Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge Tara Bounds and Phyllis Mitchell, a mother-daughter team that fought adversity and brought home a Gold and Bronze Medal from the 2007 World Games Special Olympics in Shanghai, China. I would like to take a few moments to discuss their tireless efforts to bring Team USA success.

Tara Bounds, a 25-year-old Ball, LA, resident, was diagnosed with Down's syndrome at birth. She began competing in the Special Olympics at age 8. However, it is only by miracle that Tara could even compete athletically. She also has a congenital heart defect and needed two surgeries before the age of 5 in order to live. Phyllis Mitchell coached Bounds along to help her win the Gold Medal in the softball throw and the Bronze Medal in the 50-meter run.

The World Games were held from October 2 to October 11, 2007, with over 7,000 athletes participating from 110 countries. Tara persevered past three competitions: the area competition, the State competition in Hammond, LA, and the national competition in Iowa. In order to continue, you must win at least one Gold Medal in the State and national competition. However, Tara almost did not make it due to monetary reasons, but she held fundraisers, and the people of Louisiana chipped in to send her to the World Olympics.

In order to practice, Tara ran at two local high schools, Pineville and Tioga. She also set up a target in her back yard to prepare for the softball toss. Tara ended up with a distance of 16.94 meters to win gold in the softball toss and ran the 50-meter run in 11.68 seconds to win bronze.

Tara continues to strive for excellence and hopes to participate in the 2011 Special Olympics in Athens, Greece. We should all aspire to follow her example. Today, I congratulate Tara Bounds and Phyllis Mitchell for their victory, and I wish them continued success.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Eric Reither from Senator Ensign's office be granted floor privileges for the duration of the debate on H.R. 3221.

Mr. President, I have no objection to this study amendment. I will support it. I will be happy to support it by voice vote.

For the record, I would like to correct two things. First, I do not support any sanctuary city program. What my amendment does, which is coming up, would be to say that sanctuary cities, which defy Federal law, are going to have to pay some consequence for going completely contrary to Federal law. Do you believe there should be some appropriate consequence for defying Federal immigration law?

With regard to that amendment, I hope to get bipartisan support.

I yield back.

Parliamentary inquiry. We were in the middle of a vote. Is it possible to curtail the vote while we were in the middle of a vote and suggest the absence of a quorum?

This is a vote on which amendment?

I call up the Vitter sanctuary city amendment.

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

Mr. President, I was happy to support that study amendment. But this is the meat of the issue. There are so-called sanctuary cities all across the country which establish, as an official policy of their jurisdiction, an official action by vote of the council: We are not going to cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement officials. That is wrong. What is more, it is completely contrary to Federal immigration law.

My amendment says: We are going to put some consequence to that defiance of Federal law. We are not going to give them COPS funds. We are going to send those funds, instead, to all of those other jurisdictions which abide by Federal law.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. President, if folks feel that way, they should come to Congress and change Federal law, not simply defy Federal law. This is another amnesty vote. Are we going to give folks in sanctuary cities amnesty for defying Federal law and refusing to cooperate, as Federal law demands, with Federal immigration officials?

Parliamentary inquiry: Is that motion in order even though you have already asked for the yeas and nays?

Reserving the right to object because I have no idea off the top of my head what all of those are, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, point of clarification. If an amendment is not on that list, is it cut off for the evening?

I object.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: Is that a unanimous consent request to accept those amendments, because if it is, I object and would request a vote on 4299.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4299.

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

Mr. President, this is about reimportation. There is a clear majority in the Congress to pass reimportation legislation. I think there is a clear 60-vote majority in the Senate to do so. So why aren't we getting on with that business? Let's do it. This simply says we should take up a full-blown reimportation bill, with all the necessary safety provisions, and have that debate and vote on the floor of the Senate this year. It is as simple as that. We have the votes. Let's do that.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator's comments. I only add my final comments that I was here Tuesday morning with this amendment, ready to briefly talk about this amendment and get a vote on the Senate rules on this amendment. For 48 hours, we did nothing in terms of votes.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Madam President, I rise today to join several of my colleagues to continue to focus on the enormous problem facing our country of illegal immigration. I am proud to not only rise with these colleagues, some of whom have been on the floor this morning, but also to actively work with them on important enforcement and other measures that we can and must push forward this year to make significant improvements, to take significant strides in moving forward to solve the problem.

