David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to speak about Vitter amendment No. 3458. I hope, by the time I wrap up, the Members leading the discussion on this bill will be prepared to make the bill pending so I may also make my amendment pending. This amendment is real simple. It is about the Coastal Impact Assistance Program, CIAP, which was established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This program is very important for energy-producing States. It takes some revenue from that energy production and leaves it in those States to deal with the impacts of energy production. The problem is, that funding was supposed to be distributed to these States from 2007 to 2010. The entirety of it was supposed to be distributed by and through this year. But that has not been happening at all because MMS has added an additional bureaucratic layer to getting funding out beyond that which was talked about and established in the statute. My amendment is simple. It would get rid of that bureaucratic layer. It would still retain oversight. It would still retain all the protections of the statute, but it would streamline the process so this funding actually gets out to the States as intended. It is way behind. Rather than 100 percent being distributed to the States by this year, they have only distributed 15 percent. Obviously, we are way behind the 8 ball. We would accelerate that. Because this funding has already been allocated, this amendment does not cost anything, does not score. This is the same money that was allocated through the CIAP in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This streamlines the process. This helps us get back on track in terms of distributing that vital money to coastal States. It doesn't cost anything because all that money was supposed to be distributed by this year anyway. This is important. One of the crucial areas the Coastal Impact Assistance Program can help with in my State is related to hurricanes, all sorts of uses-- mitigation, emergency preparedness, hurricane evacuation routes related to hurricanes. Yesterday, hurricane forecasters predicted, unfortunately, that 2010 is going to be a very severe hurricane season. We are preparing for that in any way we can. The fact that this CIAP funding has been blocked, has not gone to the coastal States, is a real problem in that regard. We need to do better. This amendment streamlines the process so we can do better. This amendment also retains the oversight mechanism in the underlying bill. As the plain language of CIAP in the bill says, if the Secretary determines that any expenditure made by a producing State is not consistent with the underlying plan, then the State may not be disbursed any further funds until repayment of the unauthorized use of already obligated funds. Clearly, there is that mechanism for complete accountability. In addition, a State CIAP plan has to be approved to begin with by MMS, and that has already occurred. This gets back to the intent of the statute. It gets back to the timeline of the statute. It streamlines that process so we can get on with it. One hundred percent of these funds were supposed to be distributed by 2010 and, instead, we are at the 15 percent mark. That is simply not good enough when important use of this money is planned on by vulnerable States such as Louisiana. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Well, again, I came to the Senate hearing this was the body of full and open debate, full and open consideration of amendments. The problem is my experience here in 5 years has been anything but that, including yet again this week on this legislation, as we are trying to address the top issue of the American people: jobs and the economy. Why can't we have a full debate? Why can't we have open consideration of amendments, including this alternative model to continuing to spend taxpayer dollars, increasing deficit and debt at an alarming rate. Again, I find it unfortunate that is the partisan procedural position we are in. But I will continue with my Senate coauthors, with the 50 House coauthors of this no-cost stimulus proposal to advance this idea as part of a reasonable solution to grow good jobs without having to spend another trillion dollars of hard-earned taxpayer dollars and increased deficit and debt. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to talk about what I believe should be our top priority, almost our exclusive focus in terms of immediate work, and that is the issue of jobs and the economy. Doing so, I applaud the fact that finally as a body we are somewhat focused on that. We are debating a bill having to do with job creation, economic growth. But at the same time, I find it unfortunate, really sad, that as we take up that top agenda item for the American people we do so by taking up a bill of the majority leader, which is fine, but in a way under which he completely shuts out any opportunity for amendment on the floor of the Senate. Again, I find that process really unfair and unfortunate. The fact that every Republican idea, every Republican amendment is just being shut out is really frustrating, even angering to me as a Republican. But the issue isn't Republican and Democrat. The issue is what is good and right for the American people. The fact is that ideas and amendments on the Senate floor, which is supposed to be a place of unlimited debate, virtually unlimited ability to offer good ideas, to offer amendments, that is being completely subverted, and all amendments are being shut out. Because of that, I am going to ask unanimous consent that we break out of that logjam, that we break out of that bitter partisanship and consider, with an open mind, one amendment I am bringing forward. But let me spend a few minutes outlining that amendment. As we look on the job picture and the economy over the last year, as I talk about that job picture over the last year with folks in my State, I hear two dominant concerns. No. 1, we are still in a heck of a recession. The job creation that was promised a year ago with the stimulus just hasn't panned out. The promise of staying below 8 percent unemployment, minimizing that job loss, clearly, tragically, unfortunately never panned out. The President promised his stimulus would keep us below 8 percent. Unfortunately, as we all know, unemployment nationally went above 10 percent. Right now it still hovers near 10 percent, just a shade below that. And, again, unfortunately, the Federal Reserve has issued a report recently warning that sort of high level of unemployment would be with us for several years to come. What I hear from Louisianans all around the State--and I would certainly trust what Members from every State of the Union hear in their home States--is that we need a better model to create jobs, to jump-start this economy, to get us out of this serious recession. The other big theme and concern I hear all around Louisiana is: What are you all doing about this unsustainable level of spending and debt? I share that fear. I share that concern. Even as we struggle to get out of this recession--and we are not near there yet--I am fearful that the next economic crisis is coming based on spending and debt, unsustainable levels of spending and debt. We are near debt levels today comparable to where this Nation was at the end of World War II compared to GDP. I don't like the idea of going into heavy debt for anything, but if we are going to do it as a nation, surely the reason we had with World War II, the need to build a modern Army overnight, unlike any military we had ever had before that, to defeat Hitler, to preserve freedom and democracy, literally our way of life, surely that reason is a pretty darn good one. That is why we as a nation went into debt, got up to 120 percent of GDP at the end of World War II. The ``greatest generation'' that did that, that sacrificed and fought and won that war, turned around after the war and wiped away that debt, sent it down with great prosperity and fiscal restraint in the 1950s. But today we are nearing those same historic high levels of debt, with our overall debt now at about 100 percent of GDP, but, obviously, without the historical circumstances such as we had in World War II. The other thing we don't have is that plan to get rid of it, that determination to reverse course and get our fiscal house in order because we don't have that plan either. In fact, we are in a huge fiscal debt hole, and we have not even stopped digging. In fact, the only thing this administration and this liberal Congress have done in the last year is to put down the shovel digging and used a backhoe instead, specifically to pass a budget that takes that historically high level of debt and doubles it in 5 years and triples it in 10 years. In the face of those two enormous challenges, we