Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 1, 2006, at 11 a.m., in closed session to receive a briefing from the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 1, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., in open session, to receive testimony on the Boeing Company Global Settlement Agreement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, August 1, 2006, at 2:15 p.m. to hold a business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, August 1, 2006, at 10 a.m. in 430 Dirksen Senate Office Building for a hearing on nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 at 2 p.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226.

Panel I: TBA.

Panel II: Peter D. Keisler to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Panel III: Judge Valerie L. Baker to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California; Francisco Augusto Besosa to be United States District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico; Judge Philip S. Gutierrez to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, August 1, 2006, at 9 a.m., for a hearing entitled ``Offshore Abuses: The Enablers, The Tools and Offshore Secrecy.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, August 1, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water be authorized to hold a hearing on interpreting the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in the joint cases of Rapanos v. United States, and Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on ``The Waters of the United States.''

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 3711, and I specifically rise in strong support of the majority leader's actions to ensure that we have a focused debate on the carefully crafted provisions of S. 3711 and not be thrown off track by numerous amendments about all sorts of ancillary energy and other issues because I rise in support of actually doing something, not merely talking about everything, as the Senate so often wants to do, and at the end of the day doing nothing. That is the choice we have.

The choice is what we so often do: Talk about everything under the Sun, have wide-ranging debates. This body is a great debating society, but at the end of the day does nothing. The other choice is focusing on the carefully crafted provisions of S. 3711, having a fair debate on those provisions and passing it into law, doing something concrete, real, meaningful, that will have an impact soon on people's wallets, on people's pocketbooks, on our energy future.

That is what this choice is all about, and I stand strongly for doing something and not just talking a good game. What is it we would be doing, Mr. President?

Well, S. 3711 would be doing more to secure our supply of domestic energy than anything we have done in a long time. It is not everything under the Sun, it is not a silver bullet, it is not a magic wand, but it is a major, concrete, specific step forward that would help secure our energy future. What is that? It is 8.3 million acres of area in

the gulf opened to exploration and production for the first time ever; 1.26 billion barrels of oil, brandnew production; and 5.83 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, brandnew production. That is doing something, and that is doing something that will have an impact on our energy future--not in 20 years, not in 10 years, but very soon.

We will see this production in a few years and we could see its impact on prices even sooner than that. As folks in the energy industry recognize that we are opening this brandnew area to both oil and gas exploration, we could see a positive impact, bringing prices down even sooner than the production would begin.

So I am in support of doing something strong, concrete, and meaningful--not just talking a good game and, at the end of the day, doing nothing.

The distinguished Senator from New Mexico made some points in opposition to this proposal. He said it was very regrettable that he and others were not completely open to propose any amendment with regard to this bill. Let's not kid ourselves. Let's understand what is going on here. The distinguished Senator is absolutely flat out against the central provisions of this bill. His effort is to gut this attempt at moving us forward in terms of energy independence. He would take out of this bill one of its most central and important components: royalty share.

It is easy for him to take this position. His State of New Mexico gets enormous Federal revenue from production onshore on Federal land. Everything that is produced on Federal land in his State--as in any other State--his State gets 50 percent of that royalty. So it is very easy for him to take the position that offshore should be a completely different situation; offshore should be zero. That doesn't affect his constant revenue stream for States such as his in New Mexico or for States such as Wyoming, where 50 percent of the revenue from onshore mineral production royalty is going directly to his State coffers.

In addition, if you look at the 50-percent Federal share, most of that goes to a Federal fund that goes back to the States in terms of land reclamation as well, so that all told, 90 percent of that royalty produced on Federal land in his State essentially goes back to the States. So he has a very convenient situation in his State which has been that way for years. It is very easy for him to protect that but, at the same time, block coastal States from having a similar situation.

But there is no good reason we should do that. We should equalize the playing field. We should make Federal policy equal and right. Look at last year, 2005. Federal offshore production yielded, in terms of Federal revenue, $6.32 billion. Of that enormous total--$6.32 billion-- only $75 million went to the States in terms of a royalty share. Compare that to the situation of the Senator from New Mexico. Federal onshore revenue for that same year yielded $3.5 billion of royalties, and half of that went to the States--$1.75 billion went to the States of New Mexico and Wyoming and many other States.

So, of course, it is easy for the Senator from New Mexico to protect what he already has but try to deny it to coastal States. The fact is the impacts are the same, and the impacts are dramatic. He talked about them himself, the dramatic negative impacts with regard to coastal erosion and other impacts on the Louisiana coastline and all of the coastlines of the Gulf States. That is one of the primary reasons we have royalty share at the heart of this bill, which the Senator from New Mexico would strip out with his amendment.

But that is not the only reason we have that royalty-sharing provision in the bill. The predominant reason is the overarching national reason, the reason that will promote our energy independence in the future, and that is simple. If we allow coastal States to share in the royalty obtained from production off their shores, we can change the dynamics dramatically. That will change the not-in-my-backyard attitude of so many coastal States and usher in more domestic production in the future. That is the model we are building with S. 3711, the positive model that will do, over time, even more than what this bill alone does, opening up 8.3 million acres, 5.83 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 1.26 billion barrels of oil. That is what the bill itself does. That is significant. That is concrete and positive. But when we put this model in place of sharing royalties with the appropriate coastal States, then we open possibilities in the future even more. That is why this royalty-sharing provision is so central and so important to this bill. It is a new model to get us to greater energy independence, to get us away from the pervasive not-in-my- backyard mentality that has gripped virtually every State around the country and has shut off area after area after area to offshore oil and gas production.

This bill will do all of those things in a fair and reasonable way. It will open new areas of land to production, it will open enormous new energy assets, and it will create this model that we can build on in the future to create more energy independence for our Nation. That is what we so desperately lack.

As I said at the beginning, this body is very good at debating, at talking, endlessly sometimes, about every proposal under the Sun, but so often at the end of the day we do nothing after those endless debates. This is an opportunity to do something real and concrete, and to create a model that will provoke even more action in the future. Because we can have endless debates in this Chamber about securing our energy independence, and every Senator here in the context of this debate will likely come to the floor and talk about his or her commitment to securing our energy independence, what are we going to do about it? If we don't change the dynamics of our energy policy, the not-in-my-backyard mentality, which has put a stranglehold on us for years, will continue to survive. But if we change the model, if we allow coastal States to share in the royalties produced from production off their own shores, give them the decision and give them some of the benefits, then we will change the dynamics and, in my opinion, over the next 10 years open significant new areas to offshore oil and gas production and significantly increase our energy independence.

That is why S. 3711 is so important. It does something real and meaningful and concrete right away. We are acting, not just talking. Even more importantly, we are building a model for the future, a positive model that will promote our energy independence by allowing us to go after those resources, including offshore, where the vast majority of our energy assets are in the future.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Child Custody Protection Act, which prohibits transporting a minor across State lines to obtain an abortion if doing so abridges a parental notification or consent statute in the State in which the minor resides. The bill also provides an exception for cases where an abortion is necessary to save the minor's life. I am proud to say that I am a cosponsor of this bill and I supported it in past Congresses.

One of the most important roles of parents is to provide guidance and comfort to their children. Parents are more mature and possess the wisdom of experience that children simply cannot possess. In no other circumstance is the need for parental guidance more important than when a child requires medical care. Who is in a better position to provide a child's relevant medical and psychological history and other valuable medical information than a parent? Not only has the Supreme Court recognized the importance of parental rights with regard to the ``care, custody, and control of their children'' as ``perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests,'' they have also acknowledged the importance of parental guidance and consent when a child is faced with a difficult decision by stating ``the law's concept of family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life's difficult decisions.''

At a time when a school nurse cannot even administer aspirin to a child with a headache without parental consent, how can we allow a child to have an abortion, a major medical procedure with potentially deadly consequences, without parental consent? I can think of no other time when parental guidance and consent is more important than when that parent's minor daughter is pregnant and contemplating abortion. A minor girl, who is undoubtedly under incredible stress, does not have the maturity to make the decision to have an abortion on her own. And, it makes matters worse when the girl receives pressure to have an abortion from the father, the father's family, or others.

