David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I ask the Chair to tell me when 3\1/2\ minutes elapses, and I will wrap up very quickly thereafter to use a maximum of 4 minutes. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this WRDA bill and in strong support of the managers' amendment which is now finalizing the Senate version of the bill. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were devastating events on Louisiana. Even before those devastating events, any WRDA bill would be enormously important to us because we live with water resources all around us because of our coast, which is a vibrant, working coast. But because of the hurricanes, this WRDA bill is even that much more vital in terms of our security and our future. Passing this WRDA bill through the Senate and hopefully soon on to the President's desk is an enormous step in our recovery. I wish to thank everyone who has been so helpful in that step, starting with our chair, Senator Boxer, and our ranking member, Senator Inhofe. They have been enormously cooperative and enormously helpful. Also, Senators Isakson and Baucus, the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, have been very helpful. Our great staff have also been enormously helpful in this process. Through this bill, we have been able to meet a number of urgent needs of Louisiana following the hurricanes. Corps reform is done the right way in this bill, particularly for Louisiana, through language which I drafted for a Louisiana Water Resources Council. It will serve as the exclusive peer-review entity for all four projects in the Louisiana hurricane disaster area, and that is a very positive, proactive version of Corps reform for Louisiana projects in this bill. The Louisiana coastal area project, our forward-looking coastal restoration program, is fully authorized in this bill. We lose a football field of land every 38 minutes in Louisiana, and in the horrible days after the two hurricanes, we lost 217 square miles of wetlands. Addressing that is authorized in this bill, and many other things, such as repairing our levees to a true 100-year level of flood protection, fixing the outfall canals in New Orleans, replacing the flawed I-walls with T-walls, preventing future flooding on the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, the closure and restoration of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, and authorizing the very important Morganza to the Gulf Hurricane Protection Project. These are all enormously important. That was largely done in committee. Here on the floor, I proposed a number of amendments. I worked with my colleague from Louisiana and others, and we adopted a number of other important amendments about MRGO to make sure it is closed once and for all; clarifying that 100-year standard; eliminating obstacles to the renovation of the Industrial Canal Lock; providing credit to Lafourche Parish for work on their hurricane protection projects; authorizing the first and second phase of coastal restoration; and creating a real integration team for Corps reform. Last, but not least, we just agreed on a crucial amendment to have an expedited process to consider the next generation of projects to provide our area true category 5 protection. That is absolutely crucial. That has been a top priority of mine, and I just finalized that negotiation here off the Senate floor. So I am very excited, because it is hot off the press, to announce we will have that expedited process to make sure the next generation of protection gets expedited consideration by the Corps and by the Congress. So thanks to all of the leaders who have been so helpful in this process. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Commitee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 200 Whereas jockey Calvin Borel successfully won the 133rd running of the Kentucky Derby at Churchill Downs on May 5, 2007; Whereas Calvin Borel rallied Street Sense from 19th place to pass the pacesetting Hard Spun in the stretch and draw away to a 2\1/4\-length victory; Whereas the victory was Calvin Borel's first in the Kentucky Derby; Whereas Calvin Borel was born on November 7, 1966, in St. Martinsville, Louisiana; Whereas Calvin Borel hails from South Louisiana, the heart of Cajun Country, famous for its production of many top jockeys during the last 20 years; and Whereas Calvin Borel's victory in the 133rd running of the Kentucky Derby solidifies his place in a tradition of Louisiana jockeys who have won the Kentucky Derby, such as Eric Guerin (1947), Edward Delahoussaye (1982, 1983), Craig Perret (1990), and Kent Desormeaux (1998, 2000): Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) commends Louisiana jockeys for their continued success at one of America's most heralded thoroughbred horseracing events, the Kentucky Derby at Churchill Downs; (2) recognizes jockey Calvin Borel for winning the 133rd running of the Kentucky Derby on May 5, 2007; (3) recognizes the achievements of all the owners, trainers, and support staff who were instrumental in helping Calvin Borel and Street Sense to victory; and (4) recognizes the achievements of all current and former Louisiana jockeys in the Kentucky Derby.