Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I wish to address the Senate and, indeed, our fellow citizens around America today about a very important matter before the Senate, the Law of the Sea Treaty. We have been studying this treaty in great detail in the Foreign Relations Committee, and it is a matter that could eventually come before the entire Senate.

I started this process, looked at the treaty, began to read it with a completely open mind. But as I got into the details of it--the significant details that would govern our laws, our activity--if we were to become a full participant in the treaty, many concerns began to mount in my mind. So I wish to come before the full Senate and before the American people to outline some of those concerns in great detail.

To begin with, let me say there are many good, productive, positive provisions of the Law of the Sea Treaty. I strongly support the same provisions the U.S. Navy supports and that personnel and admirals from the Navy have testified in favor of. That is really not the issue. The issue is the treaty as a whole and all of the provisions taken together and whether we should pass the treaty as a whole because we have no choice but to consider the whole, not simply one provision or the other.

This treaty has been around for many years--in fact, decades. It was negotiated decades ago. President Reagan, during his administration-- very correctly, I think--rejected the treaty as it stood then. Because of that bold rejection, negotiators went back to the bargaining table and changed some significant aspects of the treaty. Now, those were improvements, but they don't in any way affect the main concerns I have about the Law of the Sea Treaty, and that is the fundamental baseline threat that the United States would be ceding our autonomy, our control over our own future to other international organizations that often don't have our best interests in mind.

So that is my fundamental concern. The renegotiation doesn't change that in any way. The testimony of the Navy doesn't even touch on that because it is about other provisions of the treaty. But my main concern with the Law of the Sea Treaty is the United States cedes autonomy to binding international tribunals--gives up American prerogatives, U.S. power, to binding international tribunals which, in the current international context, I do not think would often have our best interests in mind.

So why do I say that? Well, it is very important to look at the specific provisions of the treaty. We have been debating and discussing this in the Foreign Relations Committee. We have had numerous so-called expert witnesses. I am constantly shocked about how many participants in this discussion, quite frankly, including many expert witnesses, clearly haven't read all of the significant and important provisions of the treaty.

One of the most important provisions of the treaty has to do with these arbitral tribunals, these courts, if you will, that would have binding authority over all treaty participants, including the United States if the United States were to become a full treaty participant. So in other words, when disputes arise under the treaty, how do you resolve the dispute? You go to court. That court, if you will, that special tribunal, has binding authority over the parties to the dispute.

There are different sorts of these tribunals. One sort is called a special arbitral tribunal. Under that, under Annex VIII, the United States, again, cedes binding authority to these special tribunals in disputes about fisheries, the marine environment, marine scientific research, and navigation.

What is wrong with that? Well, I think what is wrong with it--or at least the threat it poses to the United States becomes clear when you look at the nature of this tribunal. It is a five-person body and simple majority rules. Now, who appoints the people? Well, both parties to a dispute pick two panelists. So if we were brought into court, if you will, by another country, that other country opposing our views, opposing our interests, would pick two panelists, and we would pick two panelists. What about the fifth panelist?

That is obviously important because it could well be the tie-breaking vote.

Under the treaty, the parties are supposed to try to agree on that fifth panelist. But if the parties can't agree--and, of course, that is a distinct possibility--the party taking us into court, the other country, could then flatout refuse to agree with any of our suggestions and choices no matter how reasonable.

Then what happens? Well, then the U.N. Secretary General picks the fifth panelist. He picks the tie-breaking vote.

I will be very honest with my colleagues; I don't feel comfortable with that. In the current international context, when we have been opposed so often at the U.N., when countries gang up on us, quite frankly, so often in forums such as the U.N., I don't feel comfortable with the Secretary General of the U.N. picking the tie breaker and essentially determining our fate.

There are other types of tribunals under the Law of the Sea Treaty. The next type is simply called a general arbitral tribunal. It is under Annex VII of the treaty. Again, the fundamental issue and the fundamental problem in my mind is, under that annex, under the provisions of the treaty, if the United States were to become a full partner in the treaty, the United States would cede, again, binding authority to these other sorts of tribunals regarding all other disputes.

So, in other words, the first type of arbitral tribunal would cover the four issue areas that I mentioned a few minutes ago. This general tribunal would cover all other disputes.

Now, how is this tribunal made up? Very similar, in fact, to the others. Again, a five-person body, simple majority rules. Both parties to the dispute, in this case, pick one panelist. So if we were hauled into international court, if you will, by another country, that other country would pick one panelist, and we would pick one panelist. Again, similar to the other tribunal. Then both parties together would try to agree on the other three panelists. Obviously, those three would compose a majority of the five. But if the parties can't agree--and, once again, if our opposing country, the country that has hauled us into court, doesn't want to agree to any of our ideas, any of our suggestions no matter how reasonable, it can just stand firm and not agree. In that case, those three members of the tribunal--a majority of the tribunal--would be chosen by the Law of the Sea lead bureaucrat, the head of the Law of the Sea under the treaty, an international bureaucrat similar in background and attitudes in many instances to the Secretary General of the U.N. Again, it is the same fundamental problem in my mind in that we are ceding our autonomy, we are ceding binding decisions that can be very significant in terms of our fate, our interests, our values, to this international court dominated by, controlled by, potentially, international bureaucrats.

Why is this a threat? What sort of disputes could arise that could go to these binding courts, or binding tribunals, panels? Well, one area that is clearly covered by the treaty is pollution. One would think that could be reasonable and necessary and natural with regard to pollution in the open ocean--this is a Law of the Sea Treaty, after all--but it also applies to pollution from land-based sources, and that comes as a great surprise to most people when they find that out. But that is why it is useful to read the treaty because when you read the treaty you actually find out some of these things.

Article 213 of the treaty is entitled--very frankly, very simply, very directly--``Enforcement With Respect to Pollution From Land-Based Sources.''

That article says:

States shall enforce their laws and regulations in

accordance with Article 207--

That is fair enough. We pass our laws; we should enforce them--

and shall adopt laws and regulations and take other measures

necessary to implement applicable international rules and

standards, to prevent, reduce, and control pollution of the

marine environment from land-based sources.

Well, wait a minute. I thought Congress and other political bodies in the United States determine our domestic laws, including about pollution from land-based sources. This is a distinct departure from that. This is a mandate in an international treaty saying: We shall adopt other laws to enforce international notions, international standards about pollution.