As a father, it appalls me to learn that oftentimes older adult males pressure young mothers to have an abortion without telling anyone and transport these young girls into States without parental consent laws to hide instances of statutory rape. Studies show that the majority of today's teenage mothers are being impregnated by adult men. One study of 46,500 schoolage mothers in California found that two-thirds of the girls were impregnated by adult males, with the median age of the father being 22 years old. The fact that many of these adult males could be charged with statutory rape creates an incentive for them to transport young girls across state lines to have an abortion to avoid criminal prosecution.

Mr. President, the pro-abortion lobby has come out in full force against the Child Custody Protection Act saying that it infringes upon a girl's right to have an abortion. I have two major objections to that argument. First, I do not believe that a minor child has the right to an abortion without her parents' consent. At a time when children cannot even be given aspirin without parental consent, they should not be able to undergo a major medical procedure with potentially deadly consequences without parental consent. Second, the Child Custody Protection Act is not about the right to have an abortion; it is about protecting the rights of parents and the well-being of children. It is commonsense legislation that says if one State has established a legal principle for its residents, neighboring States should not discourage those residents from following that principle. This is hardly a radical or

extreme proposal; rather, it is necessary, constitutional, and it is carefully and narrowly drawn. I hope that my colleagues can support this very important, commonsense legislation, which protects our most vulnerable citizens--our children.

Mr. President, I rise, too, in strong support of this WRDA bill with my Louisiana colleague and many others because of the enormously important work it will do for the country, including the State of Louisiana, particularly after the devastating hurricanes of Katrina and Rita.

I, too, thank the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Chairman Inhofe, and the ranking member, Senator Jeffords, and Senators Bond and Baucus, and everybody who has made this very important bill possible, including our great staff, including Angie Johncarlo, Ruth VanMark, Letmon Lee, Stephen Aaron, Catharine Ransom, and Jo-Ellen Darcy. I thank them all for their hard and, in so many cases, their ongoing work.

This bill is vitally important to the country and is vitally important to Louisiana, and it was before 2005. It was important before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, but it is 10 times more important after those devastating storms and in light of our continuing and increasing needs following those storms.

I want to highlight some very important aspects. One is fundamental Corps reform, which is important, which will get done one way or another in this bill. Now, in terms of Corps reform, I favor the model of Chairman Inhofe. I also point out that I have been working, with his help and the help of many others, on a Louisiana water resources council to ensure proper oversight, vetting, review, and ongoing outside independent expert review of all of the projects in the Louisiana hurricane area.

That concept was first embodied in a separate stand-alone bill that I introduced on March 15 as S. 2421. I am happy to say that through a managers' amendment it will be included in all substantial and major ways in this WRDA bill. It is very important to bring outside expertise to bear to review on an ongoing basis, to do that peer review for those projects and to integrate those projects into an overall plan for our Louisiana coast.

There are other important needs that the bill meets. The comprehensive hurricane, flood, and coastal protection program is fully authorized in this bill. Immediately, it authorizes 5-year near-term coastal restoration projects and will exceed $1.2 billion, establishes a science and technology program of at least $500 million, requires consistency and integration in all of the programs, and makes sure they work together.

Other crucial Louisiana needs addressed in the bill are hurricane protection for Terrebonne and Lafourche. The bill authorizes the Morganza to the gulf hurricane protection project that has been ready for 3 years now. This is long overdue and it finally comes in this important WRDA bill, addressing the travesty of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, MRGO, fixing that environmental disaster and making sure that the negative impacts of it, as we saw through Katrina, never happen again. And other crucial needs are addressed, such as the Port of Iberia, Vermillion hurricane protection, east Baton Rouge, Red- Ouachita River Basin, Atchafalaya Basin, Calcasieu River and Pass, Larose to Golden Meadow, Vidalia Port, and St. Charles. They are all directly met in this bill.

Again, I thank the chairman, the ranking member, and others on the committee for their leadership to meet these crucial Louisiana needs and certainly these crucial national needs. I strongly and fully support the bill.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. First of all, I join with everyone in the Senate--in fact, everybody around the country--in saying that, of course, we want to further research and opportunity for the cure and the treatment of very serious illnesses. Of course, we want to do everything possible, within a strong ethical framework, to push for that scientific research and that progress. But at least I want to do that in a clear, certain, ethical framework. That is why I must oppose the details of the provisions of H.R. 810.

Mr. President, I oppose it on two significant grounds. First of all, because one of my solemn duties in the Senate, I believe, is to protect and defend all human life--every case of human life, the beauty, the sanctity, and the importance of the individual which God has created.

Secondly, I do this in particular focusing on the fact that we are talking about the use of taxpayer dollars. We are not merely talking about what is allowed and disallowed. We are talking about the use of taxpayer dollars for specific purposes, when some of these types of research are so utterly controversial in terms of the impact on individual human lives.

Mr. President, a human embryo is a human life. I believe that to the core of my being. It is at the initial stages of life and development, of course; but an embryo is a human life. Each and every one of us began as an embryo. Therefore, I firmly believe neither Congress nor independent researchers, nor any human being, for that matter, should be allowed to, in effect, play God by determining that one life is inherently more valuable than another, determining that one life should essentially be sacrificed for some other purpose, to advance the welfare of other separate human lives.

Of course, supporters of embryonic stem cell research argue that this research only kills embryos that would be discarded anyway. But there are many cases that prove otherwise, where embryos have been adopted while still embryos or donated to infertile couples by their parents.

We know that as many as 99 families have adopted and given birth to children from those very same frozen embryos. These kids are often referred to

as ``snowflake babies.'' They are beautiful, they are miracles. They remind us that, of course, we are talking about human life. How can we justify killing these tiny humans by saying that these embryos would be discarded anyway, when there is proof that, in some cases, they are not discarded, they are adopted. They grow up to be full, mature, healthy children, human beings.

Supporters of embryonic stem cell research argue that this research is essential to curing many diseases and federally funding it is our only hope for curing diseases. I point out that there are many other alternatives. In fact, those alternatives are more promising, in many ways, than the type of research we are debating today. The facts show that adult stem cells have been used to perform at least 69 successful treatments for human patients. So we have 69 treatments in human patients using adult stem cells which do not require the taking of human life. These were clinical applications, successful applications.

What is the experience in terms of embryonic stem cells? Zero successful treatments in human patients, zero direct clinical applications.

There have been 25 years of this research, and there are still no successful direct human clinical trials, and there have been many stops and starts and complications with regard to other research.

The following are some disorders and diseases with treatments from adult stem cell research that are worth noting: brain cancer, testicular cancer, ovarian cancer, skin cancer, acute heart damage, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, spinal cord injury, stroke damage, Parkinson's disease, chronic liver failure, sickle cell anemia, end-stage bladder disease. Again, these were not just promising but successful in many cases--human clinical trials that directly focus on these very serious diseases.

So if one weighs all of these factors in the balance, I truly believe that the thing to do is to respect all human life, to respect the very heartfelt feelings of millions upon millions, tens of millions of Americans who have fundamental problems with this sort of research. Again, it is worth underscoring that we are not debating whether this research can happen. We are debating if we are going to use taxpayer dollars to fund it, if we are going to forcibly take money from those Americans who, like me, have fundamental moral reservations with the research and spend it on that very research.

I am happy to say that there is other legislation that we are considering today. I strongly support those two other bills. First of all, the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, S. 3504, which prohibits the creation and gestation of human beings for the purpose of harvesting spare organs, body parts, and tissue. Many people think fetus farming sounds akin to something out of a science fiction movie, and it does. But it is already being explored in animals. This is something that is advancing scientifically. Congress must prevent science from subjecting human beings to organ, body part, and tissue harvesting before it is too late.

