Floor Statements

Mr. President, the explanation of managers accompanying the bill today is not as expansive as it could have been in regard to some sections of the bill. To ensure that my intent, and the intent of the remainder of the conferees, is clear I want to provide additional direction.

Section 1001(24) authorizes the remaining features of the Morganza to the Gulf hurricane protection project. It is important to note that the House, Senate, and conferees recognized the importance of advancing this project beyond the initial authorization of segment J-1 and the additional funding and authorization provided in Public Law 109-148 and Public Law 109-234, with the full understanding of concerns raised regarding the potential impact of the project on wetlands--including those raised in the administration's Statement of Administration Policy related to this bill. The conferees believe that existing law, including section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and section 7005 of this bill, provides more than sufficient flexibility to make any modifications deemed necessary and, subject to the availability of appropriations, expect the project to move immediately to the construction phase.

The conferees recognize that the Morganza to the Gulf project was initiated in 1992. Congress authorized the full project in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Public Law 106-541, but Corps of Engineers' delays resulted in the failure of the command to meet the statutory deadline required to implement the project. The 15 years it has taken to reach this point have left Terrebonne Parish and portions of Lafourche Parish very vulnerable to storm surge, hurricane and flood damage, and the loss of life and property. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has expended well over $100 million in public and private assistance grants in recent years in response to damages that would have been prevented had the project been in place.

The conferees understood that modifications to the Morganza project may be required. These include but are not limited to changes related to wetlands, IPET recommendations, and other factors. The conferees also understand that significant cost increases from the initial estimates were included in the 2002 and 2003 reports of the chief. These increases are related to significant rises in labor and materials costs as a result of activities responding to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and attributable to new standards for storm damage reduction and flood control projects related to IPET recommendations. The conferees did not increase the project authorization due to the fact that section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 specifically provides for cost increases related to ``changes in construction cost applied to unconstructed features'' and for increases related to ``mitigation and other environmental actions''.

As was mandated by Congress in the past, the Secretary shall make the Houma Lock a top priority and expedite this feature, in addition to other features that will provide important protection to vulnerable areas. The Secretary should consider integrating the construction of the Houma Lock with modifications of the feature authorized in section 7006(e)(3)(A)(i), only if the integration will not cause delays to this feature.

Should significant additional features or increases in protection levels be warranted, the Secretary should consider the implementation of these improvements under section 211 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. It is noted that the Army did not notify Congress of any additional authorization needs for this project. It is the conferees' intent that this project move forward as soon as possible with no further congressional authorization. Delays in protection for this area cannot continue.

Section 1001(25) authorizes the Port of Iberia access improvement and Vermilion parish storm surge protection project. It is the intent that the Corps provide meaningful storm protection to Vermilion Parish in an expedited manner without delays to the deepening project.

Section 1004(a)(7) directs the Army Corps of Engineers to study and carry out a project to dredge and maintain the Napoleon Avenue Container Terminal berthing area in the Port of New Orleans at a depth not to exceed the authorized channel depth of the Mississippi River ship channel. Deepening of that berthing area will ensure that the full transportation benefits of the authorized channel depth of the Mississippi River ship channel will be realized by the adjacent port terminal. This small navigation enhancement project will create significant economic and business benefits for the port, and aid in the continuing recovery of the greater New Orleans area.

Section 3081 authorizes the Corps of Engineers to credit the State of Louisiana for cost associated with mitigating the impact of freshwater diversions on oyster beds. It is the intent that ``relocating'' includes any means to remove or relocate the interests in the oyster beds from the impact area. In some cases, this may include leaving the oyster beds in place. It is the understanding of the conferees that oyster beds could serve as a form of protection from further coastal land and wetlands loss.

Section 3082 provides for the relocation of facilities impacted by the closure of the Mississippi River gulf outlet through the Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration. The section also establishes a loan program for businesses. The conferees specified that the loan program is a ``revolving loan''; therefore, nothing in the bill restricts the loan authority to $85 million. It is the intent that available loan authority be provided to businesses until demand is fully met. It is expected that the actual loan authority will far exceed the authorized funding level.

Section 3084 authorizes the Corps to maintain responsibility for long-term costs associated with the Algiers Canals Levees portion of the Westbank and Vicinity project. Subsection (c) is intended to apply only to work performed under the original authorization. Ongoing work on the project is based upon authorization and funding provided in the various emergency supplemental appropriations acts related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The cost share included in subsection (c) shall not apply to the work funded in those acts.

Section 4101 directs the Government Accountability Office to conduct a review of disaster debris removal policy related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. It is the intent that the GAO shall coordinate the data required to determine the appropriate findings with the Environmental Protection Agency and Corps of Engineers. The EPA and Corps are expected to fully cooperate with the GAO and should be given the opportunity to comment and respond to the GAO's findings as is customary with these reports. Should any adverse findings result, it is the intent

that the appropriate agencies immediately respond to such findings.

Section 5083 directs the Corps to complete the supplemental EIS related to the lock project by July 01, 2008. As is clear in the bill language, it is expected that this mandate be met. The provision does not provide for alternative deadlines or procedures for delay. Appropriate planning and schedule compressions should be applied immediately.

Section 5084 clarifies that a previous meeting shall serve as the requirement for a stakeholders meeting. The effect of this provision is that construction grants may be awarded as part of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Program.

Section 5157(14) authorizes improvements to the Larose to Golden Meadow, LA, project by the non-Federal interest to be reimbursed by the Secretary. It is intended that these improvements include the conversion of the Leon Theriot Floodgate into a lock and improvements required to advance protection to, meet or exceed the 100-year level of flood protection as determined under the National Flood Insurance Program at the time of construction of the improvements. It is expected that this authorization will complement the $90 million in improvements authorized under section 7015.

Title VII authorizes 15 coastal protection and restoration projects and additional flood protection and storm damage reduction. In the case of each project, it is likely that the authority provided by section 902 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 will be exercised. It is noted that this authority provides for cost increases of 20 percent in addition to those increases attributable to inflation, ``changes in construction cost applied to unconstructed features'' and for other cost increases. It is expected that all deadlines will be met and each project will advance in a timely manner.

Section 7004 establishes a Federal-State task force. The conferees intended that the three representatives of the State of Louisiana each serve at the pleasure of the Governor of that State.

Section 7005 authorizes the review and modification of water resource projects in the Louisiana coastal area project area to alleviate conflicts in project features. The requirement to review ``each'' project in the LCA project area should not be construed as a requirement to conduct an in depth review of all projects. The Secretary, in coordination with the State of Louisiana, is expected to identify those projects that are reasonable candidates for modification rather than wasting significant resources reviewing all projects in detail.

Section 7006, of the Louisiana Coastal Area Title, title VII, authorizes a science and technology program specifically for the coastal Louisiana ecosystem. This science and technology program will provide the accurate scientific and technological advances needed to improve the knowledge of the physical, chemical, geological, biological, and cultural baseline conditions in the coastal Louisiana ecosystem and related natural and built assets.

Section 7006 (a)(2)(3) and (4) of title VII of H.R. 1495 already provides some of the purposes and direction for carrying out the science and technology program. However, since there is no further report language clarification in the accompanying conference report language, I want to provide further direction, and the conferees intent, specifically as it applies to the purposes and organizations that should drive this important research program so that the Louisiana coastal area projects authorized by this important bill are done right the first time.