Another applicable article is Article 207, and under 207(1) it, again, says:

States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce

and control pollution of the marine environment from land-

based sources, taking into account internationally agreed

upon rules, standards and recommended practices and

procedures.

Once again, my reaction when I read that is, wait a minute. I thought Congress was in charge of environmental policy in the United States. I thought State legislatures, where appropriate, were in charge of that policy--bodies elected by the people. Isn't that what democracy is about? Well, this is a distinct departure. This is internationalizing many of those issues with mandates in the Law of the Sea Treaty that go beyond what we may think is the best law in these areas, and that we conform to certain international decisions.

Again, the title of the article couldn't be clearer: ``Enforcement With Respect to Pollution From Land-Based Sources.'' Again, this is just one example of an issue area where the United States could well be ceding autonomy, ceding authority to other folks outside our borders who don't necessarily have our values, our notions, our best interests in mind.

What sort of situation could arise from this? Well, I think the situation that would undoubtedly arise is an outbreak of international lawyering and litigation--trying to move decisions that are presently before elected political bodies in the United States to the international arena. Many folks who have studied this phenomenon call it ``lawfare.'' Again, not ``warfare'' but using international law to oppose us and battle our interests and move those decisions from the domestic political environment to an international tribunal, an international stage that very often doesn't have our best interests in mind. Again, U.S. autonomy gives way to international litigation.

This isn't a wild conjecture on my part. This isn't something I am imagining or seeing in the future. This is something that many international lawyers and activists are actively licking their lips over and looking forward to. In fact, there was a Law Review article published several months ago that was very straightforward about this phenomenon that would occur if we become a party to the treaty. The author of this Law Review article said very clearly:

Climate change litigation--

One example of environmental issues, environmental litigation--

in national and international fora is emerging as an

alternative means by which to hold States and private actors

accountable for climate change damages. The United Nations

convention on the Law of the Sea is a promising instrument

through which such action might be taken, given its broad

definition of pollution to the marine environment and the

dispute resolution mechanisms contained within its

provisions.

That is exactly what I am talking about. That policy, that issue now is subject to our determination, and Congress is subject to the activity of other elected bodies in the United States, but under the Law of the Sea Treaty, it would be moved to an international forum, to international litigation, to lawfare, in many cases, against the values and interests of the United States.

We have great disagreement and debate in this body about significant issues such as climate change. That is legitimate in a democracy; we should have those debates, and we should hash out those differences, and we should make the best determinations and policies we can on behalf of the American people. But that is something very different from pushing those issues and those decisions outside of the United States to international courts, to international tribunals over which we essentially have no control.

There are other issue areas that could be the subject of this sort of international litigation, other countries hauling us into court to oppose our values and interests.

Another topic where this could happen--and this gives me grave concern--has to do with military activities. I actively asked many of the expert witnesses in our hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about it. What would prevent another country from hauling us into international court--that court, that tribunal having binding authority over

us, if we become a part of the treaty--to try to stop, prevent, hamstring us with regard to military activity?

The response was immediate: There is a clear exception in the Law of the Sea Treaty that excepts military activities. That is true. Article 298 excludes ``military activities'' from the Law of the Sea Treaty's binding dispute resolution.

The experts didn't have a good answer to my next question. It was logical. The next question is: OK, who determines what is a military activity and what is not a military activity? If there is an exclusion regarding military activities, then this term is pretty darn important. Who defines this term? Who applies this term on a case-by-case basis?

When I asked that to the experts before the committee, there was a fair amount of silence. And then, after some consultation with the lawyers behind the experts, the answer came: Well, we believe we define what is a military activity--we, the United States.

The next logical question: Where does the treaty say that? Where is that spelled out in the treaty? It is not. The treaty is completely silent on the issue. So the treaty excludes military activities, but it doesn't say what is military activity and what is not a military activity. The treaty doesn't determine who determines what is and is not a military activity.

Here in the United States, when two parties go to court, there is often a dispute in the beginning of the lawsuit about whether that particular court has jurisdiction. Guess who decides whether that court has jurisdiction. That court decides if it has jurisdiction. If the same thing were to occur in the Law of the Sea Treaty, who decides that? The international court, the tribunal, would decide, and it would decide that crucial threshold issue against our opinion, against our interests; and there we are again before a binding international tribunal, which could have grave effects on what we consider our military activities.

Another final area of concern I will highlight that could come up as a subject of this sort of international litigation is intelligence activities. Post-9/11, perhaps nothing is more important to our security, to the defense of our values and our way of life, than our necessary intelligence activities.

That gave rise to an obvious question I asked the experts before the committee: Would intelligence activities be covered by the Law of the Sea Treaty? And could these international tribunals, with binding authority on us, have that binding authority over our intelligence activities?

Once again, I would have thought this was a simple and obvious question, but it caused a long period of silence from the witnesses who were there to testify in favor of the treaty. Finally, after long periods of silence and much consultation with the lawyers behind them, the answer was: Well, we believe our intelligence activities fall under the military exemption. So we believe intelligence activities would not go to court, would not go to this international court with binding authority, because we believe it falls under the military exemption.

Again, an obvious followup question: Great. Where in the treaty does it say that? Long silence. Long pause. Consultation with the lawyers behind the experts. Well, the treaty doesn't say that. Does the treaty say anything about intelligence? The treaty doesn't mention intelligence--whether it is covered under the military exemption.

I have to tell you, that again gave me great pause and concern, because I immediately thought of this place--the Senate, the House, Capitol Hill--where intelligence is considered an entirely separate subject matter from military. When we are up here debating matters and sending matters to committees, there is an Intelligence Committee that handles intelligence. There is a completely separate Armed Services Committee that handles military matters. Intelligence isn't subsumed under military. Intelligence issues don't go to the Armed Services Committee. It is a completely separate category. So why should it necessarily be different in the Law of the Sea Treaty? I think an argument could be made--a very logical, forceful argument--that intelligence activities aren't excluded under the treaty.

Intelligence activities are different from military activities, just as they are considered different up here on Capitol Hill. Guess what. Intelligence activities could make the subject of this international law against us--before countries calling us into international court, before the international tribunals that would have binding authority on us--very disconcerting, particularly in a post-9/11 world, where our intelligence activities are so absolutely crucial to our national defense and our activities necessary to preserve our values and way of life.

