David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. VITTER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. VITTER. Of course, I am disappointed--not surprised but disappointed--at the objection. I resume my plea specifically to Senator Leahy, chairman of the committee, and to Senator Landrieu, who has not turned in her blue slip and is thus the reason for the committee not even holding a hearing, that we move beyond this, that we have a hearing on this eminently qualified nominee. If there is a reason to stop the nomination, surely a hearing is the best venue and the best vehicle to illustrate that and talk about it. I hope we move beyond the pure obstructionism and partisanship that has us stuck in the mud with a judicial emergency in the Middle District looming. This is exactly the sort of obstruction the American people are tired of. They spoke clearly to this over the last several years about judicial nominees. Maybe we got a little better, but here we are again in terms of this matter and this case which is surely important to Louisiana. I urge all of my colleagues to work beyond this. Specifically, I urge the chairman of the Judiciary and Senator Landrieu to work beyond this. It is unfortunate that they couldn't accept my invitation to have a useful, informative dialog and colloquy on the issue on the floor. There has been no good explanation for inaction that I have ever heard. A lot of people would like to hear some discussion and explanation. I hope we will hear that soon. I hope in the very near future we will move toward an appropriate resolution of this matter, which is a hearing and a vote in Judiciary and then on the floor of the Senate. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I come to the floor with welcome support of the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, who serves so ably on the Judiciary Committee, to talk about the pending nomination of David Dugas to fill a vacancy in the Middle District of Louisiana. This is a vacancy that has existed for over a year, and, in fact, coming up very soon in March will unfortunately, if we do not act before then, will be noting the 1-year anniversary of the nomination of David Dugas to fill this vacancy in the Middle District of Louisiana, of course nominated by President Bush. Mr. Dugas is currently U.S. attorney in that same district. In that capacity, of course, he had to come before this Senate and be confirmed; and he was by unanimous consent. So that was a very resounding confirmation of him, which included support by my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu. In terms of this judicial nomination, Mr. Dugas has received the highest rating possible by the American Bar Association. He is eminently qualified. There is nothing in his background or his dealings or his job as a U.S. attorney that remotely suggests otherwise. Yet there has been great delay and obstructionism, in my opinion, in terms of considering this worthy nomination. In fact, even though we are coming up on the 1-year mark of President Bush's nomination of him, he has yet to receive a hearing before the Judiciary Committee because my colleague, Senator Landrieu, has not turned in her so-called blue slip. I rise to make note of this, and in a few minutes I will have a unanimous consent to propose to the Senate to remedy this situation. I have also specifically invited Senator Leahy, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Landrieu, my colleague from Louisiana, to join us on the floor for an appropriate colloquy. With that introduction, I yield such time as he would consume to my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. VITTER. I thank the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, first for his service on the Judiciary Committee; it has been very distinguished, to serve there as many years very ably, now-ranking member, and specifically for his support on this nomination and others to try to break through the gridlock, break through the partisanship, move forward in a positive way for the country. I believe that is absolutely necessary in a number of cases, but the one that surely hits closest to home for me is this nomination of David Dugas to a judgeship in the Middle District of Louisiana. So I thank the ranking member for all his help and support; I know it will continue. Again, let me note I wrote to Chairman Leahy that I would be taking the floor this week to make the upcoming unanimous consent request. I did the same to my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu. As soon as we figured out the time that would be available, we sent them word, and I sincerely hope they can both join me on the floor because I think it would be very useful and very informative to have an appropriate discussion and colloquy about this case. So I certainly invite that. I would encourage them to accept the invitation to join me on the floor. Let me point out and reiterate some very important points about this nomination. President Bush made the nomination some time ago. That was March of last year. We are coming up quickly on the 1-year mark of this nomination. The vacancy in the Middle District has been open even a little bit longer, over a year. Because of that, a backlog of cases is quickly mounting in the Middle District. The Middle