need to create jobs much more effectively than we have in the last year, and we need to get spending and debt under control. I proposed last March legislation that I and my cosponsors called the no-cost stimulus act. The no-cost stimulus act is about just that, creating great American jobs, stimulating the economy, helping us get out of this recession, using a fundamentally different model than the last year, at no cost to the taxpayer, not continuing to drop hard- earned taxpayer dollars out of helicopters--a fundamentally different approach at no cost to the taxpayer. In fact, it will produce new Federal revenue and lower our level of deficit and debt. How do we do that? We do it by focusing on our domestic energy sector, by opening access to domestic energy we have in great quantities in this country, by decreasing our reliance on foreign sources and creating great American jobs in the process. Again, we do this by opening access to our tremendous energy reserves we have. We are the only country on Earth that has major, significant energy resources but that puts 95 percent of them off limits under Federal law and says: No, no, no, no, you cannot touch that. You cannot touch 95 percent of our domestic energy resources. We need to change that both to improve our energy situation and to create good American jobs because the answer on the energy front is not either/or. It is not either drill for traditional sources, such as oil and gas, or develop new technology, new research and development. The American people know it is not either/or; it is all of the above, and we need to do all of the above aggressively. This bill fits right into that commonsense, all-of-the-above mentality of the American people. We open access to domestic energy reserves. We produce more energy here at home. In doing so, we grow great American jobs--2 million long-term, sustainable, well-paying jobs. In doing that, we increase GDP by as much as $10 trillion over the next 30 years. But we accomplish even more. We lessen our dependence on foreign sources. We do not spend additional taxpayer dollars and go deeper into debt. By creating these jobs and domestic energy, we actually increase Federal revenue. Because what happens when we open our energy resources for production? That production comes online, royalty goes to the Federal Government--new Federal revenue--and we decrease deficit and debt. It truly is a win-win-win. Part of that is also focusing on the nuclear side, developing what many folks, including the President, have talked about but which we have not accomplished yet: a true nuclear renaissance, a true streamlining of nuclear programs so we can dramatically increase that capacity, particularly producing electricity. Finally, let me mention the other part of the win-win-win which is in this legislation. We devote some significant portion of the new, additional Federal revenue created to alternative energy research and development. So, again, it is not either/or; it is all of the above. This proposal has significant support. I am very proud to say we now have 18 Senators who are coauthors of the proposal. There is a companion bill in the House with 50 coauthors there. So it is a significant proposal with significant support. It represents a win-win- win for the American people and the American economy in this time of serious recession. So why shouldn't this be actively considered and debated and voted on, on the floor of the Senate? We are supposed to be considering a jobs bill. That is progress. At least, finally, we are focused on jobs. But why is every alternative, every amendment being shut out by the majority leader, including this valid alternative? So in that vein, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer amendment No. 3318, which is filed at the desk.

Mr. VITTER

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the underwater operations industry, especially the Marine Technology Society and the Association of Diving Contractors International. The Marine Technology Society was founded in 1963. Throughout its 40- plus years of existence, it has stayed true to its guiding purpose: ``to promote awareness, understanding, advancement and application of marine technology.'' Founded in 1968 the Association of Diving Contractors played an essential role in creating the first safety standards for commercial divers. The association today has member companies hailing from 41 different nations all pledging to abide by the ADCI Consensus Standards for Commercial Diving Operations. The commercial underwater industry encompasses the support of deep sea divers, ROV operators, technical support, retail dealers, the shipping industry, the energy industry, universities, research facilities, equipment manufacturers, families, and a support system that extends to all avenues of the labor market. This diverse community and unique segment of industry work tirelessly toward maintaining and supporting safe underwater operations throughout the world. The commercial underwater industry affects the development of dams, bridges, oil platforms, pipelines, underwater, geological research, outer space, and even the entertainment industry. The industry is especially vital to Louisiana. From our seafood industry to one of the Nation's largest provider of offshore energy, our waterways and shorelines are of great importance to our economy. Underwater operations allow these industries to run smoothly. Underwater operations conducted from the deepest seas to inland waterways throughout the world are a vital component in ongoing industrial development globally. It is important that Federal and State government and citizens worldwide recognize the value of the underwater operations industry to the continued progress of humanity. Thus, today, I am proud to applaud such an important industry, and thank them for their contributions to the State of Louisiana, our Nation, and the rest of the world.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to strongly support an amendment on the floor that I have coauthored. I have joined Senator Thune, Senator Bennett, and many others on this amendment to immediately end TARP, the so-called Troubled Asset Relief Program--to end that, to wind it down immediately, once and for all. Again, the amendment is very simple and straightforward. It terminates TARP immediately when this provision is signed into law. Just as importantly, the amendment ensures that all TARP money that is repaid to the Federal Government goes to debt reduction, as clearly intended under the law, under the original language for TARP. I have long fought for this termination. First of all, I had grave reservations about TARP from the beginning, and I voted against that proposal. Looking back, I do not think it is at all clear that was necessary to avert some impending disaster. Looking at the last year, I think it is perfectly clear TARP has become a slush fund and has led to all sorts of continuing spending abuses. Because of those concerns from the very beginning, I have been working to end TARP. On January 5 of last year, I offered the resolution of disapproval to try to block the release of the second half of TARP funds, the second $350 billion. On April 2, 2009, I offered an amendment to the budget to rescind unspent TARP funds and to end it then. On April 30 of last year, I offered an amendment to S. 896 to remove any obstacles to the repayment of TARP funds because, at that time, the bank regulators and the Department of Treasury were forcing, in some cases, financial institutions to actually keep their TARP money and not repay it back to the taxpayer sooner rather than later. On August 6 of last year, I offered an amendment to H.R. 3435, a bill which provided extra money for the Cash for Clunkers Program, to end TARP on a date certain; namely, the end of last year. Unfortunately, those efforts failed. But those efforts picked up steam and support every step of the way and certainly they helped illustrate--and recent discussion and debate and elections, I think, helped illustrate--the American people want to end TARP, want to end too big to fail, and get back to our normal economic rules grounded in the free market. Why should we end TARP? First of all, in the original bill, the end date to TARP was supposed to be December 31 of last year. That was the normal end date. Last December, the Secretary of the Treasury, under authority he had, on his own, under the language of the bill, extended TARP for almost another year. I believe that was the wrong decision, unjustified, and I believe we should act to stick by the original end date and end TARP immediately. I do not think there is anyone on this floor or around the country who can argue we need a continuation of TARP because our financial system is in some imminent danger. There is no imminent