Editing David Vitter (section)

===Tenure===
Vitter identified himself as a political [[Conservatism in the United States|conservative]] throughout his political career. His legislative agenda included [[Gun politics in the United States|support for Second Amendment rights]] and opposition to [[anti-abortion|abortion]], federal funding for abortion providers, gambling, [[same-sex marriage]], civil unions, increases in the [[State Children's Health Insurance Program]], the United Nations, and [[amnesty]] for America's [[illegal immigrants]]. Vitter's stated positions include support for a [[Balanced Budget Amendment|balanced budget constitutional amendment]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://vitter.senate.gov/?module=legislation/issue&ID=99addac2-1509-4301-8567-baf556ac1a58|title=David Vitter Issues: Budget|publisher=David Vitter|access-date=April 21, 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080422160559/http://vitter.senate.gov/?module=legislation%2Fissue&ID=99addac2-1509-4301-8567-baf556ac1a58|archive-date=April 22, 2008}}</ref> abolition of federal and state [[estate tax]]es,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://vitter.senate.gov/?module=legislation/issue&ID=99addac2-1509-4301-8567-baf556ac1a58|title=David Vitter Issues: Agriculture & Seafood|publisher=David Vitter|access-date=April 21, 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080422160559/http://vitter.senate.gov/?module=legislation%2Fissue&ID=99addac2-1509-4301-8567-baf556ac1a58|archive-date=April 22, 2008}}</ref> increased numbers of local police,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://vitter.senate.gov/?module=legislation/issue&ID=79348266-f09a-4494-a2eb-2bd397b9eab9|title=David Vitter Issues: Crime and Drugs|publisher=David Vitter|access-date=April 21, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080422160549/http://vitter.senate.gov/?module=legislation%2Fissue&ID=79348266-f09a-4494-a2eb-2bd397b9eab9|archive-date=April 22, 2008|url-status=dead}}</ref> and an assortment of health care, tax and national defense reforms.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://vitter.senate.gov/?module=legislation/issues|title=David Vitter Issues|publisher=David Vitter|access-date=April 21, 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080430235427/http://vitter.senate.gov/?module=Legislation%2FIssues|archive-date=April 30, 2008}}</ref>{{better source needed|date=March 2020}}

After conceding defeat to John Bel Edwards in the 2015 Louisiana gubernatorial election, Vitter announced that he would not seek reelection to his Senate seat in [[United States Senate election in Louisiana, 2016|2016]] and would retire from office at the completion of his term.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/edwards-beats-vitter-louisiana-governor-216127|title=Edwards beats Vitter in Louisiana governor's race|date=November 21, 2015|access-date=November 21, 2015|work=Politico}}</ref>

In 2016, Vitter succeeded after a five-year battle in passing through the Senate landmark legislation to reform the country's chemical safety laws. Vitter called the legislation a "big accomplishment. This is an area of federal law that everybody, every stakeholder, every group, whether it's some far-left environmental group or industry, said needed to be updated. The trick was getting agreement on doing that."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thetowntalk.com/story/news/2016/06/12/retirement-nears-vitter-relishes-win-chemical-bill/85711138/|title=As retirement nears, Vitter relishes win on chemical bill|publisher=The Alexandria Town Talk|date=June 12, 2016|author=Deborah Barfield Berry|access-date=June 14, 2016}}</ref>

====Abortion====
In October 2007, Vitter introduced an amendment<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00379|title=On the Amendment (Vitter Amdt. No.3330 )|publisher=[[United States Senate]]|access-date=November 17, 2007}}</ref> barring all federal public funds to health care providers and [[Planned Parenthood]] that provide services that include abortion. Federal law bars any funding to directly finance elective abortions in accordance with the Hyde amendment. Vitter argued that the funds are used for [[Overhead (business)|overhead costs]] that benefit the abortion services. The amendment failed to pass.<ref>{{cite news|date=October 19, 2007|author=Alpert, Bruce|url=http://www.nola.com/timespic/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1192804244133220.xml&coll=1|title=Abortion plan is defeated in Senate|newspaper=[[The Times-Picayune]]|access-date=October 19, 2007|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120222152851/http://www.nola.com/timespic/stories/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fnews-2%2F1192804244133220.xml&coll=1|archive-date=February 22, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|date=October 28, 2007|author=Taylor, Andrew|url=http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iSj9rQxYovv7EP4uGrPZ_dAqaoDgD8SBUTBG0|title=No Cut in Money for Abortion Providers|agency=Associated Press|access-date=October 19, 2007|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071024141408/http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iSj9rQxYovv7EP4uGrPZ_dAqaoDgD8SBUTBG0|archive-date=October 24, 2007}}</ref> Following the rejection, Vitter and others urged
the Senate to pass a similar bill introduced by Vitter in
January 2007. The bill failed to pass.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-351|title=S. 351: Title X Family Planning Act|publisher=GovTrack|access-date=November 17, 2007}}</ref>

In January 2008, Vitter proposed an amendment to prohibit the funding of abortions with [[Indian Health Service]] funds except in the case of rape, [[incest]], or when the life of the woman is at risk.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=110&amdt=s3896|title=S.Amdt. 3896: To modify a section relating to limitation on use of funds...|publisher=GovTrack.us|access-date=January 23, 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080830025429/http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=110&amdt=s3896|archive-date=August 30, 2008}}</ref> The amendment would have held future presidential administrations to an executive principle first crafted in 1982 by the [[Ronald Reagan]] White House.<ref>{{cite web|date=February 26, 2008|author=KALB News Channel 5|url=http://www.kalb.com/index.php/news/article/senate-passes-vitter-amendment-to-prohibit-federal-funding-of-abortions/4025/|title=Senate Passes Vitter Amendment to Prohibit Federal Funding of Abortions|publisher=KALB.com|access-date=February 27, 2008 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080314154452/http://www.kalb.com/index.php/news/article/senate-passes-vitter-amendment-to-prohibit-federal-funding-of-abortions/4025/ |archive-date = March 14, 2008}}</ref> Vitter's amendment passed the Senate but later was stalled in the House.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1200|title=S. 1200|access-date=April 29, 2009|author=110th Congress (2007)|date=April 24, 2007|work=Legislation|publisher=GovTrack.us|quote=Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2008}}</ref>

Later that year, Vitter co-sponsored the Pregnant Women Health and Safety Act which –  along with other oversight regulations – required doctors performing abortions to have the authority granted by a nearby hospital to admit patients. The bill was never reported to committee.<ref>{{cite news|date=April 20, 2008|last=Alpert|first=Bruce|author2=Walsh, Bill|url=http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/washington/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1208669675248010.xml&coll=1|title=On The Hill: Bill tightens abortion penalties|newspaper=[[The Times-Picayune]]|access-date=April 21, 2008}}{{dead link|date=December 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=March 31, 2008|url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2788|title=S. 2788 – 110th Congress (2008): Pregnant Women Health and Safety Act|publisher=GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation)|access-date=May 6, 2008}}</ref>