It is my firm intent, and that of the conferees, that the science and technology program will be conducted through a Louisiana agency- university-industry partnership led by the Long-term Estuary Assessment Group, LEAG, and the Coastal Restoration & Enhancement for Science & Technology, CREST, in partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey National Wetlands Research Center. The aim of this alliance is to create a cooperative science, engineering, and technology program to help policymakers, planners, and coastal resource managers use the latest objective information on the built and natural environment to ensure sustainable and productive coastal habitats and communities. This program should respond directly to the challenges identified by the task force and provide proactive solutions for the long-term success of the program.

It is also the conferees intent that the science and technology program priority research areas shall also include the following efforts and purposes:

A. Scientific tools for coastal restoration. New tools, or refinement of existing tools, for carrying out coastal restoration in coastal Louisiana. This area includes evaluation of restoration techniques, development of new sensor and monitoring platform technologies, and operational approaches that are applicable to both ongoing and planned projects in the coastal region of these States.

B. Human dimensions of coastal restoration efforts. Sociological and economic information of direct use to managers and planners involved in coastal restoration efforts. This area focuses on projects that can be of relevance to coastal habitat which includes but are not limited to aspects such as land use, resource use and management, mitigation of coastal habitat loss, legal or industrial matters, environmental history, socioeconomic and behavioral effects, values to publics, and public awareness, sustainable neighborhood plan development, and education. This information could also be useful and applicable to other regions.

C. Future perspectives. Concepts and approaches to guide future restoration of the Louisiana coastal ecosystem should also be considered. This includes field work, workshops, expert panels, reviews or syntheses of existing work. Specifically, projects should consider sustainable approaches to restoration that take into account future changes such as existing and emerging contaminants, degradation of coastal habitat resulting from planned human actions or policies, urban and natural ecosystem linkages, or the influence of variations in the climate system on the coast. Efforts should be regional in scale and of direct utility to agencies planning future restoration.

Southern Louisiana remains severely impacted by or vulnerable to coastal erosion, sea level rise, and the loss and degradation of natural wetland habitats. This long-term deterioration was exacerbated by the 2005 hurricanes, Katrina and Rita, which devastated much of Louisiana's coastal regions. Such a combination of factors puts at risk the infrastructure of the region and the livelihood of its inhabitants, presenting an urgent need for a swift and successful response that will restore the natural protective structures in the region and enhance the ecology. Successful restoration of any natural ecosystem requires sound understanding of the problems and how they developed, as well as clearly defined targets for what we expect from the system after restoration. Scientific uncertainties and technological inadequacies must not limit our ability to respond to the needs of coastal communities. Rather, advances in science and technology should be integrated directly into restoration programs to ensure that coastal habitat restoration is implemented cost-effectively and successfully sustains coastal resources.

Section 7007 (b) directs the Secretary to accept as a non-Federal cost share other Federal funds in certain cases. In addition to other Federal programs and resources, it is the intent that the provision shall clarify any misunderstanding that funds resulting from sections 383 and 384 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58, and title I of Division C of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Public Law 109-432 are eligible as a non-Federal match. This statement should not be construed as to prejudice any State's ability to use the funds specified from the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 as a non-Federal match for any program or any other use.

Section 7012(a) authorizes the modification of the outfall canals on Lake Pontchartrain. The conference agreement provides for the construction of closure structures on the 17th Street, Orleans Avenue and London Avenue canals at or near the lakefront at Lake Pontchartrain. It also authorizes the installation of new pumping stations associated with the outfall canals. It is the intent of the conferees that the Secretary continues ongoing efforts to

implement an appropriate solution to the outfall canal and pumping challenges which would be constructed under this authority. Evacuating storm water to the Mississippi River, rather than into the outfall canals, should be considered as part of any comprehensive plan constructed under this authority.

The conference agreement also includes bill language that authorizes the replacement or modification of non-Federal levees in Plaquemines Parish. The conferees urge the Secretary to expedite efforts that will supplement or compliment existing Federal protection adjacent to the Mississippi River banks associated with the New Orleans to Venice project.

Section 7012(b) clarifies that all work authorized pursuant to sections 7012(a)(2) through 7012(a)(9) and Section 7013 shall be performed at full Federal expense.

Section 7013 authorizes the closure and restoration of the Mississippi River gulf outlet ecosystem. It is the intent that the full restoration of the area be included as part of the program. The Secretary should progress with the closure as soon as possible and should consider using funds and authorization provided in Public Law 109-148 and Public Law 109-234 immediately upon enactment of this act.

Section 7014 requires the Secretary to submit actual project recommendations as part of the Louisiana coastal protection and restoration analysis and design. Despite several communications, the Secretary has continued down a course that is entirely inconsistent with congressional intent in regard to this analysis and design. It remains very concerning that the Secretary considers expending $20 million to develop a document that will provide little guidance and not advance future protection efforts a wise use of taxpayer funds. Further, it is inexcusable that the Congress was forced to include this directive in statute to refocus this analysis and design on the intent of Congress. The original intent of the authorization was clear that Corps was to provide actual project recommendations, design, and a technical report. The intentional mismanagement of this effort by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works is concerning, will cause delays in protection improvements, and may result in additional loss of life and property. Further, it is noteworthy that the statute requiring the development of this document placed the requirement upon the Chief of Engineers to provide this information to Congress. Yet the interim report was signed only by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. I commend GEN Carl Strock for the integrity he apparently demonstrated in this case.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I just ask if folks would be willing to amend that unanimous consent request slightly to allow me to offer an amendment following all of that and to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.

Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3141.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Bayh and Lincoln be added as cosponsors to the amendment.

Madam President, I present this amendment on behalf of Senator Sessions, the lead author, as well as many coauthors, including myself, from both sides of the aisle. Senator Nelson of Florida will speak, and Senator Kyl, and Senators Lieberman, Inhofe, Pryor, Lautenberg, Bayh, and Lincoln.

Clearly, this is a very bipartisan initiative and, I believe, a very important one. This amendment would make available an additional $75 million for the Aegis ballistic missile defense system. That is a very important sea-based component of what will hopefully be a multilayered approach to missile defense--to defend our country, as well as our interests and allies around the world.

That money would come from an existing larger pot of funds already in the legislation, already available, for missile defense more generally. Specifically, $20 million of that money could be used to increase the production rate of the SM-3 interceptor; $45 million could be used for long-lead production of an additional 15 SM-3 missiles; and $10 million can be used to accelerate the development of the Aegis BMD Signal Processor and Open Architecture software for the Aegis BMD system. They are all very important components to the overall Aegis system and moving forward with this sea-based component of our missile defense.

This amount that would be made available under the amendment is precisely tied to the amount and the activity authorized in our National Defense Authorization Act--the chairman's mark of that--which passed the Senate on Monday. Similar increases for this proven capability were also included in the House Defense authorization and appropriations bill--a clear indication that this is a broad, bipartisan priority, a very important priority in terms of our overall missile defense network.

The additional funding that could be made available by this amendment would increase the production rate of the SM-3 missile interceptor, which is carried aboard Aegis destroyers and cruisers. There are about two dozen of these missiles in the inventory today, and this number is expected to rise to 132 by the end of 2013, which is not nearly enough to keep pace with the threat. That threat is very real and it is growing. That has been identified and documented by our military leaders.

In fact, they said there is a need to nearly double the number of planned interceptors. To be sure, North Korea alone deploys 600 short- range ballistic missiles and 200 medium-range ballistic missiles that can reach U.S. forces in Japan, South Korea, Okinawa, and Guam. Similarly, Iran deploys scores of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles and, of course, both entities are developing longer range systems that could target Europe or even the United States.