Again, there are many significant issues that arise under the Law of the Sea Treaty debate. Hopefully, we will have a full opportunity to discuss these issues I brought up today, and more. But these issues I have discussed today are the heart of my concern with the treaty, and the heart of that concern is simply that the United States would be ceding our autonomy, our control over our own future and destiny to international bureaucrats, to international courts, who very often would not have our best interests in mind and would not share our perspectives or our values.

That is something very serious to consider when you are talking about environmental policy, which has always been the subject of debate in elected bodies within the United States; when you are talking about military activities, which are so important, particularly in a post-9/ 11 world; and when you are talking about intelligence activities, similarly crucial to our security, and defense of our way of life in a post-9/11 world.

I hope the Senate takes a very long, very hard look at this treaty. I hope every individual Senator will do something quite unusual, which is read the treaty, open the book, look at the details, think for yourself. Once I began that process several months ago, the concerns over this treaty--particularly with regard to U.S. autonomy--began to mount and multiply in my own mind. Every Senator has an obligation to pick up the treaty itself, read it personally, and think through these concerns, because the results, if things proceed as I have outlined, could be disastrous.

With that, I yield back my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes on the Republican side.

Mr. President, I, too, stand in strong support of overriding President Bush's veto of the WRDA bill. I do so because this WRDA bill is absolutely crucial for our entire country and nowhere more so than my State of Louisiana.

This is a real hallmark in our continuing recovery from the devastating 2005 hurricanes--Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. This is an enormously important step in that continuing recovery. That is true for many reasons, but the most fundamental is a simple one. Unfortunately, it is a fact many people forget. So much of the devastation to the Greater New Orleans area, in particular, immediately following Hurricane Katrina, was not because of an act of God. It was manmade. It was not because of the size and ferocity of Hurricane Katrina, as bad as that was. It was because of fundamental flaws and mistakes made by the Corps of Engineers in building our levees in Greater New Orleans.

Now, that does not explain all of the flooding, by any means. It does explain at least 70 percent of the catastrophic flooding of the New Orleans area. So that is why this authorization bill, to move forward on crucial Corps of Engineers projects, and to do it right, with proper oversight from outside, independent experts, is so very important.

One of the first things I did coming to the Senate in early 2005 was to go to the EPW Committee to begin my work on this WRDA bill. I worked relentlessly on it there with my colleagues and then followed the bill to the conference committee. So this is a very important, momentous step in our recovery with regard to closing MRGO, with regard to fundamental coastal restoration, with regard to a true 100-year level of protection, with regard to important projects in other parts of the State, the Port of Iberia, protection for Vermilion Parish, work in the Calcasieu River, bank stabilization in the Washita and Black Rivers.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's finish this job. Let's finally get this work done today. Let's override President Bush's veto of WRDA.

Mr. President, I yield back my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, when the quorum call is resumed, I ask unanimous consent that the time be divided equally between the two sides.

With that unanimous consent request having been granted, Mr. President, I again suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I particularly thank my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma, the ranking member on the committee. I thank Senator Inhofe and Senator Boxer and all of the committee members for all of their diligent work for many years, in fact, that has finally produced this very good and worthwhile WRDA bill which we are about to pass into law.

I stand as one of the two Senators from Louisiana very excited about this moment because this legislation is absolutely crucial for our recovery from Hurricanes Rita and Katrina and, indeed, for our survival as a coastal culture, as a coastal State, moving into the future. It is absolutely vital in that regard. I believe passage of this bill, including overriding the President's veto, is absolutely necessary for the Nation and the Congress to keep the very generous and very solemn commitment made to the people of Louisiana and of the gulf coast following Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. This bill is enormously important, and it has been a long time in coming.

While ordinarily a WRDA bill would be passed every other year, we haven't had one in many years to pass through the Congress. So, as a result, this is long overdue. This is the equivalent of two or three water resources bills combined.

The good news is that from our perspective, particularly dealing with Louisiana issues, we have used that time and that opportunity to improve the bill dramatically, even from the moment when I came to the Senate 3 years ago and started working on the committee on this bill to improve it dramatically and to include more measures for coastal restoration, coastal protection, and hurricane protection for our survival.

I want to make clear this isn't some parochial Louisiana matter. Even the provisions I care most deeply about have national importance and a national impact and truly are national priorities. Let me mention a few sets of numbers just to illustrate the point.

Thirty-three: That is the number of States that rely directly on the protection systems in Louisiana authorized in this bill for maritime commerce--import and export of goods--and, of course, that includes the entirety of the Midwest and particularly grain and other products from farmers in the Midwest.

Eighty: That is the percentage of domestically produced chemicals and petrochemicals that come from Louisiana and Texas vital to our economy. This bill is helping protect that economic infrastructure, that industry.

Twenty-six: That is the percent of seafood that comes from Louisiana waters and includes more shrimp, crawfish, and oysters than any other State.

Three million: That is the number of barrels of oil that could not be refined each day because of the shutdown of our refineries immediately after the hurricanes.

One dollar: It doesn't sound like much, but that is the extra amount that each of our constituents nationwide paid per gallon as a result of the 2005 hurricanes that hit Louisiana. Each gallon of gas used to take kids to school and to drive to work, farmers using it in their tractors, boats to ship imports and exports, airplanes to fly passengers and cargo, truckers to drive their loads across the Nation-- $1 a gallon extra because of that disruption, because of a lack of protection.

Mr. President, $2.8 billion: That is the extra amount all of our constituents paid nationwide in just 1 week as a result of those gasoline price spikes.

Maybe the most important number is 4. That is from a commission, a study commissioned by FEMA. That is the amount of money saved: $4 for every $1 invested in mitigation and protection. That is a great savings for the future for the taxpayer.

So this is vitally important for my people in Louisiana, but it is vitally important to the Nation because of that direct connection, because of that direct impact of the hurricanes on the Nation's economic vitality, on the Federal Treasury that had to respond to the devastation of the hurricanes.

As I said, I am proud of the work all of us have done, including, as I served on the committee, on the conference committee, to fashion key provisions, taking into account the lessons of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, key provisions that are now in this bill.