====Abstinence education====
Vitter advocated [[abstinence-only sex education]], emphasizing abstinence over sex education that includes information about [[birth control]], drawing criticism from [[Planned Parenthood]].<ref>{{cite web|date=June 25, 2007|author=Vitter, David|url=http://www.vitter.senate.gov/?module=PressRoom/PressItem&ID=76b86c7e-a51a-4d11-92e7-de11d999f313|title=Vitter Pushes for Reauthorization of Abstinence Education Program|publisher=David Vitter press release|access-date=July 12, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070713232211/http://vitter.senate.gov/?module=PressRoom%2FPressItem&ID=76b86c7e-a51a-4d11-92e7-de11d999f313|archive-date=July 13, 2007|url-status=dead}}</ref> He said, "Abstinence education is a public health strategy focused on risk avoidance that aims to help young people avoid exposure to harm...by teaching teenagers that saving sex until marriage and remaining faithful afterwards is the best choice for health and happiness."<ref>{{cite web|date=June 21, 2007|author1=Vitter, David|author2=Bunning, Jim|url=http://www.vitter.senate.gov/forms/abstinenceLetter.pdf|title=Letter to the chairman and ranking member of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee|access-date=July 10, 2007|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070627190123/http://www.vitter.senate.gov/forms/abstinenceLetter.pdf|archive-date=June 27, 2007}}</ref>

====Automotive industry bailout====
Vitter was one of 35 Senators to vote against the [[Big 3 Bailout]] bill.<ref>{{cite news|date=December 12, 2008 |url=http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-senate-rollvote-autosc0,0,1279040.story |title=How they voted: Senate roll vote on $14B auto bailout |agency=Associated Press |access-date=December 17, 2008 }}{{dead link|date=May 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> The financial bailout package was for [[General Motors|GM]], [[Chrysler]], and [[Ford Motor Company|Ford]], but failed to pass on December 11, 2008. During the Senate debate Vitter referred to the approach of giving the automotive industry a financial package before they restructured as "ass-backwards".<ref>{{cite news|date= December 10, 2008|last= Puzzanghera|first= Jim |url= http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-121008-auto-bailout-webdec11,0,1744409.story|title= White House, Democrats reach accord on auto bailout|newspaper= Chicago Tribune|access-date= December 17, 2008}}</ref> He soon apologized for the phrasing of the comment, which did not appear in the ''[[Congressional Record]]''.<ref>{{cite news|date= December 17, 2008|last= Alpert|first= Bruce|url= http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/washington/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1229292647222650.xml&coll=1|title= Vitter regrets salty language|newspaper= [[The Times-Picayune]]|access-date= December 17, 2008|url-status= dead|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090107080533/http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/washington/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fnews-2%2F1229292647222650.xml&coll=1|archive-date= January 7, 2009}}</ref>

====BP Horizon oil spill====
In response to the April 2010 [[Deepwater Horizon oil spill]] at an offshore [[drilling rig]] in the [[Gulf of Mexico]] threatening the coast of Louisiana, Vitter introduced legislation along with [[Jeff Sessions]] of [[Alabama]] to increase the liability cap of an oil company from $75 million to its most recent annual profits (or $150 million if greater).<ref name="TDA052610">{{cite web|date=May 26, 2010 |last=Berry |first=Deborah Barfield |url=http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20100526/NEWS18/5260340 |title=Lawmakers weigh liability cap |publisher=[[The Daily Advertiser (Lafayette)|The Daily Advertiser]] |access-date=May 27, 2010 }}{{dead link|date=May 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> In the case of [[BP]], the owner of the oil lease, its liability would be $20 billion.<ref name="TBN052710">{{cite news|date= May 27, 2010|last=  Orndorff|first= Mary|url= http://blog.al.com/sweethome/2010/05/us_sen_jeff_sessions_wants_to.html|title= U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions wants to raise BP's liability to $20 billion|newspaper= [[The Birmingham News]]|access-date= May 27, 2010}}</ref> Vitter later introduced an amendment that would remove the cap entirely for this particular spill.<ref name="TDA052610" /> Competing Democratic proposals would have raised the liability to $10 billion regardless of profits or removed the cap altogether.<ref name="TDA052610" /> Sessions argued that large caps unrelated to company profits would harm smaller companies.<ref name="TBN052710" />

====Chemical safety====
In May 2013, Vitter introduced the [[Chemical Safety Improvement Act]], a bipartisan bill to reform the [[Toxic Substances Control Act]], which would have regulated the introduction of new or already existing chemicals. The bill would have given additional authority to the [[United States Environmental Protection Agency|Environmental Protection Agency]] to regulate chemicals and streamline the patchwork of state laws on chemicals under federal authority.<ref>{{cite web|date=June 11, 2013|url=http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=34fa2573-f043-8d8f-5329-962e227ccea7|title=Vitter: Support for Chemical Safety Improvement Act Grows}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://theadvocate.com/home/7576429-125/vitter-takes-his-chemical-safety |title=Vitter takes his Chemical Safety bill to House committee hearing |publisher=The Advocate |access-date=March 3, 2014 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140306123418/http://theadvocate.com/home/7576429-125/vitter-takes-his-chemical-safety |archive-date=March 6, 2014 }}</ref>

====Child protection====
In April 2008, Vitter introduced an amendment to continue funding the [[Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act]] which was excluded from the 2008/2009 budget. The federal program maintains a national [[Sex offender registries in the United States|sex offender registry]], provides resources for tracking down unregistered [[sex offender]]s and increases penalties for the [[sexual assault]] of children. His amendment received bipartisan support.<ref>{{cite news|date=May 1, 2008|last=Alpert|first=Bruce|url=http://www.nola.com/timespic/stories/index.ssf?/base/library-146/1209619943213470.xml&coll=1|title=Vitter seeks funding for child-safety act|newspaper=[[The Times-Picayune]]|access-date=May 1, 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120222151447/http://www.nola.com/timespic/stories/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Flibrary-146%2F1209619943213470.xml&coll=1|archive-date=February 22, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://vitter.senate.gov/?module=PressRoom/PressItem&ID=419f0956-0443-4291-8a55-90adcdf48483|title=Vitter Offers Amendment to Fund Adam Walsh Act|publisher=David Vitter|access-date=May 1, 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080430231225/http://vitter.senate.gov/?module=PressRoom%2FPressItem&ID=419f0956-0443-4291-8a55-90adcdf48483|archive-date=April 30, 2008}}</ref>

====Children's health insurance program====
In September 2007, Vitter opposed an increase of $35 billion for the [[State Children's Health Insurance Program]] (SCHIP), the national program to provide health care for children from families who earn too much to qualify for [[Medicaid]] but cannot afford private health insurance. He said he preferred that private health insurance provide the needed care and deemed the bill as "Hillarycare", a reference to the [[1993 Clinton health care plan]] created by [[Hillary Clinton]] which proposed [[universal health care]].<ref>{{cite news|date=September 28, 2007|author=Walsh, Bill|url=http://www.nola.com/timespic/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1190962325232900.xml&coll=1|title=Senate OKs child health expansion|newspaper=[[The Times-Picayune]]|access-date=September 29, 2007|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120222153758/http://www.nola.com/timespic/stories/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fnews-2%2F1190962325232900.xml&coll=1|archive-date=February 22, 2012}}</ref>

====Ethics and term limits====
Vitter refused to pledge to a voluntary term limit when running for the U.S. Congress in 1999.  His opponent characterized this stance as hypocritical, and Vitter countered that unless it were universally applied, the loss of seniority would disadvantage his district.<ref name="NYT071408" /><ref>{{cite news  |last=Aynesworth  |first=Hugh  |title=Morality is no issue in race for Livingston's seat; Term limit, Klansman dominate crowded campaign  |pages=C4  |newspaper=[[The Washington Times]]  |date=April 18, 1999}}</ref> As a Senator, he has proposed term limit constitutional amendments for members of Congress three times.<ref>{{cite web|date=January 17, 2007|url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=sj110-2|title=S. J. Res. 2 – 110th Congress (2007): A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States...|publisher=GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation)|access-date=July 15, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=January 17, 2007|url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=sj109-3|title=S. J. Res. 3 – 109th Congress (2005): A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States...|publisher=GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation)|access-date=July 15, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2788|title=S. 2788|access-date=April 29, 2009|author=110th Congress (2008)|date=March 31, 2008|work=Legislation|publisher=GovTrack.us|quote=Pregnant Women Health and Safety Act}}</ref> Vitter eventually decided to retire from the Senate in 2016 after serving two terms.

