David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to talk about the need for dramatic, bold health care reform in this country, so every American has real access to good, affordable health care. In doing so, I wrap up a project I began 8 weeks ago with six of my Senate colleagues to highlight our proposed solutions to reforming health care in America. I start by thanking those colleagues, Senators Coburn, DeMint, Thune, Isakson, Martinez, and Burr for joining me here on the Senate floor and in other venues to talk about this enormously important challenge for all of us. We have reaffirmed what I think virtually every American knows, that we are in a health care crisis in this country, and there are some fundamental things broken, some fundamental things wrong with our present health care delivery system. I want to reaffirm what was said: We need not just tinkering at the edges but some bold, dramatic reform to fix that system and give every American access to good quality and affordable health care. But I also want to reaffirm there are clear choices to be made, dramatically different alternatives. We have laid out our positive choices in contrast to the other large alternatives, the single payer socialized solution that several of our colleagues here in this body have long advocated. Our message, my colleagues and mine, Senators Coburn and DeMint, Thune, Isakson, Martinez, and Burr, has been simple at its core: The health care system must be centered on the doctor-patient relationship. Health care plans must be flexible and there must be real choice. Americans must be able to own and control their own plans and decisions and choose how those plans work for them, and Washington should not control or run or mandate all of this. We believe individuals and families should own their own health insurance, and we oppose the Government managing or rationing people's health care. We believe individuals are capable and are better than bureaucrats at choosing that coverage which is best suited for their own needs. We are opposed to forcing people to enroll in a plan versus providing incentives to encourage individuals and families to choose to enroll. We believe existing Government programs can be improved and modernized so they provide more efficient quality care to serve the purpose of their enactment. In contrast to that, we oppose attempts to expand these specifically targeted programs and make them a Trojan horse for broader overreaching socialized medicine and sickness management by the Federal Government. Instead of looking to put more people on Government health care, we should assure that the truly indigent have health coverage. My friends and colleagues who tried to rationalize a dramatically expanding SCHIP, for example, the ability to offer Government health care to already insured children, argued we have to put children first. But last year this Senate unfortunately and overwhelmingly rejected an amendment by Senator Coburn that would have assured that all children in the United States would have health care coverage before funding special interest pork projects. We believe we should open and expand the health insurance marketplace to Americans so they can shop for health care across State lines and let insurance companies compete to provide quality, cost-effective care. We oppose increasing the number of costly mandates that price individuals in so many cases out of the market and restrict consumer choice and access. As my friend from South Carolina stated, there are almost 2,000 individual mandates in health care, covering in some cases acupuncturists and hair prostheses. These mandates obviously drive up the cost of health care. In fact, according to the CBO, for every 1 percent increase in the cost of health care, 300,000 people lose their insurance. So there is a real human cost to so many of these mandates. This is supposed to be a free market society. I am perplexed as to why a consumer in South Carolina should not be able to shop for cheaper health insurance if that product is offered and sold in Louisiana. This is commonsense reform to drive down mandates to a reasonable level. It would force insurance companies to compete with each other across State lines to offer cheaper quality plans. Americans are able to purchase or invest in almost anything in any State of the Union. This does promote competition. It encourages companies to offer better prices and better quality and more attractive interest rates for savings and better service. Why can't we bring that positive aspect to the market of health insurance? My colleagues and I who join together in this discussion recognize that seniors have increasingly turned to Medicare Advantage plans because they offer better value, more choice, a higher quality of care than traditional fee-for-service Medicare. We oppose attempts to cut Medicare Advantage and reduce health care choices for seniors. Again, unfortunately, too many folks in this body are moving in the other direction. In fact, the chairman of the Finance Committee has indicated that the majority side of the aisle will offer a Medicare package that will likely significantly cut funding for the popular Advantage plan. I have heard from thousands of Louisiana seniors who are overwhelmingly pleased with their Medicare Advantage plans. I hope we can preserve this option for seniors and find a reasonable compromise so we don't cut Medicare Part C and negatively affect those seniors. We believe we should dramatically reform the tax treatment of health care by providing powerful incentives that will increase access by allowing Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money to pay for health care. We oppose tax increases that do the opposite, that seize American money from American families to pay for government-run and government-dominated health care. That limits access to doctors. It lowers the quality of health services. Addressing health care through our Tax Code would fundamentally change the health care market, if we do it in the right way. By letting Americans keep more of their money for health care through refundable tax credits, we can empower Americans with more resources to obtain and access