I believe this is very important. We need a multilayered approach to missile defense. We need to accelerate the development of that, and this Aegis system, which is sea-based, is a very important part of that. It is important to do it; it is important to send the message loud and clear to our allies and enemies around the world that we are doing it.

In closing, I thank Senator Sessions for his leadership and also Senator Nelson of Florida, who will speak very soon, and all the other bipartisan cosponsors of this important amendment.

I ask unanimous consent, first--because he approached me first--for Senator Kyl to have up to 5 minutes to respond to other debate on the Senate floor and then, immediately after that, Senator Nelson of Florida to speak for an appropriate time on this Sessions-Nelson amendment No. 3141.

Madam President, I rise today in support of amendment No. 3140 to the 2008 Defense Appropriations Act. This amendment is in the interest of Louisiana and health care programs within the Department of Defense. I request up to $1 billion be made available for Maternal- Fetal Health Informatics and Outreach Program. This project will be the use of Telehealth and electronic medical record, EMR, technologies centered on conducting research and developing technology solutions for high-risk obstetrical patients, in collaboration with the DOD. The intent of the Maternal Fetal Informatics Outreach Program, MFIOP, is to leverage technology toward optimizing health care delivery solutions for women and infants. This effort will increase portability of patient records and lead to a decrease in associated health care cost related to obstetrical, OB, and newborn health care services. The Maternal- Fetal Health Informatics and Outreach Program is currently operating out of Woman's Hospital in Baton Rouge, LA. I have no personal, familiar or political connection to this project.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a very important amendment I have filed to the SCHIP legislation that passed the House and was sent back to the Senate. Unfortunately, the majority leader has decided not to allow any Republican amendments to this very important legislation. But I wish to take the opportunity, nevertheless, to discuss my amendment which is filed which is at the desk. It is very straightforward.

It simply says American citizens only are eligible for SCHIP and that no funds will be used to expand health care benefits in SCHIP to illegal immigrants and others.

The legislation we are considering, as written, will do just that. It will expand the program enormously without any regard for focusing on American citizens, and it is very clear that in that expansion, the benefit would go to many illegal aliens because of glaring loopholes that exist in present law and in this legislation.

Congressman Jim McCrery of Louisiana has been looking into this issue for several weeks. On September 21, he wrote the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Congressman McCrery's letter to the Social Security Administration.

Mr. President, Congressman McCrery laid out seven very simple and straightforward questions that go exactly to this point: Is there any reliable way to ensure that this program is reserved for American citizens, not illegal aliens in the country?

Unfortunately, the answers--all seven of them--came back: No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Administrator's responses.

Mr. President, the responses are very clear:

. . . we have no basis for estimating how many noncitizens

would match if this language were passed by Congress.

Section 301 would not provide for verification of

citizenship. . . .

Our current name/SSN verification procedures will not

detect legal aliens who are not naturalized citizens.

They will not detect illegal aliens who have gotten Social Security numbers fraudulently.

The . . . verification system in Section 301 would not

identify individuals who have illegally overstayed a work

Visa permit,

And on and on.

The record is perfectly clear, including from the Social Security Administration Commissioner, that there is nothing in the SCHIP legislation to prevent this fraud, to prevent these very significant costly benefits coming from the Federal taxpayers from going to illegal aliens in the country.

Again, this is a glaring problem with this legislation. It is a glaring problem with many existing Federal benefits that we should address head on. Absent a solution to look at this carefully in the context of this legislation, I do not think it should move forward.

Again, it is truly unfortunate that we have no ability to vote on this amendment on the Senate floor. This is a significant issue, this is a significant bill, and yet no Republican amendments, either this amendment or any other, can be considered on the Senate floor given the procedures the majority leader has used to shut out debate, shut out amendments, move forward, ignore a very serious concern of the American people. I think that is unfortunate. I also think it is reason not to move forward in passing this SCHIP legislation--one significant reason among others.

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

Mr. President, I also rise and join so many colleagues on both sides of the aisle in strong support of this Water Resources Development Act conference report. Perhaps it is appropriate that we will pass this historic legislation through the Senate today, September 24, the 2-year anniversary of Hurricane Rita which devastated large parts of southeast Texas and southwest Louisiana.

Of course, less than a month ago, August 29, was the 2-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, also appropriate that we are finally moving on this crucial legislation so near to that anniversary.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that as we still battle to recover from those two devastating storms, as we still climb out of that enormous setback in Louisiana, as we still face important work to do related to that recovery in Congress, this conference report, this WRDA bill, is the single most important thing we can pass to help the gulf coast with that recovery, particularly medium and long term. That is how vital it is to improve hurricane flood protection. That is how essential it is to our very lifeblood survival recovery from the devastating impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Of course, as virtually everyone, I am very frustrated about how long it took us to get to this moment--7 years--when a WRDA bill is expected to be passed every 2 years. But at least, I will also say, we have done something with that delay in improving the bill, particularly to take account of the needs and the lessons learned coming out of those devastating storms.

I first came to the Senate after the election of 2004, January 2005. The first committee I was assigned to was the Environment and Public Works Committee, through which this WRDA bill, of course, passes. That committee works on this bill. Even when I first came to the Senate 3 years ago, this bill was about 2 years overdue. So it has been a long time coming. But we have worked on it, we have improved it, it has gone through the committee process, and it has gone through the conference process.

I also served on the conference committee. We finally have a very good, robust product and, again, we have at least taken advantage of that time lapse to learn the lessons of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and to include key positions that Louisiana and the gulf coast need for their recovery and, indeed, survival.

What crucial provisions are included in this bill? A 100-year level of hurricane protection. President Bush, in his famous Jackson Square speech in mid-September 2005, made a clear, firm, and historic commitment to that very high level of hurricane protection.

This bill embodies that commitment and passes it into law. It takes several steps forward toward that 100-year level of protection.

Recently the Corps determined that level of protection doesn't exist in the

greater New Orleans area. We are between 2 and 16 feet vertically deficient in terms of our levees throughout the greater New Orleans area. This bill fully authorizes addressing that shortfall.

The second key component of the bill, moving on into the future, is a greater level of hurricane protection even beyond the 100-year level, what we in south Louisiana call category 5 protection. In prior legislation, some of the supplemental appropriation bills we passed on an emergency basis after the hurricanes, we told the Corps to get to work studying and designing that higher level of protection. This bill further refines that mandate and directs the Corps in no uncertain terms to offer specific project recommendations toward that fundamentally higher, sounder level of protection.

A third crucial component is coastal restoration. As my colleague from Louisiana has referred to, Louisiana has lost enormous amounts of land, having it vanish into the gulf due to coastal land loss. We have lost more land than exists in the entire State of Delaware. Right now, as we speak, we lose a football field of land every 38 minutes, and that is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. It goes on and on and on. This bill begins to address in a very serious way that national emergency. This bill authorizes an ambitious coastal restoration plan.

Again, the bill is long overdue, but we have made use of that delay. When I first came to the Senate, the WRDA bill then under consideration only devoted about $400 million to this national crisis of coastal land loss. It only authorized one specific project. We knew we had to do more. We saw we had to do more because of the experiences of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and so now we authorize around $4 billion of this crucial work, with 17 specific coastal restoration projects fully authorized.