In 2007, in response to lobbying scandals involving, among others, [[Jack Abramoff]] and [[Duke Cunningham]], Congress passed a [[Honest Leadership and Open Government Act|lobbying and ethics reform package]] to which Vitter proposed a package of five amendments.<ref name="WP091507">{{cite news|date=September 15, 2007|last=Babington|first=Charles|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/15/AR2007091500589.html|title=Bush Signs Lobby-Ethics Bill|agency=Associated Press|access-date=May 9, 2008| newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=January 4, 2007|url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=main&bill=s110-1|title=S. 1 – 110th Congress (2007): Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007|publisher=GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation)|access-date=May 9, 2008}}</ref><ref name="amendments">{{cite web|date=January 4, 2007|url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=amendments&bill=s110-1|title=Amendments to S. 1 – 110th Congress (2007): Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007|publisher=GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation)|access-date=May 9, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=January 4, 2008|url=http://vitter.senate.gov/?module=PressRoom/PressItem&ID=98040c40-4d94-43cb-a56b-768a50da3bee|title=Vitter Introduces Extensive Ethics Reform Package|publisher=David Vitter|access-date=May 9, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080501034445/http://vitter.senate.gov/?module=PressRoom%2FPressItem&ID=98040c40-4d94-43cb-a56b-768a50da3bee|archive-date=May 1, 2008|url-status=dead}}</ref> The Senate approved three that limited which legislators' spouses could lobby the Senate,<ref>{{cite web|date=February 9, 2007|url=http://citizensforethics.org/node/19553|title=Proposed lobbying limits apply to only one senator|publisher=[[Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington]]|access-date=May 9, 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070711230202/http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/19553|archive-date=July 11, 2007}}</ref> created criminal penalties for legislators and [[executive branch]] officials who falsify financial reports,<ref>{{cite web|date=January 10, 2007|url=http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/20272|archive-url=https://archive.today/20071020003128/http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/20272|url-status=dead|archive-date=October 20, 2007|title=Senate cracks down on financial fraud|publisher=[[Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington]]|access-date=May 9, 2008}}</ref> and doubled the penalties for lobbyists who failed to comply with [[Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995|disclosure requirements]].<ref>{{cite web|date=January 10, 2007|url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=110&amdt=s10|title=S.Amdt. 10: To increase the penalty for failure to comply with lobbying...|publisher=GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation)|access-date=May 9, 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080830024822/http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=110&amdt=s10|archive-date=August 30, 2008}}</ref> The Senate rejected prohibiting legislators from paying their families with campaign funds with some saying it was unrelated to the current legislation and others that the payments were not a problem.<ref name="CREW011107">{{cite web|date=January 11, 2007|url=http://citizensforethics.org/node/20247|title=Campaigns Still A Family Affair|publisher=[[Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington]]|access-date=May 9, 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://archive.today/20071020003128/http://citizensforethics.org/node/20247|archive-date=October 20, 2007}}</ref><ref name="GT011007SR" /> Additionally, they [[Table (parliamentary)|tabled]] his proposal to define [[Tribe (Native American)|Indian tribes]] as corporations and its members as [[shareholder]]s so that they are required to contribute to candidates through [[political action committee]]s instead of their tribal treasury.<ref>{{cite web|date=January 10, 2007|url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=110&amdt=s5|title=S.Amdt. 5: To modify the application of the Federal Election Campaign Act of...|publisher=GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation)|access-date=May 9, 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080830024926/http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=110&amdt=s5|archive-date=August 30, 2008}}</ref> Senators objected saying that they are already subjected to campaign laws for [[Unincorporated entity|unincorporated entities]] and individuals and that the proposal was singling them out unfairly.<ref name="GT011007SR">{{cite web|date=January 10, 2007|url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-s20070110-14&person=300065|title=Senate Record: Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007|publisher=GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation)|access-date=May 9, 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080830025020/http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-s20070110-14&person=300065|archive-date=August 30, 2008}}</ref> The reform package became law in September 2007.<ref name="WP091507" />

In 2009, Vitter and Democratic former Senator [[Russ Feingold]] announced an effort to end automatic pay raises for members of Congress.<ref>{{cite web|date= April 14, 2009|last= Feingold|first= Russ|author-link= Russ Feingold |author2=David Vitter|url= http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/14/__congress_does_not_deserve_any_special_treatment_48903.html|title= Congress Does Not Deserve Any Special Treatment|publisher= [[RealClearPolitics]]|access-date= November 4, 2009}}</ref>

====Franken Amendment====
[[File: DVitterOfficial.jpg|thumb|Vitter in 2005]]
In October 2009, the Senate passed Democratic Senator [[Al Franken]]'s amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would forbid federal contractors from forcing victims of [[sexual assault]], [[Battery (tort)|battery]] and discrimination to submit to [[binding arbitration]] (where a third-party typically chosen by the contractor adjudicates) and thereby prohibiting them from going to court.<ref name="MP100609">{{cite web|date= October 6, 2009|last= Dizikes|first= Cynthia|url= http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009/10/06/12247/senate_passes_franken_amendment_aimed_at_defense_contractors|title= Senate passes Franken amendment aimed at defense contractors|publisher= [[MinnPost.com]]|access-date= November 3, 2009|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20091010001712/http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009/10/06/12247/senate_passes_franken_amendment_aimed_at_defense_contractors|archive-date= October 10, 2009|url-status= dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date= October 1, 2009|url= http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SP2588:|title= S.amdt.2588|publisher= [[US Library of Congress]] [[THOMAS]] database|access-date= November 3, 2009|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20101208182258/http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SP2588:|archive-date= December 8, 2010|url-status= dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date= October 1, 2009|pages= S10069–S10070|url= http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S10069&dbname=2009_record|title= SA 2588|publisher= [[Congressional Record]]|access-date= November 3, 2009}}</ref> The impetus for the amendment came from the story of [[Jamie Leigh Jones]] who alleged that she was drugged and [[gang rape|gang-raped]] by employees of [[Halliburton]]/[[KBR (company)|KBR]], a federal contractor.<ref name="MP100609" /><ref name="WP102509" /><ref name="DW110209" />