The second bill which I proudly support today is the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, S. 2754. It requires that the NIH support research into alternative methods, other than destroying human embryos, of creating pluripotent stem cells. These pluripotent stem cells are valuable for treating diseases because they are capable of forming most or all of the tissues of the adult body.

So, again, this would forge a new path to make sure we explore other avenues to create these stem cells that do not involve the destruction of precious embryos, human beings, human life. I believe this alternative path is far more productive. I believe it is far more in keeping with upholding the values of our society, the very strongly held belief of tens of millions of Americans who, like myself, have fundamental moral reservations with the destruction of individual human life for these other purposes.

So I urge all of our Senate colleagues to join me and others in supporting those two bills about ethical alternatives but in opposing this underlying bill, H.R. 810, because it would involve the destruction of individual, precious embryos, human life.

Mr. President, I don't come to this conclusion quickly or easily or rashly. Similar to virtually every American family, mine has been touched by very serious diseases to which this research pertains. My dad had Parkinson's disease. He suffered with it for about 8 years. It was very debilitating and, of course, eventually, similar to most folks with Parkinson's disease, he passed from that and complications of it. With that personal history, of course, I want to advance research in every ethical way possible. But we must do it, again, in a strong, moral framework. We must do it within clear, reasonable bounds, particularly when we are talking about taxpayer funding of research.

I believe that defeating H.R. 810--but also passing the two bills that set up alternative paths toward promising research--is the correct way to proceed. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in adopting that path.

With that, I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to offer my full support of Israel's decision to defend itself. I also commend U.N. Ambassador John Bolton for vetoing the U.N. Security Council resolution addressing the situation in the Middle East, because of its unbalanced approach to the situation.

Unfortunately, due to the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers by Hamas and the continued rocket attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah against Israeli towns and villages, the Israeli Government was forced to defend itself.

There is no doubt that the Governments of Syria, Lebanon, and Iran are responsible for these attacks. These Governments provide the military equipment, training, and financing for Hamas and Hezbollah to conduct their terror campaigns. Their continued support for these terrorist organizations has left the Israeli Government with no other option than to defend itself by pursuing terrorist safe havens in Gaza and southern Lebanon.

Israel continues to be one of America's closest allies, and in this period of terror against the Israeli people it is essential that we support Israel's decision to defend itself against these terrorist attacks. I ask that the world community join in solidarity with Israel as it takes necessary steps to provide security to its people and dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas and in southern Lebanon.

Israel was attacked for one reason--these terror organizations and some governments in the region believe Israel does not have a right to exist as a country, much less live peacefully as a country. The unprovoked missile launches against Israel civilians, suicide bombings of women and children, and the kidnapping and torture of Israeli soldiers is the result of Iran, Syria, and certain factions of the Lebanese Government's inaction towards these terrorist organizations in their country.

The cycle of violence can only end if these countries dismantle these terrorist groups by cutting off funding and prohibiting terrorist organizations from participating in their governments. Otherwise, Israel will be required to continue defending itself against terrorist strongholds, and innocent civilians will suffer greatly--all of this because certain extreme elements remain bent on destruction rather than reconciliation.

Israel is a sovereign country that deserves to live in peace. Israel deserves to live in peace, free from the attacks of those who prey upon its open and democratic society. Unfortunately, innocent civilians are ones who pay the price on both sides of the conflict. Yet, until Israel is able to live free of missile attacks, kidnappings, and suicide bombers the unfortunate reality is that suffering will continue.

Mr. President, I believe that the United States should and must support Israel's right to defend itself. I hope that my colleagues will join me in expressing their support for one of our closest allies.

Madam President, I call for the regular order with respect to amendment No. 4615 and ask that it be modified according to the modification language already at the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors the following Senators: Chambliss, Roberts, Bunning, Allen, Baucus, Thomas, and Smith.

Madam President, this slightly modified amendment is the same amendment fundamentally that I described and talked about yesterday, only now it is fully germane--a pure limitation amendment which clearly can be and should be and will be considered and voted on in the context of this underlying bill.

It would prohibit law enforcement officers from confiscating firearms from those who are in lawful possession of them just because it is a disaster situation. It would not prevent funding for law enforcement officers who confiscate firearms because someone is in violation of Federal, State, or local law. It simply says, law enforcement cannot, under their powers because it is an emergency situation, start confiscating firearms which are completely legal, which have been obtained completely lawfully, by law-abiding citizens.

As I explained yesterday--and I want to repeat it very briefly now-- we talk about second amendment rights. We talk about the right and the need in some cases to defend your life and property. That is why the second amendment offers such fundamental and important constitutional rights.

Yet at no time in our ordinary experience is that more important, more truly important, to the preservation and defense of one's life and property than in the sort of disaster situation we saw right after Hurricane Katrina.

In the aftermath of that disaster, there was no communication. The police were cut off from enforcing their duties in many neighborhoods. And there was no ability for law enforcement to come to a citizen's call in light of an emergency. So a law-abiding citizen truly did, in many instances, depend on his firearm, his lawfully obtained legal firearm, protected by the second amendment for the defense of his property and literally, in some cases, his life and his family's life.

Therefore, we should never allow the confiscation of those legal firearms in that desperate situation when they truly are essential for the preservation of life and property.

Again, my amendment is very simple and straightforward in that regard. As it has now been modified, it is fully germane within the bounds of this bill.

I look forward to my colleagues supporting it with a strong bipartisan vote because it is such a clear, commonsense, right thing to do.

With that, Madam President, I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I again stand to strongly support this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote for its passage.

I have only been able to listen to some of the comments of the distinguished Senator from Illinois. I really think he has been watching a very different disaster and scenario than I experienced and lived through on the ground in Louisiana. I can tell you that the confiscations we are talking about were not from the criminals he is referring to--by the way, confiscations from criminals who are engaged in criminal activity can still occur under my amendment. The police have the power and the authority to enforce the law, which includes apprehending criminals and taking weapons away from criminals committing criminal acts.

The confiscations I have been talking about that happened in the disaster area were from law-abiding citizens. They were law-abiding citizens who didn't have a phone line to communicate with the police or anyone else. They were law-abiding citizens who were isolated in their homes, frightened, and only had their own resources and witnesses and, yes, in some cases, firearms, to protect themselves and their families and to protect their possessions. Those are the confiscations that happened. Those are the confiscations we are trying to prevent.

And, of course, this amendment would in no way prevent confiscations from criminals, those involved in criminal activity. Of course, the police have the full power and authority to enforce the law in that situation, as they do at all other times.

That is why the Fraternal Order of Police strongly supports this amendment. That is why they have written a letter expressing that strong support. I would like to read a portion of it:

Your amendment would prohibit the use of any funds

appropriated under this legislation from paying for the

seizure of firearms during a major disaster or emergency,

except under circumstances currently applicable under Federal

and State law. As we witnessed in the communities along the

Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, large-scale

critical incidents demand the full attention of law

enforcement officers and other first responders. During this

time, the preservation of life-search and rescue missions is

the chief priority of every first responder. Further,

breakdowns in communications systems and disaster-related

transportation or other infrastructure failures will lengthen

a law enforcement agency's response times, increasing the

degree to which citizens may have to protect themselves

against criminals. A law-abiding citizen who possesses a

firearm lawfully represents no danger to law enforcement

officers or any other first responder.

That is why the Fraternal Order of Police are supporting this amendment, as well as, yes, the NRA, who supports this amendment. I say that proudly. I don't say it with any fear that it brings disrespect to the cause.

With that, I yield 5 minutes of my time to the Senator from Idaho.

I am.

Mr. President, in closing and in support of my amendment, I wish to make four brief points.

First of all, I reiterate the widespread support for this amendment from many quarters, including the Fraternal Order of Police, a leading organization of law enforcement personnel. I ask unanimous consent that this strong letter of support be printed in the Record.