care. We have seen the results of increased utilization of health savings accounts. We want to see that when given the freedom to keep their tax- free money for health care, Americans will make conscious efforts to stay healthier, make better health care decisions, and shop for more cost-effective care and services. HSAs, health savings accounts, are a newly implemented concept and one that is working. Americans want choice, and tax advantage options such as HSAs allow for more choice in health care. We know our proposals would reform a broken system into one that is patient centered, high quality, lower cost, and where families choose and own their own health care plan. Government-run health care does not work and limits access and choice for families. If you do not believe that, look to our neighbors. To the north we see Canada, which has a weekly lottery to see which of their citizens, in essence, can go to the doctor. Look to our friends across the Atlantic, to the British. The British National Health Service recently promised to reduce the wait time for hospital care to 4 months. That is supposed to be a dramatic improvement under that model, under Great Britain's national health care system. Is that the kind of health care we want Americans to have? I sincerely hope our proposals over the last 8 weeks will be some part of promoting this badly needed debate. I sincerely hope that important debate leads to action, to results in the Senate and the Congress, results for the American people. Health care is one of the most important issues for American families today. It is time we actually do something instead of sitting on our hands in Washington. We need to go back to the States to talk about how we need to reform the American health care system. It is time to embrace the challenge of health care reform and do something now, not just punt to future Congresses, future Washington politicians, future Presidents. I hope our discussion over the last 8 weeks helps promote that, not just debate but debate leading to action to improve the lives of all Americans with regard to health care. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a very important provision to New Orleans in the supplemental and to thank the Senate Appropriations Committee members for their strong and continued support for Louisiana during the long and difficult posthurricane recovery process. Included in the emergency supplemental bill before the Senate is $70 million for emergency funding for 3,000 rental subsidies, which will provide permanent supportive housing in Louisiana for its most at-risk residents. These are the individuals who normal housing assistance programs are most likely to fail or miss, or who are unable to take advantage of available assistance without extra support. They are the homeless, the elderly in need of additional outside care or supervision, and individuals with severe disabilities. For them, permanent supportive housing can mean the difference between being exposed to the streets or having a secure, stable home environment. The permanent supportive housing funding is the final piece of a three-prong initiative in Louisiana to address the post-storm needs of its most at-risk population. Louisiana has already dedicated significant resources toward this project: Louisiana's Road Home recovery plan will provide the necessary supportive services funding for the first 5 years of the initiative and some capital funding and the State has already invested in 800 to 1,000 permanent supportive housing units through existing affordable housing programs. All that remains now before this initiative can become a successful reality is the rental subsidy funding, which would provide Louisiana with the 2,000 project-based voucher and 1,000 shelter plus care units that will finally bring the services and housing to the people that need it most. However, without the $70 million in rental subsidy funding included in the supplemental, this important initiative will fail. This is an issue that transcends politics and party affiliation. It enjoys the bipartisan support of myself and Senator Landrieu, as well as the support of the Appropriations HUD subcommittee chair and ranking member, Senators Murray and Bond, and the committee leadership. The Louisiana House congressional delegation supports the funding and wrote the House appropriators to advocate for it. In fact, Louisiana's new Governor, Governor Jindal, signed that letter as a Congressman and has since written the House and Senate leadership last month urging its adoption. As of the latest count last year, the homeless population in New Orleans had almost doubled to approximately 12,000 persons compared to the period prior to the storm. This is an opportunity to bring the most disadvantaged and at-need home. I urge Congress take this critical step of providing the necessary housing funding for this important Louisiana recovery initiative. And, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this funding in negotiations with the House of Representatives to ensure its inclusion in the final funding package.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute since I seemed to cede all my time.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this motion is very straightforward. It creates a reserve fund in support of the following bill, a bill that would say: If the price at the pump, the price of gasoline reaches $5 a gallon--if it reaches $5 a gallon--then we are going to allow exploration and production off our coasts in the Outer Continental Shelf, but only if two conditions are met. No. 1, the host State wants it; the Governor and the State legislature of the host State say yes, we want that activity; and No. 2, the host State gets a fair revenue share of 37.5 percent which is the policy and the precedent we set about 2 years ago. It would also ensure that nothing in this bill would disrupt military training, military activity off the coast, and that also a host State could decide to do natural gas only. We can't drill our way out of this energy problem, but increased domestic supply is part of the solution. We need a new energy future, but we also need to get to that future.

