David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment and call up my second amendment at the desk.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, in that regard, I will send up three amendments to the desk and I ask that they be considered. I call up the first of those three amendments and I will explain it. I ask that the pending amendment be set aside for that purpose.

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

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, this amendment is very simple. It attacks what is a very significant loophole in current campaign finance law, and that is a big and gaping loophole with regard to Indian tribes. As you know, under Federal campaign finance law, entities such as corporations, labor unions, et cetera, can participate in the Federal political process, but they need to do that, in terms of contributions and finances, through PACs, through political action committees. That is not true with regard to Indian tribes. Indian tribes, unlike every other entity, unlike corporations, unlike labor unions, unlike every entity under the Sun, can give money directly from their tribal revenues--including, of course, their biggest source of revenue right now, which is gambling revenue. So they can take that significant source of money and use that directly, through the leadership vote of the tribe, to give money to political candidates. In addition, there is another part of this big loophole, and that is that some of the cumulative giving limits that apply to every other entity out there--corporations, labor unions, et cetera--do not apply to Indian tribes. Again, this is a very glaring loophole under present Federal campaign finance law. I do not think there is any good rationale or argument under the Sun to retain it. I strongly urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to take a good, hard look at this and vote for and support this very simple amendment which simply closes that loophole. We may have some Member stand on the Senate floor and say: It may be a good idea, but we need to put it off. We are going to look at campaign finance later. We need to talk about this later in a different context. I strongly disagree. When we think about the events of the last year, when we think about the debate, the national concern about corruption and cronyism, certainly there are big stories having to do with Indian tribes at the center of this. Some of the worst abusers of those situations were not the tribal members nor the tribal leadership themselves, but certainly it involved Indian tribes, and certainly the enormous amount of money available to the tribes because of gambling revenue was at the heart of those very bad situations. I think we need to address this now. We need to hit it dead on. It is very much part of the stories and concerns we have heard about over the last year or two. Again, this is very simple, straightforward and very fair--which is to treat Indian tribes exactly as we treat other entities, such as corporations, such as labor unions, et cetera. Certainly allow them to participate in the political process, certainly allow them to fully support candidates of their choice but make them do that through setting up PACs, not simply allow them to spend their gambling revenue or other proceeds directly and in many cases without some of the overall limits that apply to other entities such as corporations. With that, I will be happy to answer any questions or participate in any debate on the floor. I, also, have two other amendments at the desk. Whenever it is in order, I ask to call up those so we may discuss those as well.

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

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, this third amendment is also very clear and straightforward. It increases the penalties significantly in cases in which there is not just a mistake on a financial disclosure form but a knowing and willful and purposeful attempt to hide information that the Member knows is supposed to be made public under the law. It increases those penalties on the civil side, and it, also, under the appropriate circumstances, creates criminal penalties for that. Again, I think this goes to the heart of the erosion of public confidence because of lobbyists and ethics lapses and abuses over the last several years which have clearly involved Members of Congress. Some are in jail now as we speak because of those abuses. This is a very clear and necessary way to remedy those past abuses and that erosion of public confidence. I think it is very important that these penalties are serious on the civil side and on the criminal side but that they only apply to cases where there is knowing and willful misrepresentation, where there is an active and a clear attempt to hide facts, to not comply with the law. Clerical or other mistakes don't cut it. That is not worthy of these very serious civil and, in some cases, criminal penalties. But a knowing and willful misrepresentation, an active attempt to hide facts from the public that the law clearly mandates be made public, that is a different story. We need a zero tolerance policy for that. Again, my amendment increases those penalties on the civil side and on the criminal side, and I urge all the Members of the Senate to support this very important amendment to rebuild that credibility of this body and of the House. In closing, let me say, again, I welcome this activity on the Senate floor. I welcome this debate. I compliment Majority Leader Reid and all others who made this decision to put this issue front and center, first, on the Senate floor in the new Senate. I am eager to pass a strong, responsible bill to restore, to build up over time--it will not happen overnight--the confidence of the American people in our institutions. Since I first came to the Senate, I have worked with various Senators, including a bipartisan working group on these issues, on these proposals last year. But I don't think we went far enough last year. Clearly, we didn't pass a bill through the entire process. But even the bill we passed through the Senate I don't think was strong enough. It did not address some of these crucial areas, including the Indian tribal campaign finance loophole, including the area of abuse where candidates and Members can put family members on the PAC campaign payroll, including making sure we increase civil and criminal penalties for knowing and willful violations. My amendments will do this, and I urge all of my colleagues to take a good, hard look at them. Tomorrow, I will be introducing two, possibly three, other amendments, and I look forward to debating those as well. I appreciate the helpfulness of the managers. I look forward to coming back to these amendments to call them up for full debate and vote. I yield my remaining time.