Yesterday, I announced, along with others, two things--first of all, the formation of a brand-new caucus in the Senate, which I organized. I am proud to say that now I believe the number is 12 Members have joined the caucus. It is the Border Security and Enforcement First Caucus. The purpose behind the group is exactly as the name implies: to push border security and enforcement first as the key, necessary first step in solving this enormous problem.

We have tried the other approach over and over for decades, and that is the so-called comprehensive approach. All that has yielded is gaps of time--3 to 5 years--and then there is a comprehensive approach that was tried and completely rejected by the American people. That approach has only led to failure because it doesn't jibe with what the American people know is the right approach, which is taking this in steps and starting with crucial enforcement, proving to them that Washington is going to do what it has never done before--have the political will and get real about enforcement.

Most recently, of course, the American people rejected that approach last July when they chimed in and had the Senate view its will to kill that last so-called comprehensive bill--a large amnesty bill with which they disagreed vehemently. So this is a new approach that can lead to progress, achievement, and success--enforcement first.

Also, yesterday a broad group of Senators introduced a package of bills that moves us in that direction. I have two bills in that package, which I will briefly mention.

The first bill would say that so-called sanctuary cities--local jurisdictions that set as official policy that they are not going to cooperate in any way with immigration enforcement and with our Federal immigration enforcement officials--will not get COPS funding. Instead, that COPS funding will go to the rest of the local jurisdictions in the country who do work with us in immigration enforcement.

The second amendment simply says that matricula consular cards issued by the Mexican Government to their citizens in this country-- oftentimes, their citizens who are here illegally cannot be accepted by U.S. banks, to allow them to do things like open bank accounts and have credit cards. That is clearly a vehicle that is used now by millions of illegal aliens, allowing them to operate freely and effectively in this country. It should end for many reasons, security reasons and for enforcement reasons. My bill would do that.

Again, I am proud to join with a number of Senators in this important push toward enforcement first and the formation of our new caucus, the Border Security and Enforcement First Caucus, and in introducing this important package of bills, which we can move and pass this year.

I urge all of my colleagues to reject and defy the conventional wisdom that we cannot do significant things in a big election year. We can and we must because we face significant challenges, and certainly illegal immigration is near the top of that list.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise again today in strong support of my amendment No. 4097. My amendment is very simple and very straightforward and, in fact, it conforms to present law, as well as to provisions in the House bill, with regard to the awarding of reasonable costs and attorney's fees.

My amendment simply says that a judge can award reasonable costs and attorney's fees from the loser to the winner no matter which side wins and loses. So if an attorney general brings an action and prevails on that consumer product safety action, then it is in the judge's discretion to award costs and attorney's fees from the losing private party to the attorney general. But fairly, if the opposite happens, if the private party is vindicated, if the private party goes through this litigation, which is always significant, lengthy, and costly, and wins and is vindicated, then it is also within the discretion of the judge-- it is not mandatory--it is within the discretion of the judge that the private party be awarded reasonable costs and attorney's fees from the losing side; in that case, the attorney general.

That, again, is essentially present law. It can go in either direction. It is up to the court. The words are a little different, but that is essentially the policy embodied by the House bill. I think that is even and that is fair. That does not create an undue push in either direction.

Unfortunately, the underlying bill, the bill before the Senate is very different. It says that only the attorney general in prevailing can get reasonable costs and attorney's fees. The private party, even if it goes through very lengthy, very protracted, and very expensive litigation and is completely vindicated, can never get reasonable costs and attorney's fees, even if the judge thinks that is appropriate.

I think that is wrong. I think it is imbalanced and unfair. It is very important that we act to promote consumer safety. It is very important that we pass some of the measures in this bill and many of the measures in the House bill which I supported as an alternative. In doing that, we need to not make certain problems worse, and one of the problems that has existed is a clog of activity before the Consumer Product Safety Commission and also in the courts.