Secondly, Mr. President, I will also request that the following list be printed in the Record. It is a list of 10 States that have already passed State law doing exactly what we are going to do here on the floor of the Senate today, and that is simply say that a declaration or a state of emergency in and of itself does not give law enforcement the right to confiscate firearms held in legal possession. Ten States have already done that. One additional State, the State of Ohio, has pending legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I wish to make a third point, which is that, quite frankly, I find it somewhat ironic that the Senator from Illinois would welcome more detailed language, as I did have in the earlier draft, because the reason we don't have slightly more detailed language on the floor is because of a rule XVI objection by the leadership, the Democratic leadership, those working against the amendment in conjunction with the Senator from Illinois. So they objected to more detailed language in one breath, and then after we redrafted the amendment to comply with Senate rules regarding germaneness, they object to less detailed language in the next. You can't have it both ways.

The fourth and final point is that the language we do have on the Senate floor goes to the heart of the issue and protects fundamental second amendment rights.

There is one point I strongly agree with the Senator from Illinois about, and that is that we are not talking about ordinary life in America, an ordinary day; we are talking about a time of emergency where everything is different, where the world is turned upside down.

It is exactly that very reason that this second amendment right to bear arms and use legally possessed firearms in defense of yourself, your life, and your property is so crucial, because you know what, your phone line in this very unique situation doesn't work, your cell phone and Blackberry don't work, there is no communication, and you can't reach out to the law enforcement authorities and have them there in a reasonable amount of time when your home is being broken into. All of that is gone. All of that is gone. The only thing that remains, in many instances, is your legally possessed firearm. That is the only thing for the defense of yourself, your life, your family's life and health, and your possessions. That is exactly why protecting this fundamental constitutional right is so very important, precisely for this sort of time of emergency.

The distinguished Senator from New Jersey made some remarks and read a letter talking about leaving it up to the judgment and discretion of law enforcement personnel. Well, I have great respect in general for law enforcement personnel, but I don't think their judgment or their discretion trumps the Constitution, and that is what happened and that is the attitude many of them took, unfortunately, after Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana. They thought their judgment and their discretion trumped the Constitution. They confiscated legally held firearms from law-abiding citizens, in some cases literally older, defenseless women, older citizens trapped in their homes with a legally possessed firearm as their only means of defense. That should never happen again. The Constitution, the second amendment, should never be abused again, particularly in such a state of emergency.

Mr. President, in closing, I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense, straightforward amendment. It is supported by the Fraternal Order of Police, it is supported by the National Rifle Association, which intends to grade this vote, and I urge all Members to offer their support for this straightforward, commonsense amendment.

With that, I yield back my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam President, this involves gun confiscation during major disasters or emergencies. My amendment is very simple and straightforward. It would prevent any sort of confiscation of legally held guns protected by the second amendment during major disasters or emergencies.

In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, local and Federal law enforcement officials were overwhelmed in many ways by the tragedy that unfolded. That is understandable. During the chaos, a criminal element took advantage of the tragedy and started to commit serious crimes against persons and property. In many cases, law-abiding citizens took action and defended their property and themselves through the constitutionally guaranteed second amendment right to bear arms.

There is probably no more important or significant moment in normal, everyday American life where that second amendment right meant something. In some cases, it was literally the difference between a law-abiding citizen's life or death and between that citizen's ability to protect his property or have it completely taken away. Yet in the midst of that situation, where that constitutionally guaranteed right was so important, even far more important than in an everyday situation--although it is certainly crucial then--certain law enforcement authorities confiscated legally held firearms by law- abiding citizens. Not a few, not a dozen, not two dozen, but literally thousands were confiscated by law enforcement officials.

In fact, even well after the hurricanes, the Federal court ordered the city of New Orleans to return all guns unlawfully seized during Hurricane Katrina. Even after all that, the New Orleans police superintendent, Warren Riley, stated in a June 6 radio interview that his officers would confiscate guns again if another similar disaster should strike New Orleans.

This is ridiculous and should not be tolerated. We are talking about a constitutionally protected second amendment right. And even more so, we are talking about a situation where those rights are vitally important for the law-abiding citizen when the police are not there and are unavailable, when there is no phone service, and literally that citizen's second amendment right is the key to protecting his own life, his family, and their property.

I am proud to say that in Louisiana, our State legislature acted on this issue, as I am attempting to do today. In June of this year, in time for the new hurricane season, a law was passed to clarify that the emergency powers granted to the Governor and to local officials ``do not authorize the seizure or confiscation of a firearm, weapon or ammunition from any individual if the firearm, weapon or ammunition is being possessed or used lawfully.''

I am supportive of that action by the State legislature. It was signed into law by the Governor. Unfortunately, there is still room for Federal authorities to act inconsistent with that. That is the problem and the issue and challenge I want to solve. My amendment is very simple and straightforward. It is a limitation of funds saying that no Federal funds in this act can be used to temporarily or permanently seize any firearm during an emergency or major disaster, if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law. The amendment also allows for the forfeiture of firearms in compliance with Federal or State law or as evidence in a criminal investigation.

I hope this will be noncontroversial, that all Senators will accept the amendment as an important, commonsense clarification of the law and what the law certainly should be.

I understand our law enforcement officers are under intense pressure in these extreme situations following a major disaster or a major emergency. But particularly in those situations, when their services, quite frankly, are unavailable to the populace as under normal times, when all communication is shut down, officers should not be confiscating legal firearms from law-abiding citizens protected under the second amendment.

That is the nature of my amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors of the amendment: Senators Inhofe, Enzi, Thune, Burns, Brownback, Martinez, Domenici, and Gregg.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, the goal of this amendment is very straightforward. It is about breaking down the artificial barrier that prevents many Americans, including many seniors, from obtaining safe, FDA-approved, and affordable prescription drugs.

It is no secret that Americans pay more for their medicine than any other citizen in the world, of any other industrialized country. Yet our country is the biggest marketplace for these drugs in the world. Our seniors are buying their medicine in Canada as a result of that and in some other countries simply because it is cheaper. There is no other reason. Yet we see an increasing ratcheting up by Customs and protection agents in an effort to seize these personal legal medicines from Americans who are crossing from Canada back to the United States.

That is why I bring my amendment to the floor--to stop this idiocy and lunacy. My amendment is simple. Stop that escalating practice by the Customs and Border Protection of seizing personally used, FDA- approved medicines from American citizens reentering the country. My amendment would do this by simply prohibiting funds from being used for this Customs and Border Protection activity.

Let me reiterate some very important things about this amendment.

First of all, it would do nothing more and nothing less than allow our own citizens who are reentering our own country to be able to possess FDA-approved prescription medicines for their own personal use with a legitimate doctor's prescription.

That brings up a second very important point. When we talk about prescription drug imports, there are really two types that we often talk about and deal with: commercial imports by wholesalers, huge quantities brought in for the purpose of resale in this country, and personal imports by consumers.

My amendment is simply about personal imports by consumers. We are not talking about huge quantities. We are not talking about resale within the United States.

Third, my amendment is limited to FDA-approved drugs. There is this erroneous notion that sometimes comes up in this reimportation debate that somehow we are bypassing the entire FDA approval process, that somehow we are throwing out the window that entire process by which the FDA approves certain drugs after rigorous testing and analysis. None of that is true, particularly with regard to my amendment, because, again, my amendment only applies to FDA-approved drugs.

Fourth and finally, my amendment only applies to citizens who have a valid doctor's prescription to obtain these drugs. What could be simpler and make more sense than simply allowing American citizens who possess these legal drugs that they obtain with a doctor's prescription, FDA-approved for their own personal use, not huge quantities, to allow them to possess these legal drugs as they reenter their own country, the United States of America?

This amendment would not legalize reimportation full-scale. It would not legalize wholesale reimportation. It would not get into so many of the more controversial aspects of the issue. It would simply say we are not going to allow Customs and Border Patrol to ratchet up this activity by taking away seniors' drugs as they come into our country.