District is an area surrounding Baton Rouge, LA, the capital of the State. It has felt a huge influx of people, of residents, and of litigation, largely because of Hurricane Katrina. Because of that, because of this vacancy, judicial backlogs have been mounting and mounting. We are not quite to the point--and this is defined in law and by rules of the court--we are not quite to the point that it is defined as a ``judicial emergency,'' but we are quickly coming up to that line. So the people of Louisiana, the people of the Middle District are not being served well and properly and as quickly as they should be. This vacancy needs to be filled for that reason. Now, let us look at the man who President Bush has chosen to fill the vacancy. By all accounts, he is eminently qualified. Mr. Dugas is the sitting U.S. attorney in the Middle District. He has done a very fine job in that position, has won praise from many different quarters, particularly from law enforcement. He has many admirers and allies in the law enforcement community: Sheriffs across the State, chiefs of police, district attorneys, many others. They have written in to many of us about this nomination in strong support. Mr. Dugas was already considered by the Senate, of course he had to be, for his present job of U.S. attorney. He was considered very favorably. In fact, it was considered completely noncontroversial, and he was confirmed swiftly by unanimous consent. In that process, of course, my colleague, Senator Landrieu, was here at the time and was part of that very positive sweeping confirmation. As I said, for this judicial vacancy, Mr. Dugas has received the highest rating possible by the American Bar Association. That is a distinguished professional organization, it is not political, it is certainly not leaning to the right. Nobody would think that. They have rated this nominee of President Bush with their highest rating possible for a judicial nomination. Yet this languishes and languishes. In another month's time, we are going to be on the 1-year mark of the nomination, with this backlog of cases mounting, as we near a judicial emergency in the district. I do not think that is right. I do not think that is serving the people of Louisiana at all. I do not think that is serving the people of the country at all. Mr. Dugas deserves better. More importantly, the people of Louisiana deserve better. The people of Louisiana and of the country want us to act as grownups and to come together and do our work in a timely, respectful way. They don't think this sort of partisanship and obstructionism, particularly over judgeships, falls into that definition. This got particularly bad a few years ago. I was hopeful. Since I have been here, not because of my influence but just in general, since I got here, the Senate has become more responsive and more responsible about nominations, particularly judicial nominations. Unfortunately, this is a clear example in the other direction. Let's clear up this example. Let's move it off the list of those examples of partisanship and obstruction. Let's act in a reasonable--late, by now, but reasonable way, finally moving forward with this highly qualified nominee before this district gets to a state of judicial emergency, which is looming. That is my simple and reasonable request. With all that background, I will now propound a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that if the Committee on the Judiciary has not held a hearing on PN 349, the nomination of David Dugas of Louisiana to be U.S. district judge for the Middle District of Louisiana, and reported the nomination to the Senate by March 19, 2008, which would be the 1-year anniversary of his nomination being transmitted, that on the next calendar day the Senate is in session, the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the nomination; that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination; that there be 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of such time, the Senate immediately proceed to a rollcall vote on the nomination; that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions; and that the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the work of the Desormeaux Foundation and in particular to commend their annual Life Banquet, which helps support their efforts to assist women with unplanned pregnancies. The Foundation runs the St. Marguerite d'Youville Home for pregnant women and mothers in crisis. The home welcomes them with a peaceful, secure setting that offers spiritual guidance and access to educational, medical, and professional resources. Over the years, the Desormeaux Foundation has worked tirelessly on efforts like this to advance pro-life values, and I am greatly appreciative of the constant vigilance by the Desormeaux Foundation in helping advance these values. I commend the foundation for their hard work to support agendas that protect human life, like banning partial-birth abortions, outlawing abortion drugs, and preventing taxpayer dollars from funding abortions, as well as strongly supporting adoption and crisis pregnancy centers. The Desormeaux Foundation's work is helping promote the culture of life, and I would like to applaud the good people of the Desormeaux Foundation and wish them continued success in their mission.