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

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, this is a second amendment of a package of amendments I am presenting to the full Senate. As I did with the first amendment, what I would like to do--and I have had discussions with the Chair and ranking member, the participants who are leading the floor debate--is I will briefly explain this amendment. I will certainly be happy to engage in a fuller debate at a later time and have a full vote on this amendment, as with the previous one, at a later time, hopefully, in the next few days. This amendment, also, directly addresses a situation that has clearly arisen and clearly caused great concern among the American people in the last couple of years. That is family members of Members of Congress, Members of the House, Members of the Senate, making money-- being paid, in some cases, very large amounts of money--while being employed by that candidate's PAC. Under present law, it is perfectly legal. It certainly doesn't pass the ``smell'' test in the hearts and minds of many Americans, but it is perfectly legal for a Member's campaign to hire a family member, a spouse, a child, any close family member--to help take care of the business of that PAC and be compensated for it, in some cases, with very significant salaries. Let me say at the outset, I believe there are ways that could be done properly and ethically. The problem is, as is the case in so many of these questions, that there are also many ways where it can be and is and has been abused, so it basically puts a family member on the payroll of an entity that the Member of the House or the Senate controls. There is no real governing entity that polices the situation. No one knows whether that person shows up for work or for how many hours or how significant that work is. At the end of the day, through that family member, the family enjoys a significant additional income because that Member of the House or Senate is in politics and controls that PAC. Again, this is not a theoretical problem yet to happen. This is not a solution waiting for a problem. This has been done in real life. This has clearly been abused in the past. It has clearly been a conduit for Members to gain family income through entities they control. I think, because of that abuse, because of the real erosion of public confidence we have seen in Congress because of abuses such as this over the last several years, there is only one sure and clean way to solve the problem and that is to simply have a bright-line test and say: Immediate family members can't get paid by the Member's PAC. We are not going to allow that. You have to hire a nonfamily member for these administrative roles so that no one can abuse the situation and put an immediate family member on the payroll, often at a very significant salary. Again, my amendment is very simple. It says no immediate family member can be hired by the candidate's campaign or leadership PAC, and it defines immediate family member the same way section 110 of last year's Senate-passed bill defined that term, and that is son, daughter, stepson, stepdaughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, mother, father, stepmother, stepfather, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother, sister, stepbrother or stepsister or spouse. It is straightforward, a bright- line rule. To me it is very clear that is the only way we are going to stop this abuse that has occurred in the past and rebuild the confidence of the American people. Amendment No. 7 to Amendment No. 3 With that, if it is appropriate, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside that amendment and call up my third amendment at the desk.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Just very briefly, first of all, I appreciate your kind comments. Very briefly, my comments regarding his and FDA's ability to move forward on this is based on current law, including the Medicare Modernization Act, which says that if they institute a safety regime and certify the safety of these drugs, they can, in fact, move forward with the reimportation regime. So under present law, that is possible, and that is what I was referring to. But I respect the Senator's point of view.

Mr. VITTER. Will the Senator yield very briefly?