The amendment passed 68 to 30 with all opposition coming from Republicans including Vitter (all four female Republicans, six other Republicans and all present Democrats voted for passage).<ref name="MP100609" /><ref>{{cite web|date= October 6, 2009|url= http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-308|title= S.Amdt. 2588: To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal... to H.R. 3326: Department of Defense Appropriations... (Vote On Amendment)|publisher= [[Govtrack]].us|access-date= November 3, 2009}}</ref> Vitter's [[United States Senate election in Louisiana, 2010|2010 Democratic Senatorial]] opponent [[Charlie Melancon]] criticized Vitter for his vote saying, "David Vitter has refused to explain why he voted to allow taxpayer-funded companies to sweep rape charges under the rug. We can only guess what his reasons were."<ref name="DW110209">{{cite web|date= November 2, 2009|url= http://www.dailyworld.com/article/20091102/OPINION/911020310|title= A case to make anyone ashamed|publisher= [[Daily World (Opelousas)|Daily World]]|access-date= November 3, 2009}}{{dead link|date=March 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|date= October 26, 2009|last= Fabian|first= Jordan|url= https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/53233-melancon-hits-at-vitters-rape-amendment-vote/|title= Melancon hits at Vitter's rape amendment vote|newspaper= [[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]|access-date= November 3, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|date= October 26, 2009|last= Moller|first= Jan|url= http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/10/melancon_enters_online_campaig.html|archive-url= https://archive.today/20130130074447/http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/10/melancon_enters_online_campaig.html|url-status= dead|archive-date= January 30, 2013|title= Melancon enters online campaign fray|newspaper= [[The Times-Picayune]]|access-date= November 3, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date= October 2009|last= Melancon|first= Charlie|author-link= Charlie Melancon|url= http://action.charliemelancon.com/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=11202|title= Charlie Melancon for Senate|publisher= [[Charlie Melancon]] Campaign Committee, Inc.|access-date= November 3, 2009|archive-date= July 8, 2011|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110708135501/http://action.charliemelancon.com/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=11202|url-status= dead}}</ref> However, ''[[The Washington Post]]'' conservative columnist [[Kathleen Parker]] argued that the 30 senators were being "unfairly smeared for doing the harder thing, maybe even for the right reasons."<ref name="WP102509">{{cite news|date= October 25, 2009|last= Parker|first= Kathleen|author-link= Kathleen Parker|url= https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/23/AR2009102303191.html|title= The 'rape supporter' ploy|newspaper= The Washington Post|access-date= November 3, 2009}}</ref>

Republican senators said they voted against it because it was unenforceable, a position also taken by the [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]] (DOD) and the [[Obama administration]].<ref name="MP100609" /><ref name="WP102509" /><ref name="DW110209" /> However, the DOD and the White House stated they agreed with the intent of the legislation and suggested it would be better if it was broadened to prohibit the use of arbitration in cases of sexual assault for any business contract, not just federal contractors.<ref name="WP102509" /> Senators explained their vote against the legislation by saying it was a political attack on [[Halliburton]] and that the Senate shouldn't regulate contracts.<ref name="WP102509" /> The latter argument is countered with many examples of similar restrictions on contractors such as discrimination, bonuses and health care.<ref name="MP100609" /><ref name="DW110209" /> Others felt it was unconstitutional and that arbitration is useful in resolving disputes, often faster, privately and cheaper.<ref name="MP100609" />

Later, a [[Baton Rouge]] rape survivor confronted Vitter at a [[town hall meeting]] saying, "[it] meant everything to me that I was able to put the person who attacked me behind bars ... How can you support a law that tells a rape victim that she does not have the right to defend herself?" Vitter replied, "The language in question did not say that in any way shape or form."<ref>{{cite news|date= November 4, 2009|last= Shields|first= Gerard|url= http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/69037217.html|title= Survivor of rape confronts Vitter|newspaper= [[The Advocate (Louisiana)]]|access-date= November 5, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|date= November 4, 2009|last= Tilove|first= Jonathan|url= http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/11/sen_david_vitter_defends_vote.html|archive-url= https://archive.today/20130130043606/http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/11/sen_david_vitter_defends_vote.html|url-status= dead|archive-date= January 30, 2013|title= When confronted by rape victim, Vitter defends vote against 'Franken amendment'|newspaper= [[The Times-Picayune]]|access-date= November 5, 2009}}</ref>

====Gambling====
Vitter opposed a bid by the [[Jena Band of Choctaw Indians]] to build a casino in Louisiana, arguing that the build site was not historically part of their tribal lands. He lobbied the [[United States Department of the Interior|Interior Department]] and included language in an appropriations bill to stop the casino. Although the Interior Department gave its approval, the casino has not yet been approved by the state.<ref>{{cite news |first=Schmidt |last=Susan |author-link=Susan Schmidt |title=Casino Bid Prompted High-Stakes Lobbying |newspaper=The Washington Post |page=A01 |date=March 13, 2005 }}</ref> The Jena chief accused Vitter of ties with disgraced lobbyist [[Jack Abramoff]], who simultaneously lobbied against the casino. The chairman of the Senate committee investigating the lobbyist said, "The committee has seen absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Senator Vitter's opposition to (the proposed casino) had to do with anything other than his long-standing opposition to gambling."<ref>{{cite news|date=July 28, 2005|last=Walsh|first=Bill|url=http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/washington/index.ssf?/base/news-1/112253289179960.xml|archive-url=https://archive.today/20050907221410/http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/washington/index.ssf?/base/news-1/112253289179960.xml|archive-date=September 7, 2005|title=McCain defends Vitter as tribe cries foul|newspaper=[[The Times-Picayune]]|access-date=April 21, 2008}}</ref> In 2007 and 2008, Vitter introduced a bill to prohibit Indian casinos such as Jena's. Neither bill became law.<ref>{{cite web|date=April 14, 2008|url=http://www.2theadvocate.com/opinion/17646874.html|title=Our View: Tribal casinos win big bucks|publisher=[[The Advocate (Baton Rouge)]] and [[WBRZ-TV]]|access-date=April 21, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://vitter.senate.gov/?module=PressRoom/PressItem&ID=ff9b744f-cdc5-4b3a-bd56-03830a906218|title=Vitter Introduces Indian Gambling Reform Act|publisher=David Vitter|access-date=April 21, 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080501010613/http://vitter.senate.gov/?module=PressRoom%2FPressItem&ID=ff9b744f-cdc5-4b3a-bd56-03830a906218|archive-date=May 1, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2676|title=S. 2676: A bill to make technical corrections to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and for other purposes|publisher=GovTrack|access-date=April 21, 2008}}</ref>

====Gun rights====
Rated "A" by the [[NRA Political Victory Fund]],<ref>{{cite web |title=NRA-PVF Endorses David Vitter for U.S. Senate |url=https://www.nrapvf.org/articles/20100913/nra-pvf-endorses-david-vitter-for-us-senate |website=nrapvf.org |publisher=NRA-PVF |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140812195847/https://www.nrapvf.org/articles/20100913/nra-pvf-endorses-david-vitter-for-us-senate |archive-date=August 12, 2014 |language=en-us |date=September 13, 2010 |url-status=live}}</ref> Vitter has been a consistent defender of [[Gun politics in the United States|gun rights]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/David_Vitter.htm#Gun_Control|title=David Vitter on the issues|publisher=On The Issues|access-date=February 16, 2008}}</ref> In April 2006, in response to firearm confiscations in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Vitter was the Senate sponsor of the [[Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act]], to prohibit federal funding for the confiscation of legally held firearms during a disaster.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN02599:@@@D&summ2=m&|title=S.AMDT.S.2599|publisher=[[US Library of Congress]] [[THOMAS]] database|date=September 19, 2006|access-date=December 4, 2007|archive-date=October 19, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151019003738/http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN02599:@@@D&summ2=m&|url-status=dead}}</ref> Later, Vitter included the provisions of the act in an amendment to an [[appropriation bill]] for the [[United States Department of Homeland Security|Department Of Homeland Security]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP4615:|title=S.AMDT.4615|publisher=[[US Library of Congress]] [[THOMAS]] database|access-date=December 10, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151019003738/http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP4615:|archive-date=October 19, 2015|url-status=dead}}</ref> The bill became law in September 2006, with the amendment modified to allow for the temporary surrender of a firearm as a condition for entering a rescue or evacuation vehicle.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR05441:@@@R|title=H.R.5441|publisher=[[US Library of Congress]] [[THOMAS]] database|year=2006|access-date=December 4, 2007|archive-date=November 12, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081112122045/http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR05441:@@@R|url-status=dead}}</ref>