danger out there. Hopefully, that will not develop. But, clearly, it does not exist now. Secondly, the right response to future failures is not to pump taxpayer money without limit to individual institutions. The right response is to end too big to fail and to have an orderly resolution regime. That is exactly what I am working on with Democrats, with other Republicans on the Banking Committee, to pass regulatory reform, including an orderly resolution regime to end too big to fail. Then, the third reason we need to end TARP is it has become, in the last year, a purely political slush fund to spend on whatever the political whim of the moment is. It was never executed to achieve its original purpose. TARP stands for Troubled Asset Relief Program. Yet, ironically, that is about the only thing TARP funds have never been used for, the actual purchase of troubled assets. From the very beginning, just after it was named the Troubled Asset Relief Program, it has been used for everything else under the Sun-- first, pumping money directly into specific mega financial institutions, then pumping money directly into the auto companies. Clearly, the car companies are not banks, are not financial organizations. They were never intended to be included under TARP. Since then, during 2009, the proposals to use TARP as just a pot of money to spend at everyone's political whim have gone on and on. There have been proposals to use TARP money to fund highway projects. There are proposals right now to use TARP money for a new jobs program. There are proposals, at least on the House side, to start a brand new housing program funded by the TARP assets. Perhaps we should do new activity regarding highway construction, job creation, housing, but we should not use TARP as a political grab bag, a slush fund, to pay for that and whatever else is the whim of the majority in Congress. That is a clear abuse of the program, and it is a clear ongoing threat if TARP is allowed to exist. If we go back to the origination of TARP and discussions and talks made at the time, it is clear that then-Senator Obama, then-Presidential candidate Obama pledged to the American people that TARP would only be used for certain purposes, and every penny would be repaid to the taxpayer. On October 1, 2008, then-Senator Obama, then-Presidential candidate Obama, clearly spelled out his conditions that he required to support TARP. He said: If the American taxpayers are financing this solution, then they have to be treated like investors. They should get every penny of their tax dollars back once the economy recovers. I don't think there is any mistake in the law or the President's comments, but because he didn't want to be misunderstood, he didn't want to communicate in any sort of vague way, he reiterated that, and he said in addition, ``every penny of which will go directly back to the American people.'' The problem is, that is not what is happening. Every month, every week, every day that TARP continues to exist, raids on the slush fund, raids on TARP, bright new ideas to spend the money so that it will never be returned to the taxpayer abound. Unfortunately, since he explained his initial conditions for supporting TARP, the President has acted in a wholesale different way. He supported TARP money going to the car companies which was never intended under the original bill. He supported these new ideas coming from liberals in the House and Senate to use TARP money for highway construction or a new jobs program or a new housing program, which was never intended under the original bill. We need to get back to the President's original promise: to treat the American taxpayers like the investors they are, to honor their wishes, to protect their funds, and to get all of that money returned to the American taxpayer. I find it pretty ironic that during the last few weeks the President has bashed big banks and proposed a big new tax against big financial institutions. Yet, at the same time, he wants to continue TARP, and he wants to continue the ability to give those same big financial institutions taxpayer dollars virtually without limit. Why don't we start on the path to fiscal responsibility by at least not showering those big financial institutions with more taxpayer dollars? We are out of the crisis. We don't need TARP. Let's end it, end it immediately, wind it down. So, again, I urge all of my colleagues--Democrats, Republicans--to honor the President's initial words back in the fall of 2008 about what TARP was supposed to be about and how all of the money should be repaid to the taxpayers. Let's honor those words. Let's honor the initial promises about TARP, and let's end it immediately since the crisis has passed and ensure that all of the money, as it is repaid over time, goes back to the American taxpayer by reducing debt. Let's stop this continuing threat that TARP is just used as a political slush fund to fund spending, programs, and ideas at the whim of the majority of Congress as it develops week to week. Let's return that money to the American taxpayer. Let's reduce the debt. Let's reduce the deficit. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, how much time remains on the minority side before 9:30 a.m.?

Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, since this latest version of comprehensive health care reform was unveiled a few days ago--a 2,733-page bill--I have been looking at it very carefully, particularly, of course, with the Louisiana perspective, and I want to share my strong concerns with that Louisiana perspective with my colleagues today. Of course, we have all heard this Senate health care reform bill referred to as the ``Louisiana purchase'' because of the special $300 million provision in it related to our Medicaid match rate. Quite frankly, I do not much like that nickname for two reasons. First of all, the fact that we in Louisiana have to pay a higher Medicaid match rate under present law because of the hurricanes is a real inequity, which I support fixing. It is a shame the merits of that fix, which are very real, have been completely lost in this debate because of the way this Louisiana fix has been used and abused, quite frankly, in trying to pass this megabill. But, secondly, I do not like the phrase because it suggests that Louisiana in general would fare very well under the bill overall, and nothing could be further from the truth. This bill overall sells Louisiana short. It sells Louisiana out. In fact, rather than the ``Louisiana purchase,'' I think the bill could be very accurately called the ``Louisiana sellout.'' What are those costs and those serious problems for Louisiana I am talking about? Let's start with Medicaid, the program for the poor. Let's start with that $300 million fix. It is certainly true that fix is there--a $300 million benefit to the State under our Medicaid Program--but that is not all of the picture. It is not even all of the Medicaid picture because besides that fix, in the bill overall there is a dramatic expansion of Medicaid--a huge expansion--and the Louisiana State government and Louisiana taxpayers have to help pay for that expansion. That extra cost to the State government, to the State taxpayer, is way more than the $300 million benefit. By very conservative estimates by the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, it is at least $1.3 billion over 10 years of full implementation. So, sure, a $300 million benefit but, at least, minimum, a $1.3 billion cost--extra cost--to the State. Now, three things are important about these figures. One is obvious: $300 million is a whole lot less than $1.3 billion. But, secondly, this $1.3 billion over 10 years of full implementation is a very conservative estimate from the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals. And, No. 3, while this money, the $300 million, is one time, this other goes on forever. This $1.3 billion is the first decade cost, but it goes on forever from there; and every 10 years, this grows and is repeated. So what does that mean? That means in the first 10 years of full implementation, the net impact on the State is very negative, at least $1 billion, and it goes on from there. I am very concerned about a lot of other groups in Louisiana, not just the State government and State budget. I am particularly concerned about Louisiana seniors. Of course, Louisiana seniors, like seniors everywhere, depend on Medicare. They have paid into it their whole lives. This bill--it is a simple fact; it is confirmed by the Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan--this bill cuts Medicare $466 billion. Medicare now is already facing insolvency by 2017. So instead of fixing that in a real way, the bill steals almost $\1/2\ trillion from Medicare and uses it not within Medicare but to help pay for a brand-new entitlement.