Let me mention just a few. The Water Resources Council: That is a council and an integration team that would be verifying the Corps' work, the Corps' conclusions and findings in terms of the implementation of Louisiana projects. So we have experts from outside the Corps, from academia, from the realm of practicing engineers to work hand in glove with the Corps so that design mistakes such as those that led to the levee breaches never happen again.

True 100-year hurricane protection: As I grew up in the New Orleans area, I was told we had 100-year protection, but the day Katrina hit, it disclosed the fact that wasn't true. Now we will be building through this bill true 100-year hurricane protection, and I thank President Bush for his commitment to that and his commitment to ask for all of the funding necessary to do that.

Moving forward on higher levels of protection for populated areas, what we would call true category 5 protection: The Corps is currently looking at that, designing that, but this bill will move that effort forward in a major way so we move forward with the design and implementation of that higher level of category 5 protection.

Coastal restoration: We can talk about levees and physical barriers and the storm surge all we want, but if we continue to lose our rich coastland, which is the buffer land from storms, we will never be able to win that fight. So the fight starts with restoring our coastal barrier islands and coastal buffer lands. In this bill we have $4 billion worth of that authorized work, 17 separate projects for coastal restoration. Of all of the work I have done in this bill, I think beefing up that portion of it is what I am most proud of because when I came to the Senate, when I came to this committee, there was only about $400 million dedicated to that coastal restoration, one specifically authorized project. Now there is $4 billion and 17 authorized projects.

We can go on and on. Closing MRGO, the deadly hurricane highway which was directly related to so much of the catastrophic flooding in New Orleans; other important work around the State, work with regard to the Port of Iberia and improving hurricane and flood protection in Vermilion parish, work that is very crucial to the Calcasieu River to allow navigation in that area to go on and prosper; bank stabilization for the Quachita and Black Rivers in north Louisiana; other hurricane protection improvements in lower Jefferson and Lafourche Parish; studies to improve access to Vidalia, LA, and other areas; countless projects, countless examples of important work.

Then last, but certainly not least, something we have been waiting on, working toward for 15 years and more, which is the Morganza to the gulf hurricane protection project to bring protection for the first time to a vital area just west of New Orleans, a populated area rich in culture, seafood, economic production, economic vitality. This project has been developed by the Corps over 15 years and more. It should have been in the last WRDA bill. In fact, it was in the last WRDA bill but is subject to a chief's report, and then the Corps of Engineers missed its deadline for that chief's report. That is finally being fully authorized, moving forward in an aggressive fashion because of this WRDA bill.

So again, in closing, let me say, make no mistake about it; this bill is vitally important for Louisiana, for our people, for our continued recovery, for our survival. But I don't want that to come across as some narrow or parochial concern because it does touch all of America in terms of impact. If our gulf coast is devastated in the future, gasoline prices will spike far more than 2 years ago. Our economy will be disrupted far more than 2 years ago, and, yes, FEMA and the Federal Government will have to spend even more than 2 years ago to deal with such a future disaster.

This WRDA bill is long overdue. It is fully justified. I thank Senator Inhofe, Senator Boxer, and all of the committee again for their very hard work as we move forward and finally pass this into law.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I acknowledge and honor a very special group, the Louisiana HonorAir. Louisiana HonorAir is a not-for-profit organization that flies as many as 200 World War II veterans up to Washington, DC, free of charge. On November 3, 2007, a group of 105 veterans and their guardians will reach Washington on this very special program.

While visiting Washington, DC, the veterans will tour sights, such as the Arlington National Cemetery, the Korean Memorial, and the World War II Memorial. The program provides many veterans with their only opportunity to see the great memorials dedicated to their service.

Thus, today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring these great Americans and thanking them for their devotion and service to our Nation.

Mr. President, I would like to be recognized for 2 minutes, and if you can announce when that time has expired.

Mr. President, I think there are millions of Americans all around the country who wish no ill will on these minors whom we are talking about but are sitting at home following this debate, following this procedure, and scratching their heads and saying: Haven't these Members of Congress heard us? Don't they get it? Don't they understand what we have been saying loudly and clearly? Apparently, we don't.

I don't think the message could have been clearer from millions of Americans across the country this summer. They said during our debate on the overall so-called comprehensive immigration bill: No, you got it wrong. The enforcement in that bill is inadequate. It has not been accomplished. It is not done. We want that done first. And no, you got it wrong. We do not want amnesty.

Yet, even after that clear, compelling message from the American people, a message so overwhelming it shut down the Senate phone system the morning of the last vote which killed that bill, apparently a whole bunch of folks here still do not get it. They still are not listening. Because this is a bill which has no enforcement but does have clear amnesty.

The American people have no ill will toward these minors we are talking about. But they do have complete confusion with regard to what we are doing--not fixing the problem, making it worse. Inadequate enforcement plus amnesty, that is a recipe for disaster. They know that out of innate common sense. We do nothing to stop the magnet that attracts illegal aliens here because we have little or no workplace enforcement, in particular. Yet we continue with amnesty and other programs.

Please vote no, my colleagues, on proceeding to the DREAM Act.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my amendment, Amendment No. 3328, which is currently pending to the Labor-HHS- Education Appropriations bill before the Senate. My original amendment is simple. It would stop officials at HHS from

preventing individuals from bringing back a prescribed medication for themselves from Canada. I have agreed to make two modifications to my amendment. My amendment, as modified, would add explicit restrictions on controlled substances and biological products from my amendment.

Therefore, as modified, my amendment prohibits funds from preventing individuals, not wholesalers, from importing prescriptions for themselves, and that because there is no restriction in my language as to how they may import these prescriptions, it is understood that mail order and Internet importation is not prohibited along with carrying on the person over the border. All controlled substances and biological products are prohibited.

It is my understanding that my amendment will be accepted by voice vote today on the agreement that the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Harkin and Senator Specter, will work hard for its inclusion in the final conference report for the final legislative vehicle for this bill.

Madam President, I wish to acknowledge the passing this month of Sheriff Harry Lee of Jefferson Parish, LA. Sheriff Harry Lee died of leukemia on October 1, and I would like to make a few remarks on his success and his contributions to the area.

