David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I thank our Alabama colleagues. They are very gracious, and they are great sports in terms of this whole past week and this bet. So I am honored to be with them as they wear LSU colors for 1 day. Maybe they can keep those ties for January. Maybe after the BCS championship game they will at least wear it for an SEC victor--knock on wood--and we very much look forward to their delivering, as Senator Sessions said, great, delicious, fresh, and perfectly safe gulf coast seafood that all of us are going to enjoy. So I thank them for being such great sports, and I congratulate their team for being a superteam. That was a heck of a game. It was everything it was cracked up to be. People said it would be a defensive struggle. Yet nobody imagined there would not even be a touchdown: 9-6 in overtime. I congratulate the Alabama team that played their hearts out and is a great Alabama team. Of course, I also want to pause and congratulate everybody in the LSU community and the LSU team. That was a hard fought struggle, a hard fought win. A lot of folks came together and made extraordinary plays. Of course, it ended with Drew Alleman's field goal in overtime. But Mo Claiborne and Eric Reid had terrific interceptions, and even the punter, Brad Wing, played a pivotal role in terms of his 73-yard punt that won the field position battle. So there are a lot of heroes and a lot of good players on the LSU side, and I congratulate the entire LSU community. With the rest of the State of Louisiana, we look forward--knock on wood--to several more victories leading up to, hopefully, the BCS championship game in New Orleans in the Louisiana Superdome. So, of course, we look forward to that. Thank you, Mr. President. At this point, I turn to my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Amen. With that, we yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, should the unthinkable happen, I will do that. Should the unthinkable happen, I will deliver fresh, healthy gulf seafood to Senator Sessions' office as well as Senator Shelby's. We have been in contact with Senator Shelby's office and Senator Landrieu's office and they are part of this friendly arrangement as well. So we will look forward to that. But, most of all, we will look forward to a great game Saturday night, and we will both look forward to a win Saturday night. One of us will have to be disappointed--we will see who--but it is going to be a great game.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Sessions and I have up to 15 minutes for a colloquy.

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, Senator Sessions and I come to the floor following a discussion of a lot of important issues on the floor to discuss the most important issue back home for us this week, which is the upcoming regular season national championship game between LSU and Alabama. In the history of the SEC, this is the first ever regular season matchup between a No. 1 and No. 2 team in the SEC. As most folks probably know, LSU and Alabama are both 8 to 0 overall and 5 to 0 in the SEC. Obviously, I know who is going to win. The Tigers are going to win. They have beaten five ranked opponents this year, three of those away from home, as we are going to have to play Alabama. They have outscored all opponents 314 to 92 this year. Not to get cocky or anything, but LSU has beaten Alabama 8 out of the last 11 years, including 4 of the last 5 times in Tuscaloosa. We have a lot of strengths. Our senior quarterback Jarrett Lee leads the SEC in passing efficiency. We have a ferocious defense led by lineman Sam Montgomery and defensive backs Tyrann Mathieu and Mo Claiborne. Tyrann, by the way, is much better known as Honey Badger. This is a prelude to the BCS championship which, by the way, is going to be in January in New Orleans in the Superdome. So we feel great going into this game, and that is why I was very eager to get with both Senators from Alabama and have a friendly wager which the Senator from Alabama will explain. The loser is going to treat the winners to some great gulf shrimp and other seafood. We feel great about it, so we look forward to it. As I turn the floor over to Senator Sessions, I would just summarize our feelings in Louisiana in a simple way: You all have a great team-- maybe one of the best Alabama teams ever--but it doesn't matter who LSU's opponent is because, as we say in Louisiana, the Honey Badger takes what he wants. We are looking forward to doing that on Saturday night.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I call up the Vitter second-degree amendment.

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this is a second-degree amendment to the Menendez amendment. The Menendez amendment would actually expand the already dominant role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the mortgage marketplace when there is an unlimited taxpayer bailout liability toward that. My amendment would simply say, particularly if there is going to be this expansion, we should limit taxpayer liability to $200 billion, and the taxpayer should definitely be paid the dividend they were promised. I think that is a very reasonable taxpayer protection. I reserve the remainder of my time for the ranking member of Banking.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I yield back the time, and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. VITTER