Mr. VITTER. I will not at this time. I will be happy to yield after my presentation. That means real cuts in terms of hospitals, home and hospice, nursing homes, and Medicare Advantage. There are over 151,000 Louisiana seniors on Medicare Advantage. They are going to be particularly hard hit. They like that choice now. They will not have that choice as it exists now under this bill. How about Louisiana taxpayers? I am also very concerned about Louisiana taxpayers. Again, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the bill contains $518 billion of tax increases nationwide--over $\1/2\ trillion of tax increases. As for that oft repeated promise that no one who earns under $200,000 will be affected, well, again, think again. The Joint Committee on Taxation-- nonpartisan--has said 42.1 million Americans earning below $200,000 will get a tax increase over the next several years--42.1 million. That means hundreds of thousands of Louisiana taxpayers will be hit, will get a tax increase--I am talking about folks who earn well below $200,000--will also pay more in the form of higher insurance premiums because, again, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said this bill increases overall health care costs. It does not decrease those costs. Well, what about Louisiana small businesses? Surely, this bill protects them in the midst of this serious recession. Well, not exactly. The biggest impact on businesses is a brandnew mandate in the bill. Most businesses have to either provide a government-defined health insurance benefit or they have to pay a new tax to the government. NFIB, the National Federation of Small Business, says that is going to cost the Nation 1.6 million jobs. Translated to Louisiana, that is tens of thousands of additional lost jobs on top of our current high unemployment. Again, we are in the middle of a serious recession. This will cost us jobs on top of that. There is also another big problem, which is an incentive for businesses to drop coverage. I mentioned that brandnew mandate: Either you provide a government-defined health benefit or you pay a new tax to the Federal Government. The other problem with that is, for a lot of business, it is going to be cheaper to drop coverage and pay the new tax. So many employees who have coverage now that they are reasonably satisfied with are going to lose it, and that is a big concern as well. Just for good measure, the bill forces pro-life taxpayers to, in many very meaningful ways, subsidize abortion. Louisiana is one of the most proudly pro-life States in the Nation, so that is particularly offensive. Everyone who cares about life, who has followed this issue, whether it is the Catholic Bishops, National Right to Life, and other organizations have said, clearly, the language in this bill doesn't protect against taxpayer-funded abortion. The language in this bill does not honor the Hyde amendment, which has been Federal law since 1977. The language in this bill crosses an important line, does not offer the conscience protections we have depended on for years. So this sets radical new precedent in terms of taxpayer and Federal Government support of abortion. That is a big Louisiana concern as well. So what do we have? We have a 2,733-page bill, mega health care reform, with all these very serious problems for Louisiana and important Louisiana groups and important Louisiana citizens, including seniors, small business, taxpayers, and the State budget, which is already facing serious cuts and challenges. If we want to put Louisiana first considering all these costs, we have to say no to this bill. If we want to put America first considering all these unsustainable costs, we have to say no to this bill. But we can and we should say yes to the right kind of health care reform. This isn't a debate about yes or no, health care reform or not; this is a debate about what the right kind of health care reform is. To me, we need to start over with that right kind of reform. To me, that would mean something such as starting by passing five bills. Each one doesn't need to be longer than 25 pages. Each one would be focused like a laser beam on a real problem that affects real Louisianans, real Americans, offering a real, concrete, focused solution. My five bills would be this: Cover preexisting conditions. That is a real problem in Louisiana. That is a real problem in America. Let's have a focused bill that does that. Secondly, allow buying insurance across State lines. That would dramatically expand competition in the marketplace. That would lower premiums. That would give all folks wanting health insurance dramatically decreased costs than they have now. Third: Let's do something real about prescription drug prices. Let's not sell out to PhRMA and cut a special deal with the pharmaceutical industry, as the White House has. Let's pass reimportation and pass real generics reform. Fourth: Let's pass tort reform and take all that unnecessary cost out of the system. That doesn't provide better health care for anyone. It doesn't do anything positive for anyone except wealthy trial lawyers. Let's pass tort reform. And fifth: Let's allow small business to pool across State lines to form larger pools of insurance across State lines and gain from that extra buying power. Why shouldn't a restaurant in Baton Rouge that may only have seven or eight people to cover in health insurance, why shouldn't they be able to pool through the National Restaurant Association, create a pool of millions nationwide and enjoy the same buying power Apple Computers or Toyota has and get the same benefit in the insurance marketplace through that increased buying power and increased competition? So I urge all my colleagues to put their State first and vote no, to put our Nation first and vote no, and to start anew with the right sort of focused reform as I have outlined. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, rise to voice my very strong concerns about this latest version of so-called comprehensive health care reform. I will speak of my strong concerns starting with the process we are in the midst of because I am still digesting the particulars of this latest megabill. As you know, it was divulged yesterday, a 383-page amendment to the underlying bill. The amendment references another bill which is 286 pages. The underlying bill is 2,074 pages. It makes for the seventh-- count them--the seventh version of so-called comprehensive health care reform, Obamacare for short, in a few weeks. That grand total would be 2,733 pages. So, certainly, I am still digesting this latest version. My staff is helping me, but I wish to rise to begin to express my concerns. The first concern is what I just referenced, this process we are in the midst of. When I went around Louisiana and when I continue to go around Louisiana--have townhall meetings--of course, health care comes up first and often. The themes I hear over and over are: This is too important to rush. This is too important to have some arbitrary deadline, whether it was last summer or Christmas. We need to get it right, not have arbitrary deadlines, and we need to know what we are voting for or against. That is what I hear about the right process to use over and over and over. Well, unfortunately, clearly, this process we are in the midst of does not honor those wishes of Louisiana citizens, of American citizens. Before this latest megahealth care bill was unveiled yesterday, everyone it seems--including Members of the majority party who, at least, were involved in the negotiations, unlike Republicans-- was in the dark. Let me mention a few statements Democratic Senators made over the last week or so before yesterday's unveiling. Senator Durbin, in the leadership, said: I would say to the Senator from Arizona, that I'm in the dark almost as much as he is. And I'm in the leadership. Senator Schumer of New York, also in the leadership: I can't say what there is, because we're not allowed to talk about what's submitted to CBO. Senator Bayh of Indiana: We're all being urged to vote for something and we don't know the details of what's in it. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida: I don't know what the deal is. My colleague, Senator Landrieu, of Louisiana: There's no specific compromise. There were discussions. . . . Until the package that was sent is scored, we really don't even know what's in it. Senator Casey of Pennsylvania: Any big agreement is progress . . . even if we do not know any of the details. Senator Feinstein of California referred to a meeting on the majority side recently: There was no explanation. It was sort of go team, go. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, talking about a similar majority meeting: General concepts, but nothing very specific at all. Then, at least yesterday, this new megabill--this 383-page amendment, referencing another 286-page bill, attached to an underlying 2,074-page bill--was unveiled. That finally happened yesterday morning. Well, that is some progress. But I am afraid it is not progress enough. It is not time enough, considering we are set to vote on this new megabill in just a few hours, starting at 1 a.m. tomorrow morning. Listening to American citizens all over the country, several Senators, including myself, have advocated we need at least 72 hours of final bill text on the Internet before we take any votes about this sort of major legislation. We need at least 72 hours of the official Congressional Budget Office cost estimate being on the Internet before we start any of those votes. I have certainly advocated that. Many of my colleagues on the Republican side have advocated that, listening, responding to American citizens who say: No arbitrary deadlines. Know what you are voting on. Get it right. Perhaps even more importantly than my advocating it or other Republicans advocating it, at least eight Democrats have specifically demanded the same thing. In fact, on October 6 of this year, eight Democrats wrote a very clear, strongly worded letter to the majority leader, Senator Reid, and they demanded exactly the same thing: 72 hours of final legislative language on the Internet before any vote on the matter, a full Congressional Budget Office cost estimate on the Internet for at least 72 hours before any vote on the matter. I applaud these Senators for demanding that: Senator Lincoln, Senator Landrieu, Senator McCaskill, Senator Pryor, Senator Bayh, Senator Lieberman, Senator Ben Nelson, and Senator Webb. But, again, this process we are in the midst of certainly does not honor that minimal demand. We are set to vote on this in just a few hours. When we do, we will have only had the final legislative language for about 40 hours. We will have only had the full Congressional Budget Office cost estimate for about 37 hours. That is 56 percent or less of this minimum timeframe that so many of us, including eight Democrats, have demanded. Again, this rush to judgment, this rush to beat an arbitrary Christmas deadline, is clearly ignoring the common sense of the American people, the common sense I heard in my dozens of townhalls all across Louisiana: no arbitrary deadlines. Know what you are voting on. Get it right. Do not rush to judgment. I have strong concerns about this process. Where are the 72 hours? Where is the opportunity for Members and the American people to know what is in this latest version of a megabill on so-called comprehensive health care reform? Where is the 72 hours' notice of a Congressional Budget Office cost estimate? Given that rush to judgment and arbitrary timeline, I am rushing to digest this latest version of the bill. But certainly, already, I have other very strong substantive concerns. I will be coming back to the floor within the next few days to more precisely outline those concerns as I digest more of the details of this latest megabill. But let me mention at least six of the big Louisiana-based questions I am focused on in terms of this latest megabill, this latest so-called comprehensive health care reform or Obamacare. No. 1 is the impact on the Louisiana State budget. There has been a lot of discussion about that because of the particular language included in the bill pertaining to Louisiana that apparently gives Louisiana a $300 million benefit. The problem, from the Louisiana perspective, is in the Medicaid system, and that $300 million is directly related to Medicaid. In Medicaid, there is a much greater additional burden put on all States, including Louisiana. In Louisiana's case, apparently, that is going to far surpass $300 million. So I am concerned about the overall, the net, impact on the Louisiana State budget, particularly because of the dramatic expansion of Medicaid. Medicaid is the health care program for the poor. It is dramatically expanded in the bill. Every State--except perhaps Nebraska because of special language put in for Nebraska--every State pays a match for both existing Medicaid and Medicaid expansion. That is going to put a big extra burden on the Louisiana State budget, and that big extra burden is apparently going to be much more than the $300 million of benefit that has been so widely talked about. I am looking, right now, at the details of that. My second big Louisiana-based concern has to do with the Louisiana seniors--Louisiana seniors who have paid into Medicare, the health care system for retirees, for years and have assumed it would be there for them, as they paid in, as they followed the rules every step of the way. I know from the study I have done already that this new, latest version of the megabill, so-called comprehensive health care reform, involves a $464.6 billion cut to Medicare. That is going to impact every Louisiana senior, and it is going to impact tens of thousands of Louisiana seniors on Medicare Advantage particularly onerously. My third big Louisiana-based concern is the Louisiana taxpayer because this bill contains massive tax increases to pay for all these new entitlements. Apparently, the total figure of tax increases in the bill is $518 billion--over $\1/2\ trillion--more tax increases than in any of the six previous megabills, the six previous versions of Obamacare. A lot of these taxes are clearly going on individuals who earn less than $200,000 per year, families who earn less than $250,000 per year. A lot of Louisiana taxpayers are going to be hit. That is a big concern. Fourth, I am concerned about Louisianians who have health care now and who pay premiums because those premiums, by all accounts, by all independent estimates, are going to go up because of the taxes and fees and other burdens in this bill. Fifth, what about Louisiana small businesses, businesses that are struggling right now in a serious recession, the most serious recession since the Great Depression? We are in the midst of an extremely serious recession, and we are putting new mandates, new burdens, and new taxes on Louisiana small business. By all accounts, that is going to cost jobs, pure and simple, as we are in the midst of a very serious recession. I am concerned about that impact on Louisiana small business. Sixth, and finally, Louisiana defenders of life. I am very proud to say Louisiana is one of the most pro-life States in the Nation--very strong values which hold up life and the defense of life in all its forms. Apparently--it is clear to me--this bill has taxpayer funding of abortion, the first time ever in Federal legislation, breaking tradition from the Hyde amendment, which has been the law since early 1977. I am very concerned about that radical, truly radical departure from the past. So in closing, let me say I hope we can adopt a different process, one that reflects the common sense of the American people and Louisianans when they say no arbitrary deadlines, no rush to judgment, and know what you are voting on. Also, I hope we will adopt a different approach that doesn't involve all of the downside I have mentioned, those six major categories. I am still digesting this latest megabill. I will return to the Senate floor in the next few days to talk more and in more detail about those concerns I have laid out. But I hope all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, look hard at those and similar concerns, look hard at the process and resolve to not just do this quick, not just do it before Christmas by some arbitrary deadline, but to do it right and to honor the American people in our work. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support and urge all of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to support the upcoming Dorgan reimportation amendment which we will be voting on later today and, just as important, to oppose the Lautenberg amendment which, as everyone knows, is a poison pill to reimportation and is simply and surely a way to absolutely kill for all practical purposes the real Dorgan reimportation language. To me, this is a crystal-clear choice, and it is the sort of choice the American people are really interested in and really watching. It is a choice between doing something that can make a difference in people's lives, something that can help people, that can solve a real problem in health care by doing something in a focused way or we can choose to keep to the big political deal that was made inside the beltway, inside the White House with the pharmaceutical industry. That is the choice. This is really a choice between voting for the American people or voting for politics as usual in Washington. That is what it all comes down to. On the positive side, reimportation is a very real and very effective solution to a real problem. The problem is obvious. The problem is sky- high prescription drug prices--the highest in the world--that we as Americans pay. These same drugs are sold around the world, and in many different cases--in virtually every case--we pay the highest prices in the world right here in the United States even though we have the biggest marketplace for prescription drugs. That is the system we are trying to break up. So I want and supporters of this amendment want a true free market in prescription drugs, a world price that will lower the U.S. price and dramatically help U.S. consumers. It is not just supporters of this amendment and this concept who are making these arguments; it is unbiased sources such as the Congressional Budget Office and others. The Congressional Budget Office says this amendment--this reimportation concept will save the Federal Government money, significant money, some $18 billion or more. And besides the savings to the Federal Government, the savings to the U.S. consumer are much greater--$80 billion or more. So that is the positive choice--doing something real about a real problem. That is what the American people want us to do. They want us to focus on the real problems that exist in health care and attack those real problems in a focused way. The other alternative is to keep the political deal, to vote yes for politics as usual in Washington. Tragically, that is what is represented by the political deal that was struck on this global health care bill between the White House and the White House's allies here in the Senate and the big pharmaceutical industry. It has been widely reported--it is no secret--that there was a