Sheriff Harry Lee was elected in 1979, beating longtime incumbent Alwynn Cronvich and serving more than six terms until his death. He was one of the most popular, well-known politicians in the greater New Orleans area. Throughout his career, Sheriff Harry Lee devoted his life to fighting crime.

It is perhaps Sheriff Harry Lee's colorful attitude that made him so beloved. While we often disagreed on many issues, I have a great respect and admiration for what Sheriff Harry Lee accomplished in his long tenure. Harry was a wonderful, gutsy, larger-than-life figure who always did what he thought was right. Whether I was agreeing with him on crime-fighting issues or disagreeing with him over Edwin Edwards, I always knew he was leading with his passions and loyalties.

Thus, today, I rise to honor sheriff Harry Lee that people may honor and remember him for his devotion to the State of Louisiana.

Mr. President, I rise to join my distinguished colleague from Florida and many of my other colleagues in urging the sort of consensus building, practical problem solving Senator Martinez is talking about.

It is clear we are at a current impasse on the SCHIP debate. The version that passed the Senate and passed the Congress has been vetoed by the President. It will be made even more clear in the next day or so that veto will not be overridden.

I think what the American people want us to do is not talk endlessly, debate endlessly, and simply try to score political points, but to come together around a practical compromise, a practical resolution that advances health care, particularly for poor children.

So I join my colleague from Florida in urging us to do that. My ideas about what that reasonable, practical compromise would be are very much like his. I applaud Senator Martinez in terms of the ideas he has put forward to resolve this SCHIP debate.

I could not support the Senate Finance Committee version of the SCHIP bill. I could not support it for a very simple reason: I am all for the SCHIP program. I am all for covering poor children. I am not for expanding that program well beyond the boundaries of poor kids so that it is a precursor, quite frankly, to government-run, government- dominated health care. I think that is a mistake. I think expanding a program such as this and actively pushing people off private insurance, which the Finance Committee version would do, is a big mistake and moves us in the opposite direction of where we should be moving with regard to health care reform in this country.

Why do I say that about the Finance Committee bill? Well, for a simple reason: It goes well beyond the original intent of SCHIP, which is to cover poor kids. It goes beyond that in several ways. First of all, it raises the general limit of eligibility from 200 percent of poverty to 300 percent of poverty. In the United States today, 300 percent of poverty is $62,000, a family income of $62,000. But, in fact, that limit is well above that in most cases. Why? Because under the Finance Committee bill, States can define family income in innovative ways. They can take out large expenditures such as tuition from family income, so we are not talking about gross family income of $62,000. Once you take out those major components, those major sources of spending of a family, you could easily be talking about a family income of $80,000.

In addition to that, under the bill the administration--any administration--would be urged, if not mandated, to grant waivers to States in many cases to go well above even that 300-percent-plus line. So clearly, you would dramatically expand the children and the families covered under the program, and you would go well beyond what any reasonable person would define as the truly poor.

Now, why is this bad? Well, for one thing, you are crowding out folks--pushing folks off--of private insurance. There have been several analyses done of the Finance Committee bill which passed the Congress and which the President vetoed. Under those analyses of new enrollees, it is estimated that between 45 and 51 percent would be dropping private insurance to enroll in SCHIP. Now, is that the direction we want to move in, encouraging folks who have private insurance to drop it, to flee private insurance to come under the care of the Government? I think that is the wrong direction to move in.

Beyond that, if you look at new eligibility groups--in other words, not all new enrollees, but the new groups of people who would become eligible under the bill--there is a 100-percent crowd-out effect. Everybody in those new groups would be dropping private insurance to enroll in SCHIP. Is that the direction we want to move in? I think not. We talk about the problem of the uninsured in this country. Why do we want to grow that problem versus solve it by encouraging people and helping people keep their private insurance or get onto private coverage? That is not the direction we want to move in.

I believe the direction we want to move in is to encourage coverage, to make it more available, to make it more affordable. That is the sort of solution that Senator Martinez and myself and others have been talking about. That is why I support the McConnell-Lott SCHIP bill and support furthering the goal of health care for all American families with tax credits that can make private coverage available and affordable.

Step 1: A real SCHIP reauthorization focused on poor kids. That is what the legislation I support does. That bill costs $8 billion in new costs over 5 years, but those new costs are fully offset. That bill would keep eligibility at 200 percent of the poverty line, but it would enroll many more new kids: 1.3 million by 2012 and 1.5 million new kids by 2017. It would also extend coverage to pregnant women and their children in the womb. That is important as well. That is a real reauthorization of the SCHIP program as it was originally designed and intended.

Now, is that good enough with regard to children's health care needs and families' health care needs? Absolutely not. There are other needs out there which we must address. Health care insurance isn't available, isn't affordable to enough folks. But rather than encouraging them to get on a government program and in half the cases actively pushing them off private insurance, why don't we help them stay on private insurance or obtain private insurance? That is the additional step we need to take through tax credit or other legislation.

So again, I urge us to do what the American people want, which is not to simply argue, talk, debate, and try to score political points endlessly, but to come together around a real and valid and commonsense compromise. That is what the American people want, so let's do it. That compromise is clearly within striking distance if we have the political will to come together around those ideas. Again, I believe the principle we should look at is a real reauthorization of SCHIP for poor children, supplemented with some additional help for those families that need the help to stay on or to get on private insurance. I don't believe the path of the current SCHIP bill, which actively pushes families off private insurance in so many cases, is the way to do it.

The proponents of that bill laud it because it would sign up 4.4 million new enrollees. Well, guess what: 4.4 million of that 2.4 million currently could have private insurance. Is that progress? Is that a great accomplishment, to push off of private insurance 2.4 million and get them on a government program at the expense of the taxpayer, when there is a better, cheaper alternative to help them stay on private insurance, to help them have more choice and control and autonomy of their health care future? That is what the American people want: More control, more choice, more autonomy, making good health insurance available and affordable. Let's reauthorize SCHIP for the truly poor and let's give them ways to make health care insurance available and affordable through instruments such as tax credits.

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

First of all, Madam President, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for all his courtesies.

Amendment No. 3330 to Amendment No. 3325

Under that unanimous consent request which has been granted, I now call up amendment No. 3330, the Vitter amendment at the desk.

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

Madam President, this is a very simple and straightforward but, I believe, important amendment. It says in clear terms that none of the funds in this appropriations bill will go to entities that provide abortions.

