crowded movie theatre. Then, demanding that the only escape is to take dangerous action like tearing down the walls, though there are plenty of exit doors in sight.

“Mr. President, I truly pray that much of what I’ve said is proven wrong. I will try very hard to do just that myself in terms of the next step – by working tirelessly to pass the fundamental reforms we need so that a repeat of this mess – however much a repeat is actually encouraged by this bailout – never happens again.

“Whatever happens with this immediate challenge, I call on our leaders here in this Congress to bring us back this year to enact fundamental reform.

“Now is the time to reform the misguided government policies that caused this mess. It’s time to enact real solutions that grow our economy, develop small businesses, and increase opportunity for all Americans. It’s time to stop the knee-jerk political reactions and focus on real solutions to secure our nation’s future,” said Vitter.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-Quitman, today released the following statement after voting against H.R. 3997, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.

The legislation was defeated by a vote of 205-228. Alexander said the bill would have authorized the Sec. of the Treasury to spend $700 billion to bail out Wall Street with very little oversight, which is equivalent to $6,034 per American household.

“I could not support a bill that could ultimately ask hardworking taxpayers to bear the responsibility of Wall Street’s mistakes,” Alexander said.

“Although it is clear we have to take action to get our economy back on its feet, this bill was not the right move at this time. It would have given too much power to the executive branch, specifically the Sec. of the Treasury, and we don’t know who will hold these positions in January. I believe there are better alternatives to solving our problems, and I am committed to working for as long as it takes to make sure we enact a sound, long-term solution.”

(Washington, D.C.) – U.S. Sen. David Vitter today issued the following statement regarding the proposed $700 billion bailout package being considered this week by Congress:

“After studying the final bill carefully and talking with many people I respect, I can’t support this plan.

“First, it’s an unprecedented government bailout that will almost certainly pave the way for even more – maybe sooner rather than later.

“Second, it requires people at Treasury to make tens of thousands of judgment calls about what they buy and for how much. And these will be folks who are from Wall Street and want to go to back. That ensures bias and even corruption.

“Third, there’s been no adequate discussion of the major reforms needed. And I’m afraid this big government first step helps ensure that Congress won’t make those strong reforms – like breaking up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and demanding real cash down for all home purchases,” said Vitter.

I got together this afternoon for a short interview with Jim DeMint, the man who could fairly be called the conservative leader of the Senate, to hear what he has to say about the bailout. What follows is the slightly edited transcript of our conversation.

...Congress passed a law back in the late seventies that required banks to make subprime loans to...

Yes. It required the banks to make loans to people who couldn't afford them as part of our social programming. Congress also created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy mortgages from banks all over the country. Since these were, in effect, guaranteed by the federal government, they didn't pay much attention to the credit worthiness of the borrower or the value of the asset.

What happened over the years is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac together processed over 5 trillion dollars worth of loans and sold them as securities all over the world. This easy credit inflated the cost of homes and created over-building and an over-supply of homes until we finally hit a wall. The values of people's homes started to go down, which means the mortgages were over-priced. Now these banks want to unload these securities in order to have money to loan.... but they can't sell them for what they got them for.

The biggest creditor is China and that's a big part of this equation that's not being talked about. If America was not in such deep debt, we could deal with this problem much more effectively -- but China has essentially told the U.S. that we make good on all the debt that they're holding, which is nearly a trillion dollars, or they're going to stop lending us money. To show that they're serious, they've already stopped lending us money and if we can't borrow money every day, literally hundreds of billions of dollars, we default on the loans that are coming due.

So, this is a house of cards that the government has created and my biggest frustration with this whole mess is that it is being blamed on free enterprise, capitalism, and corporate greed -- when in fact, this is a good example of what happens when the government gets involved in the private sector. It created a huge mess.

No, I don't support it and I probably won't support it in any form. It should not have come to this. We knew this was coming and we didn't do anything about it. For years, a number of people, John McCain is one, have tried to change this system, but the Democrats have consistently protected Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- and some Republicans have been complicit in this easy credit game that we had going.

What I am trying to do is to cause enough anger and uproar through blogs, radio talk shows, and TV interviews that I am doing so that people will at least get their congressmen and senators to listen to some kind of alternative to what's been proposed that would keep us within the constitutional framework that we've sworn to uphold.