Mr. VITTER. I thank the Chair. Quite honestly, I am not sure I understood that response. My simple point was that Florida under my motion is in control of its own destiny, and if Florida doesn't want drilling, the Governor and the State legislature, Florida doesn't get drilling. There is a little bit of caveat to that. I think the Cubans are going to drill off Florida if we do nothing. That is moving forward anyway. Or the Chinese through Cuba. But otherwise, Florida doesn't get drilling. My other response is, here we are caught in a stale debate again. It isn't either/or. It isn't oil and gas or alternative fuels. Our energy picture is so challenging it clearly has to be both. We need a future of new fuels and new technology. We also need to get to that future in the short and medium term. We need to do both things on the demand and the supply side. Let's start acting for the good of the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, if I can reclaim my time.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, if I can briefly respond on my own time-- and I invite a conversation or colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Florida--I hope the distinguished Senator realizes that in this proposal, in order for any offshore drilling to take place, both the Governor and the State legislature of the host State have to say, yes, we want it. That is an absolute requirement under this proposal. The distinguished Senator from Florida knows Florida politics far better than I, but based on everything I know, that is not going to happen in Florida, including under Republican Governors and Republican legislatures, anytime soon. So I don't understand why he considers this a threat to the State of Florida, because they are in absolute control of their own destiny under the details of my motion. If the Senator has a response to that simple fact, I would love to hear it and engage in a discussion.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, if I could briefly explain this motion, it attempts to, again, get us to deal directly with the enormously important issue, the real crisis that consumers across America face; that is, the high and escalating cost of energy, including gasoline at the pump. This will finally suggest to the American people that we get it, that we understand their plight, that we feel their pain, if you will, to use an often used phrase, and we are actually going to do something about it. We are going to act. This motion to instruct the conferees would show the Senate is serious about increasing energy supplies and doing that to decrease gasoline prices. The motion is very simple. It would instruct the budget conferees to include a reserve fund for future legislation that we would be expressing an intention to pass. That legislation would allow a Governor, with the concurrence of his or her State legislature, to petition for increased energy exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf off of that State. It would also allow for revenue sharing coming from such exploration and production, to give producing States a fair share on new areas of production and new leases made available. Specifically, I would suggest that we follow the precedent and the policy we set a few years ago. As we opened new areas of the gulf, we said the producing States will have a fair share, will finally get revenue sharing--37.5 percent of the revenue from that new production. Finally, this would only happen if the price of regular gasoline in the United States reaches $5 a gallon at the pump. The American people are wondering right now if we understand what their daily lives are all about because as gasoline prices at the pump are high, and higher the next day, and much higher the next month, we seem to want to do absolutely nothing about it. This Congress, under Democratic leadership, came into power in January of 2007. As that happened, the Democratic leadership of this new Congress was very clear that an absolute top priority was to deal with sky-high energy prices. At the time fuel prices were about $2.33 a gallon at the pump. Well, if that was sky high then, I do not know what adjective to use for today because since that time, from January 2007 to today, we have gone from $2.33 a gallon at the pump to about $3.72 a gallon--a 61-percent increase. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any real end in sight. Now, the American people get this because they live it. They go to the gas pump weekly. They live it. They see that bill for filling up their tank go higher and higher. They have to wonder if we get it because we talk a lot on the Senate floor, we debate a lot, but what have we done? In my opinion, very, little on this crucial challenge-- even crisis--facing the American people. When I look at this issue, I go back to economics 101: supply and demand. Price is set by the intersection of demand and supply. So you can try to stabilize or lower prices in two ways: You can try to decrease demand; you can try to increase supply. I think our energy situation is so dire, so challenging, the escalating prices are so great, the pace of escalation is so staggering, that we need to take action on both sides of the equation. We need to do everything possible on both sides of the equation. We need to lessen demand or at least mitigate increasing demand from other countries worldwide, such as China and India. We cannot control what they do. Their demand is