Mr. VITTER

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

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I offer an important amendment with regard to abortion and the pro-life cause. It is a very appropriate day that we talk about this because as we speak tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of people, particularly young people, from all around the country are marching in Washington, on the Mall, at the Supreme Court, in a positive, vibrant march for life. In offering this amendment, I also want to thank all of my original amendment cosponsors: Senators Allard, Brownback, Thune, and Inhofe. This amendment is very simple. This amendment codifies, solidifies the Hyde amendment policy in this important Indian Health Care Improvement Act. It establishes, reasserts, the policy of the Hyde amendment with regard to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and puts that Hyde amendment language in the authorization language for this important part of Federal law. Let me explain why it is necessary. For many years the Hyde amendment has been honored, including in this Federal program, but in a very roundabout and precarious way. For many years this program and this authorization have included language that says: This program will be governed by whatever abortion language is contained in the current Health and Human Services appropriations bill. And for those years, Congress has included Hyde amendment language in that appropriations bill to which this program points. That has worked, sort of, in accomplishing having the Hyde amendment in Federal law with regard to Indian health care, but it puts it in a tenuous and precarious posture. It puts it up for debate and possible change of policy every year, every time we debate a new Health and Human Services appropriations bill. Therefore, it doesn't make the policy very solid, very secure, or very clear. My amendment is very simple. It would simply place that Hyde amendment language directly in the Indian health care language and say: No Federal funds in this program will be used to perform abortions except in the rare exceptions delineated in the original Hyde amendment. This is very appropriate. Why should we go to this in such a roundabout and tenuous and precarious way? I think we should place that clear policy, which has been accepted over many years, since the original Hyde amendment debate, directly in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and not have it sort of get there maybe every year through such a torturous and tenuous and precarious route. It is very simple. On this day, where tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of Americans, particularly young people--and that is so heartening--are marching on Washington in a positive march for life, will we clearly reaffirm that Hyde amendment language in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act? I suggest all of us should do that. I suggest that would be a positive statement for life, for positive values for the future. Voting for the amendment will accomplish just that. I have talked to the chairman of the committee, and he has indicated that a vote will be forthcoming further on in the debate of this bill. I welcome that. I welcome everyone on both sides of the aisle joining together around this consensus amendment to make a positive statement for life, to reaffirm what has been Federal policy for several years, the Hyde amendment, and to move forward, hopefully together, in a positive spirit, making that positive statement for life. In closing, this is a very important issue and a very important amendment, a very important vote to millions of people around the country who care deeply about life. Because of that, this will be a vote focused on and graded by several key national groups; specifically, the National Right to Life Committee, Concerned Women of America, and the Family Research Council. I have letters from all three of these groups making clear their strong support of the Vitter amendment and also making clear that this vote on this amendment will be graded in their activity monitoring the Congress. I ask unanimous consent that three letters be printed in the Record.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge COL Jefferson Joseph DeBlanc, Sr., for his dedicated service to Louisiana and the United States of America. I would like to take some time to make a few remarks on his accomplishments. In 1940, Colonel DeBlanc left school in order to pursue a career in the military. After joining the Marine flight program, he enlisted in the Naval Reserve where he received elimination flight training. He continued his illustrious military career in the Marines, achieving the rank of captain on June 1, 1943, and transferred to the Marine Aircraft Group 11 overseas. In November 1944, he returned overseas for his second tour of duty. He joined the Marine Fighting Squadron 422 in the Marshall Islands and remained stationed there until May 1945, joining Squadron 212 in order to fight in the Okinawa campaign. In his two tours of duty in the Pacific at Guadalcanal and Okinawa, he shot down nine enemy aircraft. On December 6, 1946, President Truman awarded him the Nation's highest decoration for valor and bravery, the Congressional Medal of Honor ``for his conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty.'' Colonel DeBlanc received this medal for shooting down five enemy Zeros in the Solomons. He went on to be decorated with more than 10 medals, including the Purple Heart, the Distinguished Flying Cross, and multiple Gold Stars. Colonel DeBlanc later received a master's degree in education. He worked with the St. Martin's Parish School Board and taught physics at Mt. Carmel in New Iberia. After his retirement from the Marine Corps Reserve in 1972, he served as a member in multiple organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars and Medal of Honor Society. Colonel Jefferson Joseph DeBlanc, Sr., passed away on Thursday, November 22, 2007. Colonel DeBlanc was the last living World War II Medal of Honor recipient from Louisiana. Although he did not perceive his achievement as a fighter pilot as out of the ordinary, many Louisianans will long remember the gallantry, bravery, and valor he exhibited throughout his life. Thus, today, I am proud to rise to honor a fellow Louisianan, Colonel Jefferson Joseph DeBlanc, Sr., and thank him for his dedicated and tireless service to our country.