I think that is the right policy we should set in this body because whatever side of the abortion debate you are on, we can all agree on one thing: Abortion is a very divisive topic. Abortion divides our Nation--many folks would say down the middle--and it causes understandable passions and feelings on both sides. To a substantial number of Americans--myself included--but millions upon millions of Americans, the procedure of abortion is deeply troubling and deeply offensive. In that context, I think it is the right policy and a very reasonable mainstream policy to say we are not going to send taxpayer dollars to support groups that perform abortions. It seems to me that is the right policy when you talk about taxpayer dollars.

Now, the other side will immediately jump up and say: Well, we have current Federal law that says we are not going to use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. But, quite frankly, that is not good enough in my mind and in the minds of millions upon millions of other abortion opponents.

Because the way it works now, we send Federal dollars to abortion providers and money is fungible and it is a big shell game and it supports their overhead and it supports their organizations and, in many cases, that funding is a huge percentage of their overall revenue. So it does, in a very significant, meaningful way, support abortions. That is wrong in my mind.

Now, let me make clear what this amendment does and what it does not do.

It says we are not going to send taxpayer dollars to abortion providers under the title X program. The title X program is a family planning program, and many of those entities which get millions of dollars from the Federal Government perform abortions. This amendment says we are not going to send taxpayer dollars to those entities.

Now, what does the amendment not do? It does not affect hospitals. There is specific language, a specific exemption for hospitals. So hospitals are another category. It does not cut one penny from family planning. This amendment is not about family planning. It is clearly about abortion. We do not cut one penny of family planning funding.

This amendment does not deny one family, one individual, family planning services, because in every locality where a private abortion provider is receiving title X funds, there are alternative sources for family planning services--in every area, in every locality. So we are not taking family planning services away from any American, from any individual in any part of the country.

Finally, this amendment does not affect free speech. The amendment contains no language regarding counseling, advocacy, information or expression. It simply says: Let's be fair. Abortion is a very divisive topic. At least half the American people have deep concerns about it. In that context, we should not be sending those folks' money to abortion providers to take care of their overhead, to allow them to use it as a shell game and, essentially, indirectly fund abortions and support abortion services.

Now, there are a lot of examples of these sorts of entities that we could use. But, obviously, the biggest nationwide is Planned Parenthood. Planned

Parenthood performs and accounts for hundreds of thousands of abortions every year. According to the last figures we could locate from 2005- 2006, Planned Parenthood has about a $1 billion budget and source of revenue. About a third of that--$305.3 million--comes from Government subsidies of one sort or another. So $1 billion in revenue, and a third of that comes from the taxpayers--whether it is $120 million or more from the Federal Government kicking in directly and at least $59 million coming from this very title X program, which is the subject of my amendment.

Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood, in the last year we could get figures for, performed over 264,000 abortions. The best estimate for abortions nationwide in a year is 1.29 million. So Planned Parenthood alone accounts for over 20 percent of that.

You cannot tell me, given all those numbers, given 265,000 abortions performed, that we are not sending Federal taxpayer dollars that is supporting all of that activity, that is indirectly paying for those abortions--clearly, enormously important to keep Planned Parenthood going, to provide for its overhead--a third of all of its revenue.

Pure and simple, that is wrong when so many Americans find performing abortions so deeply troubling in a fundamental, gut, moral way. So this would set the policy right and simply say, if you are a title X recipient, if you are a recipient of those sorts of Federal dollars, you need to decide. You cannot perform abortions if you want that taxpayer support when half or more of U.S. taxpayers have fundamental, moral reservations, and problems with the procedure.

This amendment is strongly supported by the Family Research Council, and they are going to score the amendment. In addition, it is strongly supported by Concerned Women for America--they also will score the amendment--and, finally, by National Right to Life, which will also score the amendment.

I have letters from two of those three organizations. The third is on the way. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I would like to use 1\1/2\ minutes of my remaining time to simply respond to some of the statements.

A statement was made that this amendment cuts health care services, family planning services that are not abortion and makes them less available. That is simply not true. This amendment doesn't cut a single penny of title X family planning money. That dollar amount is exactly the same. This amendment doesn't make those services unavailable to a single American because we checked every metropolitan area, every locality, and there are other opportunities--public, private, both--for Americans in every locality for true family planning entities that don't also perform abortions. So it is not true that we are lessening that opportunity.

It is not about those true health or family planning services. It is about abortion and whether the American taxpayer is going to be forced to indirectly subsidize abortion in this country as we do right now. When abortion is so divisive an issue, when it is so troubling and fundamentally offensive to so many millions of Americans--at least half the country, in my guesstimate--I don't think it is right or fair to be spending taxpayer dollars. Who can deny that is effectively what we are doing? Just look at the biggest example.

I will consume the remainder of my time.

I talk about Planned Parenthood simply because it is the biggest and most obvious example of billions of dollars of revenue--fully a third comes from Government. Meanwhile, they perform 265,000 abortions--20 percent of the entirety of abortions performed in the United States. That is not right.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. President, I will call up amendment No. 3328 which is at the desk, but in the interim, before I actually call it up and make it pending, I wish to discuss the Vitter amendment No. 3328. Hopefully, in a relatively short period of time, we can actually call it up and make it pending.

This amendment is very simple and very straightforward. In fact, it is something this body has seen before on other bills and has strongly voted for before. It simply prohibits any funds in this appropriations bill from being used to block the reimportation of safe prescription drugs from Canada.

All of us know that sky-high prescription drug prices are a very troubling burden every American family faces. Certainly literally every family I deal with in Louisiana deals with this issue in some form or fashion, often in the context of trying to help elderly parents or grandparents or others with very significant prescription drug costs.

One partial solution to that huge challenge is to allow American consumers to buy prescription drugs in person or through mail order or the Internet from Canada, because precisely the same prescription drugs are available in Canada--in all cases at a dramatically lower cost.

Unfortunately, in this country we have had Federal law that prevents American consumers from doing that in most cases. This amendment and other full-blown bills, some introduced by myself, others introduced by other leaders on the issue, such as Senators Dorgan and Snowe, would lift those prohibitions and allow American consumers their rightful access to safe, cheaper prescription drugs from Canada.