I feel this underlying provision in the Senate bill, which is all in one direction, could make that clog worse, could

encourage lawsuits which are not thought through, and could encourage frivolous lawsuits. That adds to the workload of the courts and potentially the Consumer Product Safety Commission. We want to encourage lawsuits which are needed--not frivolous ones, ones which are fully thought through. The Vitter amendment will establish the even playing field that will encourage that rather than encourage lawsuits which have very dubious merits and could be frivolous.

It is very reasonable, common sense to say that we are going to leave this all up to the discretion of the court, nothing is mandatory, but the court can award reasonable costs and attorney's fees to either side that prevails and not only in one direction, so that a private party who is completely vindicated after a long, expensive, and protracted litigation, can never, even if the judge thinks it is appropriate, be awarded reasonable costs and attorney's fees.

I urge all of my colleagues to accept this very reasonable approach, the policy of which is embodied in both present law and the House bill, and reject creating the imbalance which I think would only clog our system with lawsuits of very questionable merit.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, since I have yielded back my time, to have 30 additional seconds to clarify my point, and then I will ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have one very quick point of clarification. My amendment does not mandate that the loser pays in every case. That would be a significant departure from tradition in American law. My amendment does not do that. My amendment gives the judge discretion to decide if the loser pays, only in both directions, not just in favor of the direction of the attorney general, as the underlying bill does. That is a very simple clarification. It is not a mandatory ``loser pays'' rule.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I address the Senate today to announce the organization of a new caucus: the Border Security and Enforcement First Caucus. I am very proud to be joined today by several Members in this endeavor; specifically, Senators DeMint, Sessions, Inhofe, Burr, Dole, Chambliss, Isakson, and Wicker. In the next few days, or in a week or so, we will have additional Members join, I am confident, based on a number of meetings and conversations I have had. So, again, I am happy to announce this important caucus to further the debate about a pressing national challenge. Our point of view and our focus is clear: border security and enforcement first.

Why join this caucus? Why form this caucus? Well, clearly, this problem is a major challenge for the country. Right now, 1 in 25 U.S. residents is here illegally. It is staggering when you think about it: 1 in 25, or 4 percent. The American people have voiced their enormous concern about this en masse, large-scale problem. They have also voiced their clear concern about some of the proposals put forward in Washington to allegedly solve the problem. One of those was shot down very clearly, very soundly last summer, and that is a solution that leads with a big, broad amnesty program.

I believe this debate moved forward last summer because we defeated soundly on the Senate floor that approach because the American people were finally heard loudly and clearly. I believe the message was unmistakable, beyond debate: We don't want a big, broad amnesty; we do want enforcement first. We want enforcement first. This caucus will basically follow that lead of the American people and continue to push the viewpoint and specific, concrete legislation that puts enforcement first, both at the border and at the workplace, as the way to begin to solve this enormous illegal immigration challenge.

So, first, our goal is simple: to push for border security and interior enforcement measures first, including workplace enforcement. That can be a main part of addressing this challenge and solving this problem. This caucus will be a platform to let Americans know that some in the Senate--a significant number--are continuing to make sure laws already on the books will be enforced and to push for stronger border security and interior enforcement legislation, and the funding, the mechanisms, and the systems we need in place to make that work. This caucus will act as a voice for those concerned citizens who have expressed that viewpoint--as I said, most clearly last July.

Another big point this caucus will help make over and over is a simple message: attrition through enforcement. In this immigration debate, I believe it has been a stale debate dominated by a straw man. That is the false choice that either we have to grant a huge amnesty to folks in this country illegally or we have to turn around the next day and have the law enforcement and resources to arrest, as some people put it, 13 million people. That is the false choice that is so often harped on

and presented on the Senate floor. That is a false choice.

There is a third way, and that is attrition through enforcement or whittling down in a significant way this 13 million plus figure to something much smaller, much more manageable, through real enforcement measures, not only at the border which, of course, is necessary to make sure the numbers don't go up and up, but in the interior, specifically at the workplace.

According to a recent Zogby poll, when given the choice between mass deportations, mass amnesty, and the third way, attrition through enforcement, a majority of Americans clearly choose attrition through enforcement. Of course, most polls leave out that option. Most polls promote the false choice. Most debate, quite frankly, on the Senate floor promotes the false choice, but it is false. There is this real alternative.