We can't have the government buying parts of companies, buying stocks, mortgages, selling those in the markets, and becoming a real player in the financial markets. We could do the same thing they're trying to do with insurance products, loan guarantees, things that have been used before with banks that assure the value of their assets, so they continue to do business. We can even get the banks to pay for that insurance -- but apparently, Secretary Paulson has promised Wall Street that we're going to come in and buy their assets at above market rates so they can come out like bandits.

The problem we have here is that by the government essentially promising to come in and do that, it is causing the credit markets to seize up. They're waiting for a government infusion of funds. They're waiting for the government to buy at a higher market rate, so they're not operating and credit is closing down in America. It's a self fulfilling prophecy...

They're exactly right. People are mad. I am getting hundreds of calls a day and it's 100 to 1 against this. ...Even banks like BB&T say that they don't want this because they know what it means: the government is going to get involved in their business whether they take their money or not....

So, people have every right to be angry and that anger needs to continue.... We've seen that Americans getting angry and involved helped us defeat this whole amnesty proposal and it helped us spotlight wasteful earmarks, which we're making some progress on. It has brought the energy issue to the point where we have backed the Democrats down from this drilling moratorium. We're making progress on this bailout.

...The problem we have politically is that the President wants this so that he's not the President who presides over a catastrophe. He's willing to give the Democrats all the regulations and intrusions in the market that they want if they will help him pass it.

We should. We need to do this in a way that may have the government more involved than I want them to be, but at least they're not taking ownership and playing in the market -- things that we have known since the beginning of our country were wrong and not constitutional.

So, the House Republicans here are the champions. They're the heroes. No one can blame them for holding this up because if the Democrats believe this is the right thing to do they can pass it in an hour. There are not enough Republicans in the House to stop them. In the House, if you're in the majority, you can ram something through regardless...

They're right and I've been hoping that McCain would come out and back that plan idea and not back the Paulson plan. I think it would separate him from Bush and really help, but so far we have not heard him say that. So, we'll just have to wait and see.

But, this is just an example of our government out of control and we need to rein them in and it will take a big effort by the American people.

Read the bill, S.190, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. Thanks to the Dems and some clueless Heffalumps, it didn't get out of committee.

Alexander Statement on Passage of Resolution Designating September 11 as Day of Remembrance

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-Quitman, today released the following statement after the House of Representatives passed H.Res. 1420, a resolution recognizing September 11 as a day of remembrance; extending sympathies to those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001, and their families; honoring the heroic actions of our nation’s first responders and Armed Forces; and reaffirming the commitment to defending the people of the United States against any and all future challenges.

“Today marks the seventh anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and as we think back to that day and honor the Americans who lost their lives, we know that their families and friends grieve their loss as much today as they did seven years ago,” Alexander said.

Thoughts From Capitol Hill
By US Rep. Rodney M. Alexander
August 1, 2008

Stubborn Leadership Refuses Vote on Drilling
House Majority Votes to Adjourn Without Addressing Bill to Lower Gas Prices

WASHINGTON, D.C. – I was not quite ready to leave Washington for the August district work period this year, though I always look forward to the month and the extended time I have to travel around our sprawling district and visit with individuals, groups and businesses from all over our area.

The reason, of course, is that we knew we had unfinished business – the House has still not passed legislation to lower gas prices.

The vote was tight, 213-212, but the House adjourned today and will not reconvene until September.

Though disappointing, this final kiss-off is not surprising, considering House majority leadership’s blatant disregard for every single effort those of us serving in the minority have made over the last several months to address our nation’s energy crisis.

Their obstinacy, however, has been equally matched by our own unyielding determination to help Americans who are suffering from the effects of high gasoline prices. Over the last several months, House Republicans have introduced multiple bills that were recently rolled into one comprehensive piece of legislation called the American Energy Act.

The American Energy Act addresses every aspect of the energy crisis; it will increase the supply American-made energy in environmentally sound ways, improve energy conservation and efficiency, and promote renewable and alternative energy technologies.

Among its many provisions, the bill would lift the Congressional ban on drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), which experts say could yield 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 86 billion barrels of oil, providing a decade’s worth of oil for the

United States

Multiple polls have shown that the majority of Americans support increasing oil drilling in the United States. For example, a CNN/Opinion Research Poll conducted in early July revealed that 73 percent of Americans favor offshore drilling for oil and natural gas in U.S. waters.

House majority leadership ignored these polls and refused to allow a vote on the American Energy Act. What’s worse, they never even attempted to produce a plan of their own.

Yet, if those serving in the majority believe the sound of the gavel pounding on the Speaker’s desk was their cue for escape, they are forgetting who they are going home to this August.