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment is bipartisan. I thank the bipartisan coauthors. The amendment would allow the reimportation of small, personal use quantities of safe FDA-approved prescription drugs from Canada only. It is a very modest amendment. It is for personal use only, not large quantities, no wholesalers, Canada only, no biologics, and no controlled dangerous substances. It is essentially identical to an amendment we passed on a bipartisan basis in the last Senate. I urge a strong vote in favor of this.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Vitter amendment No. 769, which we will be voting on a little after noon in the next block of votes. I want to encourage all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to come together in a strong bipartisan way in favor of this amendment. It is a bipartisan amendment, and I thank Senators Sanders, McCain, Stabenow, and Bingaman for being coauthors of it, along with me. The amendment is very simple. It would give all Americans another avenue to get safe, cheaper prescription drugs by allowing the reimportation of prescription drugs for personal use from Canada only. Again, it is very modest and very restricted. We are just talking about Canada. We are just talking about, of course, FDA-approved prescription drugs. We are just talking about small quantities for personal use, not big quantities, not wholesalers, not folks in that business. We are specifically excluding biologics. We are specifically excluding things listed on the controlled dangerous substances schedule. So it is a very modest, straightforward, limited amendment, but it would still be real in terms of the relief it would give Americans, particularly seniors, who are so often under the crunch--another opportunity for safe, cheaper prescription drugs. In its form as I have described, this is nearly identical to a bipartisan Vitter amendment that was passed in the last Senate. It passed on a strong bipartisan vote, and I thank Members who voted for that. This problem, again, is real. It hits millions of Americans. It hits seniors particularly hard. Let's just take three very common prescription drugs. Nexium. In the United States, it is about $635 for a certain amount. In Canada, that same volume of the drug is $386. For Lipitor, the price difference on average is $572 in the United States versus $378 in Canada; Plavix, $644 in the United States, $434 in Canada--huge price differences of 39 and 34 and 33 percent. That cost crunch is what all too often causes seniors to have to make horrible choices between prescription drugs they need for their health or other necessities such as food and utilities. Let's give those Americans real relief, and we can in this simple, straightforward amendment. Let me say two things in closing. First, there have been safety concerns brought up about the amendment. We have real safety concerns about counterfeit drugs in general, but I do not believe--and I would not offer this amendment if I did believe--this amendment expands those vulnerabilities or concerns at all. As an example, the distinguished Senator from Maryland brought up several cases documented in the press in the last few years, and those are serious cases of counterfeit drugs, but none of them have anything to do with reimportation; none of them have anything to do with Canada; none of them have anything to do with small quantities of drugs for personal use. They are other unrelated safety concerns. This amendment would not expand those vulnerabilities. Finally, this vote is about the amendment I have described, but I think it is also about the intersection of money and power and politics in Washington. President Obama often decries that intersection of big money and big power in Washington, and I agree with him. But I think the single biggest example of that sort of money run amok in Washington--buying power and influencing politics in the last few years--has been big Pharma dealing with the White House, specifically visiting the White House over and over during the development of ObamaCare and in the end supporting ObamaCare. And, oh, by the way, in the end the President no longer supports reimportation, which he had consistently up to that point. I decry that sort of intersection of money and politics. If my colleagues do as well, they will support this amendment. If my colleagues disapprove of that sort of action by PhRMA and that interaction of big money and power politics, my colleagues will support this amendment too. I urge strong bipartisan support. Again, I thank my colleagues from both parties for coauthoring and supporting this amendment. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. And if I could address the Senator through the Chair.

Mr. VITTER. I have a modification to my amendment which will take about 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I call for regular order with respect to amendment No. 769 and that the amendment be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Stabenow and Bingaman be added as cosponsors to the amendment.