How do we get there? Two main ways: border security--the good news there is we have begun to make inroads, spending $3 billion on significant new border security in the last appropriations cycle, and that was positive follow-on to the defeat of the amnesty bill last summer. But there is also a second key ingredient, a second key ingredient that has been largely ignored and not addressed in this effort, and that is interior enforcement, particularly at the workplace.

In my opinion, that is the missing link, the missing piece of the puzzle to make all of this begin to come together. Border security is crucial. We have done significant work there. We need to do much more. But interior enforcement and enforcement at the workplace is at least as crucial. We need to have a real system that works for that security--a real-time database, not a system based on paper documents which can so easily be forged--to ensure that companies only hire folks in this country legally. When we have that system in place, that will change the dynamics overnight. That will begin this process of attrition through enforcement. That will bring that 13 million plus number down significantly, if we truly have the political will to produce a system, a real-time database, a nonpaper system to ensure that employers only hire folks in this country who are here legally. If they do otherwise, then, of course, they should be hit with significant criminal penalties.

So, again, I am proud to announce the organization of this new caucus: the Border Security and Enforcement First Caucus. My colleagues will be hearing a lot more from us in the coming days and months as we repeat the message delivered by the American people last summer so loudly, so clearly: We don't want amnesty. We do want enforcement first, including workplace enforcement, including interior enforcement that can lead to attrition through enforcement. Hopefully, we can begin to get our hands around this very crippling, potentially debilitating problem of illegal immigration.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and to call up my amendment, No. 4097.

Yes. Mr. President, I wish to modify my unanimous consent request to include that.

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

Mr. President, the amendment is simple and straightforward. It establishes a ``loser pays'' rule for actions by attorneys general under the law. It doesn't make it mandatory, it makes it discretionary, or up to the court. But the court would be allowed to award costs and attorney's fees from the losing party to be paid by the losing party to the winning party. I think that is fair and reasonable. That essentially is the present law. It is also essentially the sort of provision that is in the House bill.

In the Senate bill, the availability of fees and costs and attorney's fees is only available to the winner, if the winner is the attorney general. If the attorney general loses in those suits, if the private party prevails, the private party cannot get those costs and attorney's fees. I think that is unfair. Perhaps more important than it being unfair, I think it creates an imbalance that might encourage clogging the system, clogging the courts--perhaps most important, clogging the workload of the Consumer Product Safety Commission with unnecessary lawsuits that are not fully thought through. I think this reasonable provision--loser pays, whoever the loser is, up to the discretion of the courts, not mandatory, simply allowable, if the court decides--is the fair and balanced approach.

In offering this, let me make clear that we need to do more to increase product safety. This bill does many good things in that regard. The House bill does many good things in that regard. I support that move. But as we do that, I don't want to create an imbalance or actually clog up the system, whether it is the court system or the CPSC workload, clog it up with unnecessary, perhaps frivolous, suits and litigation, and prevent us from getting to that goal.

We should make sure we don't overburden the Consumer Product Safety Commission. One of the problems we have now that this bill and the House bill attempts to address is that of overburdening an inadequate staff and resources. So we need to make sure that as we fix those problems with one hand, we don't use the other hand to make them worse by creating incentives to increase the workload unnecessarily with lawsuits that are not thought through and that are frivolous.

Again, I look forward to supporting and promoting greater consumer safety. I supported the amendment on the floor recently that embodied the House bill, because I think the House bill does that in a substantial way, without having some of the shortcomings--including this one--of the Senate bill. We do need to do more. One thing we don't need to do is create more lawsuits than actually accomplish the objective of safety or to encourage lawsuits that are not thought through, to encourage actions that can be frivolous. This is a reasonable, balanced way to prevent that.

In closing, let me be clear that this doesn't mandate ``loser pays'' in every case. This says to the court that you can award costs and attorney's fees from the loser to the winner in whatever direction that works, no matter who the winners and losers are, but it is not mandatory. That is broadly consistent with present law and broadly consistent with the House bill, which I believe is a fairer, more balanced approach, which will avoid clogging up the system yet again, even as we try to give the system more resources.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this mainstream amendment. The Vitter amendment codifies the Hyde amendment and simply says in Indian health care no taxpayer funds will be used to support abortions, with the normal exceptions of the Hyde amendment.