I think it is very significant and noteworthy that this sort of reimportation measure has enormous support certainly in this country but also in the Congress.

I want to point out some specific legislative history that demonstrates this support.

Congress has shown support for this in numerous ways, including very recently. First of all, my amendment was passed in the House. A nearly identical version of the amendment was offered by Representative Emerson of Missouri. That amendment was attached to this very same appropriations bill in subcommittee, and it survived the entire process going through the committee process and the floor.

That amendment is identical to the amendment which I am presenting on the Senate floor today. It passed through the entire House process with very strong support.

There are other instances that show very strong bipartisan support for this sort of measure. Recently, the House passed an Agriculture appropriations bill. There was also a significant reimportation provision put on that bill and included on the bill in the committee process, at the committee stage of consideration of the bill. That underlying bill, including that very important reimportation amendment, was passed overwhelmingly in the full Chamber by the full House by a vote of 378 to 46. I thank my House colleagues, Representative Emerson and Representative Gutknecht and many others for their leadership in this regard.

Finally, an entire freestanding bill has been passed through the House before on this issue, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act. That was in 2003, and by a vote of 243 to 186 after, I might add, the most intense lobbying in the House that I ever experienced because I was a Member of the House at that time--lobbying by the pharmaceutical companies against this bill. That freestanding bill passed the House by a very significant vote, 243 to 186.

I note that bill was far broader than the personal reimportation amendment which we have on the floor today. Again, it demonstrates the significant bipartisan support all of these reimportation measures have, certainly in the country at large, including in the Congress.

Finally, I note another victory we had not too long ago with regard to trade language. There was the very worrisome practice up until recently that the administration's U.S. Trade Representative would negotiate into many bilateral trade deals language which effectively barred reimportation from the other country--the trading partner. This was very unfortunate because it was closing the door to reimportation before it even had been opened by the Congress through trade negotiation.

Because of this very unfortunate practice, many of us in Congress, the House and the Senate, went to the administration and expressed our concern. Even more importantly, we brought language in the form of an amendment and attached it to an appropriations bill. That language said: Stop doing this; you cannot do it; it is ridiculous to negotiate free-trade agreement barriers to reimportation. We passed that language into law. I worked with my Senate colleague from Michigan on that issue. Many like-minded House colleagues worked on it in the House. We passed that into law. Most recently, the administration has acknowledged they will end this practice once and for all of negotiating this

antireimportation language in trade agreements.

There is enormous support for this type of measure in the country. There is also significant bipartisan support for this in the Congress, as has been demonstrated many previous times.

In this discussion, we should focus on the individuals--particularly the seniors--who are compelled to cross the border in many instances to get affordable prescription drugs. We should not focus on the wishes, the pleas, and the intense lobbying by the drug companies. Seniors face enormous hurdles as they face their declining years with the escalating costs of prescription drugs. We should not add this additional hurdle to the list, with Customs and Border Patrol agents forcibly seizing legal, FDA-approved medicines procured with a doctor's prescription as seniors come back across the border.

Finally, in closing, as we think about this amendment, we should also consider what the true priorities of the Customs and Border Patrol should be. We are at war. It is a different type of war than we have ever faced before--a war on terror. That war has been brought to our own shores by very evil-focused people who came into this country illegally. We face new escalating threats, including potential threats from weapons of mass destruction. Our borders are a very important battleground in that war on terror. Yet in this new post-September 11 context, we will devote significant resources, significant focus on stripping seniors of prescription drugs they have gotten with a doctor's prescription, FDA-approved drugs, for their own personal use, with no wholesalers and no resale. That is a ridiculous policy for the Customs and Border Patrol to continue.

In the post-September 11 world, we should demand that Customs and Border Patrol focus on the true priorities we face in the war on terror. Stripping these small amounts of prescription drugs from the hands of seniors, which are attained with a prescription, which are FDA approved, which are for personal use, which are not for resale, not for wholesale, not obtained by wholesalers, should not be a priority of the Customs and Border Patrol.

In closing, let me again thank my colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson, who will speak in a few minutes. Also, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, for cosponsoring this amendment with me, and all of my colleagues who have worked on this issue, including many House Members.

Each year, millions of Americans who cannot otherwise afford their prescription drugs go into Canada with a doctor's prescription, buy FDA-approved drugs, and take them back into our country. We should not sick the police, the Customs and Border Protection agents on them, particularly in a post-September 11 world when that agency in particular has far more important priorities.

I urge all of our colleagues in the Senate to support this simple, straightforward amendment. It is the right thing to do on this issue. It is the right thing to do with regard to setting the right priorities of Customs and Border Patrol.

I am happy to yield.

It would cover any purchases which are subject to seizure by Customs and Border Patrol. I don't offhand know if those purchases are ordinarily subject to that seizure. I believe most of what we are talking about is personal seizure at border checkpoints when individuals are crossing back into the country, but the amendment would cover any potential seizure by Customs and Border Patrol.

If they are subject to that seizure, yes, as I stated, the amendment would cover that.

In its present form, the amendment would cover any country. We have a change in the amendment we are submitting to the desk to exclude a certain list of countries, including most of the countries the Senator mentioned.

No, it would not.

No, it would not.

No, it would not.

I think it is an exactly correct analysis of the FDA view based on the fact that the FDA, at least in this administration, is completely against reimportation, so they have defined FDA approval to specifically exclude reimportation.

The FDA position is exactly as the Senator says. They are against reimportation, so they have defined FDA approval on technical grounds to exclude by definition anything that comes in from other countries. The point of my remarks is that these are exactly the same as FDA-approved drugs.

If I could respond, in claiming my time, I disagree with that wholeheartedly.

Yes, the FDA has refused to take any action to do that. Can they? Absolutely, they can. Is it possible to do that, particularly in the modern age of packaging technology? Absolutely.

Most of the drugs we are talking about, in fact, are manufactured either in this country or in the same manufacturing points as the drugs that are bought in this country. So I disagree with the premise the Senator has laid out. But that is certainly the FDA's position, not to attempt to do any of that and to be completely, 1,000 percent opposed to reimportation.

I am happy to yield to the Senator from Florida, and I am happy to respond to the other points at some future time.

Mr. President, I would respond to the chairman by saying that amendment after amendment after amendment has been directed at the FDA to do the right thing and create a sensible regime with regard to this issue, and the FDA is flatout opposed to this and has made no effort in that regard, even though there is clearly the technical capability to do that through packaging technology and the like. So this is an effort to make the entire administration--all aspects that need to be involved--do the right thing.

But to say we have not asked the FDA to do this is ludicrous. We have been trying to drag them--kicking and screaming--to do the right thing for several years now. In fact, while they hide behind these safety arguments, I am afraid they are allowing safety issues to go by unaddressed.

In fact, this practice is common. Whether this amendment goes on this bill, whether this activity of Customs and Border Protection continues, one thing is certain: Seniors will import, for personal use, prescription drugs from Canada and elsewhere. That will go on, to a very significant extent.

Even if this amendment does not pass, Customs and Border Protection will never round up all of those drugs. This is a common and a growing practice because of the price issue.

So the question is: When is the FDA going to wake up and truly address these concerns that the chairman brings up with some sensible regime? This amendment is designed to force them in that direction.

But to suggest we have not asked them to do this, that we are going to the wrong agency, is a little silly because we have been asking them to do this for several years now. And we renew that request now.

Mr. President, reclaiming my time, let me respond to the chairman's remarks with two comments. First of all, the FDA--right now, today, this hour, as we speak--has all the authority it needs to take any of the actions the chairman has described. It does not need any additional directive or authority. It has that authority. So the suggestion that somehow we need to act toward the FDA to give it that authority before it can move is absolutely not the case. In fact, we have been trying to get the FDA to act in this regard for several years because there are legitimate safety issues that should be met.