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise today to recognize Deacon Joseph T. Lazo for receiving the 2007 Connie M. Hulsey Community Volunteer award presented at the Angels Among Us banquet. I would like to take some time to talk about this great honor. Deacon Joe Lazo is the director of the Covington Food Bank/St. Vincent de Paul Society. He has been known throughout the community as someone who works vigorously to provide many services day and night to those in need. In 2001, Deacon Joe and the St. Vincent de Paul Society worked tirelessly to set up a free medical and dental clinic in the Covington area. Through all of these programs, Deacon Joe Lazo has tremendously helped the needy citizens of the Saint Tammany, Tangipahoa, and Washington Parishes. I applaud Deacon Joseph Lazo on receiving this well-deserved recognition, and I wish him continued success in helping the citizens of the Northshore.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I thank the Senator from Florida. I certainly have similar beliefs. I urge adoption of this amendment I presented and certainly urge my colleagues to also support the broader reimportation language, as will I. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER. I agree with the Senator, absolutely. We should have taken care of this a long time ago. But we are where we are, and I certainly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address this in a full and comprehensive way.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, first, in terms of laying the groundwork for this amendment, let me speak very briefly about the broader reimportation debate. I commend my colleagues who have brought this issue to the floor, and I certainly join them in pushing strongly for reimportation language in this bill. I have worked with many Members of this body, Republican and Democrat, on this issue since I was elected, including the primary authors of the reimportation amendment that we will be voting on later under this bill. I certainly want to join many voices, again, on both sides of the aisle, in terms of the need for this sort of important legislation that helps stabilize and bring down the price of prescription drugs. My amendment, No. 983, to which I will now turn, is very directly related to that. It is not a reimportation amendment per se, but it goes directly to one of the primary issues that opponents of reimportation regularly bring up, which is safety. My amendment, No. 983, is about tamper-resistent technology--packaging technology--which can go a long way in meeting all of those safety concerns. I think there are many legitimate ways we can meet them, but this is a very effective and a very economical way to help meet any of those concerns. This amendment, No. 983, would require the incorporation of counterfeit resistent technologies into the packaging of prescription drugs. Not just reimported prescription drugs, but all prescription drugs because counterfeit prescription drugs is an issue not simply with regard to reimportation. Specifically, wholesale prescription drugs would contain RFID radio-tagging technology, tamper-resistent packaging, and blister security packaging, when possible. This is language directly from my legislation of the last Congress, the Reducing Fraudulent and Imitation Drugs Act. Of course, the purpose of that bill and this amendment is to address that safety concern, which comes up in a number of contexts, but certainly including reimportation. By ensuring that prescription drugs are authentic, this amendment would ensure the drug supply within the United States, as well as prescriptions reimported from Canada and other industrialized nations, are indeed safe. Again, the amendment would require that such technologies be used exclusively to authenticate the pedigree of prescription drugs. It would actually prohibit such technologies from containing or transmitting any identifying information of a health care practitioner or consumer or any advertisement or information about indications or off-label uses. So it is specifically for authentication. This is what you are getting. It cannot be used for any other purpose that might bring up privacy or other concerns. It would also require prescription drug shipments to include a label on the shipper container that incorporates similar packaging technologies. Finally, the amendment would require the Secretary to publish a national specified list of susceptible prescription drugs consisting of not less than 30 of the most frequently counterfeited prescription drugs in the United States. This would provide significant assistance to efforts by U.S. law enforcement and the FDA to deal with this issue. I hope all of us can join together around this very promising new technology that can help meet any legitimate safety concerns out there. Much more broadly speaking, of course, I certainly hope we come together to pass broad-based reimportation language in this bill, which I have supported well before coming to the Senate and, being in the Senate, certainly support in this context.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I renew my unanimous consent request that any pending amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 983 be called up.

Mr. VITTER. I honestly do not know if I am technically a cosponsor. I am certainly supporting it. I supported our common efforts for several years. Many of the elements of my separate bill have been incorporated into the Dorgan-Snowe language, going back to last year. So we are certainly all working in concert. I again recognize and thank the Senator from Florida for our common work on the amendment last year, which he referenced.

Mr. VITTER. Certainly I yield.