On April 17, 2013, Vitter voted against the Toomey-Manchin Gun Control Amendment. The amendment failed to reach the sixty senatorial votes necessary to overcome a Republican-led filibuster. The Toomey-Manchin Gun Control Amendment is a bipartisan deal on gun background checks. Under the proposal, federal background checks would be expanded to include gun shows and online sales. All such sales would be channeled through licensed firearm dealers who would be charged for keeping record of transactions. The proposal does not require background checks for private sales between individuals.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20130419090744/http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/04/senate_rejects_effort_to_expan.html "Senate rejects effort to expand gun background checks; Vitter votes no, Landrieu yes"], Associated Press via ''nola.com'', April 17, 2013.</ref>

In February 2008, Vitter – along with Senators [[Larry Craig]] and [[Mike Crapo]] of [[Idaho]] – blocked the [[Advice and consent|confirmation]] of [[Michael Sullivan (US Attorney)|Michael J. Sullivan]] as head of the [[Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives]] (ATF) saying Sullivan supports "burdensome regulations" on gun owners and dealers and is "overly aggressive" enforcing gun laws. An editorial writer for ''[[The Boston Globe]]'' wrote that Vitter's position was "unreasonable" because the guns Sullivan sought to control are those commonly used in crimes: those stolen or purchased on the black market.<ref>{{cite news|date=February 14, 2008|last=Saltzman|first=Jonathan|url=https://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/14/sullivan_atf_confirmation_blocked/|title=Sullivan ATF confirmation blocked|newspaper=The Boston Globe|access-date=February 16, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|date=February 16, 2008|url=https://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/02/16/held_up_by_gun_lobby_radicals/|title=Held up by gun-lobby radicals|newspaper=The Boston Globe|access-date=February 6, 2008}}</ref> On the other hand, gun rights advocates say that many gun dealers have lost their licenses for harmless bureaucratic errors.<ref>{{cite news|date=February 25, 2008|last=Schmitt|first=Richard B.|url=https://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-atf25feb25,1,4119857.story?ctrack=2&cset=true|title=ATF nominee in the crossfire|newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]]|access-date=February 25, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080414022738/http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-atf25feb25%2C1%2C4119857.story?ctrack=2&cset=true|archive-date=April 14, 2008|url-status=dead}}</ref> Sullivan stayed on as acting head of the ATF until January 2009 to make way for President [[Barack Obama]] to name his own nominee.<ref>{{cite web|date= January 20, 2009|url= http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/US_Attorney_Sullivan_resigns_041509|title= US Attorney Sullivan resigns|publisher= [[WFXT]]|access-date= April 29, 2009}}{{dead link|date=September 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>

====Hurricane Katrina====
[[File:VitterRumsfeld05.jpg|thumb|Senator Vitter discussing relief efforts with Defense Secretary [[Donald Rumsfeld]]]]
In the aftermath of [[Hurricane Katrina]], Vitter and the rest of the Louisiana congressional delegation worked to bring aid to the Gulf Coast region to rebuild broken levees, schools and hospitals, restore coastal wetlands, and provide assistance for its many victims.<ref>{{cite news|date=October 5, 2005|last=Hernandez|first=Raymond|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/05/national/nationalspecial/05rebuild.html|title=Gulf Coast Lawmakers in Spotlight as Aid Requests Pour In|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=April 21, 2008}}</ref>

In early September, Vitter said that he would give "the entire big government organized relief effort a failing grade, across the board." He said that state and local governments shared in the blame as well.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20151019003739/http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9270364/ "Louisiana senior senator turns up heat on Bush: Democrat Landrieu escalates rhetoric against president on Katrina response"], ''Associated Press'', September 11, 2005</ref> Vitter's actions during Hurricane Katrina are described in historian [[Douglas Brinkley]]'s May 2006 book, ''The Great Deluge''.

In September 2007, Vitter announced that he got "a critical concession" from the White House that decreased Louisiana's obligations for hurricane recovery by $1 billion. However, the White House said that was false.<ref name="TP092907">{{cite news|date=September 29, 2007|author=Walsh, Bill|url=http://www.nola.com/elections/index.ssf/2007/09/louisiana_looks_like_a_state_o.html|title=Louisiana looks like a state of denial|newspaper=[[The Times-Picayune]]|access-date=September 29, 2007}}</ref>

====Immigration====
Vitter has been actively involved with legislation concerning [[Illegal immigration to the United States|illegal immigrants]]. In June 2007, he led a group of conservative Senators in blocking the [[Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007|Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act]], a piece of federal legislation that would have granted a pathway to legal residence to 12 million illegal immigrants coupled with increased border enforcement. The bill's defeat won Vitter national attention as the bill was supported by President [[George W. Bush]], [[John McCain]], and [[Ted Kennedy]], among others. Vitter characterized the bill as [[amnesty]], which supporters denied. Bush accused the bill's opponents of [[fear mongering]].<ref>{{cite news|date=June 22, 2007|url=http://blog.nola.com/times-picayune/2007/06/vitter_leads_opposition_to_imm.html|title=Vitter leads opposition to immigration bill|newspaper=[[The Times-Picayune]]|access-date=December 7, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070824163940/http://blog.nola.com/times-picayune/2007/06/vitter_leads_opposition_to_imm.html|archive-date=August 24, 2007|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|date=June 18, 2007|url=http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21150|title=Are Rational Immigration Laws a 'Job American Politicians Won't Do'?|newspaper=[[Human Events]]|access-date=December 7, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080115105213/http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21150|archive-date=January 15, 2008|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|date=May 30, 2007|author=Rutenberg, Jim|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/washington/30immig.html|title=Bush Takes On Conservatives Over Immigration|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=December 7, 2007}}</ref>

In October 2007, Vitter introduced an amendment withholding [[Community Oriented Policing Services]] funds from any [[sanctuary city]] which bans city employees and police officers from asking people about their immigration status in violation of the [[Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996|Illegal Immigration Act]]. Democratic Senator [[Dick Durbin]], in opposition to the amendment, said these cities do not want to inquire about someone's status if they report a crime, are a victim of [[domestic violence]] or get vaccinations for their children. The amendment was defeated.<ref>{{cite news|date=October 16, 2007|url=https://www.foxnews.com/story/plan-to-crack-down-on-sanctuary-cities-killed-in-senate|title=Plan to Crack Down on 'Sanctuary Cities' Killed in Senate|publisher=[[Fox News]]|access-date=October 16, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071017175146/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,302464,00.html|archive-date=October 17, 2007|url-status=live}}</ref>