Corps reform, another crucial provision, is embodied in the bill, although I think we do Corps reform right, particularly with regard to Louisiana projects. One of the most bitter lessons of Hurricane Katrina in particular was that the Corps had made serious engineering and other mistakes in the past which led to the levee breaches and devastating flooding throughout the New Orleans area. We had to reform the process to make sure that never happened again. We had to bring in outside engineering and other expertise to integrate with the expertise within the Corps to make sure those sorts of mistakes were never made again.

I drafted, with the help of others, Corps reform provisions that are in this bill, some of them specific to Louisiana projects. For the first time ever, we fully integrate hurricane, coastal, flood protection, and navigation programs within Louisiana and we mandate a specific integration team that will help that become reality so that one type of project isn't done in isolation.

We establish the Louisiana Water Resources Council to improve the efficiency and performance of projects. That is a very important part of Corps reform. We expedite the process so that, hopefully, no longer will it take an average of 13 years--13 years--for an average Corps project to even get to the stage where the first shovel hits the ground.

This bill contains so many other crucial provisions--closing of the MRGO, major improvements to the Bonnet Carre diversion alternative, major hurricane protection improvements to the lower Jefferson Parish and Lafourche Parish, and crucial work in the southwest part of the State, where Hurricane Rita caused devastating damage, including deeper access to the Port of Iberia, coupled with greater flood and hurricane protection for Vermilion Parish, and improved dredging and navigation on the Calcasieu River, and on and on and on. This bill is a lifeline for our continued survival in Louisiana.

As we move forward, I thank all of the folks who worked so hard to produce this bill, certainly including the leadership of my EPW Committee, the chair, Chairman Boxer, the ranking member, Senator Inhofe, and the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, Senators Isakson and Baucus, and all of their very devoted staff. As we move on, I urge all of us to join together to pass the bill, and then to either avoid Presidential veto or, if necessary, hopefully work immediately in a bipartisan fashion to override that veto and ensure that this crucial legislation, crucial for the very survival of Louisiana, becomes law.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I will speak in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise today to strongly oppose the Durbin amendment to the Defense appropriations bill. That amendment would pass the so-called DREAM Act into law.

In standing up in opposition, let me suggest this should not be called the DREAM Act. It should be called the ``Amnesty Reality Act'' because this is yet another attempt, another version of amnesty for a significant number of illegal aliens.

Let me say at the outset I am not standing here to criticize or to lambaste the individuals involved, undoubtedly, who came to this country with their parents to try to find a better life because of very difficult conditions in Mexico or otherwise.

The point of my opposition is not directed at them. It is directed at what is very bad and destructive policy in terms of U.S. immigration policy, repeating the mistakes of the past, making a very real problem worse and not better through a significant amnesty program.

Why is this an amnesty? Well, purely and simply, this so-called DREAM Act, which I think should be called the ``Amnesty Reality Act,'' embodied in this Durbin amendment to the Defense appropriations bill would provide a pathway to citizenship to who knows how many folks who entered this country, and remain in this country, illegally. Specifically, it targets folks who came into this country illegally as minors, presumably with their families, with their parents. It also gives them benefits in this country that most U.S. citizens do not enjoy, specifically, instate college tuition that U.S. citizens outside that State do not enjoy.

This is very frustrating to me. Just a few months ago, we had a major debate on the floor of this body about immigration policy. A large so- called comprehensive immigration bill was on the floor of the Senate. It received a lot of attention and a lot of focus. That was a good thing because the American people got engaged; they focused on what was going on. They understood what was being proposed, and they wrote and e-mailed and called us in record numbers.

I do not think anyone can deny the message came through loudly and clearly. The message was: We do not support an amnesty program because that will make the problem far worse and not better. The second part of the message was: Let's start with real enforcement. Let's finally get serious with border security, workplace security, to begin to address this very real illegal immigration problem in this country.

That message came through in such volume that it literally shut down the Senate phone system on the morning of that pivotal vote which defeated that so-called comprehensive immigration bill proposed by Senator Kennedy and Senator Durbin, the author of this DREAM Act amendment, and others.

What is so frustrating to me is that very loud, very clear message seems to have fallen on deaf ears in terms of some Members of this body. Unfortunately, this DREAM Act amendment is proof of that. Again, it is, clearly beyond argument, another version of amnesty. It would provide a pathway to citizenship for a significant class of people, folks who came into this country illegally as minors. We do not know how many people that would be, and we have very little way of enforcing even the provisions of this amendment to keep it to the folks to whom it is supposed to be targeted.

What do I mean by that? Well, the folks are supposed to have come into this country in the last 5 years. Yet at the same time the amendment says it can apply to people up to age 30. What sort of proof do these folks have to offer with regard to when they came into this country? There is no proof requirement. It could simply be an affirmative statement by themselves, no other required proof. So this is open ended, this is unenforceable, and it is a significant amnesty.

In addition, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, it provides substantial benefits to these folks illegally in our country, benefits that the huge majority of American citizens do not enjoy. What is that? Well, the biggest is instate college tuition that would come to folks who sign up for the DREAM Act. As soon as they sign up, they would be treated as instate residents of that State. They would get instate tuition, and--guess what--all other U.S. citizens, the children of all other U.S. citizens outside that particular State who would love the benefit of instate tuition would not enjoy that same benefit.

That does not match the commonsense test that the American people want us to use. It certainly has nothing to do with the message the American people sent to us loudly and clearly during the debate on the so-called comprehensive immigration bill with its massive amnesty program. Again, that message came through loudly and clearly: No amnesty; real enforcement.

The American people are saying that not because they are mean- spirited, not because they hold anything against these individuals who are seeking a better life in this country, but because they know, because common sense tells them, this is going to make the problem worse and not better. Inadequate enforcement, with amnesty, acts as a magnet to magnify the problem, to encourage more illegals to cross the border into our country. If that does not ring true just because of common sense, history proves it.

The last time the Congress acted in this area of the law was in 1986, again

with significant immigration reform. The promise was exactly the same: We are going to get serious. We are going to get real with enforcement. We just need this amnesty one time--never again--to help solve the problem.

Well, what happened? That bill passed into law. The real enforcement never happened to an adequate extent, but, of course, the amnesty provision went into effect immediately. What happens when you combine inadequate enforcement with real amnesty? What you do is make the problem worse and not better, encourage more illegals to come into the country.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. In this case it is in the numbers. What was then, in 1986, a problem of 3 million illegal aliens in this country, is now a problem of 12 or 13 million or more. So what did that one-time solution do? It quadrupled the problem. It proved not to be a solution at all.

I suggest we do something that some might consider novel around here. Let's listen to the common sense and wisdom of the American people. Let's say no to amnesty, as we did in June by defeating the immigration bill sponsored by Senator Kennedy and others. Let's say yes to real enforcement both at the border and in the workplace. And let's offer that message again by defeating this very ill-conceived Durbin amendment.

To help defeat this amendment, I will be offering a second-degree amendment to the Durbin amendment. My second-degree amendment is very simple. It simply says nothing in the Durbin amendment goes into effect, goes into law, until the US-VISIT Program is fully operational. The US-VISIT Program is something that was first proposed in 1996, an entry/exit system so we know who is coming into the country, who is leaving the country--something very basic, very necessary in terms of enforcement.

Although it was proposed in 1996, it has never come close to being fully operational because Congress, folks in Washington, this administration and previous administrations, have never had the political will to get it done.