Up to now, this has been the practice and the law, but only because the Indian health care law points to whatever the current appropriations language is on the subject in Labor, Health, and Education. And so it is a very tenuous policy that is subject to change and a vote and a change in policy every year.

This amendment will solidify that policy. It will put the Hyde amendment in permanent Federal authorization law with regard to the Indian health care act, just as was done decades ago in the Defense authorization bill. It is a solid mainstream amendment, and I urge support from both sides of the aisle.

I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds.

Mr. President, I do this to ask the distinguished Senator about the provision he is talking about. Maybe we can have a discussion about it rather than him vaguely alluding to it without pointing out the language and claiming nobody knows what it means.

Reclaiming my remaining time, that was language I pointed out to the distinguished Senator 3 weeks ago when I introduced my amendment and we discussed it. So I think it is a little disingenuous to bring it up at this point.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for 15 minutes as in morning business and to yield some of that time to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania who joins me on the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor with welcome support of the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, who serves so ably on the Judiciary Committee, to talk about the pending nomination of David Dugas to fill a vacancy in the Middle District of Louisiana.

This is a vacancy that has existed for over a year, and, in fact, coming up very soon in March will unfortunately, if we do not act before then, will be noting the 1-year anniversary of the nomination of David Dugas to fill this vacancy in the Middle District of Louisiana, of course nominated by President Bush.

Mr. Dugas is currently U.S. attorney in that same district. In that capacity, of course, he had to come before this Senate and be confirmed; and he was by unanimous consent. So that was a very resounding confirmation of him, which included support by my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu.

In terms of this judicial nomination, Mr. Dugas has received the highest rating possible by the American Bar Association. He is eminently qualified. There is nothing in his background or his dealings or his job as a U.S. attorney that remotely suggests otherwise.

Yet there has been great delay and obstructionism, in my opinion, in terms of considering this worthy nomination. In fact, even though we are coming up on the 1-year mark of President Bush's nomination of him, he has yet to receive a hearing before the Judiciary Committee because my colleague, Senator Landrieu, has not turned in her so-called blue slip.

I rise to make note of this, and in a few minutes I will have a unanimous consent to propose to the Senate to remedy this situation. I have also specifically invited Senator Leahy, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Landrieu, my colleague from Louisiana, to join us on the floor for an appropriate colloquy.

With that introduction, I yield such time as he would consume to my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

I thank the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, first for his service on the Judiciary Committee; it has been very distinguished, to serve there as many years very ably, now-ranking member, and specifically for his support on this nomination and others to try to break through the gridlock, break through the partisanship, move forward in a positive way for the country.

I believe that is absolutely necessary in a number of cases, but the one that surely hits closest to home for me is this nomination of David Dugas to a judgeship in the Middle District of Louisiana. So I thank the ranking member for all his help and support; I know it will continue.

Again, let me note I wrote to Chairman Leahy that I would be taking the floor this week to make the upcoming unanimous consent request. I did the same to my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu. As soon as we figured out the time that would be available, we sent them word, and I sincerely hope they can both join me on the floor because I think it would be very useful and very informative to have an appropriate discussion and colloquy about this case. So I certainly invite that. I would encourage them to accept the invitation to join me on the floor.

Let me point out and reiterate some very important points about this nomination. President Bush made the nomination some time ago. That was March of last year. We are coming up quickly on the 1-year mark of this nomination. The vacancy in the Middle District has been open even a little bit longer, over a year.

Because of that, a backlog of cases is quickly mounting in the Middle District. The Middle District is an area surrounding Baton Rouge, LA, the capital of the State. It has felt a huge influx of people, of residents, and of litigation, largely because of Hurricane Katrina.

Because of that, because of this vacancy, judicial backlogs have been mounting and mounting. We are not quite to the point--and this is defined in law and by rules of the court--we are not quite to the point that it is defined as a ``judicial emergency,'' but we are quickly coming up to that line.