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

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that I may call up amendment No. 983.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to encourage all of my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, to support the Cochran amendment as a responsible action. The situation in Iraq is deeply controversial and divisive. As we debate it, everyone here and in the country say they are clearly for supporting our troops in the field and giving them what they need once they are put there to do their mission. That is why just a week or two ago huge numbers of Members of the Senate supported the Gregg resolution, 82 Senators saying clearly: We are going to support the men and women in uniform in the field; likewise, they supported in huge numbers the Murray resolution, 96 Senators, to support the men and women in uniform in the field. I am afraid the path some are urging us to go down today belies that statement, contradicts that statement, and does not support those men and women in uniform in the field. We all know the consequences of the Reid language. That language insists that the President pull our troops out of Iraq on a date certain with no regard at all for the conditions on the ground or the progress being made by our troops or the Iraqi Government. It micromanages the war, taking what is in the purview of the Commander in Chief and bringing it to Congress. The Reid language will absolutely draw a veto from the President. What would that do? It would delay for a significant amount of time getting aid, money, help, and equipment to our troops in the field. We should not go down this path. This language will earn a veto from the President. Indeed, it would earn a veto from any President because it micromanages his responsibilities as Commander in Chief, and that will delay getting resources to folks in the field. Our military leadership has said in no uncertain terms that they must get this supplemental funding to support the troops in the field by mid-April. This language will push all of that well beyond that deadline, will delay it by 5, 6 weeks or more, and endanger our troops in the field by not getting them the resources and equipment they need. That is not right. That is exactly contrary to what almost all Members of this body have spoken for: supporting our troops in the field. This supplemental appropriations bill also has important help for the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the gulf coast, emergency measures that are supported by the President and the Congress but have not yet been fully funded. Just as we are playing politics potentially with our troops in the field with this veto scenario, we would be playing politics with this language, drawing a veto from the President, with the victims of the worst natural disaster in U.S. history. That is not right. It is politics over people. Worse than that, it is politics over our people in uniform. It is politics over our people who suffered the worst natural disaster in history. We should not go down this path. We should not be so cynical and callous. We should put our people in uniform first and get them the funds and support they need in the field as we promise to do speech after speech after speech. Words are cheap. Actions, votes lead to consequences. That is what this debate and what these votes are all about--supporting our troops in the field, supporting the victims of the worst natural disaster in U.S. history. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce very important bipartisan legislation S. 953, the Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act of 2007. This bill will improve America's railroad system by ensuring increased rail competition and enabling rail customers to obtain more reliable service. Today, I introduce S. 953, the Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act of 2007 along with my colleagues Senators Rockefeller, Craig, Dorgan, Klobuchar, Tester, Landrieu, Crapo, Baucus and Cantwell. The lack of healthy competition in our national rail system is stifling rail customers from our petrochemical manufacturers to utility providers to agriculture and forest product providers. The extreme prices these rail customers are charged and the service challenges they face have a direct impact on jobs and prices for consumers. We must reform our railroad system to foster more competition and provide relief to consumers. The Surface Transportation Board, which is supposed to oversee rail pricing and practices, has not proactively addressed rail problems, and government accountability reports have noted a lack of competition in the railroad industry. The Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act will direct STB to do its job and foster a free marketplace for our rail system by addressing the inadequacies in the rate reasonableness process of the STB and directing the STB to actively investigate and suspend unreasonable practices. I would like to share with you a bottlenecking example of how the lack of railroad competition impacts rail customers in Louisiana. The city of Lafayette's electricity customers have faced $6 million or more annually in rate increases because of the lack of railroad competition. The Rodemacher Plant that provides electricity to the Lafayette Utilities System gets its coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. This coal is transported by rail for more than 1,500 miles. Currently, two railroads travel from the Basin to Alexandria, LA. However, the last 19 miles of travel distance to the Rodemacher Plant only has one major railroad provider. Present law allows the current rail provider's control of the last 19 miles to push its pricing monopoly all the way back to the Powder River Basin, which in essence, turns a 19 mile monopoly into a 1,500-mile monopoly. This monopoly forces the Lafayette ratepayers to pay much higher rates than if the Rodemacher Plant had access to both railroads that serve the Powder River Basin. When enacted, the Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act would address bottlenecking issues like this and the lack of competition saving the Lafayette ratepayers money. I look forward to the consideration of S. 953, the Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, on which I serve, and the full Senate.