Secondly, I compliment the chairman for trying to figure out a scenario in which this is a true top priority of Customs and Border Protection in a post 9/11 world. I just do not think it adds up, though. I do not think, with all the border security and terrorist threats we face as a nation, allowing the Customs and Border Protection agents to continue--to even escalate--their practice of taking away small amounts of prescription drugs from seniors crossing back from Canada, et cetera, is the right thing to do, is a right priority for Customs and Border Protection.

With that, Mr. President, I yield back my time and look forward to the comments from my amendment cosponsor, the Senator from Florida.

Will the Senator yield on that?

I appreciate the suggestion. In fact, we have been talking to the chairman's staff about additional language, which we would ask be added to the amendment by unanimous consent, to create a list of countries to which this cannot apply and would specifically ask the chairman's staff for the appropriate list of countries for us to consider, a list from their point of view.

So we will be happy to work on that and wrap this up before we end this floor debate.

Mr. President, at this point I would like to revise my amendment with the language which is at the desk.

Mr. President, as modified, as the subcommittee chairman indicated, this will limit the effect of the amendment to transactions involving Canada only.

Having done that, let me close with a few remarks. First, I appreciate the offer and the commitment of the Senator from New Hampshire to work on this issue because, in fact, if he truly has these safety concerns he was outlining--I tend to think the nature of some of these scenarios he outlined were overly dramatic and not very well grounded in reality, but if he thinks these scenarios are accurate, then we need to act. The FDA needs to act today because even if my amendment is defeated--and I am very hopeful it will not be; I am very hopeful it will get a resounding vote on the Senate floor--even if it is defeated, these transactions are going on every day in the thousands.

The Senator knows that Customs and Border Patrol will never stop all of these personal-use medicines from coming into the country. So this is going on every day, thousands upon thousands of cases a day. Therefore, if there are safety issues involved--and there are some--the FDA needs to act now and we need to act now to put a regime in place.

Unfortunately, many of us, including myself, including the Senator from North Dakota and others, have tried over and over and have been blocked procedurally from moving that type of legislation to the Senate floor. That, as the Senator from North Dakota indicated, is what provoked this amendment. But I welcome the offer and the commitment of the Senator from New Hampshire to work in conference to put a full- blown regime together with regard to reimportation, and I welcome us bringing, either through this vehicle or through a stand-alone measure, this important debate to the Senate floor.

There are some safety issues, but those issues exist even if my amendment is defeated. Those issues exist because those transactions are going on every day, and they are growing in number because of the huge price disparity between the cost of drugs in the United States and the cost of those same FDA-approved equivalent drugs in places such as Canada.

Defeat of this amendment will not take care of those issues. The only thing that will take care of those issues is action, long overdue action by the FDA--and they have the authority now--or action by us in the Congress to put together an entire reimportation regime. I look forward to doing that. It is long overdue. It is important because of the very safety issues the Senator from New Hampshire outlines. It is also important because of the tremendous price pressure our constituents are under because we, unfortunately, labor under the highest prescription drug prices in the world, even though we offer the manufacturers the largest marketplace for those very same drugs in the world.

I yield back my time and look forward to the adoption of this amendment.

Absolutely.

I do wish to have a recorded vote.

Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment. I thank Senators Nelson and Coburn and others for their support.

This is very simple and straightforward. It will simply say in the post-9/11 world to Customs and border security that they should not be spending precious time and precious resources confiscating prescription drugs from seniors as they come back into this country from Canada. That is the only thing the amendment does. It is only about Canada. It is only about the personal use of prescription drugs. It doesn't involve wholesale, and it doesn't involve large quantities which can be resold in this country. It is only about FDA-approved drugs or their equivalent or what would be FDA-approved drugs if FDA did not define their approval process to specifically exclude drugs from other countries.

I ask for strong support of this very commonsense amendment.

Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge the Louisiana Tech Chamber Singers for their participation in the 2006 Mozart Choral Festival in Vienna, Austria. As 1 of only 12 choral groups selected to perform in this festival, the Louisiana Tech Chamber Singers will stand among the most elite vocalists in the world.

The Louisiana Tech choral program embodies the high standard of musical and artistic excellence in Louisiana's higher education system and represents the finest musicians the university and the Nation have to offer. Former members of the Louisiana Tech choral program have established national and international reputations as performing and recording artists in many musical genres.

The 2006 Mozart Choral Festival is a celebration of the 250th anniversary of the birth of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. The participating choral groups are traveling from across the world to celebrate of one of the greatest musicians of all time by performing pieces of Mozart's most brilliant work.

I applaud the Louisiana Tech Chamber Singers for their success and wish their program continued prosperity.

Mr. President, today I also wish to acknowledge the Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery. This year, they will celebrate their 75th anniversary, and I wish to take a few moments to highlight their contributions to Louisiana.

As the only Federal fish hatchery in Louisiana, the Natchitoches station has steadily served the needs of the region. Founded in 1931, the Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery was originally established to provide recreation and food for the public during the depression and war eras.

Today the hatchery dedicates itself to the restoration of depleted species, recovery of threatened or endangered fish, and management of interjurisdictional fisheries. Over the years, the Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery has been involved with raising 16 species of fish and has stocked more than

164 million fish. The station has been an invaluable resource to Louisiana's wildlife and fisheries.

Federal fish hatcheries have been an important part of our Nation's resource management efforts for more than a century. Resource managers nationwide acknowledge hatcheries as a valuable tool for the preservation of our Nation's fisheries resources. Because of the importance of fisheries to Louisiana, the significance of the Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery can not be overstated.

Today, I applaud the Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery on their 75th anniversary and wish them continued prosperity.

Mr. President, the America flag is such an important symbol to our country that from the time we are children, we salute the flag with a hand over our hearts and pledge our allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. For the past two centuries, in battles all around the globe, the American flag has served as an inspiration and rallying point for our Armed Forces fighting for the ideals it embodies. We hold the flag with such reverence that it covers the coffin of America's military heroes who have dedicated their lives to the service of our Nation. Old Glory should be revered and protected because it represents American History, American sacrifice, and hope for our Nation's future.

On the Fourth of July, especially, we are reminded of the sacrifices of our forefathers in founding this great Nation, and the American flag symbolizes that sacrifice. The act of burning or destroying the flag shows a tremendous disrespect for our forefathers and the countless men and women who have given their lives to make the United States what it is today. That's why I am an original cosponsor of the flag protection amendment, and I rise to speak in support of it today.

By supporting this amendment, I believe that I am supporting the will of the people of Louisiana and the American people. I have received so many phone calls, letters, and e-mails from people in my home State of Louisiana in support of a constitutional amendment to prevent the desecration of our American flag. Polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that burning the U.S. flag should be a crime. According to Fox News poll when asked, ``Do you think burning the American flag should be legal or illegal?'', 73 percent respondents said they thought it should be illegal.

Before the Supreme Court issued its decision in Texas v. Johnson, declaring that flag burning is politically expressive conduct protected by the first amendment, 48 States, including Louisiana, and the District of Columbia, had enacted statutes prohibiting the physical desecration of the American flag. In my opinion, the Johnson decision is just one more example of unelected activist judges ignoring the will of the American people. In response to the Court's decision in Johnson, Congress enacted the Flag Protection Act. However, in U.S. v. Eichman the Court struck down the Flag Protection Act, holding that Government's interest in protecting this symbol did not outweigh the individual's right to politically expressive conduct.

Since the Supreme Court issued these 2 decisions, all 50 States have passed resolutions asking Congress to pass a constitutional amendment that would

provide some protection to the American flag. This is overwhelming evidence that the American people disagree with these activist decision and believe that the flag--the symbol of Our nation--should be protected. I believe that we as Senators owe it to our constituents--as their elected representatives--to support this amendment and give Congress the power to enact a law banning the physical desecration of the U.S. Flag.