increasing enormously. But at least we can try to mitigate that with demand reductions in our own economy. I support those measures: greater efficiency, greater conservation, moving to alternative forms of fuel and energy. That is all absolutely crucial. We need to do that. We have done a little of it; we need to do more. But as we do that, we cannot ignore the supply side of the equation. We need to address both sides at the same time. We need to do everything reasonable we can on both sides of the equation at the same time. That brings us to supply. For far too long, Congress has absolutely ignored the supply side of the equation, has absolutely refused to do anything to increase supply in this country--by increased exploration and drilling on our Outer Continental Shelf or in Alaska or anywhere else. I do not know how long we are going to wait. What does the price have to get to before we hear the American people and before we finally act more on the demand side, yes, and more on the supply side? Again, my motion to instruct would address this challenge head on. It would say, if the price at the pump gets to $5 a gallon--we are not there yet. We are below $4, but if it gets to $5 a gallon, is that high enough to get us to act, to get us to do something, to get us to, yes, address demand but also address supply? I think the American people think that is plenty high enough to get us to act. If we push past that point, then under my motion to instruct, we would support a reserve fund for legislation to allow exploration and production off our coasts on the Outer Continental Shelf. But, again, I want to emphasize there would be two important rules we would have to follow with this increased exploration and production. No. 1, the host State coast we are talking about would have to want that activity to happen. That Governor and that State legislature would both have to say: Yes, we believe this is good for the country; we believe this is good for the State; we want this activity to happen. Secondly, when the activity does happen, that host State would get a fair share of the revenue, would get the same share as we set for the host States in the gulf when we opened new areas of the gulf a couple years ago: 37.5 percent. That host State could then use that revenue for its priorities: education, K-12, higher education, highways, environmental cleanup, beach restoration. In the case of my State, Louisiana, it is perfectly clear what our priority for that money is. We have already passed not only legislation but State constitutional amendments regarding how we are going to use that money. It is to address the crisis that is happening on our coast, to battle coastal erosion, to enhance coastal restoration, to build hurricane protection, and to build hurricane evacuation routes. To me, that is a very commonsense consensus approach. The price of gasoline has been rising astronomically. As I said, from the start of this Democratically led Congress, it has already risen 61 percent. The Democratic leadership of this Congress began in January 2007 saying this is a top priority. Yet little to nothing has happened, as that price has risen 61 percent. Are we finally going to hear the pleas of the American people? Are we finally going to act on all sorts of fronts to try to stabilize and bring down these prices? This is a sensible solution on the supply side that can have a real impact. Let me reiterate. We need to do everything conceivable, both on the demand side and the supply side, because our challenge is that great. I support demand side measures. I supported increased efficiency standards. I supported the measure we passed a couple days ago temporarily ceasing filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. So we decrease demand in that very modest way. We need to do more in terms of fuel efficiency, conservation, and new forms of fuel and energy. But as we address much more aggressively the demand side of the equation, we cannot ignore the supply side. We need to increase supply, particularly domestic supply, at the same time. We have enormous reserves in this country off our coasts, as well as in Alaska, as well as places on shore to do that. What we have not mustered so far is the political will and the votes in Congress to allow our people and our industry to do it. My motion would say $5 a gallon--if we get there, we sure as heck need to act. We sure as heck need to do all of those sensible things on the supply side, just as we should on the demand side. I urge all of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to support this sensible measure. The leadership of this new Congress has been talking about energy prices since the Congress came in in January 2007. The only thing that talk has done is be concurrent with the rise in prices at the pump of 61 percent, from about $2.33 a gallon to $3.73 a gallon. Talk is not good enough. The American people deserve action. They deserve action on the demand side, much more aggressive action than we have taken to date. They sure as heck also deserve action on the supply side to increase our domestic supply, which can have a major impact on price at the pump. I urge my colleagues to support this sensible motion in that regard. I yield back my time.

Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Madam President. I thank the distinguished ranking member for the courtesy. Motion To Instruct Madam President, I have a motion I send to the desk.