This amendment is being brought on this appropriations bill for a very simple and legitimate reason. Under the current administration there has been a task force established under the Department of Health and Human Services. That task force was specifically established to coordinate all Federal Government activity by the administration to block reimportation of drugs from Canada and elsewhere. That is governed under the Department of Health and Human Services. That is organized under that Department which is governed by this bill, so this amendment will simply say: No funds in this bill going to the Department can be used for that purpose. That task force has to quit its operation. None of that money can go to support the activity of that task force, which is specifically designed to block American consumers from getting safe, cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and elsewhere.

At this point I believe it has been cleared so I wish to formally call up amendment No. 3328 and make it pending.

Mr. President, this is virtually exactly the same amendment I proposed with Senator Nelson to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill. That amendment was agreed to in the Senate 68 to 32 on July 11, 2006, and was subsequently signed into law. More recently, this year we came back to the Senate floor with the same amendment on this year's Homeland Security Appropriations bill and that was agreed to by unanimous consent. So the Senate has spoken. The Senate has spoken strongly, by a vote of 68 votes or more, in support of what an even larger percentage of the American people want, and that is free, unfettered access to safe, cheaper drugs from Canada and elsewhere.

This amendment is very simple. It says none of the funds in this act, in this bill before us, can be used to stop Americans from getting the safe, cheaper prescription drugs from Canada. The amendment is very specific to Canada only.

This amendment will take us along the path toward full-blown drug reimportation. Last year we had success in allowing Americans to carry on their person these prescriptions drugs from Canada. This amendment would go further and allow that, not only on an individual American citizen's person, but also by mail order or the Internet, as long as that American citizen is not in the business of wholesaling and selling prescription drugs, as long as it is for his or her personal use.

I hope the Senate, both sides of the aisle come together as we have in the past with a strong, overwhelming majority--in the past it has been 68 votes or more--and pass this amendment and say enough is enough. Let's establish this regime of safe reimportation from Canada and elsewhere. Let's push the administration to put forward the safety mechanisms that they absolutely have the authority and ability to help lower the cost of prescription drugs for all American citizens, particularly our seniors.

I urge my colleagues to join me in this amendment.

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

Madam President, I rise today to discuss a project I sponsored in the fiscal year 2008 Labor, Health, Human Services and Education appropriations bill. The project, which would develop a plan to promote better science-based education in Ouachita Parish by the Louisiana Family Forum, has raised concerns among some that its intention was to mandate and push creationism within the public schools. That is clearly not and never was the intent of the project, nor would it have been its effect. However, to avoid more hysterics, I would like to move the $100,000 recommended for this project by the subcommittee when the bill goes to conference committee to another Louisiana priority project funded in this bill.

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

Madam President, I rise to strongly urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join in support of Vitter amendment No. 3277. We will be voting on that amendment shortly.

This is a commonsense, straightforward amendment, reasonable in nature, which is supported by the vast majority of the American people. It is supported because it makes good common sense. It says very simply that everyone at all levels of government should be part of the solution and should cooperate fully with Federal immigration enforcement officials and should not refuse to cooperate, refuse to give information to those officials trying to do a very difficult job, and in those cases where local jurisdictions do not properly cooperate with Federal officials, as is currently mandated by Federal law, then those local jurisdictions will not get COPS funds. It is pure and simple. This is present law. So we tell local and State jurisdictions: Please follow present Federal law. And if you don't, don't expect to get money from the Federal Government, particularly in the area of COPS funding.

Again, I think it is very important to make clear that we are not changing present Federal law with this amendment; we are simply trying to enforce it.

In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, and section 642(a) of that legislation, now over 10 years old, is very clear:

Federal, State, or local government entity or official may

not prohibit, or in any way restrict any government entity or

official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration

and Naturalization Service information regarding the

citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any

individual.

It couldn't be clearer, and it couldn't be simpler. That is present Federal law and has been for over 10 years--cooperate and share information. You cannot prohibit that basic, straightforward, reasonable sharing of information. Our Federal authorities have a very difficult job to do, and they can never get it done without reasonable minimal help from other law enforcement officials around the country.

The problem is there are these so-called sanctuary cities or sanctuary jurisdictions that have made it perfectly clear they are going to ignore that Federal law. They are going to break that Federal law. They are not going to cooperate in any way with the enforcement of our immigration laws. They are going to be part of an active movement to flaunt them, to not enforce those laws, and to frustrate the enforcement of those laws.

Not surprisingly, this is perhaps clearest coming out of San Francisco. There the mayor said very clearly--and this was just this past April in response to the Federal authorities' raid on an Oakland business, where they arrested 13 foreign nationals who entered the country illegally--the San Francisco mayor said:

I will not allow any of my department heads or anyone

associated with this city to cooperate in any way, shape, or

form with these raids. We are a sanctuary city, make no

mistake about it.

One of his counterparts in the area, the mayor of Richmond, CA, just outside of San Francisco, actually went a little further, if you can believe that, if you can believe it is possible to go further. This past February, he said:

I really don't believe that any of our residents should be

living in a climate of fear and terror like this. People have

no real criminal behavior at all and have been unjustly

placed under arrest.

That was in response to a raid by Federal officials.

So the San Francisco mayor said: We are not going to have anything to do with it, we are going to do everything we can to frustrate the Federal law. The Richmond mayor went beyond that and said: We don't think Federal immigration officials should be doing their job.

I think that is wrong.

This has reached a ridiculous level, Madam President. It is no surprise to the American people that we are not enforcing our laws when they hear local jurisdictions acting like this, flaunting the law, ignoring clear Federal law that has been on the books for over 10 years. If we have any chance to rein in illegal immigration and enforce the rule of law, Federal officials need reasonable help. That is what it will take to enforce our immigration laws. And in enforcing our immigration laws, we will make this country safer.

I clearly, strongly disagree with these arguments that somehow this is going to lessen public safety. This will increase public safety as we enforce our laws. Surely, surely some horrible and tragic incidents from the past several months should make this clear.

For instance, in Virginia Beach, 17-year-old Allison Kunhardt and 16- year-old Tessa Tranchant were killed when their car was struck by a drunk driver who happened to be an illegal alien. Now, that is tragic enough, but that illegal alien had multiple prior convictions for drunk driving. He had gone through the local criminal justice system multiple times, and guess what--not once had that been reported to immigration officials. If it had, and if immigration officials had properly acted, that person would have been off the street, unable to kill through his vehicle.