deal between these bodies. The pharmaceutical industry agreed to support the President's initiative, putting as much as $150 million of TV advertising cash behind that support, if the White House would completely change its position on reimportation and other key points. The record is clear: When President Obama served right here with us in the U.S. Senate, he was completely for reimportation. As a Presidential candidate, he campaigned vigorously for reimportation. Rahm Emanuel, the White House Chief of Staff, when he served in the U.S. House, was strongly for reimportation. But now, all that is off because Washington politics as usual has stepped in the way. They have reversed their position through this deal with PhRMA. Tragically, that has crept into the Senate Chamber as well. Key Senators on the Democratic side--Max Baucus and Jay Rockefeller and others--have reversed their position and apparently now are urging ``no'' votes for a policy they have long supported. Well, we will know in a few hours who will be the winner--the American people, being given lower prescription prices, or PhRMA and politics as usual in Washington. Make no mistake about it, that is the choice. It couldn't be laid out in a clearer way. And to choose for the American people, to make real progress for lower prescription drug prices, we need to do not one but two things: first, to pass the Dorgan amendment, and second, and just as important, to defeat the Lautenberg amendment side-by-side, which would clearly, by all acknowledged sources, be a poison pill to reimportation--an easy way for the administration to ensure reimportation never happens. I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to vote for lower prescription drug prices, to vote for the American people, and certainly to vote against Washington politics as usual, which the American people are so completely disgusted and fed up with. I urge that vote. Americans all around the country, in all our home States, will remember it and will thank us for it because we will actually be providing a real solution to a real problem and bringing them significantly lower prescription drug prices. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Dorgan reimportation amendment of which I am a cosponsor. I am very glad to support this important amendment. It is a bipartisan effort. Unfortunately, most of this debate and effort about the underlying bill is anything but bipartisan. This is a welcome contrast to that, a bipartisan effort around a very important reform proposal-- reimportation of prescription drugs. We face an interesting situation. The United States is, by far, the biggest market for prescription drugs in the world. Yet with all that buying power and all that activity, we pay, by far, the highest prices in the world. It is for a simple reason: We don't have a true worldwide free market in prescription drugs. We need to do that, in part, through reimportation. Americans need lower prices. They need the sorts of prices being offered elsewhere. We need to break down this system by which the big drug companies can and do offer the same drugs at very different prices in different countries, and, of course, they offer them at the highest prices in the world in the United States. Americans should not have to choose between their lifesaving medicines and other basic needs, such as food and utility bills. By voting for the Dorgan amendment and enacting comprehensive reimportation, we can directly address access to health care and truly lower health care costs, which I believe should be our top goal in this entire debate. That is what this amendment does. It gives Americans immediate relief from outrageously high prescription drug prices. Our amendment allows individuals the freedom to buy their prescription drugs at affordable prices, while providing oversight to ensure that only FDA-approved and safe drugs are permitted. Our amendment closes loopholes that big pharma has been using to fight reimportation, such as shutting down drugs to wholesalers who participate in reimportation. Our amendment would close the poison-pill loophole requiring HHS certification, which has left it up to administrations to deny reimportation by making that comprehensive reimportation discretionary. It would shut down that poison-pill loophole. We would make it mandatory that Americans have affordable choices for prescription drugs. Many of us, Democrats and Republicans, and certainly including and starting with Senators Dorgan and Snowe, have long fought for this comprehensive solution. We have made important steps forward. The Senate has adopted amendments to allow personal reimportation. Just last year, we voted overwhelmingly, 73 to 23, that we need to enact this sort of comprehensive reimportation reform, and we have taken concrete steps, such as the personal reimportation provisions, some of which I have authored and passed through the Senate. But we need to go further, and we need this comprehensive approach. Obviously, the big stumbling block in the way is the powerful pharmaceutical lobby, big pharma, which has spent millions in lobbying to stop this comprehensive approach. Just this past summer, Senator McCain read an e-mail on the Senate floor from a big pharma lobbyist outlining their strategy to derail those efforts in the Senate. More recently, there are reports that they may have struck a deal with the White House to derail these sorts of efforts and offered to spend tens of millions in support of so-called health care reform, perhaps with a deal to derail these efforts. That is why I am so glad Democrats and Republicans are coming together around this amendment to say that enough is enough. We need to fight all of these backroom deals. We need to fight this pervasive influence by pharma and finally stand with average Americans and pass real, comprehensive reimportation reform that will bring down prices, bring down health care costs, which should be the top priority of all of us. We all say we want to lower health care costs. That has been a big issue in this overall debate. Well, this amendment will absolutely do that. The Congressional Budget Office says that and independent analyses say that. Let's take an important step and do what we all say should be a top priority--actually lowering, in real terms, health care costs. Again, I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to come together in a bipartisan way. I wish more of this debate and this effort was designed from the beginning to be truly bipartisan. But this amendment and this effort is. This amendment and this effort have been discussed for years. Let's finally get it done with a bipartisan vote to pass comprehensive reimportation. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Madam President. I strongly support the efforts of the distinguished Senator from Utah and his amendment offered along with Senator Nelson and Senator Casey. And I think this exchange and this colloquy is very helpful. In fact, I think it proves the point, particularly the participation of the Senator from Pennsylvania in it. The only folks who are defending the language in the Reid bill are folks who are clearly and strongly pro- choice, pro-abortion. Folks who have a fundamental problem with that all say the underlying language in the Reid bill has huge loopholes. That includes people who want to support the bill otherwise. I am strongly against this bill. I am not in that category. But, as the distinguished Senator, Mr. Brownback, mentioned, Representative Stupak wants to support the underlying bill. He supported it in the House, but he was very clear in his efforts on the House floor that the underlying language, which is now in the Reid bill, had huge loopholes, wasn't good enough, needed to be fixed. That is why he came up with the Stupak language, and that is essentially exactly what we have in this amendment. Similarly, the U.S. Conference of Bishops is very supportive of the concepts of the underlying bill, but they have said clearly that the Reid bill is ``completely unacceptable'' on this abortion issue and ``is actually the worst bill we have seen so far on the life issues.'' So this colloquy involving the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, I think that general debate proves the point clearly. I again compliment the Senator from Utah, along with Senator Nelson, Senator Casey, and others--I am a cosponsor of the amendment--on this effort. We need to pass this on the bill. This will do away with the loophole. This will be real language to truly prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions. This constitutes exactly the same as that long tradition, since 1977, of the Hyde amendment. This marries the Stupak language, so it should be crystal-clear. What will this amendment specifically do? It will mean there are no mandates for elective abortion coverage. Plans and providers are free from any government mandate for abortion under this amendment language. It would mean there is no Federal funding of elective abortion or plans that include elective abortion except in the case of when the life of the mother is in danger or in case of rape or incest. It means this amendment would allow individuals to purchase a supplemental policy or a plan that covers elective abortion as long as that separate policy is purchased completely with private dollars. It would prohibit the public plan from covering those elective abortions and prevent the Federal Government from mandating abortion coverage by any private plan. Insurance plans are not prevented from selling truly private abortion coverage, including through the