In November 2007, Vitter introduced a bill requiring banks to verify that no customer was an illegal immigrant before issuing banking or credit cards. The bill never made it out of committee.<ref>{{cite web|date=November 26, 2007|author=Shields, Gerald|url=http://www.2theadvocate.com/opinion/11805796.html|title=Washington Watch for November 26, 2007|publisher=[[The Advocate (Baton Rouge)]] and [[WBRZ-TV]]|access-date=November 26, 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2393|title=S. 2393: A bill to close the loophole that allowed the 9/11 hijackers to obtain credit cards...|publisher=GovTrack.us|access-date=January 15, 2008}}</ref>

In March 2008, Vitter reintroduced the latter two proposals<ref>{{cite web|date=March 5, 2008|url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2713|title=S. 2713 – 110th Congress (2008): A bill to prohibit appropriated funds from being used in contravention of section...|publisher=GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation)|access-date=May 6, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=March 5, 2008|url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2714|title=S. 2714: A bill to close the loophole that allowed the 9/11 hijackers to obtain credit cards...|publisher=GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation)|access-date=May 6, 2008}}</ref> and cosponsored ten of eleven other bills<ref>{{cite web|date=March 6, 2008|url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-s20080306-6&bill=s110-2713|title=Measures Placed on the Calendar|publisher=GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation)|access-date=May 6, 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080830025411/http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-s20080306-6&bill=s110-2713|archive-date=August 30, 2008}}</ref> in a Republican package of tough immigration enforcement measures including jail time for [[Illegal immigration to the United States#Illegal entry|illegal border]] crossing; [[deportation]] for any immigrant (legal or illegal) for a single [[driving while intoxicated]]; declaration of [[National language#United States|English as the official language]] (thereby terminating language assistance at voting booths and federal agencies); additional construction of a [[United States–Mexico barrier|border fence]]; permission for local and state police to enforce immigration laws and penalties for states who issue drivers licenses to illegals. None of these proposals passed, partially because the Democratic-controlled Senate preferred a comprehensive approach which would include a guest-worker program and a path to citizenship for the current population more akin to the package defeated by Vitter in 2007.<ref>{{cite news|date=March 5, 2008 |last=Gaouette |first=Nicole |url=https://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-immig5mar05,1,5849195.story |title=GOP senators to introduce toughest-yet immigration package |newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]] |access-date=May 6, 2008 }}{{dead link|date=May 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref>

In April 2008, Vitter introduced a [[joint resolution]] proposing a [[constitutional amendment]] that a child born in the United States is not a citizen unless a parent is a citizen, lawful [[permanent resident]], or [[Alien (law)|alien]] serving in the military.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h107-482|title=S.J.RES.31 [110th]: RA joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to United States citizenship.|publisher=GovTrack|access-date=April 9, 2008}}</ref> Currently the Constitution [[Citizenship Clause|grants citizenship]] to [[Birthright citizenship in the United States of America|children born within the U.S.]] regardless of the legal status of the parents.<ref>{{cite news|date=March 10, 2007|last=Ho|first=James C.|url=https://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-ho10mar10,1,3646198.story?coll=la-news-comment|title=Can Congress repeal birthright citizenship?|newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]]|access-date=May 5, 2008}}</ref> The bill never made it out of the Democratic-led committee.

==== Louisiana Family Forum earmark ====
{{wikinews|Senator David Vitter to earmark $100,000 for creationist group}}
In September 2007, Vitter [[Earmark (politics)|earmarked]] $100,000 in federal money for a Christian group, the [[Louisiana Family Forum]],<ref name="T-P092207">{{cite news|date=September 22, 2007|author=Walsh, David|url=http://blog.nola.com/times-picayune/2007/09/vitter_earmarked_federal_money.html|title=Vitter earmarked federal money for creationist group|newspaper=[[Times-Picayune]]|access-date=September 24, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071213150447/http://blog.nola.com/times-picayune/2007/09/vitter_earmarked_federal_money.html|archive-date=December 13, 2007|url-status=dead}}</ref> known for challenging [[evolution]] by means of "[[Teach the Controversy|teaching the controversy]]" which promotes [[intelligent design]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lafamilyforum.org/explore.cfm/forumnotes/originsscience |title=Origins Science |publisher=[[Louisiana Family Forum]] |access-date=November 10, 2007 }}{{dead link|date=May 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> According to Vitter, the earmark was "to develop a plan to promote better science education".<ref name="T-P092207" /> ''[[The Times-Picayune]]'' alleged the group had close ties with Vitter.<ref name="T-P092207" /> However, they have criticized Vitter for his support of [[Rudy Giuliani]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lafamilyforum.us/FFarchives/v9i11.htm |title=Vitter Sends Shockwaves |publisher=[[Louisiana Family Forum]] |access-date=November 10, 2007 }}{{dead link|date=May 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref>

On October 17, 2007, the liberal organization [[People For the American Way]], along with several other groups asked the Senate to remove the earmark.<ref>{{cite web|date=October 17, 2007|url=http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1017-09.htm|title=Groups Ask Senate To Remove Earmark Promoting Creationism From Spending Bill|publisher=[[Common Dreams NewsCenter]]|access-date=October 17, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071020062637/http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1017-09.htm|archive-date=October 20, 2007|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=October 17, 2007 |url=http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=24825 |archive-url=http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20080828095118/http%3A//site.pfaw.org/site/PageServer?pagename%3Dhomepagenew |url-status=dead |archive-date=August 28, 2008 |title=Earmark for Anti-Science Creationist Group Must Be Removed |publisher=[[People For the American Way]] |access-date=October 17, 2007 }}</ref> Vitter later withdrew it.<ref>{{cite news|date=October 19, 2007|author=Walsh, Bill|url=http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-9/1192776477212740.xml&coll=1|title=Vitter shifts $100,000 from religious group|newspaper=[[The Times-Picayune]]|access-date=November 2, 2007|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071026171714/http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fnews-9%2F1192776477212740.xml&coll=1|archive-date=October 26, 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=October 18, 2007|url=http://ncse.com/news/2007/10/vitter-earmark-withdrawn-001311|title=Vitter earmark withdrawn|publisher=[[National Center for Science Education]]|access-date=November 18, 2009}}</ref>

====Military====
In May 2008, Vitter voted with the majority, despite the opposition of Bush and other Republicans, for the passage of the [[Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008]] to expand educational benefits for veterans similar to the level provided for returning [[World War II]] veterans in the [[G.I. Bill]].<ref>{{cite web|last=Lerman|first=David|url=http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-now-webbgi.m22,0,5797943.story|title=Senate approves Jim Webb's new GI Bill|publisher=[[Daily Press (Virginia)|Daily Press]]|access-date=May 22, 2008}}{{Dead link|date=September 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|date=May 22, 2008|url=https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-Congress-Iraq-Funding.html|title=Senate Passes Iraq War Funding Bill|agency=Associated Press|access-date=May 22, 2008| work=The New York Times}} {{Dead link|date=August 2010|bot=RjwilmsiBot}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=May 22, 2008|url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00137|title=Vote Summary|publisher=[[United States Senate]]|access-date=May 22, 2008}}</ref>

====Network neutrality====
Vitter was one of six senate Republicans to propose an amendment to a bill which would stop the [[Federal Communications Commission]] (FCC) from enforcing [[network neutrality]] which they allege is a violation of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/50766-amendment-would-block-fcc-regulation-of-net-neutrality/ |title=Amendment would block FCC regulation of net neutrality |first=Tony |last=Romm |date=September 22, 2009|access-date=September 22, 2009}}</ref>