So, again, my second-degree amendment to the Durbin DREAM Act amendment is very simple. That cannot go into effect until the US-VISIT system is fully operational at our borders. I will be proposing that amendment assuming the Durbin amendment is, in fact, called up for consideration on the Senate floor.

Mr. President, with that, 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.

Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I rise today to again urge the entire Senate, and particularly the majority leader, to get the WRDA bill, the Water Resources Development Act, onto the floor of the Senate absolutely as soon as possible for passage.

Of course, I represent the State of Louisiana. A little while ago, on August 29, we commemorated--certainly did not celebrate but properly commemorated--the 2-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. A little while from now, on September 24, we will similarly commemorate the 2- year anniversary of Hurricane Rita, which devastated southwest Louisiana, South Acadiana, as well as southeast Texas.

Of course, the Nation and this Congress, this Senate, has done an enormous amount with regard to hurricane recovery. But we all know that challenge and that work continues. There is nothing more important with regard to that work, with regard to ensuring good, strong hurricane flood protection in the future--unlike we have had in the past, clearly, in light of Hurricane Katrina--than passing this water resources bill.

As you know, it has gone through every stage of the process except passage on the floor of the Senate. We had a Senate bill. We had a House bill. We had a conference committee. We had deliberations of the conference committee. I was honored to serve on that conference committee and helped finalize the final conference committee report.

Even before the August recess, the House of Representatives passed that conference committee report. So now all eyes are on the floor of the Senate. That is where we must finish the job. That is why I urge Senator Reid and others to put the WRDA bill on the floor of the Senate as soon as possible.

Recently, on September 6, I sent Senator Reid a letter, following up on numerous discussions we have had with other Members, urging him to put the bill on the floor as soon as possible, certainly during September. Again, I come to the floor of the Senate to urge the Senate leadership to do that in light of the crucial nature of this bill for continued recovery, hurricane flood protection in Louisiana.

I am particularly disappointed this week that is not happening while we go to other business, including the DC voting rights bill. Now, there are folks very interested and focused and committed to that DC voting rights bill. That is their right. I have no particular quarrel with that. I am going to vote against it because I sincerely believe it is clearly contrary to the U.S. Constitution. But that is a legitimate disagreement, and we can debate about that and have that legitimate disagreement. I do not quarrel with their focus and their passion. I do, quite frankly, quarrel with putting that on the floor of the Senate before the WRDA bill, when that WRDA bill and significant provisions in it are life and death to south Louisiana, to our recovery in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Those events, 2 years ago last month and this month, make passage of the WRDA bill a true emergency priority for this body. The same cannot be said of the DC voting rights bill or other things that are being considered for Senate floor action. Again, those other measures--the DC voting rights bill, in particular--have their proponents, and that is their right. I do not quarrel with their passion for that. But that is not the sort of real emergency as we face in Louisiana with regard to the protection we need.

We are in the midst of a hurricane season. We are at the peak of a hurricane season. Yet we continue to be years and years overdue for this WRDA bill and all the very significant provisions it contains for our people, for our State, for our vanishing coastline.

So, in closing, I again urge the majority leader to put the WRDA bill on the floor of the Senate as soon as possible, and absolutely this month, and to establish the right priorities for this body and for this country, including that very important effort which I believe should be on the floor of the Senate, should gain action, should gain focus before other measures, including the DC voting rights bill.

With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, today we are embarking on another very important chapter in our ongoing Iraq debate, and it is very appropriate that we do so because we are receiving testimony and reports from two great American leaders who have been forging our cause there--GEN David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. In that context, I wish to begin to offer some preliminary thoughts of my own as we reenter this debate. They are forged in particular by a recent experience, my recent visit to Iraq with three of our Senate colleagues during the August recess. I was able to go there with Senators Voinovich, Alexander, and Corker. We had a very good review of many issues there, as well as, obviously, a great opportunity to converse and study and talk with experts on the way there and on the way back.

I guess out of that trip in particular--it was my second trip to Iraq; the first was just about a year prior to that, and this was my fourth trip to the Middle East--three things struck me in particular, that while many of them have been stated before, they are very important to get out on the table and reaffirm at the beginning of this debate.

One is, it is very clear--in fact, I think it is largely beyond dispute--that in recent months, because of not just the personnel and the extra manpower given to the effort through the surge but because of the excellent strategy, the strategic thinking largely of General Petraeus behind that effort, there have been real and meaningful gains made on the security side. There have been enormous gains made against al-Qaida in Iraq in particular and in tapping down the sectarian violence more generally, although perhaps gains there to a lesser extent.

We have heard a lot about the Anbar awakening and the enormous gains made against al-Qaida in Iraq. But I think those who try to isolate those gains just to that region, just to that situation are missing the full picture.

We got a fuller picture of the gains while we were there. Not perfectly even gains, not all across the country but significant gains made in a number of different places, in a number of different contexts, and not just in that one region. The security gains, again because of our greater numbers but even more so because of the strategic thinking that was placed behind that surge, I think those gains are very real and very meaningful. They were evident to us, to myself and Senators Voinovich and Alexander and Corker, because of a number of factors and a number of parts of our visit.

What got the message through particularly forcefully was the last part of our visit in Iraq, when we went to Combat Outpost X-ray near Taji, outside of Baghdad about a half-hour, 45 minutes by helicopter. This was a very instructive and, indeed, inspiring visit. Because, again, we saw the very real fruit of our new strategy and the surge force put behind it. And it wasn't just in that situation of Al Anbar, that many folks try to portray as extremely unique and not being able to be replicated anywhere else; it was in this combat outpost outside of Baghdad. And it wasn't just among a Sunni population or Sunni insurgents; it was in an area that was roughly half and half, Sunni- Shia.

Two things struck me about that visit more than anything else. One was talking to a young African-American soldier from Louisiana, an enlisted man, who in casual conversation--he wasn't quoting any talking points, he wasn't giving any formal brief--who said how motivated he was and what a greater sense of progress he thought they were making during his work there at Combat Outpost X-ray as compared to his previous deployment about 2 years before. He said the difference was night and day, and he felt so much more optimistic because of the surge and the strategic thinking behind the surge and the results it was having that he could see, face-to-face, on the ground.

Some of those results we saw on that visit. Because we not only visited with U.S. military commanders and their military personnel, such as this young soldier from Louisiana, we also sat down with four sheiks from the region who had become full and active partners with our military and the Iraqi military in getting after the bad guys. It so happened, as is representative of that area, that two of the sheiks were Sunni and two of the sheiks were Shia, but they had come together as true brothers in arms and as true brothers in arms with the U.S. military and the Iraqi military to get after the bad guys, particularly al-Qaida in Iraq but also insurgents who were causing violence and terrorizing their families.

That is the sort of real progress the Louisiana soldier was talking about. That is what was exciting him and had gotten him so motivated, particularly compared to his previous tour of duty about 2 years prior.

The second thing I saw firsthand during that visit to Iraq is on the other side of the ledger and is also talked about quite freely and quite openly, and that is that while we have this meaningful security progress, while we have real results from the surge and the strategic thinking behind the surge, unfortunately we don't have a lot of political progress produced at the Iraqi central government level. Again, this was very evident from our personal experiences on the ground, particularly two meetings we had, one with the Sunni Vice President of Iraq and one with the Shia Vice President. Those two meetings, separate meetings, helped to underscore the enormous need we have for further reconciliation and for further political progress on the ground at the central government level.

