David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Yes.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and I call up amendment No. 2774 and I will speak on that for 5 minutes.

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple and straightforward. In fact, perhaps I should not have waived reading of it. It is a few sentences. So I will do it myself: None of the funds made available under this Act may be made available to any international organization, agency, or entity (including the United Nations) that requires the registration of, or taxes a gun owned by a citizen of the United States. That is the entire amendment, the entire sum and substance of the amendment. As such, it is a straight funding limitation amendment, which has been ruled by the Parliamentarian as completely germane. This is a version of a full-blown, freestanding bill that I have filed in the past, specifically last Congress. It was S. 1488. I filed that bill and had 17 cosponsors. Many folks who haven't followed the proceedings on this in the U.N. may ask: What is this all about? Why is this necessary? Unfortunately, it is about an effort in the United Nations to bring gun control to various countries through that international organization. Unfortunately, that has been an ongoing effort which poses a real threat. This goes back to 1995, when this issue of international gun control was first put before the U.N. General Assembly. Then, in 2001, the General Assembly adopted a program of action designed to infringe on second amendment rights. In fact, from July 11 to 15 they met at the U.N. in New York City to finalize some agreements on that. It is of significance that Dr. Rebecca Peters is the new head of that effort in the U.N. and, in particular, the entity within the U.N. that leads that International Action Network on Small Arms. That may not be a household name but perhaps it should be, particularly to second amendment advocates, because Dr. Peters is the person who led Australia's massive effort at far-reaching gun control. She has been very vocal on the subject, debating, for instance, Wayne LaPierre of the NRA on numerous occasions. Other pro-gun control advocates would help facilitate procedures within the U.N. program of action that could very well impact and infringe U.S. citizens' second amendment rights. Therefore, again, that gets back to the Vitter amendment, which simply says we are not going to support any international organization that does that; that requires a registration of U.S. citizens' guns or taxes U.S. citizens' guns. If other folks in this Chamber think that is not happening, that it is never going to happen, my reply is simple and straightforward: Great, then this language has no effect. It is no harm to pass it as a failsafe. It has no impact. But, in fact, related efforts have been going on in the U.N. since at least 1995. I hope this can get very wide, bipartisan support, and I urge all my colleagues to support this very fundamental, straightforward amendment. I yield back my time.

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment is very straightforward, and I will read it word for word. None of the funds made available under this Act may be made available to any international organization, agency, or entity (including the United Nations) that requires the registration of or taxes a gun owned by a citizen of the United States. Unfortunately, Mr. President, this amendment is necessary because of efforts within the United Nations that have been ongoing to push gun control on the world stage through the U.N. This has been going on initially since 1995 but in all seriousness particularly since 2001. Many folks within the United Nations have pushed very hard for their so-called program of action. Specifically, Dr. Rebecca Peters has been head of that effort. She became very well known for spearheading the massive gun control effort in Australia. Mr. President, I urge a very strong bipartisan vote on this measure so we send a clear message to the U.N. that we will not tolerate this sort of movement and we will not send any U.S. taxpayer dollars to any entity, including the U.N., that does this. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays again.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Now I send a technical modification to the desk.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this is an important amendment in the context of what we are doing with regard to the SCHIP program. It will ensure that families who are now covered by health insurance stay covered and are not, in fact--perhaps unintentionally but are nonetheless--kicked off or encouraged to leave their current health insurance for the SCHIP program. It is an issue called crowding out. The goal of the amendment is very clear. We want to encourage children who are eligible for SCHIP but currently have access to employer coverage to use that employer coverage. If they have difficulty maintaining that because of costs, we want to give States the flexibility so they can maintain that coverage. What we do not want to do--certainly what I do not want to do, what Senator DeMint does not want to do, and I hope what the huge majority of Members of this body do not want to do--is create a mechanism to push people off good private insurance or to encourage them to drop good private insurance or to encourage employers to drop that coverage simply because we are reauthorizing and perhaps expanding SCHIP. No child and no family should be forced onto any Government health insurance program if they are currently insured otherwise through the private sector, through the employer, et cetera. CBO's own numbers show that 40 percent to 50 percent of the kids covered under SCHIP and 40 percent to 50 percent of those who would become eligible under this SCHIP expansion are, in fact, kids who are shifted out of private coverage into SCHIP. The CBO analysis on this issue is very clear on this point. In my mind, there is no reason the taxpayers should be paying for that insurance for folks already on good private sector insurance. We should not be encouraging this very significant shift, this very significant crowding out. As I suggested, opponents of this amendment might say: We are not for that because it may be too costly for some of these families to pay premiums in private plans even if they are currently on them. We recognize that argument and that reality. Our amendment--this is very significant--our amendment allows premium subsidies for these individuals who need that to keep them on their current private coverage and to ensure that coverage is affordable. We maintain State flexibility in implementing those subsidies. We give the States enough leeway, enough flexibility to create and maintain those subsidies to keep folks on good private insurance. The Vitter-DeMint amendment requires individuals who are eligible for SCHIP but currently have employer coverage to continue to use that coverage. If they truly need help, truly need premium subsidies, States have the flexibility to do that. I believe the clear majority of the public and the majority of those in Congress support Government help to those who need it. But just as true, a clear majority of the public, a clear majority of us do not want to create an incentive to kick people out of insurance they have. We do not want to create an incentive for employers to end or limit insurance they have. That would be a very negative consequence of these good intentions. Our amendment prevents that to a great extent. In doing so, I have to say I think it draws a clear philosophical divide: Do we give people the resources, the ability to continue with their current quality care in the private sector or are we, in fact, all for pushing people into a one-size-fits-all Government-run program rather than allowing them that choice and that quality care in the private sector? My amendment says absolutely, if they are covered in the private sector, we want to encourage that to continue. We want to make sure that can work. We don't want to kick them out. We don't want to encourage employers to kick them out. But part of that is assisting families who really do need help to maintain that. That is a very important part of the Vitter-DeMint amendment also. I think this is an idea which should have broad consensus and bipartisan support. I look forward to that on the floor of the Senate and invite my colleagues to look at this and then support the Vitter- DeMint amendment, No. 2596. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside any pending business so that amendment No. 2596 may be called up.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to add Senator DeMint as a cosponsor of the amendment.