==== New Orleans public housing ====
In September 2007, ''[[The Times-Picayune]]'' reported that Vitter and the [[Presidency of George W. Bush|Bush administration]] opposed a provision of The Gulf Coast Housing Recovery bill which required that every public housing apartment torn down be replaced with another form of low-income housing on a one-for-one basis. The administration testified that there was not sufficient demand for public housing units, a position contested by several senators. Vitter stated it would recreate "housing projects exactly as they were", isolated and riddled with crime. However, [[Mary Landrieu]], the Louisiana Democratic Senator, said the intent was to make certain there were affordable places for working-class people who returned. The bill requires that demolished housing projects be replaced with mixed income communities which local housing advocates say is different from the massive public housing developments that Vitter is referring to. However, the bill does not include a ban on large-scale projects.<ref>{{cite news|date=September 26, 2007|author=Walsh, Bill|url=http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/washington/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1190786785155740.xml&coll=1|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071017202201/http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/washington/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fnews-2%2F1190786785155740.xml&coll=1|url-status=dead|archive-date=October 17, 2007|title=Feds oppose full replacement of N.O. public housing units|newspaper=[[The Times-Picayune]]|access-date=September 27, 2007}}</ref><ref name="NOCB120307">{{cite web|date=December 3, 2007|author=Webster, Richard A.|url=http://www.neworleanscitybusiness.com/viewStory.cfm?recID=24990|title=Razing a ruckus|publisher=New Orleans City Business|access-date=December 3, 2007 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071211162750/http://www.neworleanscitybusiness.com/viewStory.cfm?recID=24990 |archive-date = December 11, 2007}}</ref> The [[Housing Authority of New Orleans|city housing authority]] is planning on replacing 4,000 low-income units with mixed-income projects providing a smaller inventory of low-income units.<ref>{{cite news|date=December 3, 2007|author=Saluny, Susan|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/us/nationalspecial/03renters.html?pagewanted=1|title=New Orleans Hurt by Acute Rental Shortage|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=December 3, 2007}}</ref> In December 2007, Vitter prevented the bill from leaving the committee.<ref name="NOCB120307" />

====Obama nominations====
Vitter and [[Jim DeMint]] were the only two Senators that voted against [[Hillary Clinton]]'s [[Advice and consent|confirmation]] for the position of [[United States Secretary of State|Secretary of State]] under the new [[Obama administration]], on January 21, 2009.<ref>{{cite news|date= January 21, 2009|url= https://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-01-21-clintonconfirmation_N.htm|title= Senate confirms Clinton as secretary of State|agency= Associated Press|access-date= April 29, 2009|work= USA Today|url-status= dead|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090505174449/http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-01-21-clintonconfirmation_N.htm|archive-date= May 5, 2009}}</ref>

He blocked President Obama's nominee for the new [[Federal Emergency Management Agency]] (FEMA) administrator until he received a written commitment on flood control issues from the nominee and FEMA. ''[[The New York Times]]'', along with some Republican Senators, criticized Vitter for what it characterized as political posturing, given that the hurricane season was quickly approaching. He lifted his hold on May 12, 2009.<ref>{{cite news|date= May 9, 2009|url= https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/opinion/10sun4.html?_r=1&ref=opinion|title= Doin' a Heck of a Job, Senator|newspaper= The New York Times|access-date= May 14, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|date= May 13, 2009 |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/us/politics/13brfs-SENATORTOSTO_BRF.html|title= Senator to Stop Blocking Choice to Head FEMA |agency= Associated Press|access-date= May 14, 2009| work=The New York Times}}</ref>

====Affordable Care Act====
Vitter opposed President Barack Obama's health reform legislation; he voted against the [[Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act]] in December 2009,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00396|title=U.S. Senate: Roll Call Vote|date=January 27, 2015|work=senate.gov}}</ref> and he voted against the [[Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00105 |title=U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home &gt; Votes &gt; Roll Call Vote |publisher=Senate.gov |access-date=August 29, 2010}}</ref>

====Same-sex marriage====
Vitter opposes both same-sex marriage and civil unions. In June 2006, he said "I don't believe there's any issue that's more important than this one ... I think this debate is very healthy, and it's winning a lot of hearts and minds. I think we're going to show real progress."<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/06/same.sex.marriage/ "Senate set to reject gay marriage ban: Backers see 'important debate'; critics blast effort to 'misdirect'"], ''CNN'', June 7, 2006</ref> In 2006, he told ''[[The Times-Picayune]]'', "I'm a conservative who opposes radically redefining marriage, the most important social institution in human history."<ref name="NYT071107">{{cite news|date=July 11, 2007|author=Norrister, Adam|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/us/11vitter.html|title=A Senator's Moral High Ground Gets a Little Shaky|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=July 10, 2007}}</ref>

In October 2005, at a [[Lafayette Parish]] Republican Executive Committee luncheon, Vitter compared gay marriage to hurricanes [[Hurricane Katrina|Katrina]] and [[Hurricane Rita|Rita]], which came through the same geographical areas. Vitter said "It's the crossroads where Katrina meets Rita. I always knew I was against same-sex unions."<ref>{{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20051217104511/http://gayapolis.com/news/artdisplay.php?artid=535 "Louisiana Senator Compares Hurricanes to Gay Marriage"]}}, gayapolis.com, ''News'', posted October 18, 2005. Retrieved July 10, 2007.</ref>

====School board prayer====
In 2005 Vitter introduced a resolution supporting prayer at [[Board of education|school board]] meetings in response to an earlier [[United States district court|district court]] decision that the Louisiana's [[Tangipahoa Parish]] practice of opening meetings with Christian prayers was [[unconstitutional]]. The bill died in [[United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions|committee]] after receiving little support from colleagues on both sides of the aisle.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=sr109-132|title=S. Res. 132 (109th): A resolution expressing support for prayer at school board meetings|publisher=GovTrack.us|access-date=January 16, 2008}}</ref><ref name="advocate012007">{{cite news|date=January 20, 2007|author=Mitchell, David J.|url=https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/theadvocate/access/1198586681.html?dids=1198586681:1198586681&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Jan+20%2C+2007&author=DAVID+J.+MITCHELL&pub=Advocate&edition=&startpage=3&desc=Prayer+decision+appealed+***+Tangipahoa+parties+say+ruling+unclear|title=Tangipahoa parties say ruling unclear|newspaper=[[The Advocate (Baton Rouge)]]|access-date=January 16, 2008}}{{dead link|date=July 2024|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}} [http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2007/01/courts_motion_t.html Alt URL] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080103222038/http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2007/01/courts_motion_t.html |date=January 3, 2008 }}</ref> Vitter later reintroduced the resolution in January 2007 after a [[Judicial panel|panel]] of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|Fifth Circuit Court]] concluded that Christian prayers were unconstitutional but was undecided whether [[nonsectarian]] prayers were allowed. In July 2007, the full Fifth Circuit dismissed the case because of a lack of [[Standing (law)|standing]]. The school board subsequently resumed prayer evocations but opened it to diverse community religions. Vitter's bill died in committee.<ref name="advocate012007" /><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=main&bill=sr110-35|title=S. Res. 35: A resolution expressing support for prayer at school board meetings|publisher=GovTrack.us|access-date=January 16, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=December 2006|url=http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&CID=468&DID=39876|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110101191204/http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&CID=468&DID=39876|url-status=dead|archive-date=January 1, 2011|title=Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd., No. 05-30294 (5th Cir. Dec. 15, 2006)|publisher=[[National School Boards Association]]|access-date=January 16, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|date=August 22, 2007|author=Mitchell, David J.|url=https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/theadvocate/access/1324471571.html?dids=1324471571:1324471571&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Aug+22%2C+2007&author=DAVID+J.+MITCHELL&pub=Advocate&edition=&startpage=1&desc=Tangipahoa+board+OKs+prayer+policy|title=Tangipahoa board OKs prayer policy|newspaper=[[The Advocate (Baton Rouge)]]|access-date=January 16, 2008}}{{dead link|date=July 2024|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}} [http://melissarogers.typepad.com/melissa_rogers/2007/08/the-tangipahoa-.html Alt URL]</ref>