exchange, but taxpayer dollars would have nothing--absolutely nothing--to do with it. Bottom line: The effect on abortion funding and mandates is exactly the same as the long and distinguished tradition of the Hyde amendment with this amendment, and it would be exactly the same as the Stupak language on the House side. I also agreed with the distinguished Senator from Utah when he said this should not be of any great controversy. Abortion is a deeply divisive issue in this country, but taxpayer dollars being used to pay for abortion is not. There is a broad and a wide and a deep consensus against using any taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion. The Senator from Utah mentioned polls. That is why the Hyde amendment has been longstanding since 1977. That is why it has been voted for and supported and passed again and again in Congresses with Democratic majorities and Republican majorities. It is a solid consensus. It does represent the common sense of the American people. Certainly, I will follow in a similar, proud tradition of Louisiana Senators supporting that consensus. Every U.S. Senator from Louisiana since the Hyde amendment was originally adopted has strongly supported this commonsense consensus view--every Senator. Everyone but me has been Democratic, but every sitting U.S. Senator from Louisiana has supported that commonsense consensus view, and I surely hope that tradition continues today. Again, I applaud the Senator from Utah and his leading cosponsors, Senator Nelson and Senator Casey, on this effort, and I encourage all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to come together around what the American people consider a real no-brainer, a true consensus, something that clearly reflects the common sense of the American people. Is abortion a divisive issue? Yes. Is using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion a close question? No. There is a clear consensus in America not to use any taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. It is crystal-clear that we need to pass this amendment, and the underlying language in the Reid bill is completely unacceptable. With that, thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, reserving my right to object.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, merely to respond through the Chair, I would say I have been working in that spirit. I have given the language to the majority side. I have been working both at the staff level and Member level with many folks. This should be noncontroversial. I don't know of any Senator who disagrees with this. So I will accept that offer. I will not object to this pending unanimous consent, but I truly hope the offer is made in good faith because I believe, when anyone reads this language, they will agree with it. Again, it simply says these latest recommendations by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, made 2 weeks ago, will not have any legal force and effect. I believe all of us--certainly, it is my impression and, I guess, we will find out tomorrow morning--I believe all of us want to stop them from having force and effect because it is a great step backward in terms of breast cancer screening and mammography and even education about self-examination. So I certainly take that offer and look forward to the majority side rereading this language and hopefully accepting it tomorrow morning because I can't imagine, on substantive grounds, objecting to the language. Thank you. With that, I will not object.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, reserving my right to object, again, I am very disappointed to hear that. I have approached both sides. Senator Murkowski has incorporated similar language, and I was hoping we could come together, 100 to nothing, to actually pass this on to the bill, whichever alternative tomorrow is voted up--and maybe they both will be--but whichever is voted up or whichever is voted down, I think it is very important to come together and state that we don't want these new task force recommendations to have any force and effect. So let me propose a third and final alternative unanimous consent request: that at any point after these votes, but before cloture is filed on the pending matter, this amendment No. 2808 receive a vote on the Senate floor as a first-degree amendment to the underlying bill.

Mr. VITTER. Yes, I continue to reserve my right to object. I am very disappointed about objecting to this important and what should be noncontroversial provision. I would suggest another solution, which is to take the unanimous consent request on the floor and modify it so there is simply a vote on this second-degree amendment, amendment No. 2808, immediately before the vote on the Mikulski amendment.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, reserving my right to object, just so I can respond directly, I didn't mean to cut the Senator off. If he has any further statement, I will be happy to listen to it. But just so I can respond directly, the first thing today, I approached both those Members and everyone involved in this debate about this language and certainly the majority side has had this language for at least 7\1/2\ hours. The equivalent of this language has been incorporated into the Murkowski amendment, but my hope is that the same thing be accepted in the Mikulski amendment because it is not clear which is going to be adopted. I don't see the great controversy here. So that was my hope. And that is why I approached those two Senators and the majority side 7\1/2\ hours ago about it with specific language. So I renew my last unanimous consent request I made in that spirit.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a very important topic on the floor right now, along with the Medicare issue; that is, preventive screenings and services, particularly for women. I want to focus on a very specific and important example of that, which is breast cancer screening through mammography, and also through the practice of self-examination. This is very timely because 2 weeks ago, a U.S. government-endorsed panel issued new recommendations on this topic, which I believe, along with tens of millions of Americans, is a major step in the wrong direction. I think we need to focus on this recent action and talk about this and fix it in the context of this health care reform debate. What am I talking about? Well, on Tuesday, November 17--literally just a couple weeks ago--the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which is an official government-sanctioned body--a task force about preventive medicine--issued new recommendations regarding breast cancer screening for women, including the use of mammography. These new recommendations they came out with a couple weeks ago are a big step backward, a big retrenchment in terms of what the current state of knowledge is and what their previous recommendations were. Their new recommendations, just out 2 weeks ago, do four things that take a big step back on breast cancer screening. No. 1, for women between the ages of 40 and 49, rather than get a routine mammogram every 2 years to screen for breast cancer, the task force said: Forget about that. We do not recommend that anymore. We step back from that recommendation. No. 2, for women aged 50 to 74, the previous recommendation was to get a routine mammogram to screen against breast cancer every year. The task force, 2 weeks ago, stepped back from that and said: No, every other year is probably good enough. So not every year: every other year. No. 3, for women over the age of 75, the previous recommendation was to have routine screening at least every 2 years. The new recommendation from the task force steps back from that and says: No, we do not recommend routine screening over the age of 75. And, No. 4, the task force 2 weeks ago said: We no longer recommend breast self-examination by women to detect lumps to get treatment early. We do not believe in that. We do not think the science is clear on that. We step back from that. Those are four huge changes in their previous recommendations. Those are four huge, new recommendations completely at odds with what I believe is the clear consensus in the medical community and the treatment community. When I first read about these new U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations, around November 17, I had the immediate reaction I just enunciated, but I said: I am not an expert. I am not a doctor. I am not a medical expert. I want to hear from folks who are much closer to this crucial issue than me. So my wife and I convened a roundtable discussion in Baton Rouge, LA. We had it on Monday, November 23. It was at the Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center. They were very kind to host it. It was cohosted by Women's Hospital in Baton Rouge. We had a great roundtable discussion featuring a lot of different people, including oncologists, other MDs, other medical experts, and including, maybe most importantly, several breast cancer survivors who literally lived through this issue themselves. Those breast cancer survivors were all women who got breast cancer and had it detected relatively early, in their forties. So they are exactly the group of people these new recommendations would work against because the new recommendations say don't get regular mammography screening in your forties. Again, I was interested in hearing from the real experts, both medical experts and the survivors, what they thought about it. I wasn't very surprised, quite frankly, when they all had exactly the same reaction I did to these new U.S. Preventive Service Task Force