Mr. VITTER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I stand in strong support of this consensus, bipartisan farm bill, and I encourage all of my colleagues, Democratic and Republican, to show strong bipartisan support. I support this bill fundamentally for three reasons: First, as the last farm bill, it establishes predictability for our farmers, a stable environment so they can plan and prosper in the future. Second, it does that in a fiscally responsible way--no tax increases, payment limit reform, and other reforms--to move us down the path of fiscal responsibility. Third, it does some very crucial and important work for Louisiana farmers in particular in a number of different areas. In the area of sugar, we have a three-quarter of a cent loan rate increase, the first such loan rate increase since 1985. It is long overdue. In the rice industry, the industry requested changes to the uniform loan rate for different types of rice to make that more uniform and helpful to the industry, and we have done that. In the area of timber, there are tax provisions that reduce maximum taxes on gains from certain timber from 20 percent, the capital gains rate, to a maximum of 15 percent. That is enormously important. In the area of milk, as my colleague from Pennsylvania mentioned, there are important improvements and provisions, changes to the MILC Program that will help domestic dairy farmers. There are plenty of good, solid, responsible reasons to be for this bill. Fundamentally, it will create that predictability, that stability our farmers need to plan into the future and to prosper into the future, which is good not just for them but for all Americans, including Americans as consumers, which, of course, is all of us. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill. I encourage President Bush to reconsider his veto threat and not veto the bill. But certainly, if it is necessary, I will stand and vote to support overriding that Presidential veto. I encourage my colleagues to also be firm in that regard. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I wish to also speak on Israel's 60th anniversary. It is a very important date for a truly remarkable country and a remarkable people who, in a mere six decades of existence, have built a vibrant, successful, modern democracy out of almost nothing. When I was still a student, I had the opportunity to visit Israel with my sister. She had a college friend who had moved to Israel after graduation. Even back then--I was very young--I couldn't help be impressed by the determination and perseverance of all the people I met and their effort to build a vibrant, democratic state, to create a safe, secure homeland for all Jews, no matter where they may have originally been from around the world. I had a second opportunity to visit Israel as a Member of Congress many years later. It was a very different sort of trip, very different itinerary, a very different set of meetings than when I was a student. But I left with the same strong feelings of respect and admiration for all the people of Israel, the same recognition of their determination and unflagging faith in their nation and countrymen. Their belief in the importance of their mission had not faded at all in the years between my visits. What makes today especially notable is it is the 60th anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel. There is wonderful hope in this celebration of the 60th anniversary, and there is also sober appreciation of the challenges that remain. On the hopeful side, on the impressive side, is that in a mere 60 years, as I have said, Israel has created a nation characterized by strong democratic principles, a compassionate and determined people, innovative industry, especially in technology, medicine, and science, a competitive global economy. In a mere six decades, Israel has built all that tremendous innovation, tremendous economic prosperity and progress virtually out of nothing, virtually out of the sands of the desert. It has become a beacon of freedom and democracy in a region that has very few examples to speak to. Israel is the only fully developed democracy in that sense. It represents to all peoples what can be achieved when people come together in a common cause, set aside differences, work together in a very determined way to make life better for them and their children. I recognize this important anniversary. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask that I be notified when I have consumed 6 minutes.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I also rise on the Senate floor today to talk about the crisis we face in terms of gasoline and energy prices and the need for us to act in terms of this true crisis that affects every Louisiana family I represent and every American family this body represents. When this new Congress, led by Democratic leadership, took office, energy prices, gasoline prices were supposed to be a top priority. At the time, the price at the pump was $2.31. Yet today it has risen to $3.76 a gallon. That is a 61-percent increase. If this was such a priority at $2.31, if we have had this dramatic increase, the fastest, the most dramatic, the most onerous on the consumer in history, why isn't this leading to action? The simple reality is that it is not. This Congress has been tangled in inaction, unable to take significant action on this issue, and that has to end for the good of the American people. As my colleague from Texas reiterated, this is not overly complicated. Price is set by the equation of where supply meets demand. That is economics 101. That is the first lesson of economics. So we need to do everything we can to reduce demand, mitigate worldwide demand, which is clearly increasing, particularly from rapidly growing countries such as China and India, and we can do that through conservation, fuel efficiency, and new sources of energy. But we also need to increase supply. We need to do both at once because our energy picture is so challenging and so dire. So I rise to join my colleagues who are saying we need to act, we need to break