Similarly, in Newark, NJ, some college students were horribly and tragically shot execution style by Jose Carranza. Carranza was out on bail awaiting trial on two separate felonies. He was also in this country illegally. So not only was he out on bail under questionable circumstances, but if immigration officials had been notified and if they had acted properly, he could have been under arrest and/or out of the country. Instead, three completely innocent college students were executed and are dead today.

This does have everything to do with the rule of law. It has everything to do with public safety. It has everything to do with getting hold of our safety and immigration laws and everyone working cooperatively in the right spirit, in the right vein, and following the present Federal law to do just that.

I would also note that an identical amendment to this was passed quite easily--by voice vote, as a matter of fact--in the House of Representatives.

Let's act on common sense, let's be reasonable, and let's enforce Federal law that has been on the books for over 10 years now. Let's adopt this amendment.

Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee.

Madam President, I wish to use 2 minutes of my remaining time and reserve the rest.

We are talking about present Federal law over 10 years old. Are we going to enforce it or are we going to flout it? Let's not kid ourselves. We have all these arguments about law enforcement. I think everyone paying attention to this debate realizes it comes down to whether you think it is a problem, a big deal, for folks to be here in this country illegally. The other side of the argument doesn't even like to use the term being in the country illegally. They talk about ``status issues'' and all of this other politically correct language for the fact that folks are in the country illegally, having broken the law to get here, and consistently are breaking the law to stay here.

That is what the disagreement is about. That is what the debate is about. It is obvious, when you look at the fervor, the political fervor with which so many of these sanctuary cities proclaim their sanctuary status. It is a cause celebre because they basically do not think it is a problem for these folks to come to the country illegally and stay illegally.

As I said, look at this quote from the mayor of Richmond, CA. He is criticizing the Federal authorities, the immigration authorities, for doing their job enforcing Federal law.

The American people are watching. They know the fundamental question is: Are we going to get serious with the problem? Are we going to get serious with enforcement? I suggest this amendment is an excellent way to start.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, in closing, let me address one specific point the distinguished Senator from Maryland raised. I think she is giving the wrong impression to suggest that the Vitter amendment, or anything else in Federal law, places some affirmative duty on local or State law enforcement to all of a sudden take up the responsibility of Federal immigration officials. They have no duty to start enforcing Federal law and use up their budget and their time affirmatively enforcing Federal immigration law.

But what we are saying, and what present Federal law says, is these jurisdictions cannot establish a set policy that absolutely prohibits that sort of communication and information sharing with Federal authorities. That is exactly what these sanctuary cities, sanctuary jurisdictions, have done. It is a left political cause celebre to proclaim yourself a sanctuary city and actually work to frustrate Federal law.

Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge and honor a very special group, the Louisiana HonorAir. Louisiana HonorAir is a not-for-profit organization that flies as many as 200 World War II veterans up to Washington, DC, free of charge. On October 27, 2007, a group of 105 veterans and their guardians will reach Washington on this very special program.

While visiting Washington, DC, the veterans will tour sights, such as the Arlington National Cemetery, the Korean Memorial, and the World War II Memorial. The program provides many veterans with their only opportunity to see the great memorials dedicated to their service.

Thus, today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring these great Americans and thanking them for their devotion and service to our Nation.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside any pending amendment or business so that the Vitter amendment, No. 3277, may be called up.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.

Mr. President, this is amendment No. 3277, and it is very simple and straightforward and, I believe, very needed. The amendment would simply prohibit COPS funding, which is governed under this bill, from going to so-called sanctuary cities. In doing so, it would do nothing more than to enforce current Federal law.

Mr. President, as you know, in 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. In that 1996 legislation, which is current law, there is a very clear section on sanctuary city policy. It is section 642(a), and it states in clear unmistakable terms:

Federal, State or local government entity or official may

not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity

or official from sending to, or receiving from, the

Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding

the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of

any individual.

Mr. President, the idea behind that policy is very simple. Law enforcement around the country should be free to cooperate with Federal authorities regarding immigration, regarding immigration enforcement, and no State or local government should be able to contradict Federal law by establishing a State or local law which bars this sort of commonsense cooperation. Unfortunately, that is exactly what several local jurisdictions and at least two States on a statewide basis have done. They have established, by State law, by local law, by local ordinance, so-called sanctuary policies absolutely prohibiting law enforcement and other public personnel in their jurisdiction from working with or cooperating with Federal authorities with regard to immigration enforcement.

This is by no means the majority policy of jurisdictions around the country. Far from it, Mr. President, because I think a clear overwhelming majority of the American people and their State and local elected officials support commonsense cooperation with the Federal Government in enforcing our laws. But it is a very significant trend, a very significant happening around the country. Many local jurisdictions and at least two States have adopted this very conscious and very boldly proclaimed policy, calling themselves sanctuary cities, or sanctuary jurisdictions.

My amendment would simply prohibit COPS funding from going to these jurisdictions. It would say this is our Federal law, and that States, that localities must cooperate with Federal immigration officials. And if they are not going to do that, if they are going to pass laws clearly in contravention, 180 degrees opposed to Federal law, then they will not get COPS funding under this bill.

Again, Mr. President, it couldn't be simpler. It couldn't be more straightforward--COPS money, COPS funds, will not go to sanctuary cities, so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, if my amendment passes. And, again, this is doing nothing more than enforcing present Federal law, a policy or law that has been on the books for over 10 years. So why shouldn't we put some meaningful teeth in that Federal law and prevent these local and State jurisdictions from simply flaunting Federal law and not abiding by Federal law?

I would note that the House of Representatives has already acted on this issue in the companion bill to this CJS appropriations bill. In the House bill, a similar amendment to mine passed by voice vote. Having said that, I would hope that a huge majority of the Senate similarly votes to pass this Vitter amendment, to adopt it, and to put it on the CJS appropriations bill.

This is common sense. It does nothing more than enforce current Federal policy and Federal law. It is clearly the sort of commonsense, straightforward legislation that a huge majority of the American people support. I know there will be a vote on this sometime tomorrow, Mr. President, so I urge all my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to join with the huge majority of the American people behind this reasonable and commonsense policy.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.