I remarked during our visit to Combat Outpost X-ray that I would like to nominate those four sheiks to help form a new central government because their reconciliation was in stark contrast, their friendship and partnership was in stark contrast, quite frankly, to the discussions we had with the two Iraqi Vice Presidents, one Shia, one Sunni. So, again, we saw firsthand the unfortunate lack of political progress. Of course, the surge was designed to create breathing room and time for the political process at the central government level, but that lack of progress has been very frustrating.

Now, I do have to say there has been a little progress since then. Since we came home, the big five Iraqi leaders, if you will--the President, the two Vice Presidents, the Prime Minister, and also the Kurdish leader--have signed a joint communique and have laid out a path to reconciliation and progress on the key political issues facing them. That is encouraging. But certainly it doesn't completely change the situation on the ground politically, which wasn't particularly encouraging when we were there.

The third and final thing which I observed very directly, and which is perhaps the most important, in my opinion that we focus on this week, is the enormous integrity, focus, dedication, and intelligence of our two primary leaders on the ground in Iraq--GEN David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Again, our four-Senator delegation had a great opportunity to sit down with them for about an hour and a half, and we had a very meaningful, indepth discussion, hearing recent progress and lack of progress from them. They gave us their own personal observations, and they responded to all of our queries and questions. There were a lot of details and facts that came through during that meeting. But what most came through, to me, was their enormous credibility, in terms of what is going on there on the ground, and their enormous dedication, focus, background, and real intelligence about the challenge they were leading there on the ground.

I think that is perhaps the most important of my three observations as we begin this new chapter of the Iraq debate, for a very simple reason. Those gentlemen are testifying, as we speak, before the House. They will testify tomorrow before the Senate. This is following the lead-up of many months, where we have been looking forward and waiting to hear their direct observations and their testimony. This is after it is universally acknowledged that they are very smart, qualified people; there to lead our military and diplomatic effort. Yet, even having said all of that, I think the rush of all of us in Congress, House and Senate, is to talk and debate and offer our own opinions without taking a little time to be quiet, to take a deep breath and listen to the observations and opinions of those two highly qualified leaders.

So I end with that observation, of their enormous credibility, dedication, focus, and intelligence, in terms of the task before them. I end on that observation to encourage all of us not to reserve our opinions forever, not to shy away from an important debate, not to disagree, if we truly disagree in our minds and in our hearts, but to take a deep breath for a few days, for a few moments, to listen to the observations and the suggestions of these very capable leaders.

That is the third thing I brought back from my personal trip to Iraq during August with Senators Voinovich, Alexander, and Corker. Today, tomorrow, as General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testify before Congress, perhaps that is the most important observation. We will have plenty of time to debate, argue, disagree, propose resolutions, move forward with legislation, and take votes. But surely, given the universal credibility of these two men, we should take a deep breath and listen carefully to their observations, their suggestions, and their plans. That is certainly what I am going to do as we begin this new chapter of the debate.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

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

Yes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and I call up amendment No. 2774 and I will speak on that for 5 minutes.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is very simple and straightforward. In fact, perhaps I should not have waived reading of it. It is a few sentences. So I will do it myself:

None of the funds made available under this Act may be made

available to any international organization, agency, or

entity (including the United Nations) that requires the

registration of, or taxes a gun owned by a citizen of the

United States.

That is the entire amendment, the entire sum and substance of the amendment. As such, it is a straight funding limitation amendment, which has been ruled by the Parliamentarian as completely germane. This is a version of a full-blown, freestanding bill that I have filed in the past, specifically last Congress. It was S. 1488. I filed that bill and had 17 cosponsors.

Many folks who haven't followed the proceedings on this in the U.N. may ask: What is this all about? Why is this necessary? Unfortunately, it is about an effort in the United Nations to bring gun control to various countries through that international organization. Unfortunately, that has been an ongoing effort which poses a real threat. This goes back to 1995, when this issue of international gun control was first put before the U.N. General Assembly. Then, in 2001, the General Assembly adopted a program of action designed to infringe on second amendment rights. In fact, from July 11 to 15 they met at the U.N. in New York City to finalize some agreements on that.

It is of significance that Dr. Rebecca Peters is the new head of that effort in the U.N. and, in particular, the entity within the U.N. that leads that International Action Network on Small Arms. That may not be a household name but perhaps it should be, particularly to second amendment advocates, because Dr. Peters is the person who led Australia's massive effort at far-reaching gun control. She has been very vocal on the subject, debating, for instance, Wayne LaPierre of the NRA on numerous occasions. Other pro-gun control advocates would help facilitate procedures within the U.N. program of action that could very well impact and infringe U.S. citizens' second amendment rights.

Therefore, again, that gets back to the Vitter amendment, which simply says we are not going to support any international organization that does that; that requires a registration of U.S. citizens' guns or taxes U.S. citizens' guns. If other folks in this Chamber think that is not happening, that it is never going to happen, my reply is simple and straightforward: Great, then this language has no effect. It is no harm to pass it as a failsafe. It has no impact. But, in fact, related efforts have been going on in the U.N. since at least 1995. I hope this can get very wide, bipartisan support, and I urge all my colleagues to support this very fundamental, straightforward amendment.

I yield back my time.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Vitter amendment No. 2774 be taken up for a short debate and voted out of order at this time.

Mr. President, this amendment is very straightforward, and I will read it word for word.

None of the funds made available under this Act may be made

available to any international organization, agency, or

entity (including the United Nations) that requires the

registration of or taxes a gun owned by a citizen of the

United States.

Unfortunately, Mr. President, this amendment is necessary because of efforts within the United Nations that have been ongoing to push gun control on the world stage through the U.N. This has been going on initially since 1995 but in all seriousness particularly since 2001. Many folks within the United Nations have pushed very hard for their so-called program of action. Specifically, Dr. Rebecca Peters has been head of that effort. She became very well known for spearheading the massive gun control effort in Australia.

Mr. President, I urge a very strong bipartisan vote on this measure so we send a clear message to the U.N. that we will not tolerate this sort of movement and we will not send any U.S. taxpayer dollars to any entity, including the U.N., that does this.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays again.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside any pending business so that amendment No. 2596 may be called up.

Now I send a technical modification to the desk.

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

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to add Senator DeMint as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. President, this is an important amendment in the context of what we are doing with regard to the SCHIP program. It will ensure that families who are now covered by health insurance stay covered and are not, in fact--perhaps unintentionally but are nonetheless--kicked off or encouraged to leave their current health insurance for the SCHIP program. It is an issue called crowding out.

The goal of the amendment is very clear. We want to encourage children who are eligible for SCHIP but currently have access to employer coverage to use that employer coverage. If they have difficulty maintaining that because of costs, we want to give States the flexibility so they can maintain that coverage. What we do not want to do--certainly what I do not want to do, what Senator DeMint does not want to do, and I hope what the huge majority of Members of this body do not want to do--is create a mechanism to push people off good private insurance or to encourage them to drop good private insurance or to encourage employers to drop that coverage simply because we are reauthorizing and perhaps expanding SCHIP. No child and no family should be forced onto any Government health insurance program if they are currently insured otherwise through the private sector, through the employer, et cetera.

CBO's own numbers show that 40 percent to 50 percent of the kids covered under SCHIP and 40 percent to 50 percent of those who would become eligible under this SCHIP expansion are, in fact, kids who are shifted out of private

coverage into SCHIP. The CBO analysis on this issue is very clear on this point. In my mind, there is no reason the taxpayers should be paying for that insurance for folks already on good private sector insurance. We should not be encouraging this very significant shift, this very significant crowding out.