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to pay great tribute to Trent Lott. Similar to so many on the floor, I felt compelled, had a great desire to come to the floor because of my deep respect and affection for Trent. I mean that. It is probably a great testament to Trent, given those very deep and sincere feelings of mine, to remember how we were introduced politically. I was running for Congress and he endorsed my opponent. For a lot of people, it would have meant that person would never have built a strong working relationship with the other or it would have taken a long time. For Trent, it took about 5 minutes. After I won, he called me and congratulated me and explained that my opponent was a former colleague of his and a friend and he felt loyalty and affection for the person. But the past was the past and the future was the future and he wanted to build that same friendship and sense of loyalty with me. So that was that. It wasn't just words. He put that into action and made it perfectly clear from the beginning he was sincere. That is Trent. That is probably the first and one of the most important lessons he imparted to me. I will always feel privileged to have learned other lessons in two particular settings. One, I was honored to be asked to join his whip team over the last couple years, and I did so. I have learned an enormous amount as a member of that team. I will always remember his being very forthcoming in asking me for advice and ideas and what I thought about this or that, all the while paying compliments about my insight into things. I will remember it not because any of those compliments were true but because it showed his spirit and effectiveness at including people, getting the best out of them and bringing folks together. As a member of his whip team, I will also always remember and appreciate his taking me under his wing and trying to help me develop relationships and friendships with other Senators more and, as he would put it, be able to ``schmooze'' more effectively. I hope, Trent, you continue your work with me, as you join the private sector because obviously we still have a long way to go. But I appreciate the spirit of that work. The second setting that is so important, in terms of my personal experience with Trent is, of course, the experience of Katrina and dealing with that horrible hurricane. There couldn't have been allies in terms of our recovery work than Trent and Thad. I will always be deeply indebted to them for all their work on behalf of the entire gulf coast. In south Louisiana, occasionally in the press there would be some story or comment resentful toward Mississippi in terms of the recovery, saying they got this per capita and we got this; we didn't do well enough. I would always explain that, boy, they got it exactly wrong. Because our best allies throughout all that horrible experience were Trent and Thad. Were it not for them, we would not have fared nearly as well. I will be the first to admit that. I thank them on behalf of my State for their tireless efforts on behalf of the entire gulf coast. So, Trent, I join everyone in wishing you and Tricia and your family all the best. You deserve it. I know this is not the end of anything. It is the beginning of new great things. I look forward to our continuing tutorials on schmoozing and maybe even getting me to wear a seersucker suit someday.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

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

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish to address the Senate and, indeed, our fellow citizens around America today about a very important matter before the Senate, the Law of the Sea Treaty. We have been studying this treaty in great detail in the Foreign Relations Committee, and it is a matter that could eventually come before the entire Senate. I started this process, looked at the treaty, began to read it with a completely open mind. But as I got into the details of it--the significant details that would govern our laws, our activity--if we were to become a full participant in the treaty, many concerns began to mount in my mind. So I wish to come before the full Senate and before the American people to outline some of those concerns in great detail. To begin with, let me say there are many good, productive, positive provisions of the Law of the Sea Treaty. I strongly support the same provisions the U.S. Navy supports and that personnel and admirals from the Navy have testified in favor of. That is really not the issue. The issue is the treaty as a whole and all of the provisions taken together and whether we should pass the treaty as a whole because we have no choice but to consider the whole, not simply one provision or the other. This treaty has been around for many years--in fact, decades. It was negotiated decades ago. President Reagan, during his administration-- very correctly, I think--rejected the treaty as it stood then. Because of that bold rejection, negotiators went back to the bargaining table and changed some significant aspects of the treaty. Now, those were improvements, but they don't in any way affect the main concerns I have about the Law of the Sea Treaty, and that is the fundamental baseline threat