So the people of Louisiana, the people of the Middle District are not being served well and properly and as quickly as they should be. This vacancy needs to be filled for that reason.

Now, let us look at the man who President Bush has chosen to fill the

vacancy. By all accounts, he is eminently qualified. Mr. Dugas is the sitting U.S. attorney in the Middle District. He has done a very fine job in that position, has won praise from many different quarters, particularly from law enforcement.

He has many admirers and allies in the law enforcement community: Sheriffs across the State, chiefs of police, district attorneys, many others. They have written in to many of us about this nomination in strong support.

Mr. Dugas was already considered by the Senate, of course he had to be, for his present job of U.S. attorney. He was considered very favorably. In fact, it was considered completely noncontroversial, and he was confirmed swiftly by unanimous consent. In that process, of course, my colleague, Senator Landrieu, was here at the time and was part of that very positive sweeping confirmation.

As I said, for this judicial vacancy, Mr. Dugas has received the highest rating possible by the American Bar Association. That is a distinguished professional organization, it is not political, it is certainly not leaning to the right. Nobody would think that. They have rated this nominee of President Bush with their highest rating possible for a judicial nomination.

Yet this languishes and languishes. In another month's time, we are going to be on the 1-year mark of the nomination, with this backlog of cases mounting, as we near a judicial emergency in the district.

I do not think that is right. I do not think that is serving the people of Louisiana at all. I do not think that is serving the people of the country at all.

Mr. Dugas deserves better. More importantly, the people of Louisiana deserve better. The people of Louisiana and of the country want us to act as grownups and to come together and do our work in a timely, respectful way. They don't think this sort of partisanship and obstructionism, particularly over judgeships, falls into that definition.

This got particularly bad a few years ago. I was hopeful. Since I have been here, not because of my influence but just in general, since I got here, the Senate has become more responsive and more responsible about nominations, particularly judicial nominations. Unfortunately, this is a clear example in the other direction. Let's clear up this example. Let's move it off the list of those examples of partisanship and obstruction. Let's act in a reasonable--late, by now, but reasonable way, finally moving forward with this highly qualified nominee before this district gets to a state of judicial emergency, which is looming.

That is my simple and reasonable request. With all that background, I will now propound a unanimous consent request.

I ask unanimous consent that if the Committee on the Judiciary has not held a hearing on PN 349, the nomination of David Dugas of Louisiana to be U.S. district judge for the Middle District of Louisiana, and reported the nomination to the Senate by March 19, 2008, which would be the 1-year anniversary of his nomination being transmitted, that on the next calendar day the Senate is in session, the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the nomination; that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination; that there be 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of such time, the Senate immediately proceed to a rollcall vote on the nomination; that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions; and that the Senate then resume legislative session.

Of course, I am disappointed--not surprised but disappointed--at the objection.

I resume my plea specifically to Senator Leahy, chairman of the committee, and to Senator Landrieu, who has not turned in her blue slip and is thus the reason for the committee not even holding a hearing, that we move beyond this, that we have a hearing on this eminently qualified nominee. If there is a reason to stop the nomination, surely a hearing is the best venue and the best vehicle to illustrate that and talk about it. I hope we move beyond the pure obstructionism and partisanship that has us stuck in the mud with a judicial emergency in the Middle District looming.

This is exactly the sort of obstruction the American people are tired of. They spoke clearly to this over the last several years about judicial nominees. Maybe we got a little better, but here we are again in terms of this matter and this case which is surely important to Louisiana. I urge all of my colleagues to work beyond this. Specifically, I urge the chairman of the Judiciary and Senator Landrieu to work beyond this. It is unfortunate that they couldn't accept my invitation to have a useful, informative dialog and colloquy on the issue on the floor. There has been no good explanation for inaction that I have ever heard. A lot of people would like to hear some discussion and explanation. I hope we will hear that soon. I hope in the very near future we will move toward an appropriate resolution of this matter, which is a hearing and a vote in Judiciary and then on the floor of the Senate.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the work of the Desormeaux Foundation and in particular to commend their annual Life Banquet, which helps support their efforts to assist women with unplanned pregnancies.