Mr. VITTER. In closing, let me state that this again very tightly narrows the amendment to a very specific purpose, to allow safe FDA- approved prescription drugs to be reimported for individual consumer use from Canada, and Canada only. In doing so, this makes it a nearly identical amendment to that which was approved in the last Senate on a strong bipartisan vote. I urge and look forward to that same strong support for this Vitter amendment No. 769. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, let me briefly explain what this amendment is about, and I will be very brief. It will allow for personal use drug reimportation from Canada only. In doing so, this amendment is nearly identical to an amendment I proposed previously on the Senate floor last Congress which passed in a very strong bipartisan vote. Americans spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on prescription drugs. Prescription drug prices are skyrocketing, and they continue to skyrocket, and that causes real hurt and angst among many American families, particularly American seniors. They shouldn't have to choose between lifesaving medicine and other basic needs of life, such as food and electricity, and yet often the reality is that they do have to make that choice. My amendment would help ease a little bit of this pain by giving Americans more options. But in doing so, it is very narrow, it is very cautious, it is very specific. It applies to only individual consumers--not wholesalers--bringing in for their personal use FDA- approved prescription drugs, and only from one country; namely, Canada. As I said, in doing so the language is nearly identical to the Vitter amendment to the DHS appropriations bill that passed the Senate last Congress with a strong bipartisan majority, 55 to 36, with 9 members not voting. This would provide real relief to millions of Americans, including seniors. It would allow reimportation from Canada--a very safe source country--including through mail order and over the Internet. The language, again, was restricted to personal use reimportation. Wholesalers cannot participate. It only applies to a consumer who gets a valid prescription from a doctor. So this amendment would specifically prohibit funding to the FDA to the extent that they would crack down and prohibit and police against this narrow activity. Back home and in Washington, Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle often talk about doing something about skyrocketing prescription drug costs. This is a very specific, narrowly tailored, cautious but effective means where we can do something, where we can have an impact, where we can help tens of millions of Americans, including many vulnerable seniors. I hope Democrats and Republicans will come together again, as we did last Congress, and give a strong, healthy bipartisan majority to this idea. It is the right thing to do. It would help Americans, it would help seniors, and it is a very careful, cautious approach: personal use only, not wholesalers, Canada only. Again, I urge that we adopt this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent to waive the reading of the whole.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement, I call up Vitter amendment No. 769.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I will speak for up to 10 minutes, but I would first defer to the Senator from Michigan for a unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, today is the 1-year anniversary of President Obama and Secretary of Interior Salazar finally lifting the formal moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico following the BP disaster. But simply lifting the moratorium did not solve the problem. I return to the Senate floor today to again say that still, a year later, that problem is not solved because there is a continuing permit logjam. It started with a de facto moratorium. Now there has just been a trickle of permits, and there is a continuing permit logjam that has dramatically shut down and slowed energy activity in the Gulf of Mexico. That must change. Of course, this is vitally important for my State of Louisiana and the livelihoods of tens of thousands of my citizens. That must change for the good of the country as well, for our economic well-being and to increase our revenues to address deficit and debt. As we talk about jobs and various jobs bills and jobs proposals, we must focus on the domestic energy sector, and we must change the situation. We must reverse this virtual shutdown of the gulf for the good of the country, and I hope we do that. To that end, I joined Congressman Jeff Landry yesterday in a meeting with Obama Director Michael Bromwich and other high-ranking administration officials who have to do with this very permitting and leasing process. We wanted to sit down with these officials in the Obama administration to again make this very point. The formal moratorium was lifted a year ago, but the problem persists, and we need to do better. We need to issue permits at a much more healthy pace. We need to get that important domestic energy activity back up and running in the Gulf of Mexico. Recently, there was an independent study by HIS Global Insight which put some hard numbers on this situation. That study said leasing in the Gulf of Mexico is down about 65 percent from pre-formal moratorium levels. It also pointed out that the waiting line of people and companies to get permits has almost doubled. It has increased 90 percent. So what does that mean? That means far less activity in the gulf, far less energy activity for the country, and far fewer jobs--jobs we need now more than ever in this horrible economy. Let me give some other relevant numbers. As of the end of September-- just a few weeks ago--there were 21 floating rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, of which about 18 are currently drilling wells. That compares, premoratorium, to 33 floating rigs with 29 drilling wells at that time. That is a 37-percent drop in both the number of rigs and those drilling. Since the moratorium began, 11 rigs have left the Gulf of Mexico. Only one of these has returned. In addition, three more are sitting idle. Seven of these rigs have left to go to African countries, including Egypt, Nigeria, Liberia, and the Republic of Congo. Three have gone to South America, mostly to Brazil and French Guiana; and the remaining rig was mobilized to Vietnam. This all translates to about 60 wells lost based on the original contract terms for these rigs. The loss of these rigs isn't just loss of equipment; it is loss of important energy and economic activity, and it is loss of jobs. It is lost spending of $6.3 billion and an annual loss of direct employment of 11,500 jobs over just 2 years. When we look at indirect employment, it is a multiplier that brings that lost job figure to way more than that. Again, it started with the formal moratorium. The formal moratorium was lifted 1 year ago today, but the problem persists because there was a de facto moratorium, and there is still a permit logjam. Another example of this enormous problem isn't just permitting. Another example is lease activity by the administration. Again, that is completely separate and apart from permitting. But the dramatic decline in lease sales, lease activity that the administration is putting out, shows the same problem mindset. What do I mean? Well, in the last fiscal year, the administration had no new lease activity--zero, nothing, nada. What that means is--just a few years ago the income to the Federal Government from lease sales was almost $10 billion, and that has fallen like a rock through the floor and is now zero. That is another indicator of a problem mindset in this administration, leading to a dramatic economic slowdown. We need to reverse this. We need to do better for the economy, for jobs, and for that important revenue it brings to the Federal Government which could lower deficit and debt. So as we talk about the need to create good American jobs, as we also talk about the need to grapple with our deficit and debt situation and dramatically lower deficit and debt, as we talk about the need for revenue to be part of that picture, domestic energy has to be part of the solution, and it can be a big and productive part of the solution to both of those huge problems--the need to create good American jobs and the need to lower deficit and debt. If we aggressively pursue domestic energy production, starting in the gulf, fully reopening the gulf, getting the permit process to a pace at least equal to pre-formal moratorium levels, get lease activity back online, and then expand to other areas of our resources off the Atlantic, Pacific, offshore Alaska--we have enormous resources that are now off-limits to energy production--if we do that, we can grow jobs, we can grow Federal revenue and lessen deficit and debt, and we can help attack both of those major economic problems for the country. Again, yesterday, I met, along with Congressman Landry, with Director Bromwich to make those points, to give specific examples of what we can be doing to go down that path in favor of good American jobs and lowering the deficit and debt. I hope it made a difference. Ultimately, only time will tell. But this needs to be part of our overall economic approach. This needs to be part of our deficit and debt reduction approach, and it can make a major contribution to solving both of these problems. I hope in a bipartisan way we will do that, and urge that in the Senate, and the administration will break through the negative mindset they have had for several years and do that in an aggressive way. Our country needs it. Our workers need it. We need it as taxpayers to lower the deficit and debt, and this would be a very productive way forward. Madam President, with that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I move to vitiate the quorum.