that the United States would be ceding our autonomy, our control over our own future to other international organizations that often don't have our best interests in mind. So that is my fundamental concern. The renegotiation doesn't change that in any way. The testimony of the Navy doesn't even touch on that because it is about other provisions of the treaty. But my main concern with the Law of the Sea Treaty is the United States cedes autonomy to binding international tribunals--gives up American prerogatives, U.S. power, to binding international tribunals which, in the current international context, I do not think would often have our best interests in mind. So why do I say that? Well, it is very important to look at the specific provisions of the treaty. We have been debating and discussing this in the Foreign Relations Committee. We have had numerous so-called expert witnesses. I am constantly shocked about how many participants in this discussion, quite frankly, including many expert witnesses, clearly haven't read all of the significant and important provisions of the treaty. One of the most important provisions of the treaty has to do with these arbitral tribunals, these courts, if you will, that would have binding authority over all treaty participants, including the United States if the United States were to become a full treaty participant. So in other words, when disputes arise under the treaty, how do you resolve the dispute? You go to court. That court, if you will, that special tribunal, has binding authority over the parties to the dispute. There are different sorts of these tribunals. One sort is called a special arbitral tribunal. Under that, under Annex VIII, the United States, again, cedes binding authority to these special tribunals in disputes about fisheries, the marine environment, marine scientific research, and navigation. What is wrong with that? Well, I think what is wrong with it--or at least the threat it poses to the United States becomes clear when you look at the nature of this tribunal. It is a five-person body and simple majority rules. Now, who appoints the people? Well, both parties to a dispute pick two panelists. So if we were brought into court, if you will, by another country, that other country opposing our views, opposing our interests, would pick two panelists, and we would pick two panelists. What about the fifth panelist? That is obviously important because it could well be the tie-breaking vote. Under the treaty, the parties are supposed to try to agree on that fifth panelist. But if the parties can't agree--and, of course, that is a distinct possibility--the party taking us into court, the other country, could then flatout refuse to agree with any of our suggestions and choices no matter how reasonable. Then what happens? Well, then the U.N. Secretary General picks the fifth panelist. He picks the tie-breaking vote. I will be very honest with my colleagues; I don't feel comfortable with that. In the current international context, when we have been opposed so often at the U.N., when countries gang up on us, quite frankly, so often in forums such as the U.N., I don't feel comfortable with the Secretary General of the U.N. picking the tie breaker and essentially determining our fate. There are other types of tribunals under the Law of the Sea Treaty. The next type is simply called a general arbitral tribunal. It is under Annex VII of the treaty. Again, the fundamental issue and the fundamental problem in my mind is, under that annex, under the provisions of the treaty, if the United States were to become a full partner in the treaty, the United States would cede, again, binding authority to these other sorts of tribunals regarding all other disputes. So, in other words, the first type of arbitral tribunal would cover the four issue areas that I mentioned a few minutes ago. This general tribunal would cover all other disputes. Now, how is this tribunal made up? Very similar, in fact, to the others. Again, a five-person body, simple majority rules. Both parties to the dispute, in this case, pick one panelist. So if we were hauled into international court, if you will, by another country, that other country would pick one panelist, and we would pick one panelist. Again, similar to the other tribunal. Then both parties together would try to agree on the other three panelists. Obviously, those three would compose a majority of the five. But if the parties can't agree--and, once again, if our opposing country, the country that has hauled us into court, doesn't want to agree to any of our ideas, any of our suggestions no matter how reasonable, it can just stand firm and not agree. In that case, those three members of the tribunal--a majority of the tribunal--would be chosen by the Law of the Sea lead bureaucrat, the head of the Law of the Sea under the treaty, an international bureaucrat similar in background and attitudes in many instances to the Secretary General of the U.N. Again, it is the same fundamental problem in my mind in that we are ceding our autonomy, we are ceding binding decisions that can be very significant in terms of our fate, our interests, our values, to this international court dominated by, controlled by, potentially, international bureaucrats. Why is this a threat? What sort of disputes could arise that could go to these binding courts, or binding tribunals, panels? Well, one area that is clearly covered by the treaty is pollution. One would think that could be reasonable and necessary and natural with regard to pollution in the open ocean--this is a Law of the Sea Treaty, after all--but it also applies to pollution from land-based sources, and that comes as a great surprise to most people when they find that out. But that is why it is useful to read the treaty because when you read the treaty you actually find out some of