The Flag Protection Amendment gives Congress the power to enact laws prohibiting the ``physical desecration'' of the flag. This amendment does not ban flag burning--it doesn't ban anything. It merely gives Congress the power to enact legislation if and only if three-fourth of the States ratify the amendment within 7 years. Therefore, this amendment would place the power back into the hands of the American people, which, in my mind, is much better than leaving it in the hands of activist judges.

Opponents of this amendment state that any laws prohibiting physical desecration of the flag, no matter how narrowly tailored, violate an individual's first Amendment right to free speech. However, while the first amendment grants Americans the precious right to free speech, that right is not without limitations. For example, the Supreme Court has held that certain types of hate speech and obscenity are not covered under the first amendment. Additionally, public school teachers may not espouse their personal religious views in the classroom, and attorneys and doctors cannot breach the confidence of their clients.

The first amendment protects a number of avenues for individuals to voice their dissent, but it should not protect the physical desecration of the symbol that embodies the spirit of our Nation.

It is time for the Senate to pass the flag protection amendment--an amendment that has overwhelming bipartisan support and 59 cosponsors. The House passed this amendment last year by two-third majority. Now it is time for the Senate to pass this amendment so that we can send it to States and give the American people a chance to vote on this very important legislation. Mr. President, I believe that protecting the symbol of our Nation is one of our duties as elected representatives of the American people, and it is too important to leave in the hands of activist judges.

Mr. President, I stand in strong support of this supplemental appropriations bill. There are many, many very important reasons to support it, and certainly one is because of the essential support it gives all of our Armed Forces around the world, particularly with regard to the crucial fight in Iraq. That is an essential reason to support it. Certainly the important money it puts toward border security, and we must do so much more with regard to border security.

I stand first and foremost and primarily with a focus on the crucial challenge of hurricane recovery all along the gulf coast, including in my home State of Louisiana. I strongly and proudly support this bill because it is an enormous help, an enormous commitment at the Federal level of keeping true to President Bush's Jackson Square pledge to make sure we have a full and robust recovery on the gulf coast.

This hurricane experience has been surreal for so many, literally millions who lived through it, including me. And it hasn't just been Hurricane Katrina which, of course, devastated southeast Louisiana as well as Mississippi and parts of Alabama. It has been Hurricane Rita, too, which damaged, devastated south Acadiana and southwest Louisiana just a few weeks after Hurricane Katrina.

It has been quite an experience in terms of introducing me to my work in the Senate. I will never forget so many of the experiences I lived through and saw firsthand, obviously Hurricane Katrina hitting on August 29 and seeing the aftermath of that, the unbelievable devastation, particularly because of the levee breaches in the New Orleans area. After living there on the ground, working on those issues day in and day out, I finally returned to the Senate on September 13 and stood here on the floor and tried to communicate exactly what I saw, but it was difficult because, again, so many of those images were just so surreal, so outside the realm of anything I had experienced before.

Then, just a few weeks later, September 24, it was almost unbelievable, but it happened. We were socked by a second devastating Hurricane Rita that went into the Texas-Louisiana border area, but really affected the entire Louisiana coast because it came in at an angle from the southeast to the northwest, in that direction, pushing flood waters all up and down, east and west of the Louisiana coast, but of course particularly devastating southwest Louisiana and south Acadiana.

I remember in that entire period thinking many times, and I will be

happy to admit this, none too proudly, that this was heavy, heavy lifting in terms of my new job in the U.S. Senate. I remember on more than one occasion e-mailing my wife Wendy that this just seemed so tough a haul in terms of what we needed to do, including through Federal legislation, particularly as it was hitting when understandable concerns about spending at the Federal level were at an all-time high. I noted in several of those e-mails that it just seemed like a very, very tough haul.

After months and months of work and joining with so many others in the gulf coast and outside the gulf coast and all around the country, I am so delighted that we are really getting that job done in terms of this Federal support. What seemed like such an uphill battle so many months ago is finally coming together, in terms of very aggressive, very robust Federal help.

Let me make clear, that is not primarily because of my effort. That is not primarily because of the effort of the rest of the Louisiana delegation--which has been completely united and which has worked very hard, yes--but that is primarily because of the leadership of others and their efforts. So I primarily come to the floor today to say thank you to those leaders.

Of course, we have to start with President Bush, the President of the United States. On September 15 he stood in Jackson Square and addressed the Nation. I was there personally. I will never forget that moment. It was surreal, in some ways, because the entirety of the French Quarter was dark, uninhabited, but there we were in Jackson Square and the President was speaking to the Nation, making a firm commitment that New Orleans and Louisiana and the gulf coast wouldn't just come back but would be rebuilt smarter, better, stronger than ever.

This legislation keeps that pledge. It makes good on that promise, and it only is happening because of the President's strong leadership in this regard. So in all my thanks--and we have many people to thank-- I want to start first and foremost with President Bush. He stated it unequivocally, boldly, strongly on September 15 in Jackson Square, and he has made good on that pledge and that promise. This legislation helps do exactly that.

I also want to specifically thank all my fellow Senators, particularly leaders in this regard such as Senator Cochran, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. In the months following the tragedies of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, some of the most important work I participated in was getting fellow Senators, fellow Members of Congress, down to the devastated regions, allowing them to see the scope of the devastation firsthand. So many came and so many responded in terms of really getting it, really understanding exactly the unprecedented scope of this devastation. So I thank all my colleagues who did that, all my colleagues who joined together in this enormously important boost for the gulf coast and for Louisiana.

Again, there are very many folks who worked hard on it, but none harder than the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Cochran, himself, of course, from a devastated State. So I deeply and sincerely thank all those fellow Members of the Senate.

What is it that we have accomplished? It really is a lot from the Federal level: passing the funding, the support, the help we need on the gulf coast for our full recovery. I am proud and happy to say in all of this the Senate has led the way through the leadership of Senator Cochran and others, in terms of passing the levels of support we need. The Senate led the way, the Senate bill led the way in the conference committee.

Several categories are enormously important. First, in this bill $4.2 billion for Louisiana of community development block grant funding. That is enormously important. It will complete a $12 billion package for Louisiana primarily dedicated to homeowners, many of whom lost everything, and to housing needs. That is crucial in terms of revitalizing and rebuilding our community for the better.

Another absolutely crucial issue as a threshold concept is rebuilding the levees far better than before to give everyone in the region peace of mind that we will have adequate protection in the future. Again, in this bill, $3.7 billion will go to the Corps of Engineers for their ongoing emergency levee repairs and reconstruction. Just as important is crucial authorization language that is necessary to allow them to get that work done immediately. Again, a crucial threshold issue. Nothing will happen in terms of a robust recovery in the New Orleans area without knowing that we will have the levees we need to give individuals, families, businesses real security in the future.

Other important categories--$500 million for agricultural relief, focused on the gulf coast region where the devastation from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita happened. Again, I acknowledge Chairman Cochran, who kept that package in the bill--slimmed down, yes, but vitally important nonetheless--and preserved it in the conference committee negotiations. That was enormously important.

Similarly, fisheries, $118 million for fisheries that were decimated all along the gulf coast, particularly in Louisiana and Mississippi, is another crucial component in the bill.

This is so important and is vital particularly when coupled with our earlier legislation, a big bill in December where we passed billions in December also in CDBG funds, in levee money, in health care--Medicare and Medicaid--in education, passing money that followed the evacuee child wherever that child went so we can pay for those extraordinary needs, and in higher education, in extraordinary help for local government where the tax base was decimated for the foreseeable future, jurisdictions such as Saint Bernard's, the sheriff's office, local government, the city of New Orleans, and others.

Also, crucial legislation in December on the tax side of the equation--GO Zone legislation--to provide powerful incentives for businesses, families, and individuals to come back and rebuild and bring the jobs with them to revitalize our economy because that is at the core of our recovery as well.

I say thank you to the President of the United States, to all of my Senate colleagues, to all who worked on this crucially important legislation. I say it with every piece of sincerity and heartfeltness in my body because this has just been a matter of survival, of life and death for all of us in Louisiana.