The Foundation runs the St. Marguerite d'Youville Home for pregnant women and mothers in crisis. The home welcomes them with a peaceful, secure setting that offers spiritual guidance and access to educational, medical, and professional resources.

Over the years, the Desormeaux Foundation has worked tirelessly on efforts like this to advance pro-life values, and I am greatly appreciative of the constant vigilance by the Desormeaux Foundation in helping advance these values.

I commend the foundation for their hard work to support agendas that protect human life, like banning partial-birth abortions, outlawing abortion drugs, and preventing taxpayer dollars from funding abortions, as well as strongly supporting adoption and crisis pregnancy centers.

The Desormeaux Foundation's work is helping promote the culture of life, and I would like to applaud the good people of the Desormeaux Foundation and wish them continued success in their mission.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment at the desk, Vitter amendment No. 3896.

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

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3896 at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I offer an important amendment with regard to abortion and the pro-life cause. It is a very appropriate day that we talk about this because as we speak tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of people, particularly young people, from all around the country are marching in Washington, on the Mall, at the Supreme Court, in a positive, vibrant march for life. In offering this amendment, I also want to thank all of my original amendment cosponsors: Senators Allard, Brownback, Thune, and Inhofe.

This amendment is very simple. This amendment codifies, solidifies the Hyde amendment policy in this important Indian Health Care Improvement Act. It establishes, reasserts, the policy of the Hyde amendment with regard to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and puts that Hyde amendment language in the authorization language for this important part of Federal law.

Let me explain why it is necessary. For many years the Hyde amendment has been honored, including in this Federal program, but in a very roundabout and precarious way. For many years this program and this authorization have included language that says: This program will be governed by whatever abortion language is contained in the current Health and Human Services appropriations bill. And for those years, Congress has included Hyde amendment language in that appropriations bill to which this program points. That has worked, sort of, in accomplishing having the Hyde amendment in Federal law with regard to Indian health care, but it puts it in a tenuous and precarious posture. It puts it up for debate and possible change of policy every year, every time we debate a new Health and Human Services appropriations bill. Therefore, it doesn't make the policy very solid, very secure, or very clear.

My amendment is very simple. It would simply place that Hyde amendment language directly in the Indian health care language and say: No Federal funds in this program will be used to perform abortions except in the rare exceptions delineated in the original Hyde amendment.

This is very appropriate. Why should we go to this in such a roundabout and tenuous and precarious way? I think we should place that clear policy, which has been accepted over many years, since the original Hyde amendment debate, directly in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and not have it sort of get there maybe every year through such a torturous and tenuous and precarious route.

It is very simple. On this day, where tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of Americans, particularly young

people--and that is so heartening--are marching on Washington in a positive march for life, will we clearly reaffirm that Hyde amendment language in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act? I suggest all of us should do that. I suggest that would be a positive statement for life, for positive values for the future. Voting for the amendment will accomplish just that.

I have talked to the chairman of the committee, and he has indicated that a vote will be forthcoming further on in the debate of this bill. I welcome that. I welcome everyone on both sides of the aisle joining together around this consensus amendment to make a positive statement for life, to reaffirm what has been Federal policy for several years, the Hyde amendment, and to move forward, hopefully together, in a positive spirit, making that positive statement for life.

In closing, this is a very important issue and a very important amendment, a very important vote to millions of people around the country who care deeply about life. Because of that, this will be a vote focused on and graded by several key national groups; specifically, the National Right to Life Committee, Concerned Women of America, and the Family Research Council.

I have letters from all three of these groups making clear their strong support of the Vitter amendment and also making clear that this vote on this amendment will be graded in their activity monitoring the Congress. I ask unanimous consent that three letters be printed in the Record.

Again, in closing, I welcome all of our colleagues to support this commonsense, pro-life, positive amendment. I look forward to any further debate on it, to answer any questions that might arise, and to an important vote before we conclude consideration on this bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge COL Jefferson Joseph DeBlanc, Sr., for his dedicated service to Louisiana and the United States of America. I would like to take some time to make a few remarks on his accomplishments.

In 1940, Colonel DeBlanc left school in order to pursue a career in the military. After joining the Marine flight program, he enlisted in the Naval Reserve where he received elimination flight training. He continued his illustrious military career in the Marines, achieving the rank of captain on June 1, 1943, and transferred to the Marine Aircraft Group 11 overseas.