out of this gridlock, we need to act on energy prices which affect all American families. Unfortunately, we had that opportunity in the last several weeks and, once again, the Senate passed on the opportunity, shut down the opportunity to take real action. Again, this is an enormous challenge, and we need to do everything we can, both on the demand side--and I support those measures: increased energy efficiency, increased levels of conservation, development of new technology and new energy sources. We have done a little bit of that, but we need to do more. But we also need to act on the supply side, increasing our supply of energy, particularly our domestic supply which increases our energy independence, lessens our dependence on unfriendly foreign nations. Several weeks ago, we were on an FAA bill, and I had an amendment at the desk that would constitute real, meaningful action. It was very simple. It would have established a trigger at the price of $126 per barrel of oil. When the price reached that mark--and we are, unfortunately, perilously close already--then the trigger would have been pulled, and we would have been able to explore and produce off America's Outer Continental Shelf, where we have vast resources of energy. But we would only do that with two significant caveats, with two significant demands. The first is that the host State involved, wherever we were proposing drilling, would have to want that activity. The Governor and the State legislature would both have to affirm that they wanted to produce off their coast. It is very important, very fair, respecting State sovereignty and States rights. Secondly, my amendment would have built on provisions we passed several years ago to give those host States significant royalty sharing so anything produced off their coast, 37.5 percent of that royalty would go to the State for the State to use on its top priorities, whether they be highways or higher education or, in the case of Louisiana, coastal restoration, hurricane protection, hurricane evacuation routes. That was a very sound, sensible policy we set a couple years ago as we opened new areas of the gulf. My amendment, which I had at the desk for the FAA reauthorization bill, would have expanded on that good policy initiative. Unfortunately, we couldn't have a full debate on that amendment. We couldn't have any vote on that amendment because the Democratic majority leader filled the amendment tree, took up all opportunity for amendment for himself and blocked all other amendments from coming to the floor. That is unfortunate on any issue. It is particularly unfortunate, again, on the top concern of the American people, when prices at the pump are sky-high and continuing to rise, when they have risen from $2.31 a gallon at the beginning of this Democratic Congress to $3.76 a gallon today--a dramatic, onerous, 61-percent increase. Yesterday, we had another opportunity to break through the gridlock and act, and it was by adopting the McConnell-Domenici amendment. That amendment proposed a number of measures, including something very similar to my Vitter amendment regarding the Outer Continental Shelf.

Mr. VITTER. I thank the Chair. That McConnell-Domenici amendment included a number of measures, something very similar to my proposal with regard to the Outer Continental Shelf. It would have dramatically expanded our domestic supply. It would have done something real, concrete and meaningful and have a significant impact over time on the price at the pump. Yet again, the Senate refused to act, refused to move forward with that significant proposal that would do major things on the supply side and would couple it with other actions we are taking and further actions we need to take on the demand side. Instead, we did something extremely modest. We said: For now, we are not going to continue to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I supported that move. It is true that will free up 70,000 barrels of oil to put into the open market versus pumping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but that is very modest. That is hardly going to make a dent on the price at the pump. In contrast, all the provisions of the McConnell-Domenici amendment, all that extra supply domestically would have meant 3 million barrels in contrast to 70,000. Yet again, the Democratic leadership and the Senate overall refused to act, refused to address this issue, the most serious that Americans are facing today, the one that hits their pocketbook over and over, causing them real concern about their family budget and how they are going to make it. I urge the Senate to get out of this do-nothing attitude. I urge the Senate to act on this crucial issue for all American families. Again, this is not brain surgery. This is economics 101, supply and demand. It is not either/or. We need to do everything we can to lessen demand, and I support those measures to increase efficiency, to increase efforts at conservation, to increase new technology efforts that will lead us to new fuel sources. That is absolutely necessary. But it needs to be coupled with action to increase supply, particularly domestic supply, by tapping those vital reserves, particularly on our Outer Continental Shelf. I join the Senator in Texas in asking, if we are not going to do it now at $3.76 a gallon, when are we going to act? Are we going to wait for $4? Are we going to wait for $5? We need to act now. This is a serious issue for all Americans. This hits the pocketbook of every American family. We need to act now. We need to act not with political demagoguery, not with pure rhetoric. We need to act with measures that have an impact, both on the demand side and the supply side. I hope the Senate and the Congress move to do that.