these things. Article 213 of the treaty is entitled--very frankly, very simply, very directly--``Enforcement With Respect to Pollution From Land-Based Sources.'' That article says: States shall enforce their laws and regulations in accordance with Article 207-- That is fair enough. We pass our laws; we should enforce them-- and shall adopt laws and regulations and take other measures necessary to implement applicable international rules and standards, to prevent, reduce, and control pollution of the marine environment from land-based sources. Well, wait a minute. I thought Congress and other political bodies in the United States determine our domestic laws, including about pollution from land-based sources. This is a distinct departure from that. This is a mandate in an international treaty saying: We shall adopt other laws to enforce international notions, international standards about pollution. Another applicable article is Article 207, and under 207(1) it, again, says: States shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from land- based sources, taking into account internationally agreed upon rules, standards and recommended practices and procedures. Once again, my reaction when I read that is, wait a minute. I thought Congress was in charge of environmental policy in the United States. I thought State legislatures, where appropriate, were in charge of that policy--bodies elected by the people. Isn't that what democracy is about? Well, this is a distinct departure. This is internationalizing many of those issues with mandates in the Law of the Sea Treaty that go beyond what we may think is the best law in these areas, and that we conform to certain international decisions. Again, the title of the article couldn't be clearer: ``Enforcement With Respect to Pollution From Land-Based Sources.'' Again, this is just one example of an issue area where the United States could well be ceding autonomy, ceding authority to other folks outside our borders who don't necessarily have our values, our notions, our best interests in mind. What sort of situation could arise from this? Well, I think the situation that would undoubtedly arise is an outbreak of international lawyering and litigation--trying to move decisions that are presently before elected political bodies in the United States to the international arena. Many folks who have studied this phenomenon call it ``lawfare.'' Again, not ``warfare'' but using international law to oppose us and battle our interests and move those decisions from the domestic political environment to an international tribunal, an international stage that very often doesn't have our best interests in mind. Again, U.S. autonomy gives way to international litigation. This isn't a wild conjecture on my part. This isn't something I am imagining or seeing in the future. This is something that many international lawyers and activists are actively licking their lips over and looking forward to. In fact, there was a Law Review article published several months ago that was very straightforward about this phenomenon that would occur if we become a party to the treaty. The author of this Law Review article said very clearly: Climate change litigation-- One example of environmental issues, environmental litigation-- in national and international fora is emerging as an alternative means by which to hold States and private actors accountable for climate change damages. The United Nations convention on the Law of the Sea is a promising instrument through which such action might be taken, given its broad definition of pollution to the marine environment and the dispute resolution mechanisms contained within its provisions. That is exactly what I am talking about. That policy, that issue now is subject to our determination, and Congress is subject to the activity of other elected bodies in the United States, but under the Law of the Sea Treaty, it would be moved to an international forum, to international litigation, to lawfare, in many cases, against the values and interests of the United States. We have great disagreement and debate in this body about significant issues such as climate change. That is legitimate in a democracy; we should have those debates, and we should hash out those differences, and we should make the best determinations and policies we can on behalf of the American people. But that is something very different from pushing those issues and those decisions outside of the United States to international courts, to international tribunals over which we essentially have no control. There are other issue areas that could be the subject of this sort of international litigation, other countries hauling us into court to oppose our values and interests. Another topic where this could happen--and this gives me grave concern--has to do with military activities. I actively asked many of the expert witnesses in our hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about it. What would prevent another country from hauling us into international court--that court, that tribunal having binding authority over us, if we become a part of the treaty--to try to stop, prevent, hamstring us with regard to military activity? The response was immediate: There is a clear exception in the Law of the Sea Treaty that excepts military activities. That is true. Article 298 excludes ``military activities'' from the Law of the Sea Treaty's binding dispute resolution. The experts didn't have a good answer to my next question. It was logical. The next question is: OK, who determines what is a military activity and what is not a military activity? If there is an exclusion regarding military activities, then this term is pretty darn important. Who defines this term? Who applies this term on a case-by-case basis? When I asked that to the experts before the committee, there was a fair amount