As I suggested, opponents of this amendment might say: We are not for that because it may be too costly for some of these families to pay premiums in private plans even if they are currently on them. We recognize that argument and that reality. Our amendment--this is very significant--our amendment allows premium subsidies for these individuals who need that to keep them on their current private coverage and to ensure that coverage is affordable. We maintain State flexibility in implementing those subsidies. We give the States enough leeway, enough flexibility to create and maintain those subsidies to keep folks on good private insurance. The Vitter-DeMint amendment requires individuals who are eligible for SCHIP but currently have employer coverage to continue to use that coverage. If they truly need help, truly need premium subsidies, States have the flexibility to do that.

I believe the clear majority of the public and the majority of those in Congress support Government help to those who need it. But just as true, a clear majority of the public, a clear majority of us do not want to create an incentive to kick people out of insurance they have. We do not want to create an incentive for employers to end or limit insurance they have. That would be a very negative consequence of these good intentions. Our amendment prevents that to a great extent. In doing so, I have to say I think it draws a clear philosophical divide: Do we give people the resources, the ability to continue with their current quality care in the private sector or are we, in fact, all for pushing people into a one-size-fits-all Government-run program rather than allowing them that choice and that quality care in the private sector? My amendment says absolutely, if they are covered in the private sector, we want to encourage that to continue. We want to make sure that can work. We don't want to kick them out. We don't want to encourage employers to kick them out. But part of that is assisting families who really do need help to maintain that. That is a very important part of the Vitter-DeMint amendment also.

I think this is an idea which should have broad consensus and bipartisan support. I look forward to that on the floor of the Senate and invite my colleagues to look at this and then support the Vitter- DeMint amendment, No. 2596.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is also a crowding-out issue, which I think is a very important and central issue in this debate. I am for a safety net. I am for insuring children who aren't insured, who can't get health insurance otherwise. What I am not for is pushing kids who are on perfectly solid ground off that solid ground and into the safety net. That is what, in part, this very large SCHIP expansion would do, perhaps 50 percent of the new SCHIP enrollees being folks--kids--who have private insurance. Now, that is wrong and it is also very expensive to the taxpayer.

What this amendment does is simple: It says we are for a safety net, but we are not for pushing people who are on solid ground into the safety net. And if they have difficulty staying on that solid ground in terms of affording their premiums, we are going to allow States to have premium subsidization, premium support to be able to keep those folks on good private insurance. That is what we should do, rather than push people off solid ground into the safety net at great taxpayer expense.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, 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 to set aside the pending amendment so that my amendment at the desk may be called up, amendment No. 2488.

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

Mr. President, simply so I can understand the posture we are in and the nature of this amendment, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I object.

Mr. President, taking the distinguished majority leader's words to heart, I would like to ask the Senate to return to the Vitter amendment to try to dispose of that.

The request is to return to the Vitter amendment to dispose of that and proceed with the business of the majority leader.

Amendment No. 2488, which is pending.

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

I renew my unanimous consent request to go back to amendment No. 2488.

Mr. President, at this point I send a modification to the desk.

Mr. President, just to be transparent and clear to everyone, this modification of my amendment takes out a specific provision limiting the amendment to a 90-day supply.

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

Mr. President, I will be happy to explain exactly what the modification is. The modification simply takes one phrase out of the previous version of my amendment. And that single phrase in the old version of my amendment limited the amendment to a 90-day supply of prescription drugs.

That limitation is now taken out of my amendment. That is the only thing the modification does. Now, the purpose of the modification is to now make it a pure funding limitation amendment so that it is not subject to the point of order of authorizing on an appropriations bill.

That is the full explanation of the modification.

Madam President, will the Senator yield?

Thank you for the courtesy.

First of all, let me say to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, I have the utmost respect for him. I just want to clarify that it certainly is not my intent to delay anything. I am happy to proceed with votes on this bill--all votes that are lined up, and other votes.

I would also like to make this offer, if it would clarify or help heal the past situation. I apologize if anything was miscommunicated regarding the last hour or so. But if it would help heal that, I would be happy to withdraw my pending amendment as long as I was given the opportunity and assured of an opportunity to file a new amendment, which is germane, and that could be made pending. And, of course, in that context, I would have no objection to anyone, including Senator Cochran, being able to offer a second-degree amendment on that amendment.

So I would be happy to withdraw my pending amendment as long as I could be given the opportunity to submit an amendment that could be made pending rather than have the clock run out or have proceedings and votes on the bill happen before that amendment would be made pending.

But, again, my main point is, it is certainly not my intent to delay this bill, or any votes on amendments or the bill, and I am eager to proceed with all of those.

I thank the Senator for the courtesy of yielding.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.

I will be happy to provide a copy of what that new amendment would be. I would be happy to do that right now.

Mr. President, will the majority leader yield?

I thank the majority leader.

First of all, I appreciate those words very much, and I certainly want to reiterate that I never thought I was waiving what I considered my ability as a Senator to modify my own amendment and try to get a vote on my own amendment in the form I would like. So I appreciate the comments of the leader in that regard.

I also want to point out that I was actually modifying the amendment in order to get rid of this point of order and the fact that it, in a previous form, would have legislated on an appropriations bill, which we are trying to avoid. So I was trying to avoid that with regard to my amendment.

But I appreciate the comments, and I look forward to moving forward.

Mr. President, let me thank both the majority leader and the Democratic manager of the bill, Senator Murray, for their work, for their amicable resolution of this issue. I think it is a very good bipartisan, productive, amicable result. I appreciate all of you working together in that regard.

I also extend my thanks to Senator Cochran, the Republican manager of the bill, who was also very helpful in that regard in coming to a productive, amicable resolution. I appreciate all of that work.

I just wanted to underscore the importance of what we have done because I think this is a very important issue for the people of Louisiana, for the people of the entire United States.

Last year, on this very same bill, I joined with you, Mr. President, and we were successful in passing an amendment on the Senate floor, and then in the conference committee we were successful in passing a version of that out of the conference committee into law. That was an important step forward at the time to ensure we would not have Federal agents, we would not have the heavy hand, if you will, of the Federal Government coming down to rip out of people's grasp--U.S. citizens-- pharmaceuticals they had bought properly in Canada as they were coming back into our country. I think the policy of doing that in the past was outrageous, particularly considering the sky-high prices American consumers face in the United States and the very different lower prices they face in Canada. So that step forward a year ago was very important.

I think what we just agreed to a few minutes ago, what will be on this bill, is an even more significant step forward because compared to what came out of conference and what was signed into law last year, this takes two additional steps.

First of all, we are no longer saying it is limited to prescription drugs on the person of an American citizen. What that means is that we are also including protection of Internet and mail order sales. That is enormously important for you, Mr. President, representing the State of Florida, and for me, representing the State of Louisiana. It is one thing for folks in Minnesota to travel to Canada and to come back; it is obviously a very different thing for folks in Florida or Louisiana to physically travel to Canada and come back. So compared to what we got passed into law last year, this is far broader and far more significant because it also covers mail order and Internet sales.

The second big difference is, again, what we passed last year was limited to a 90-day supply, and what we are passing on the Senate floor right now has no such limitation. Again, I think that is another significant step forward, a significant expansion of the law on the road to full-blown reimportation.