====Tea Party movement====
In recognition of the [[Tea Party protests]] opposing President [[Barack Obama]]'s policies, Vitter proposed Senate Resolution 98, which would designate April 15 in years both 2009 and 2010 as "National TEA Party Day". As of April 2009, the bill has no cosponsors and has been referred to the [[United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary|Committee on the Judiciary]] with no scheduled action.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=sr111-98|title=S. Res. 98|access-date=May 19, 2009|author=111th Congress (2009)|date=April 2, 2009|work=Legislation|publisher=GovTrack.us|quote=A resolution designating each of April 15, 2009, and April 15, 2010, as "National TEA Party Day"}}</ref>

In September 2010, Vitter signed a candidate pledge from the North Central Louisiana TEA Party Patriots.  It included a promise to "Conduct myself personally and professionally in a moral and socially appropriate manner."<ref>{{Cite web| last = Beutler| first = Brian| title = Vitter Pledge To Tea Party: 'I Will Conduct Myself...In A Morally And Socially Appropriate Manner'| publisher = [[Talking Points Memo]]| date = September 16, 2010| url = http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/vitter-pledge-to-tea-party-i-will-conduct-myselfin-a-morally-and-socially-appropriate-manner.php|access-date = September 24, 2010}}</ref>

====United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea====
In September 2007, during hearings of the [[Senate Foreign Relations Committee]], Vitter expressed serious doubts about the [[United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea]] treaty concerning issues of U.S. [[sovereignty]]<ref name="WT">{{cite news|date=September 28, 2007|author=Sands, David R.|url=http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070928/FOREIGN/109280058/1003|title=White House pushes sea treaty|newspaper=[[The Washington Times]]|access-date=September 28, 2007}}</ref> echoing an array of conservative groups against the treaty<ref name="WT" /><ref>{{cite web|date=May 16, 2004|url=http://lugar.senate.gov/sfrc/opeds.html|title=Pass the sea treaty|publisher=[[Omaha World Herald]]|access-date=September 28, 2007 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070926212224/http://lugar.senate.gov/sfrc/opeds.html |archive-date = September 26, 2007}}</ref> including the [[National Center for Public Policy Research]],<ref>{{cite web|date=August 2006|author=Ridenour, David A.|url=http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA542LawoftheSeaTreaty.html|title=Ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty: A Not-So-Innocent Passage|publisher=[[National Center for Public Policy Research]]|access-date=September 28, 2007|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927223935/http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA542LawoftheSeaTreaty.html|archive-date=September 27, 2007}}</ref> [[The Heritage Foundation]]<ref>{{cite web|date=September 25, 2007|author=Spring, Baker and Steven Groves and Brett D. Schaefer|url=http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm1638.cfm|title=The Top Five Reasons Why Conservatives Should Oppose the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea|publisher=[[The Heritage Foundation]]|access-date=September 28, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071015215023/http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm1638.cfm|archive-date=October 15, 2007|url-status=unfit}}</ref>  and the [[Center for Security Policy]].<ref>{{cite magazine|date=May 18, 2004|author1=Gaffney Jr. |author2=Frank J. |url=http://www.nationalreview.com/gaffney/gaffney200403181156.asp|title=Don't Get LOST|magazine=[[National Review]] Online|access-date=September 28, 2007|author-link=Frank Gaffney}}</ref> The treaty, which sets up countries' jurisdiction over their coasts and ocean including exploration and navigation rights,<ref>{{cite web|date=September 24, 2007|author=Scally, William|url=http://public.cq.com/docs/gs/greensheets110-000002591199.html|title=Law of Sea Treaty Revived With Senate Hearings|publisher=[[Congressional Quarterly]]|access-date=September 28, 2007|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071013195905/http://public.cq.com/docs/gs/greensheets110-000002591199.html|archive-date=October 13, 2007}}</ref> was supported by the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] administration, a majority of the United States Senate, the [[United States Department of Defense|Pentagon]], the [[United States Department of State|State Department]] and [[United States Navy|Navy]]<ref>{{cite web|date=June 6, 2007|author=Kraus, Don|url=http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4286|title=Time to Ratify the Law of the Sea|publisher=[[Institute for Policy Studies]]|access-date=September 28, 2007|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070926221151/http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4286|archive-date=September 26, 2007}}</ref> as do a coalition of business and environmental groups.<ref>{{cite news|date=September 27, 2007 |url=http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpsea275391172sep27,0,1614204.story |archive-url=https://archive.today/20070703224103/http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpsea275391172sep27,0,1614204.story |url-status=dead |archive-date=July 3, 2007 |title=Editorial: U.S. should join Law of the Sea alliance |newspaper=[[Newsday]] |access-date=September 28, 2007 }}</ref> The committee approved the treaty 17–4, with Vitter voting no.<ref>{{cite news|date=November 1, 2007|author=Dinan, Stephen|url=http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071101/NATION/111010044/1001|title=Senate panel OKs sea treaty, but fight looms|newspaper=[[The Washington Times]]|access-date=November 2, 2007}}</ref>

==== Water Resources and Development Act ====
Vitter helped write the Water Resources and Development Act for flood-control, hurricane-protection and coastal-restoration projects including $3.6 billion for Louisiana. He called it the "single most important" legislation for assisting Louisiana with its recovery from hurricane Katrina. President [[George W. Bush]] vetoed the act, objecting to its cost.<ref>{{cite web|date=September 27, 2007|url=http://www.2theadvocate.com/opinion/10059676.html|title=Our Views: State needs flood projects|publisher=[[The Advocate (Baton Rouge)]] and [[WBRZ-TV]]|access-date=September 27, 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|date=September 27, 2007 |url=http://www.theadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070927/OPINION01/709270329/1014/OPINION |archive-url=https://archive.today/20070716173537/http://www.theadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070927/OPINION01/709270329/1014/OPINION |url-status=dead |archive-date=July 16, 2007 |title=Federal water bill critical to state |newspaper=The Daily Advertiser |access-date=September 27, 2007 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|date=November 2, 2007 |author=Alpert, Bruce |url=http://blog.nola.com/times-picayune/2007/11/bush_vetoes_massive_water_bill.html |title=Bush vetoes massive water resources bill |newspaper=[[The Times-Picayune]] |access-date=November 2, 2007 }}{{dead link|date=May 2016|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> Congress overrode his veto, enacting the bill.<ref>{{cite news|date=November 8, 2007|url=https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Congress-Veto.html?hp|title=Senate Overrides Bush Veto on Water Bill|agency=Associated Press|access-date=November 8, 2007| work=The New York Times}} {{Dead link|date=August 2010|bot=RjwilmsiBot}}</ref>