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this is also a crowding-out issue, which I think is a very important and central issue in this debate. I am for a safety net. I am for insuring children who aren't insured, who can't get health insurance otherwise. What I am not for is pushing kids who are on perfectly solid ground off that solid ground and into the safety net. That is what, in part, this very large SCHIP expansion would do, perhaps 50 percent of the new SCHIP enrollees being folks--kids--who have private insurance. Now, that is wrong and it is also very expensive to the taxpayer. What this amendment does is simple: It says we are for a safety net, but we are not for pushing people who are on solid ground into the safety net. And if they have difficulty staying on that solid ground in terms of affording their premiums, we are going to allow States to have premium subsidization, premium support to be able to keep those folks on good private insurance. That is what we should do, rather than push people off solid ground into the safety net at great taxpayer expense. I yield back my time.

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, at this point I send a modification to the desk.

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, let me thank both the majority leader and the Democratic manager of the bill, Senator Murray, for their work, for their amicable resolution of this issue. I think it is a very good bipartisan, productive, amicable result. I appreciate all of you working together in that regard. I also extend my thanks to Senator Cochran, the Republican manager of the bill, who was also very helpful in that regard in coming to a productive, amicable resolution. I appreciate all of that work. I just wanted to underscore the importance of what we have done because I think this is a very important issue for the people of Louisiana, for the people of the entire United States. Last year, on this very same bill, I joined with you, Mr. President, and we were successful in passing an amendment on the Senate floor, and then in the conference committee we were successful in passing a version of that out of the conference committee into law. That was an important step forward at the time to ensure we would not have Federal agents, we would not have the heavy hand, if you will, of the Federal Government coming down to rip out of people's grasp--U.S. citizens-- pharmaceuticals they had bought properly in Canada as they were coming back into our country. I think the policy of doing that in the past was outrageous, particularly considering the sky-high prices American consumers face in the United States and the very different lower prices they face in Canada. So that step forward a year ago was very important. I think what we just agreed to a few minutes ago, what will be on this bill, is an even more significant step forward because compared to what came out of conference and what was signed into law last year, this takes two additional steps. First of all, we are no longer saying it is limited to prescription drugs on the person of an American citizen. What that means is that we are also including protection of Internet and mail order sales. That is enormously important for you, Mr. President, representing the State of Florida, and for me, representing the State of Louisiana. It is one thing for folks in Minnesota to travel to Canada and to come back; it is obviously a very different thing for folks in Florida or Louisiana to physically travel to Canada and come back. So compared to what we got passed into law last year, this is far broader and far more significant because it also covers mail order and Internet sales. The second big difference is, again, what we passed last year was limited to a 90-day supply, and what we are passing on the Senate floor right now has no such limitation. Again, I think that is another significant step forward, a significant expansion of the law on the road to full-blown reimportation. Again, I thank everyone who was involved in this very productive resolution. We got a resounding vote a year ago--68 to 32. We got, technically, even a better vote today, in the sense that it was voice voted, unanimous consent, so technically unanimous. We got a much broader provision today, which I think is a very important step forward on the road to my ultimate goal, which is full-blown reimportation with all the requisite safety provisions and authorizing language that would be involved. Of course, we cannot do that authorizing legislation on this bill because it is an appropriations bill, but we can, we should, we must, on another vehicle soon, very soon, absolutely this year. I look forward to continuing to work with you, Mr. President, with other leaders on this issue, Senator Snowe, Senator Dorgan, Senator Thune, Senator DeMint, and many others who completely support the ultimate objective of full-blown drug reimportation to allow American consumers unbridled access to safe, cheaper prescription drugs, including by mail order and the Internet. Again, I believe the step we are taking here tonight, compared to what we were able to pass into law through the Vitter-Nelson amendment last year, is an important additional step in removing the limitation that it has to be on your person, so saying we can do it by mail order and the Internet, and by removing the limitation of a 90-day supply. With that, I again thank all of the participants for this very positive, amicable, bipartisan resolution of the issue on this bill. I look forward to continuing to walk down this path toward the ultimate goal I share with you and so many others on the Senate floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. I object.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, simply so I can understand the posture we are in and the nature of this amendment, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so that my amendment at the desk may be called up, amendment No. 2488.

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I will be happy to explain exactly what the modification is. The modification simply takes one phrase out of the previous version of my amendment. And that single phrase in the old version of my amendment limited the amendment to a 90-day supply of prescription drugs. That limitation is now taken out of my amendment. That is the only thing the modification does. Now, the purpose of the modification is to now make it a pure funding limitation amendment so that it is not subject to the point of order of authorizing on an appropriations bill. That is the full explanation of the modification.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, just to be transparent and clear to everyone, this modification of my amendment takes out a specific provision limiting the amendment to a 90-day supply.