Again, I thank everyone who was involved in this very productive resolution. We got a resounding vote a year ago--68 to 32. We got, technically, even a better vote today, in the sense that it was voice voted, unanimous consent, so technically unanimous. We got a much broader provision today, which I think is a very important step forward on the road to my ultimate goal, which is full-blown reimportation with all the requisite safety provisions and authorizing language that would be involved.

Of course, we cannot do that authorizing legislation on this bill because it is an appropriations bill, but we can, we should, we must, on another vehicle soon, very soon, absolutely this year. I look forward to continuing to work with you, Mr. President, with other leaders on this issue, Senator Snowe, Senator Dorgan, Senator Thune, Senator DeMint, and many others who completely support the ultimate objective of full-blown drug reimportation to allow American consumers unbridled access to safe, cheaper prescription drugs, including by mail order and the Internet.

Again, I believe the step we are taking here tonight, compared to what we were able to pass into law through the Vitter-Nelson amendment last year, is an important additional step in removing the limitation that it has to be on your person, so saying we can do it by mail order and the Internet, and by removing the limitation of a 90-day supply.

With that, I again thank all of the participants for this very positive, amicable, bipartisan resolution of the issue on this bill. I look forward to continuing to walk down this path toward the ultimate goal I share with you and so many others on the Senate floor.

I yield the floor.

I would like to object. There is objection.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to 10 minutes and then immediately thereafter for my colleague on this issue, Senator Nelson, to be recognized for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I call up the Vitter amendment No. 2400, which is at the desk.

Mr. President, that is disappointing because we have been in communication with all the floor leaders of this bill to actually call up the amendment, but I will certainly proceed to speak on it. It is amendment No. 2400, which is at the desk, which would amend the Homeland Security Appropriations Act to allow the reasonable reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada only.

I am joined in this very important amendment by Senator Nelson of Florida and Senator Stabenow of Michigan, and I thank my colleagues, and many other colleagues, who are supportive of this idea. This will be a continuation of a very important, very productive policy we began last year. Last year, I again joined with Senator Nelson of Florida, Senator Stabenow, and many others in coming forward with this specific amendment on last year's Homeland Security appropriations bill.

We had a full and healthy debate on the topic. After that full and healthy debate, it passed the Senate floor 68 to 32. After it was retained in the conference committee and passed through the House and the Senate in the final version of the appropriations bill, this amendment and the policy was signed into law. Because of that, we effectively ended the practice by Customs and Border Patrol of seizing from Americans what are otherwise lawful, safe, prescription drugs that happen to be purchased from Canada--drugs which are identical to those that can be purchased in the United States.

Again, Mr. President, I want to make clear to all my colleagues that this amendment merely continues the important work we began last year, which received a very resoundingly positive vote of the full Senate--68 to 32. Why do we need to continue that? Well, everybody knows-- everybody who buys prescription drugs, everyone who has an elderly parent, grandparent, or aunt whom they are helping in terms of those very real needs and costs--we are burdened with sky-high prescription drug costs in this country, while virtually the rest of the world pays far greater reduced prices for exactly the same prescription drugs. That is the system we are trying to break up and break through. That is what we are trying to end in order to allow Americans to have access to safe and cheaper prescription drugs from Canada, and elsewhere.

It is very important that we take this step forward to continue the policy we started last year, to continue it for this fiscal year, in order to allow Americans this opportunity. Again, I want to underscore several things, at the risk of repeating myself.

No. 1, this is a continuation of what we did last year by a vote of 68 to 32. No. 2, this applies to individuals only, and individual amounts of prescription drugs for individual use. We are not talking about wholesalers, we are not talking about businesses getting into the business of buying from Canada. And, No. 3, this does apply to Canada only. We are not talking about any other country.

Now, let me say straight off that I support much broader and stronger reimportation legislation. I have supported that position consistently since I came to the Senate and before that while I was in the House, and I am very hopeful that I will be successful, working with others on this issue, in passing

that broader reimportation language this year. But in the meantime, this is a very important step forward that we must preserve into the next fiscal year.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and invite Senator Nelson to share his remarks.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so I may call up amendment 2384.

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

Madam President, this is an important amendment for the State of Louisiana. It would be not the whole solution but a significant part of the solution to a real problem--even a crisis--we have with our recovery from Hurricanes Rita and Katrina.

This Congress and, in fact, the American people have been enormously generous in terms of responding to the devastation of those storms. One of the best examples of that unprecedented generosity is the billions of dollars the American taxpayer, through Congress, sent to the devastated areas to help people who were wiped out and had enormous uninsured losses. At the time there was a big debate: Shouldn't these folks have had more insurance? Shouldn't they have done this or that?

Congress and the American people got it right, recognizing that the event was unprecedented and recognizing, in the case of Louisiana, that most of the losses were caused by the actual failures of Federal levees. The levees broke. They broke from underneath. They were inadequately engineered. That caused devastating losses to folks throughout the greater New Orleans area in particular.

The American people and Congress responded generously. In the case of Louisiana, most of that money went into what was called the Road Home Program to help compensate folks for enormous uninsured losses, up to $150,000 per household. That is the good news. It was unprecedented generosity. Again, we say thank you for that.

The bad news is that months later, it was determined that appropriated money would not be enough and, in fact, the Road Home Program was running short because even more claims were coming in than had been anticipated and calculated. So there is a shortfall in the program which is at the very heart of our ongoing struggle to recover.

My amendment will not fix all of that shortfall, but it would fix a big part of it. It would be a big piece of the puzzle, a big part of the solution, without costing the Federal taxpayer any more money.

There is something called the Hazard Mitigation Program that is always involved when there are natural disasters. Because of the scope and size of the devastation of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, following those storms, that Hazard Mitigation Program would send $1.2 billion to Louisiana. We wish to use that money in the context of the Road Home Program to help meet that shortfall, to help bridge the gap, to help fund that program. However, there are some technical requirements under normal hazard mitigation rules that prevent us from doing that. My amendment would waive those few technical requirements so the hazard mitigation money, $1.2 billion in this case, could

be used in the context of the Road Home Program to help bridge the gap, to help make people whole.

It is important and accurate that I underscore that these requirements are technical. They are things that are normal requirements of hazard mitigation, but nothing I am waiving with this amendment would go to the heart of the hazard mitigation purpose. Congress, in setting up the program, wanted to make sure funds would be used to mitigate hazards, to make sure the same sort of losses don't happen again, to build higher, better, stronger, smarter. Nothing in my amendment gets away from that fundamental intent. That is important because I don't want to get away from the mandate and neither do most people in the House or the Senate.

Again, I underscore, this amendment would help fund our Road Home shortfall, would not cost the Federal taxpayer any more money, would preserve and honor the intent of the Hazard Mitigation Program by making sure the funds went to true hazard mitigation, rebuilding higher and better and stronger and smarter, not simply allowing people to rebuild any way they could build before. What it would do is waive certain technical requirements to make all of this work. That is appropriate given the unprecedented scope, size, and nature of the disasters about which we are talking.

I urge all of my colleagues to look hard at the amendment and then support it, because this funding shortfall within the Road Home Program is a real impediment to our ongoing challenge and struggle to recover. This amendment would be a major piece of the puzzle to solve the problem without costing the Federal taxpayer any more money and without throwing out the window the very significant and smart focus of the Hazard Mitigation Program. It would make us build smarter and stronger and higher but still help get people back, make them whole, rebuild through the Road Home Program.

I yield the floor.

Moment of Silence