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the McConnell-Domenici amendment because it does what we need to do to address this real crisis in our country--crippling energy prices, rising energy prices that hit the pocketbook of every Louisiana family I represent and every American family, that is causing grave concern about our economic future. I am afraid what we heard from the distinguished Senator from New Mexico just now is more of the same excuses we have heard for a couple of years now: why we can't do this, can't do that, and can't act in general. What has that inaction, that paralysis, those excuses all led to? I will tell you what it has led to. It has led to soaring energy prices. In January 2007, when this Democratic Congress took office, the average price of a gallon of gas was $2.33 at the pump. Today, it is $3.72--a 60-percent increase. That is what those excuses, that is what that inaction has led to. We need to do a number of things across the board on the demand side and on the supply side. This Domenici-McConnell amendment includes all of those. Does it include every one of them? No. No single proposal is ever going to include every good idea out there that we probably need to act on, but it includes a lot on which we need to act. I want to focus on one part of the amendment in particular of which I am very supportive, and that is opening more of our Outer Continental Shelf to exploration and production. I believe one of the most important things in energy policy that we have done since the short time I have been in the Senate is to open new parts of the Gulf of Mexico with revenue sharing. This provision in the Domenici-McConnell amendment will expand on that precedent. It would say we can open areas of the Atlantic and the Pacific, but with two very important caveats, both of which are great policy. First of all, the host State, the State off which the activity would occur, has to want the activity, has to agree to it. The Governor has to say: Yes, we want this activity off our waters. And secondly, that host State in return would get significant revenue sharing, exactly the same revenue sharing we passed a few years ago, 37.5 percent to go to the host State to meet its environmental or educational or highway or other needs. That is sound policy. We passed that policy for new areas of the gulf that were opening. We need to expand on that policy to dramatically increase our domestic energy production, and we can do that safely and in an environmentally friendly way. There is much the McConnell-Domenici amendment does that is needed as well, but I wanted to highlight that point because it is so absolutely crucial and important. It builds on good policy we set a few years ago. It expands on that precedent, and I believe expanding on that precedent can significantly increase our domestic energy resources in this country. Do we need to do other things? Absolutely. Do we need to act on the demand side further? Absolutely. This isn't brain surgery. Economics 101 tells us that price has to do with two lines on a graph: the demand line and the supply line. We need to mitigate, bring down demand, and we need to increase supply. I am for any reasonable policy that does those two things. On the demand side, conservation, greater efficiency, new sources and forms of energy--absolutely. I am going to agree with Senator Dorgan and vote for his amendment regarding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Like Senator Domenici, I have changed my mind on that issue because the increases in price at the pump have gotten so dramatic and so outrageous. So that can mitigate demand increases as well. But as we make all of those efforts on the demand side--and we need to do more--we cannot constantly ignore the supply side, particularly the domestic supply side. That is exactly what this Congress has done for the last 2 years. Mr. President, $2.33 price at the pump then; $3.72 price at the pump today. Let's act, and let's act now. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, periodically new flood maps are issued by FEMA. When a new flood map comes out, some properties that used to not be in a flood zone may now be in a flood zone, or move from a lesser to a more severe part of a flood zone. This amendment would simply say we are going to charge higher premiums, absolutely, but we will transition that over 5 years instead of the 2 years in the bill. The 5 years is the same provision as in the House bill. I think it is a reasonable transition, still getting to that new higher premium.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple and modest. It simply updates the coverage limits available for a flood policy which have not been updated at all since 1994. It does not even take into account all inflation since then, just most inflation. It is what the House did. And under the CBO study of the House bill, the CBO said it does not increase the cost of the bill because people will obviously pay significantly higher premiums for the higher limits. This is a very modest updating of the limits. I ask for the support of my colleagues. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their cooperation and help on this bill. As they know, this issue and this bill is an enormous concern for all of us in coastal regions. In particular, my colleague from Louisiana and myself and the two distinguished Senators from Mississippi have been very focused on this bill and on several amendments, also, that we believe are absolutely critical to improve it as we reauthorize this necessary program. As we have told the chairman and the ranking member in discussions over many weeks, we have no intention to obstruct and filibuster and stand in the way of reauthorizing this important program. But we do have to have the ability to have a fair debate and a set of votes on crucial issues, amendments that are important to us. In that spirit, in that vein, we took all of our amendment ideas and narrowed them down dramatically to a universe of about six or seven amendments between the four Senators from Louisiana and Mississippi. We have had productive discussions in that regard with the chairman and the ranking member. I wanted to engage in this discussion to receive assurances that the chairman and ranking member will do everything possible to ensure that our narrowed-down universe of crucial amendments gets quick, efficient but fair consideration on the Senate floor and a vote.