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I, too, rise to talk about this very important matter we are debating and voting on today, the situation in Iraq. First, I want to say hallelujah, we are finally having a full, open debate and a range of votes. That is exactly what I have been pushing for, pleading for, asking for, along with so many of my colleagues on the Republican side. I am very glad finally we do have a full and fair and open debate, with the ability to cast votes on measures we deem very important, and specifically the Gregg resolution about supporting our troops in the field. Secondly, I want to express real reservations about the Reid resolution, which we will also be voting on today. The situation in Iraq is very tough. We need to make a final push, and certainly the biggest part of that push does need to be strong action by the Iraqi Government. We need benchmarks and pressure on the Iraqis to do the right thing. I specifically talked about that. But the Reid resolution does some things I believe we absolutely must not do. Specifically, it sets very precise and complicated and cumbersome dates certain. I believe that is much more useful as a message to the enemy and a help to the enemy than a roadmap for us. In addition, I think the Reid resolution clearly micromanages the war. It clearly oversteps our bounds as a legislative body by taking on the responsibilities and the management and the function of the Commander-in-Chief. Therefore, for that reason, I think that aspect of the Reid resolution is, No. 1, a bad idea, but, No. 2, very possibly unconstitutional. I will be voting against that Reid resolution. But again, I thank everyone who finally, after weeks and weeks of talk--finally--gave us the opportunity for these votes and for a vote on the Gregg resolution and other important matters. The third and final point I want to make goes to the path, unfortunately, I think we are headed down with some of this language. I think this is very unfortunate, and I think this path and where it is headed, in my opinion, is something we must all work to avoid. Let me explain what I mean. Senator Reid has made it perfectly clear he will put forward his resolution today with all of those complicated dates and timetables and what-ifs and benchmarks. Again, I have problems with that; I will vote no. But Senator Reid has also made clear he will also put forward the exact same substance in the context of the emergency supplemental appropriations bill to fund our men and women in uniform in the field in Iraq. Now, why is that a problem? Well, it is a problem for the following reasons: that emergency supplemental bill is needed, as I just said, to fund the men and women in uniform in the field right now, under fire, risking their lives in Iraq. We have all said over and over and over that no matter how we feel about the war, no matter what we put forward as the proper policy on the war effort, we would give our men and women in uniform in the field what they need to do their job and defend themselves. The problem is this Reid language, particularly the threat to put it on the emergency supplemental appropriations bill, threatens to cut that funding off because that language, if it gets on the bill, will, first of all, delay debate and implementation of the bill, and secondly, if it is in the final version of that spending bill, it will absolutely-- absolutely--produce a veto by the President of the United States. He cannot agree to that language because of his position on the proper path forward, and no President can agree to that language because of the constitutional power of the President as the Commander in Chief. That will further delay this emergency spending bill and further delay getting necessary funds and equipment to troops in the field. The military has said very clearly we need to act by April 15 so those funds and that equipment can get to the field starting in early May. Our troops are counting on it. They are waiting for it. These are men and women in uniform, in the field, under fire right now. But, again, this strategy and this language of Senator Reid will make it very likely that won't happen and will make it very likely this whole matter and this whole spending to get to our troops in the field will be significantly delayed. That is not funding men and women in uniform. That is not supporting our troops in the field. What that is doing is refraining from supporting them, slowly bleeding away the resources, the equipment, and the money they need to do their job. It is one thing to say: New troops, you are not going anywhere. You stay right here. We are having this debate. But it is quite another to slowly bleed and endanger troops in the field. Yet this is the path that I am very afraid we are embarking on with the Reid language, particularly if it is put on the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. In closing, let me say, we have all said on this floor, virtually to a person in the U.S. Senate, that no matter what we think about the war, no matter what we think about the right path forward in the war, we will not endanger our troops in the field. We better think long and hard about the path some would adopt because they are beginning to do just that. We can't have that. We need to give our brave, smart, courageous men and women in the field already the money, the equipment, the resources they need to do their job. They are literally under fire there. We cannot bleed away what they need in the field, quickly, slowly, or anything inbetween. Again, I am very concerned that is the path Senator Reid and some others would put us on. So, thankfully, we are having this full and open debate today. We will be having votes today. I believe the most important vote is on the Gregg resolution. I will proudly vote for that in support of our men and women in uniform in the field, and I will do everything I can to avoid slowly, quickly, or anything inbetween bleeding resources, money, and equipment away from what those brave men and women whom we have already put in the field need to defend themselves and to conduct their mission. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Jake Bowers, Emily Ponti, and Krisha Sherburne of St. Thomas More School in Baton Rouge, LA. They are the winners of the 2007 National Engineers Future City Competition, and I would like to take a moment to recognize these talented students in their tireless effort. Starting in September, 30,000 entrants from 1,000 schools began across the country working on their future cities for the National Engineers Future City Competition under the guidance of professional engineers in their local communities. In January the entrants were narrowed down to 105 students from 35 schools to go to the nationals in Washington, DC. St. Thomas More School was one of these talented groups to be chosen. This hard-working group presented their future city of Mwinda in the Congo Republic with the guidance of their teacher Mrs. Shirley Newman, their engineer mentor Mr. Guy Macarios, and the help of Mr. Eric Ponti. The future city design featured renewable energy resources to power the city and hydrogen-powered hover cars and buses to transport citizens around the city. St. Thomas More has made it to the nationals in this competition for the fourth time and is their second national win. I applaud the students from St. Thomas More School for this great honor and wish them continued success in their academic career.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge the bicentennial of St. Martin Parish. As one of the original 19 parishes created from the Territory of Orleans, St. Martin will celebrate its 200th anniversary in 2007. St. Martin Parish was initially established in 1756 by the French Government as the ``Postes des Attakapas.'' It was originally the site of an Indian trading post and was later turned into a Spanish military- administrative center. In 1807, when the Territory of Orleans was divided into the original 19 parishes, St. Martin Parish was the last to be created. The parish at that time included the present parishes of St. Martin, St. Mary, Lafayette, Vermillion, and Iberia. The structure of St. Martin Parish has remained virtually unchanged since 1868. It is divided by an arm of Iberia Parish into the upper and lower portions of the parish. The upper portion consists of the communities of St. Martinville, Breaux Bridge, Parks, Henderson, and a portion of Arnaudville. The lower portion borders the East Atchafalaya Basin Levee and consists of the unincorporated areas of Stephensville and Belle River. A population rich in diversity and cultural theory calls St. Martin Parish home. In the late 1700s, 3,000 French Canadians fled British persecution, finding refuge in south Louisiana. The birth of Acadiana can be attributed to the settling of 200 of these refugees in present day St. Martinville in 1765. There, the Acadians were introduced to enslaved Africans tending cattle for French landowners. Refugees fleeing the French Revolution as well as Spanish-speaking Malagans also arrived in the settlement. Creole families from New Orleans and Mobile along with Anglo-Americans soon followed. German wheat farmers trying to find a place in the rice industry, along with Italian merchants and Irish workers building the railroads began to call St. Martin Parish home in the 1880s. These founding cultures, French, Acadian, African, Italian, and Spanish, have maintained their cultural identities while simultaneously blending together to form one culture that is uniquely St. Martin Parish. St. Martin Parish encompasses the copious and picturesque regions that extend from the Bayou Teche to the Atchafalaya Basin. An agriculturally prosperous area, St. Martin Parish is comprised of sugar cane fields, low-lying swamps, and majestic waterways. Regal oak trees draped with moss frame passageways throughout the parish. With its distinctive cultures and striking scenery, St. Martin Parish has come to embody the definition of the Louisiana way of life. Today, I would like to applaud the good people of St. Martin Parish on the bicentennial and wish them continued prosperity.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask that the Chair inform me when I have used 6 minutes.

Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, clearly, without doubt, without question, the war in Iraq is the leading concern of the American people, as well it should be. It is a very difficult situation, and a situation that will define our future and our security for years to come. Because it is the dominant, the leading concern of the American people, without any close second, I think it is imperative we have a debate and votes on this crucial question. I would urge the majority leader to come back to the floor and engage in this debate and move forward with this discussion and accept the very reasonable compromise of the minority leader in narrowing down all of the universe of ideas and resolutions to simply two. I will freely admit that is not my first preference in terms of this debate. I had always heard before coming here 2 years ago that the Senate was about open debate, unlimited debate, the ability to get your ideas and your amendments and your resolutions to the floor with very few limits. So I thought, particularly in the context of this very serious situation in Iraq, we needed an open debate, we needed more ideas, not fewer, we needed every significant vote that should be taken. So that was my preference: unlimited debate. But the majority leader rejected that, only would allow very limited votes, very limited debate. At the end of the day--again, it was not my first choice, but at the end of the day, the minority leader said: OK, you want two votes--only two votes--OK. Let's focus on two proposals. Let's have just two votes. But our choice for our one proposal will be the Gregg amendment because we feel so strongly about supporting our troops in the field. And then the majority leader said no, I can't accept that. I need to choose your proposal. I need to choose what you want to put up for a vote. That is not the tradition of the Senate. And, more importantly, that is not treating this very serious issue, the dominant concern among all Americans, bar none, properly. We need to debate this issue now. We need to vote on this issue now. Again, I urge the majority leader to come back to the floor and engage in this debate this week--now-- because the country is concerned now about Iraq. The country has questions, understandably, now about the President's plan. And our troops in the field have questions and