They are going home to the people they were elected to represent, the people who cried out for help and were ignored.

U.S. Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-Quitman, represents the 5th Congressional District and serves on the House Appropriations Committee and the House Budget Committee. He can be reached at the Monroe District Office (318-322-3500), the Alexandria District Office (318-445-0818) or Washington, D.C. (202-225-8490.) Visit Alexander's Web site at www.house.gov/alexander or write him at 316 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515.

Vitter Applauds President’s Executive Order to Open the OCS to Energy Exploration
Vitter’s ENOUGH Act achieves what the president and Americans are looking for

(Washington, D.C.) – U.S. Sen. David Vitter today applauded the president’s decision to issue an executive order to lift the moratorium on energy exploration in

America

’s outer continental shelf. There were two prohibitions on offshore drilling – one put in place by Congress and another by executive order of the president’s office in 1990. With the executive prohibition out of the way, Congress is now solely responsible for blocking the

United States

from increasing our domestic production of oil and gas.

“With this executive order, the president has cleared another hurdle from increasing offshore exploration,” said Vitter. “Congress must answer the calls of the American people and act now to allow more domestic energy production. and my bill, the ENOUGH Act, would do just that.”

Vitter’s Energy Needed Offshore Under Gas Hikes, or ENOUGH, Act would allow for increased energy exploration off a state’s own coast. It allows a governor, with the concurrence of the state legislature, to petition for increased energy exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf.

“This bill creates considerable benefits for states that choose this course of action,” Vitter said. “It will increase our national energy supply, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and help finance important state conservation efforts, like coastal preservation for Louisiana. We need to take bold action on behalf of the millions of American families who are struggling to meet the growing cost of gas and energy, and this bill does just that.”

Vitter’s ENOUGH Act provides revenue sharing for new producing areas in the following distributions: 45 percent of new offshore revenues will go to the general fund of the U.S. Treasury; 37.5 percent to eligible producing states for new producing areas and 12.5 percent to provide to states for Land and Water Conservation Fund. The ENOUGH Act also distributes 5 percent of new offshore revenues to states like Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas and Alabama that have historically carried American’s energy production burden when other states, prior to the ENOUGH Act, have not drilled.

“Every day, gas prices we believed would only be seen in Europe are staring back at us at the pump. Basic economics says that we must increase our own domestic energy supply if we want to lower gas prices and free ourselves from untrustworthy foreign energy sources, ” said Vitter. “Let’s empower each state to decide what is right for its coast and its energy needs, instead of allowing a slim majority to decide for all of us.”

Vitter’s bill also provides that the governor of a state may distinguish natural gas only when petitioning for increased energy exploration activities.

He offered an amendment similar to the ENOUGH Act to this year’s budget conference report in the U.S. Senate that received 44 votes of support.

(Washington, D.C.) ‑ U.S. Sen. David Vitter today introduced the Incentives for Mexico to Stop Illegal Immigration Act, which would reduce financial assistance to Mexico in response to illegal border crossings into the

United States

. Vitter’s bill would require the secretary of state to reduce the amount of financial assistance provided by the United States to Mexico by $1,000 for each illegal crossing the border into the

United States

“Each year, hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants cross into the

United States

through our southern border,” said Vitter. “There are millions of illegal aliens living within the

United States

, and that number will continue to grow until effective measures are put in place to combat this problem. This bill embodies attrition through enforcement, which is key to solving the illegal immigration problem.”

The bill requires that the secretary of state and the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security estimate the number of illegal border crossings at the

U.S.

southern border during the past fiscal year within 30 days of the conclusion of that fiscal year. To ensure that the Mexican government is provided with the appropriate resources to combat illegal border crossings, the secretary of state may decide not to reduce the amount of money appropriated to

Mexico

for the purposes of military education, drug control and law enforcement and anti-terrorism activities.

“As

America

struggles with an uneasy economy, any additional burden placed upon our social welfare systems by an increased number of illegal aliens only leads to more tax dollars and benefits being taken from hard working Americans. The Mexican government benefits from illegal immigration by ‘outsourcing’ its people across our borders instead of working internally to help its poor and suffering,” Vitter said. “On top of this, our government sends many millions of dollars in financial assistance to

Mexico

each year. This bill seeks to reduce the amount of assistance based on each illegal migrant that crosses our southern border, without putting our homeland security at risk.”

Vitter is chairman of the U.S. Senate Border Security and Enforcement First Caucus.