David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. 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. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. 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. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. 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.

Mr. VITTER

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

Mr. VITTER. 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.

Mr. VITTER. 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.

Mr. VITTER. I am.

Mr. VITTER. 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. VITTER. 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.

Mr. VITTER. 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.

Mr. VITTER. 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. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. 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.

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

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

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I do wish to have a recorded vote.

Mr. VITTER. 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.

Mr. VITTER. I am happy to yield.

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

Mr. VITTER. 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.

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

Mr. VITTER. No, it would not.

Mr. VITTER. No, it would not.

Mr. VITTER. 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.

Mr. VITTER. Absolutely.