uncertainty now about whether we will be standing shoulder to shoulder with them no matter what policy is adopted. Again, I think the minority leader's proposal yesterday bent over backwards--compromise and compromise and compromise--to reach an ability to have this debate we must have on the floor of the Senate. We wanted far more than two proposals debated. We wanted far more than two votes. But we accepted the majority leader's number. We accepted the majority leader's parameters of just two proposals, just two votes. But surely the minority gets to choose one of those two proposals to discuss, particularly given that this Gregg proposal has broad bipartisan support. So let's have this Iraq debate that we must have. Let's have key votes that we must have. And let's do it now. I urge the majority leader, again, not to give up, not to reject this very reasonable compromise, bending over backwards by the minority leader to agree to his number of two. Let's take that up. Let's have this debate. Let's have crucial votes. The American people deserve that, given the very tough situation in Iraq. And our men and women in uniform sure as heck deserve that. They sure as heck deserve to hear from us: OK, we know some of you are for the President's surge plan; we know some of you are against it. But what about supporting whatever troops are put in the field? They sure as heck deserve an answer to that question. And they certainly deserve that reassurance. Let's have that fair debate, and let's have it now. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, Senator Landrieu and I come to the Senate floor for a painful--for us--but necessary task, and that is to live up to our wager with colleagues from the great State of Illinois and congratulate them on the Bears' defeat of the New Orleans Saints in the NFC championship game. Of course, the Bears won fair and square 39 to 14, but that score really doesn't reflect how the game was actually played. It was much closer than that for a long time. The Bears' defense played exceptionally, hats-off to them, strong pass rush that really put the Saints' quarterback, Drew Brees, in some precarious situations. They also played overall a really tough physical game, defensively and offensively. Because of some of the bone-crunching hits delivered by the Bears' defenders, the Saints had multiple turnovers, and certainly that was part of the problem from the Saints' perspective. But, really, I think the Chicago Bears won the game because of their incredible ability to manage field position. Each time the Saints' offense took the field, it appeared as if they had their back to the wall, including when a safety was scored against them. So congratulations to the Chicago Bears. Again, Senator Landrieu and I are here to fulfill our commitment and pay our debt. By the way, we just served Senator Barack Obama's staff a lunch of great Louisiana food, and we are about to do the exact same thing for Senator Durbin and his staff. But as we give the Bears their due, I know both Senator Landrieu and I also want to praise the Saints for an absolutely unbelievable season with the biggest turnaround in NFL history, going from a 3 in 13 last year to the NFC championship game this year. Much more importantly than just that, they serve as a wonderful example of renewal and rebuilding from which we all can learn and emulate in terms of the rebuilding of the gulf coast. A lot of folks say it is just football, it is just sports, but particularly in the context of everything folks in the greater New Orleans area are going through post-Katrina, the Saints meant an awful lot to us this season, and their example of leadership and integrity and great turnarounds and commitment is something we all took pride in and I think something we all learned from. That example is going to be repeated in many other different walks of live as we spur on our recovery on the gulf coast even further. So with that, Mr. President, I again congratulate the Chicago Bears. I congratulate our two Senate colleagues from Illinois. I wish them all the best in this Sunday's Super Bowl. But I also note, maybe they are going to need that good luck because they face another New Orleans powerhouse, Peyton Manning, in Miami. So good luck to them. I yield the floor to Senator Landrieu.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I, too, rise today on the Senate floor to discuss the very serious issue of Iraq and how we move forward there to eventually get our troops home. I have been in the Senate 2 years. Before that, I was in the House for 5 years. That is a relatively short amount of time, but I daresay I believe, as do many of my colleagues who have been here 20 or 30 years, this truly is one of the most important issues we will ever debate and have an impact on. In fact, even for a career that long, it may be the single most important issue we will debate and have an impact on. I hope all of us take that to heart. Don't say it as a truism but understand what that means and what it demands of us. What it demands of us is that we act responsibly and whatever our feelings and point of view, we put them forward in a responsible way for the good of America. What do I mean by that? I primarily mean two things. First of all, each of us as Senators has the right to oppose a plan, including the President's plan. I will be the first to say that. I will be the first to defend my colleagues' right to oppose any plan, including the President's plan. But along with that right comes responsibility, and each of us also has a responsibility to be for a plan to move forward in Iraq. It does not need to be the President's plan, but we sure as heck have a responsibility to be for some coherent plan, in some level of detail. How do we move forward in Iraq for the good of the country, for our security, and for stability in the Middle East? Second, what being responsible means is taking to the Senate floor to impact policy, to take action but not simply to offer words that have no impact in the real world but only serve to undercut the morale and focus of our troops and to embolden the enemy. Some resolutions, which are mere words--they don't constrain any activity of the President or of our troops--I think have that unintended result. They do not limit troops, they do not limit troop numbers, but