The most important way I can say thank you is in continuing to work with folks on the ground in Louisiana to assure all of you, to assure the President of the United States, to assure the American people, that this money gets spent right on the ground; that it is not just thrown at a problem but actually helps fund positive change and reform on the ground in Louisiana because that is exactly the leadership we need to move in the direction we need to take.

As we turn our attention to how that money is spent on the ground, I assure you I will be an active participant in that work, an active player in that debate. I will continue to use all of my leadership skills, everything I can muster, to make sure, again, that this enormous Federal support that everyone here--the President and others-- has made possible goes to fund positive change and reform on the ground in Louisiana. We certainly need it in a whole host of categories: political reform, levee board reform, health care restructuring, educational improvement through charter schools, and the like, and on and on.

That is my pledge to my colleagues. That is, perhaps, the best way I can continue to say thank you for this vitally important help that will mean New Orleans, LA, including southwest Louisiana, decimated so hard by Rita, the entire gulf coast comes back--but also comes back better, stronger than ever.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I stand in strong support of this proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution to uphold and affirm traditional marriage.

Several years ago, when folks who were focused on the health of marriage and the upbringing of children from around the country gathered to begin to attack this problem, they came to the Congress with the idea of proposing a constitutional amendment. They

went to certain Members of both the House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats. I was in the House at the time, and I was honored that I was one of the four House Republicans--there were eight House Members in all, four Republicans and four Democrats--whom these leaders approached to be original coauthors of this constitutional amendment. I immediately agreed and have been very involved in the debate and the fight ever since then.

I am very happy to bring this work to the Senate with so many other leaders such as Senator Allard, who has been leading the effort for some time. This is a very important effort because--it is often said, but it is very true and it is worth repeating--marriage is truly the most fundamental institution in human history. Think about that statement and the significance of it: It is the single most fundamental social institution in human history.

Certainly, we should not rush, as we are at the present time through activist courts, to radically redefine it after thousands and thousands of years of living under the traditional definition.

Mr. President, often in the Senate we get very wrapped up in our debate and our laws and proposals and Government programs. We think so much is changed by that and so much hinges on that. Yet what is so much more important and more fundamental are those enduring--hopefully enduring--social institutions such as marriage, community, church, and faith communities. We need to realize how central those sorts of institutions are and how important they are in terms of influencing behavior in our society--good and bad behavior. When we look at so many of the social ills we try to address in Congress with Government programs and proposals, serious social problems such as drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, and the like, perhaps the single biggest predictor of good results versus bad results is whether kids come from a stable, loving, nurturing, two-parent family, a mother and a father. That doesn't mean you cannot have success raising a child in other environments, such as in a struggling one-parent household. It means that the odds are so much more stacked against you when you move to that other sort of environment.

So I think it is very appropriate and well overdue that we in the Senate focus on nurturing, upholding, preserving, and protecting such a fundamental social institution as traditional marriage. A lot of folks in Washington don't fully understand that. But I can tell you that real people in the real world, certainly including in Louisiana, get it. That is why 2 years ago, in 2004, we passed a State constitutional marriage amendment in Louisiana to uphold traditional marriage. We passed it with 78 percent of the vote. Folks in Louisiana want those values upheld. They don't want them redefined radically by activist courts, particularly people in courts in other States such as Massachusetts. And make no mistake, that is what is happening. That trend would have an impact not just in isolated States such as Massachusetts but throughout the country as marriage is redefined by liberal activist judges and others. So the people in Louisiana and a solid majority of people around the country want us to address this issue nationally through a constitutional amendment once and for all. That is why I strongly support this effort.

I thank the Senator from Colorado and others again for leading this fight in the Senate. I was proud to help lead it in the House when I was there. I am proud to join other allies on the floor of the Senate. Again, rather than focus on all these new Government programs, new little ideas that we run to the floor of the Senate with every day, let's take time to remember and focus on truly significant, enduring social institutions, which are the greatest predictors and factors in terms of encouraging good behavior and success, discouraging bad behavior and failure. This is the way we can have the most impact on those problems we debate endlessly, such as drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, and the like. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in this effort.

I predict that, while we may not reach the two-thirds vote we ultimately need with this vote this week, we will make important progress, we will pick up votes since the last time the Congress voted on this issue in 2004. I am one small example of that progress because my election in 2004 meant that this vote went from a ``no'' vote of my predecessor, John Breaux, to a proud ``yes'' vote of the junior Senator from Louisiana now. I look forward to casting that vote. I urge my colleagues to rally around enduring, positive social institutions that are so essential for the health of families, kids being brought up and, indeed, our society.

With that, I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I stand in strong support of this budget point of order under section 407, which is being raised against the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to look very hard at this fiscal impact and this budget issue, because it has gotten very little attention in this entire debate but will have a dramatic impact on our country, our Government, and our budget for decades to come.

Section 407 of the Budget Act specifically is about impacts on the budget of various legislation for the long term, and the point of order says:

It shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint

resolution, amendment, motion or conference report that would

cause a net increase in direct spending in excess of $5

billion in any 10-year period between 2016 and 2055.

That is $5 billion per decade. There is no argument. There is absolutely no argument of which I am aware that this bill is not above that mark. Everyone seems to agree--CBO, other experts--everyone seems to agree that this bill is above that mark, causing huge increases in spending--direct spending, Government liability, building into the budget forever and ever, particularly after 2016.

The proponents of the bill were very smart. They specifically limited certain benefits that would be available to new citizens under the bill in the first decade because there are other budget points of order, more immediate budget points of order, more focused on that first decade after the passage of any bill. But even in that first decade, the expected net increase in expenses is very significant--about, perhaps, $52 billion in a 10-year window. But beyond that first decade, of course, it increases exponentially. It is much more, as previous speakers have said.

I am disappointed, frankly, in the Congressional Budget Office. First of all, as I said, they make perfectly clear that this budget point of order is blown out of the water. The long-term impact is clearly more than $5 billion per decade. But that is all they said. I would have hoped, I would have expected the CBO would do a more precise analysis to give us more exact numbers, better numbers. They have not been able to do that. All they have been able to say is:

CBO estimates that enacting S. 2611 would cause an increase

in direct spending greater than $5 billion in each of the 10-

year periods between 2016 and 2055.

We are not only blowing that budget point for one decade or two decades, but we are doing it for every decade because that is going to be the permanent, everlasting impact, with no end in site on Federal Government expenditures and on the budget.

Other folks outside of Government have tried to perform a more exact analysis. One of them, of course, is Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, who released a study on the welfare costs of S. 2611. In fact, his number, his study, goes way beyond this $5 billion per decade. He says, to sum up, that this would be the biggest increase in Federal Government spending, welfare spending, in at least 35 years.

I find it particularly ironic that many of the leading proponents of this bill also are some of the very vocal proponents of things such as earmark reform, getting spending under control, looking at the budget-- the dangers of increasing automatic spending and entitlement programs without end. I agree with them about all of those concerns. I am not saying they are wrong about those things. They are exactly right. That is why I supported so many of those measures, including earmark

reform. But this increase in spending under this bill will make those issues look penny ante, in dollar terms. This is of a magnitude far surpassing that in terms of their very real and very legitimate budget concerns.

We are just coming out of an experience I hope we never see again, dealing with horrific hurricanes, Katrina and Rita, with that unprecedented Federal spending in response to those storms, about $100 billion. What concerns me even more is that this legislation threatens to build into our budget, particularly after the first 10 years, a Hurricane Katrina-like event in terms of Federal spending every other year forever, with no end in sight, just repeating that every other year, as if a Katrina came across our shores and caused that need and that amount of spending every other year forever. Of course those expenditures would only increase over time.

Let me say, this is a very real, legitimate concern about this bill. I hope all of us focus on it more in the closing hours of this debate. It has gotten far too little discussion up until now, and I encourage everyone to focus on the very real and frightening budget and fiscal impacts of this bill.

I yield back my time.

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