recommendations. Everybody to a person said this is a big step backward. This will make us move in the wrong direction. Increased screening, early detection is a leading reason we are winning increasingly the fight against breast cancer. It is a leading reason we are doing so much better in this fight. In that one room at the Mary Bird Perkins Cancer Center, in a sense we had a snapshot through history and proof of the great gains we have made, including through early screening because, as I said, we had these survivors, all a supercause for celebration: Folks who had detected their cancer, most of them relatively early; all of them first got it and detected it either in their forties or some in their thirties. Unfortunately, in the same room, we had a life experience on the other end of the spectrum going back 40-plus years. That is my wife Wendy who lost her mother to breast cancer when she was 6 years old. One of the reasons is simple and straightforward and directly related to what we are talking about. Back in the late 1960s when Wendy lost her mom to breast cancer there wasn't this same routine. There wasn't this emphasis on screening. There wasn't the recommendation for annual mammograms. There wasn't the educational push for self-examination. There wasn't that focus, and because of that, far more women, tragically, including Wendy's mother, died. We have made huge progress since then. Again, the very life experiences in that one room in Baton Rouge proved that. The medical doctors and the oncologists, the other experts, as well as the breast cancer survivors, all made that point. So I am standing on the Senate floor to urge us to take focused, specific action to legislatively repeal any impact of these new recommendations by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued in November. This topic is on the Senate floor. It is on the floor through the Mikulski amendment. There is probably going to be a Republican alternative to that Mikulski amendment. My concern is, in terms of everything on the floor now, none of it directly, specifically takes back the impact of those new recommendations. I think that is the first matter we should all come together on, 100 to nothing, on this topic. We can have a broader debate. We can have differences about the best approach to prevention and screening. But the first concrete, focused thing we should do right now on the Senate floor today is come together, 100 to nothing, to legislatively overrule any impact of those new recommendations. That is, again, what I have been hearing from experts not just in Baton Rouge, not just in that one room, but across the country; experts in terms of oncologists, other medical doctors, leaders of the cancer associations across the country and, perhaps most importantly, breast cancer survivors. I daresay that is what every Member of this body has heard from their States since those new recommendations came out around November 17. So, again, whatever we do in this broader debate, I have a very simple, basic, focused suggestion. Let's show the American people we can come together around something on which I believe we all agree. There is an expression: It is mom and apple pie. Well, this should be considered mom and apple pie because it is literally about mom and our wives and our daughters and, obviously, half the population. So let's come together around this issue, and let's legislatively overrule any legal impact, any legal consequence of these new task force recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force. That is what my Vitter amendment, No. 2808, does. I had hoped the amendments on the Senate floor on this general topic would do that already. Unfortunately, the one that is pending now, at least the Mikulski amendment, does not do that. In fact, in some ways it points to the new recommendations of the task force and holds up those new recommendations. Our current law holds up the current recommendations. I think because the new recommendations they promulgated around November 17 are so egregious, such a bad idea, because the consensus around the country starting with experts and oncologists is so clear that we should negate any impact of them. So, again, my Vitter amendment No. 2808, which is currently filed as a second-degree amendment to the Mikulski amendment, would do that. Let me be perfectly clear and read my text because it is very short: For the purposes of this Act, and for the purposes of any other provision of law, the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Service Task Force regarding breast cancer screening, mammography, and prevention shall be considered the most current other than those issued in or around November 2009. So what it does is simple. It says we are erasing, we are canceling out, any effect of those new recommendations made by the task force in and around November 2009. We are saying that never happened because the consensus is so clear against it. Again, I expected the Mikulski amendment to do that directly. It doesn't do that. It does other things about prevention, which is fine. We can debate those points. We can have a discussion about that. But I think we need to all come together to absolutely, categorically, specifically, legislatively take back, overrule these new recommendations. I am certainly eager to work with everyone in this body starting with Senator Mikulski, starting with Senator Murkowski, whom I believe may offer a Republican alternative to include this language. I hope this language, which seems to me is a no-brainer given the consensus on the topic, can be included in both of those amendments. It should be just accepted and included in the Mikulski amendment. It should be accepted and included in the Murkowski amendment. That would be my goal so that whatever happens on these votes, we come together in a unified way. Literally, it would in essence be 100 to nothing, to say: No, time out. These new recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force from November of this year are a huge step backwards, a huge mistake. That is what the experts are saying. That is what oncologists are saying. That is what cancer specialists are saying. That is what leaders of cancer associations are saying. That is what, perhaps most importantly, breast cancer survivors are saying. We can look at history in this country in the last several decades and happily point to real progress in this fight. One of the causes of that good news, that improvement since the late 1960s when my wife Wendy's mom passed away from breast cancer, clearly one of the underlying reasons, clearly one of the leading causes is dramatic improvement in this prevention and screening, using mammography, also educating about self-examination. So, again, I have this second-degree amendment. My hope and my goal would be that this language, which should be noncontroversial, would be accepted on it, as well as any Republican alternative, and that whatever happens in terms of those votes, we come together and make crystal-clear that this task force of unelected bureaucrats--didn't include a single oncologist, by the way--made a big mistake and we are going to make sure those new recommendations don't have any impact in terms of law, in terms of government programs, in terms of legal impact on insurance companies. Again, I look forward to working with everyone on the floor, including Senator Mikulski, including Senator Murkowski and others to pass this language. It should be a no-brainer. It is mom and apple pie. Let's pass it and at least in this focused way come together and do the right thing in direct reaction to something that just happened 2 weeks ago. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, if I could----

Mr. VITTER. I object.

Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I certainly concur with the distinguished majority whip's goal of more amendments and more votes. With regard to this very important screening and mammography issue, my goal has been a very focused one. I have a filed second-degree amendment that has a very simple, focused objective, which I believe is extremely noncontroversial. I believe it would be supported by everyone in this body, and that is simply to ensure that there is no legal force and effect to the recent recommendations issued in November of 2009 by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force with regard to breast cancer screening, use of mammography, and self-examination. As everyone knows, those new recommendations were shocking in that they took a giant step back from the previous recommendations and took a giant step back in terms of recommended screening, which virtually every expert I know of strongly disagrees with. So this filed, simple second-degree amendment simply says that those new recommendations of November of this year have no force and effect. I will read the amendment. It is very short. To be clear, it does nothing more than that. [F]or the purposes of this Act, and for the purposes of any other provision of law, the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Service Task Force regarding breast cancer screening, mammography, and prevention shall be considered the most current other than those issued in or around November 2009. So we are simply ensuring that those new recommendations--which I strongly disagree with, experts strongly disagree with, I believe all of my colleagues do--have no legal force and effect. So I would simply ask that the unanimous consent proposed be modified so that the Mikulski amendment incorporates this language. I would propose that as an alternative unanimous consent request.