they sure as heck destroy morale. They certainly embolden the enemy. Don't believe me about that judgment. Turn to very respected military leaders, including GEN David Petraeus, who said that directly, frankly, in his testimony before Senate committees. I have been guided by that responsibility, to face the issues squarely, to be responsible, to be for some plan--not necessarily the President's but some real, detailed plan; to take action on the Senate floor and not float words which can have negative consequences for our troops and also embolden the enemy. After a lot of thought and in that context and after a lot of careful study, including many hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on which I sit, I have decided to support the President's plan as a reasonable attempt to move forward--indeed, as a final attempt to stabilize the situation. But I have also decided to do it in the context of three very strong recommendations which I have made many times directly to the President and to other key advisers, such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, such as the President's National Security Adviser, Steve Hadley, and others. Those three strong, clear recommendations are as follows: No. 1, I do believe, with the Iraq Study Group and others, we need to put even more emphasis on a diplomatic effort and, in my opinion, that should be to encourage and embrace and participate in a regional diplomatic conference that involves all of Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria. This would be very different from direct bilateral talks with either Iran or Syria. With regard to that push, I disagree with that, including, to some extent, the Iraq Study Group. But I do think a regional conference focussed specifically and exclusively on stabilizing Iraq, promoting democracy in Iraq, would be very positive. No. 2, I agree with many that we can be even stronger, clearer, firmer about benchmarks for the Iraqi Government and consequences if the Iraqi Government does not meet those benchmarks. President Bush has talked a lot about what are clear benchmarks, but I have encouraged him to go even further, be even more direct and clear, including in public, about those benchmarks. Those would be things such as the Iraqis continuing to take clear, strong action against all who promote violence, whether they are Sunni or Shia or anyone else; things such as an oil revenue law that must be passed in the very near term; things such as major reform of the debaathification process, which has stirred up enormous sectarian conflict and hatred, particularly from the Shia and Sunnis. Third, I have been very clear in saying over and over and over that we must constantly reexamine these new troop numbers to make sure they can have a meaningful impact on the ground in the short term. I am for trying this as a final attempt, but I am not for throwing too little too late at the effort. I respect the judgment of military leaders such as GEN David Petraeus. I take them at their word, and I respect their judgment that this additional 21,500, coupled with redeployment and reemphasis of troops already in theater, is enough, but I think we have to constantly examine that to make sure we don't make the mistake we have made in the past, which is underestimating troop need. There has been a lot of discussion about the Iraq Study Group report, for good reason. A lot of leading citizens contributed very thoughtful analysis to that report. But I think far too much of that discussion has unfairly portrayed the President's plan and different versions of it, like what I am talking about, as in stark contrast to the Iraq Study Group report. In fact, I don't believe that to be the case at all. It is not exactly the Iraq Study Group report. It is different, but it has enormous areas of overlap. With regard to political solutions that have to happen lead by Iraqis on the ground in Iraq, there is enormous agreement between what I am supporting, what the President is describing, and the Iraq Study Group report. With regard to a diplomatic initiative, there is enormous overlap between what I am pushing in terms of a regional diplomatic conference involving all of Iraq's neighbors and what the Iraq Study Group discusses. Yes, they seem to favor direct bilateral talks with countries such as Iran and Syria. I do not and the President does not. But there is still enormous overlap and agreement on things we can do very proactively and aggressively on the diplomatic front. Even on the military component there is great overlap and significant agreement. In that regard I would simply point to one very important passage on page 73 which states clearly, discussing military troop levels and numbers: We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad or to speed up the training and equipping mission if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective. Well, of course, the new U.S. commander of Iraq is GEN David Petraeus, and he has suggested and asked for exactly that, which is why it is significant in the President's plan. So I urge all of my colleagues to give this issue serious thought, to be responsible, to advocate whatever is in their heart and in their mind but to do it responsibly. Support some plan, and do not throw out mere words that have no concrete effect except undermining our troops and emboldening the enemy. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

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

Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 7 minutes as in morning business, and following that, Senator Landrieu be given permission to speak as in morning business for up to 7 minutes.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment No. 110. It is very simple, very straightforward, very basic, but also very important. It is to reduce, in a meaningful way, the excessive paperwork burden facing small businesses. As I begin, I also want to thank Senator Voinovich for cosponsoring this amendment. As have I, he has long been at work on this issue and has offered great leadership. I thank him for joining with me in this effort. Businesses face enormous hurdles and obstacles and challenges, particularly small business. Unfortunately, one of them has become the enormous paperwork burden created by all levels of government. A small business in Louisiana, depending on the nature and location of the business, has to deal with myriad Federal agencies. Just off the top of my head, these include the EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coast Guard, SBA, Labor, Commerce, IRS, and Customs, to name a few. That doesn't include--and my amendment doesn't pertain to--all of the State agencies with which they similarly have to deal and file paperwork because of regulations from local entities at the governmental level. The compounded effect of this is enormous. All of those requirements, paperwork and others, can be absolutely suffocating. There has been some quantification of this enormous compliance cost. In September 2005, the SBA Office of Advocacy released a study that gave us a glimpse into this. It said businesses with fewer than 20 employees spend more than $7,600 per employee just to comply with Federal regulations. That is a staggering cost. To a truly small business that doesn't have a vice president in charge of compliance, doesn't have a team of lawyers or a team of paper filers in the back office to take care of it, that is a real burden. It distracts the principals of the business from doing what they set out to do, the main focus and mission of the business. All too often, the way those regulations and requirements are administered is in the tone of a ``gotcha'' game, fining small businesses for paperwork violations just to say ``gotcha,'' just for the sake of doing it, of issuing those violations and in some cases of gaining revenue for the department of government. All of that is wrong, and we need to change it. Nobody here--myself included--is arguing that we don't need a legitimate layer of regulation to protect and promote health and safety, the environment, worker safety, et cetera. Nobody is arguing against that. That is not what we are talking about. What we are talking about today is an amendment I offer on the minimum wage bill which includes provisions I introduced separately as the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2007. I thank Mr. Neugebauer of Texas in the House for introducing identical companion legislation, as we both did in the last Congress. Again, this is basic, straightforward, simple, but very important to small business. This is exactly how it would work. It would direct Federal agencies not to impose civil fines for a first-time violation of their agency's paperwork requirements by a small business unless the head of the agency determines the following: the violation has the potential to cause serious harm to the public interest; not issuing a fine may impair criminal investigations; the violation is a violation of Internal Revenue law; the violation is not corrected within 6 months; or the violation presents a danger to public health or safety. In addition, the amendment says that fines can be waived in the case of a violation that could potentially present a danger, if the violation is corrected within 24 hours of the small business receiving notification of the violation. It is important that the first list of those possibilities are mandatory. An agency can't issue civil fines for a first-time violation unless one of those things happens. But the second part of it--fines can be waived unless corrected within 24 hours--is discretionary. A fine doesn't have to be waived in that instance by the appropriate Federal regulatory agency. This is very constrained, very limited, very common sense. Again, the most important part of the provision is, it is first-time violations. It is a small business. It is civil penalties only. We are not talking criminal. We are not talking a big business with a big compliance section. We are not talking a mandatory waiving of fines for health and safety violations where it goes to public health. This is not only a reasonable thing to do, it is long overdue considering the enormous compliance costs I alluded to before--$7,600 per worker for a small business of 20 employees or less--just to take care of Federal requirements. That doesn't count State or local. We are only dealing with Federal because we are the Federal legislature. This bill is particularly relevant to my home following the devastation of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. The small business base in Louisiana was devastated by those horrific events. In many areas, small businesses are starting from scratch, and the whole community of small businesses is starting from scratch as it begins to recover from that destruction. Particularly in that context, they need this sort of reasonable relief--limited, focused civil fines only, first-time violations only, small business only, only mandatory waiver when it doesn't involve a threat to public health and safety, all of the very strenuous and carefully outlined requirements I set out. I hope everybody in this Chamber can come together to support this commonsense proposal. In a broader vein, I hope this is a part--not the only element but a part--of our coming together to pass a minimum wage increase with small business regulatory and other relief. We should not do one or the other in this context; we should do both. That is the reasonable bipartisan compromise which I hope we are moving to on the Senate floor--yes, a minimum wage increase; yes, real and meaningful regulatory and other relief for small business such as the commonsense paperwork reduction act. In addition, I hope that small business relief involves relief in an area that is most important to small business and so many millions of Americans; that is, the ability to access and afford health insurance. We will have amendments about that as well. I urge all Members of the Senate to support this modest commonsense but important measure. I urge all Members of the Senate to come together to support a minimum wage increase with real relief for small business, whether it is dealing with paperwork, whether it is affording or accessing health care insurance--all of those important things small businesses face while continuing to be the engine of job creation, the backbone of our Louisiana and American economy. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Mr. President. Amendment No. 110 to Amendment No. 100 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that the Vitter amendment No. 110 be called up.