In November 1944, he returned overseas for his second tour of duty. He joined the Marine Fighting Squadron 422 in the Marshall Islands and remained stationed there until May 1945, joining Squadron 212 in order to fight in the Okinawa campaign. In his two tours of duty in the Pacific at Guadalcanal and Okinawa, he shot down nine enemy aircraft. On December 6, 1946, President Truman awarded him the Nation's highest decoration for valor and bravery, the Congressional Medal of Honor ``for his conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty.'' Colonel DeBlanc received this medal for shooting down five enemy Zeros in the Solomons. He went on to be decorated with more than 10 medals, including the Purple Heart, the Distinguished Flying Cross, and multiple Gold Stars.

Colonel DeBlanc later received a master's degree in education. He worked with the St. Martin's Parish School Board and taught physics at Mt. Carmel in New Iberia. After his retirement from the Marine Corps Reserve in 1972, he served as a member in multiple organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars and Medal of Honor Society.

Colonel Jefferson Joseph DeBlanc, Sr., passed away on Thursday, November 22, 2007. Colonel DeBlanc was the last living World War II Medal of Honor recipient from Louisiana. Although he did not perceive his achievement as a fighter pilot as out of the ordinary, many Louisianans will long remember the gallantry, bravery, and valor he exhibited throughout his life.

Thus, today, I am proud to rise to honor a fellow Louisianan, Colonel Jefferson Joseph DeBlanc, Sr., and thank him for his dedicated and tireless service to our country.

Mr. President, I rise to pay great tribute to Trent Lott. Similar to so many on the floor, I felt compelled, had a great desire to come to the floor because of my deep respect and affection for Trent. I mean that.

It is probably a great testament to Trent, given those very deep and sincere feelings of mine, to remember how we were introduced politically. I was running for Congress and he endorsed my opponent. For a lot of people, it would have meant that person would never have built a strong working relationship with the other or it would have taken a long time. For Trent, it took about 5 minutes. After I won, he called me and congratulated me and explained that my opponent was a former colleague of his and a friend and he felt loyalty and affection for the person. But the past was the past and the future was the future and he wanted to build that same friendship and sense of loyalty with me. So that was that.

It wasn't just words. He put that into action and made it perfectly clear from the beginning he was sincere. That is Trent. That is probably the first and one of the most important lessons he imparted to me.

I will always feel privileged to have learned other lessons in two particular settings. One, I was honored to be asked to join his whip team over the last couple years, and I did so. I have learned an enormous amount as a member of that team. I will always remember his being very forthcoming in asking me for advice and ideas and what I thought about this or that, all the while paying compliments about my insight into things. I will remember it not because any of those compliments were true but because it showed his spirit and effectiveness at including people, getting the best out of them and bringing folks together.

As a member of his whip team, I will also always remember and appreciate his taking me under his wing and trying to help me develop relationships and friendships with other Senators more and, as he would put it, be able to ``schmooze'' more effectively. I hope, Trent, you continue your work with me, as you join the private sector because obviously we still have a long way to go. But I appreciate the spirit of that work.

The second setting that is so important, in terms of my personal experience with Trent is, of course, the experience of Katrina and dealing with that horrible hurricane. There couldn't have been allies in terms of our recovery work than Trent and Thad. I will always be deeply indebted to them for all their work on behalf of the entire gulf coast. In south Louisiana, occasionally in the press there would be some story or comment resentful toward Mississippi in terms of the recovery, saying they got this per capita and we got this; we didn't do well enough. I would always explain that, boy, they got it exactly wrong. Because our best allies throughout all that horrible experience were Trent and Thad. Were it not for them, we would not have fared nearly as well. I will be the first to admit that. I thank them on behalf of my State for their tireless efforts on behalf of the entire gulf coast.

So, Trent, I join everyone in wishing you and Tricia and your family all the best. You deserve it. I know this is not the end of anything. It is the beginning of new great things. I look forward to our continuing tutorials on schmoozing and maybe even getting me to wear a seersucker suit someday.