of silence. And then, after some consultation with the lawyers behind the experts, the answer came: Well, we believe we define what is a military activity--we, the United States. The next logical question: Where does the treaty say that? Where is that spelled out in the treaty? It is not. The treaty is completely silent on the issue. So the treaty excludes military activities, but it doesn't say what is military activity and what is not a military activity. The treaty doesn't determine who determines what is and is not a military activity. Here in the United States, when two parties go to court, there is often a dispute in the beginning of the lawsuit about whether that particular court has jurisdiction. Guess who decides whether that court has jurisdiction. That court decides if it has jurisdiction. If the same thing were to occur in the Law of the Sea Treaty, who decides that? The international court, the tribunal, would decide, and it would decide that crucial threshold issue against our opinion, against our interests; and there we are again before a binding international tribunal, which could have grave effects on what we consider our military activities. Another final area of concern I will highlight that could come up as a subject of this sort of international litigation is intelligence activities. Post-9/11, perhaps nothing is more important to our security, to the defense of our values and our way of life, than our necessary intelligence activities. That gave rise to an obvious question I asked the experts before the committee: Would intelligence activities be covered by the Law of the Sea Treaty? And could these international tribunals, with binding authority on us, have that binding authority over our intelligence activities? Once again, I would have thought this was a simple and obvious question, but it caused a long period of silence from the witnesses who were there to testify in favor of the treaty. Finally, after long periods of silence and much consultation with the lawyers behind them, the answer was: Well, we believe our intelligence activities fall under the military exemption. So we believe intelligence activities would not go to court, would not go to this international court with binding authority, because we believe it falls under the military exemption. Again, an obvious followup question: Great. Where in the treaty does it say that? Long silence. Long pause. Consultation with the lawyers behind the experts. Well, the treaty doesn't say that. Does the treaty say anything about intelligence? The treaty doesn't mention intelligence--whether it is covered under the military exemption. I have to tell you, that again gave me great pause and concern, because I immediately thought of this place--the Senate, the House, Capitol Hill--where intelligence is considered an entirely separate subject matter from military. When we are up here debating matters and sending matters to committees, there is an Intelligence Committee that handles intelligence. There is a completely separate Armed Services Committee that handles military matters. Intelligence isn't subsumed under military. Intelligence issues don't go to the Armed Services Committee. It is a completely separate category. So why should it necessarily be different in the Law of the Sea Treaty? I think an argument could be made--a very logical, forceful argument--that intelligence activities aren't excluded under the treaty. Intelligence activities are different from military activities, just as they are considered different up here on Capitol Hill. Guess what. Intelligence activities could make the subject of this international law against us--before countries calling us into international court, before the international tribunals that would have binding authority on us--very disconcerting, particularly in a post-9/11 world, where our intelligence activities are so absolutely crucial to our national defense and our activities necessary to preserve our values and way of life. Again, there are many significant issues that arise under the Law of the Sea Treaty debate. Hopefully, we will have a full opportunity to discuss these issues I brought up today, and more. But these issues I have discussed today are the heart of my concern with the treaty, and the heart of that concern is simply that the United States would be ceding our autonomy, our control over our own future and destiny to international bureaucrats, to international courts, who very often would not have our best interests in mind and would not share our perspectives or our values. That is something very serious to consider when you are talking about environmental policy, which has always been the subject of debate in elected bodies within the United States; when you are talking about military activities, which are so important, particularly in a post-9/ 11 world; and when you are talking about intelligence activities, similarly crucial to our security, and defense of our way of life in a post-9/11 world. I hope the Senate takes a very long, very hard look at this treaty. I hope every individual Senator will do something quite unusual, which is read the treaty, open the book, look at the details, think for yourself. Once I began that process several months ago, the concerns over this treaty--particularly with regard to U.S. autonomy--began to mount and multiply in my own mind. Every Senator has an obligation to pick up the treaty itself, read it personally, and think through these concerns, because the results, if things proceed as I have outlined, could be disastrous. With that, I yield back my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

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

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

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

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