Mr. VITTER. On behalf of my colleague from Louisiana, my two colleagues from Mississippi, and myself, I thank the Senator and the ranking member again for their cooperation. We look forward to that very efficient but full and fair debate and vote on those amendments that are important to us. I will very quickly confer with the rest of them and make sure they do not have any outstanding issues, so we can move forward and get going. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise in very strong support, with so many of my colleagues, of the Wicker amendment. As Senator Martinez has talked about Florida, Senator Wicker has talked so eloquently about Mississippi, so, too, in Louisiana it is an absolute imperative that we address the wind liability coverage issue in this larger debate. The single greatest obstacle to recovery in both of our States hit by Katrina and Rita is insurance. For so many of my constituents, insurance on the wind liability side is unavailable or, if it is available, completely, absolutely unaffordable. This Wicker amendment will give folks a new option. It won't mandate it, it won't push them into that program, but it will give them an option. Most importantly, it will give them an option without increasing any burden or risk to the taxpayer. I want to repeat something that has been said, but it is vitally important for everyone to understand before we vote; that is, the CBO has made perfectly clear this amendment does not make the bill more expensive. It does not make the program more expensive. It does not cost the taxpayer for a very simple reason: There is a mandate in the language that premiums be set in an actuarially sound way to cover the risk. I strongly support the Wicker amendment. Amendment No. 4722 to Amendment No. 4707 Having said that, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up Vitter amendment No. 4722.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment is basic and straightforward. This amendment would increase the coverage limits for flood policies under the National Flood Insurance Program. Why do we need to do that? For a very basic reason. Those dollar limits have not been changed in 14 years. They haven't been changed at all, adjusted for inflation or anything else, since 1994. So it is way past overdue to update these coverage limits in a reasonable way. This Vitter amendment 4722 would do just that. But, in fact, it wouldn't even fully take into account inflation since 1994. It would fall a little short of that. We chose the increases because my increases in amendment 4722 are exactly what the House of Representatives has already passed, merely updating those limits to take into account most but not even all of inflation since they were last set in 1994. I share with the chairman and ranking member the goal of making this program more fiscally sound, more actuarially sound. But we will completely frustrate that goal if we have a program with extremely low coverage limits and people can't buy the coverage they need. What will happen if we allow that? More and more storms will hit, and people who have flood insurance coverage will not have nearly enough coverage, so there will be pressure--every event, every storm--to come to Congress for emergency measures above and beyond the flood insurance program. That isn't a path to fiscal soundness. A path to fiscal soundness must include some reasonable updating of coverage limits. This amendment would do that. Finally, this was included in the House version of the bill. It did pass the House overwhelmingly. In the context of the House bill, the Congressional Budget Office said it did not add to the cost of the bill in any way because increased premiums go along, of course, with increased coverage limits. The CBO said, in light of those increased premium payments, which go along with increasing coverage limits, there isn't an addition to the cost of the bill. It is a net wash in terms of the cost to the taxpayer and to the bill. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to look hard at this amendment. It is a sound, modest amendment to update the program. It is perfectly consistent with fiscal soundness. I would hope we can get a strong resounding vote in favor of the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, in response, I respect very much the views of the ranking member. But, No. 1, at least with regard to the House bill on which I have seen the CBO analysis, the CBO said it did not add to the cost of the bill because higher premiums obviously come with a higher coverage limit, if folks choose to buy that. Secondly, if we have coverage limits which are way too low and a big event hits, that is going to shove us in a direction away from fiscal soundness because it will make extraordinary emergency measures necessary in response to that event by this Congress, rather than having an insurance system capable of covering the loss. Amendment No. 4723 to Amendment No. 4707 I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so I may call up amendment No. 4723.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, in the interest of moving this bill along and moving through as many issues as possible efficiently, I will explain the amendment briefly. This amendment deals with those properties which have an increased risk because of the issuance of new flood maps. Every time there is an event, of course, whether it is a small event or a huge one, such as Katrina and Rita, there are new flood maps developed over time by FEMA. If a property is a greater risk under those new flood maps, under this underlying bill premiums would go up. I have no objection to that. They should go up. But I do think we need to temper that with a reasonable time period over which to spread out that increase. This underlying bill says that increase would happen all in 2 years. My amendment would change that to mirror the provision in the House bill and would spread that increase over 5 years instead of 2. This is a reasonable, modest measure to make this movement toward fiscal responsibility and actuarial soundness reasonable and manageable by the premium payer. Some of these changes, particularly after an event such as Katrina or Rita, can be quite dramatic. To say that all of that change, all of that premium increase happens over 2 years is going to be a huge, whopping bill that is going to stop a lot of folks from being able to be insured over time. I think this change to have that phased in over 5 years is reasonable. It does not lose sight of the goal of fiscal soundness and actuarial soundness, but it is a reasonable accommodation to folks who are in a very different circumstance because of a brandnew flood map. With that, Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the measure, and I yield back the floor.