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise today to speak against the cloture motion to confirm Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach as Commissioner of the FDA. I have had a public hold on this nomination and have been very upfront about it. Because my serious concerns have not been addressed in any significant way, I will vote against cloture. If cloture is invoked, I will vote against the nomination. In doing so, I want to be clear I have nothing against Dr. Von Eschenbach's technical credentials or professional experience. They are very impressive in many ways. I strongly object to this nomination because the FDA and Dr. Von Eschenbach, acting on orders from the administration, has had a complete and utter lack of action creating a reasonable, safe system for reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada and elsewhere. Clearly, this nomination making him the permanent head of the FDA will only further delay that reasonable implementation of a good, safe reimportation policy. In fact, at my extensive meeting with Dr. Von Eschenbach, my discussion with him made that perfectly clear. I give him credit, I suppose, for being very direct about that, although I am not sure he fully understood my serious interest in reimportation. It is for this reason I will vote against cloture. If cloture is invoked, I will vote against the nomination. The FDA is completely capable of setting up a reimportation system, one that is safe and effective. The FDA can do this. It is not a matter of technical ability. We have great technical and other resources in this country. It is a matter of political will. At any time, the FDA could act and set up this safe and reasonable system. My hold on this nomination, as I said, was very public, upfront, and clear. I made it clear I would lift it, contingent on a very simple request to implement some sort of prescription drug reimportation plan--perhaps beginning with personal reimportation from Canada, including Internet and mail order sales. The FDA could do this. It is fully capable of doing this. It has the know-how to do this. It simply will not because of lack of political will. The need for this is very obvious to me. Every time I talk to consumers in Louisiana, particularly seniors, it becomes more and more obvious. As obvious and as important is the growing support for this-- not just out in the country where that support has always been strong but in the Congress, in the Senate, in the House. The House passed comprehensive drug reimportation language in 2003. It passed it by an overwhelming majority. More recently, the Senate passed my amendment coauthored by Senator Bill Nelson of Florida by a vote of 68 to 32. That was this past July. That was a significant breakthrough because it was the first time we had a meaningful, straight up-or-down vote on a reimportation issue in the Senate. Again, the vote was clear. It was overwhelming. That important amendment passed 68 to 32. All this shows that the majority of Americans strongly support allowing all Americans to purchase safe, cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and elsewhere. Yet the administration absolutely refuses to budge. Not only does the administration refuse to budge, it even went so far as to quietly implement a new policy last year at U.S. Customs and Border Protection to go after individual American citizens crossing back into the United States from other countries--mostly Canada--with medicine, actually seizing their packages containing legal medication at those border checkpoints. That is a very high-handed policy, when these citizens are doing nothing but trying to get absolutely necessary prescription drugs at a reasonable cost. Coupled with the FDA and the administration's stubborn reluctance to implement even the most modern program, this has led me to conclude that no change would be made with the confirmation of this nominee. Again, this is an issue of utmost importance to every American family and, of course, it particularly impacts seniors. I talk to affected families and affected seniors in Louisiana about this all the time. They tell me, at a time when pharmaceutical companies are making record profits, the costs of prescription drugs are still skyrocketing and the very same medicines usually manufactured by the very same companies are sold at a fraction of the costs a few miles north of the border in Canada or in other countries around the world. Louisianians see that and they are very skeptical. They should be. I share that attitude. I share that skepticism. Opposing the right of an American to buy prescription drugs, FDA- approved medication they intend to use for themselves, is a wrong policy. We pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs in America. Our prices subsidize not only rockbottom prices in almost every other country but also sky-high and escalating profits of the pharmaceutical companies. That is not fair. That should not be allowed to continue. That is why we need to pass this important policy of reimportation. Many of my colleagues have spoken about this significant issue in the Senate. In September, my colleague from Michigan spoke of her bus trips with her constituents to Canada where they were able to buy safe, FDA- approved drugs at a fraction of the U.S. cost: Lipitor, a very important cholesterol-lowering drug, for 40 percent less; Prevacid, an ulcer medication, for 50 percent less; antidepression medications such as Zyprexa for 70 percent less. In June, my colleague from North Dakota spoke eloquently about the need to allow the reimportation of safe drugs as a way to pressure U.S. pharmaceutical companies to lower prices here. That is the key, not just offering this option of cheaper drugs from another source but breaking up the present system that allows companies to charge dramatically different prices for the same drug around the world. And, of course, the highest prices in the world by far are right here in the United States. That system will not be able to withstand reimportation. That system will fall with reimportation. So that is why I continue this fight. That is why it is so important. Although certainly this nominee may very well be confirmed by the Senate today, I am very optimistic that, as we make progress on this issue, we march to a very certain victory, probably next year, on the issue. Again, we have been making steady progress. My amendment this past summer--the first vote on the floor of the Senate--was a breakthrough vote that showed overwhelming support here on the floor of the Senate for reimportation. Previous House votes, similarly, showed not just majority support, overwhelming support for this change in policy. Just recently, I again joined with Senator Bill Nelson of Florida to put up another important amendment to the Agriculture appropriations bill that would go a step further. We will continue to pursue that. Then, next year, I fully expect a full-blown reimportation plan to be here on the floor of the Senate for a full debate and a fair vote. So as I oppose cloture, as I oppose this nomination, I do so in that spirit and with real optimism that we are not only making progress, but we will, in fact, win on this issue in the near future. Next year, I expect my bill to be fully debated. In this Congress, that bill is S. 109, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act. I believe it will reach the floor and will get a full debate with other significant bills on the issue next year. I look forward to that continued progress. I look forward to that ultimate victory because Americans, particularly seniors, all across our country, including in Louisiana, need this very important relief. We can give them this relief in a safe, reliable way to dramatically bring down prescription drug prices. With that, I yield back the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues' indulgence to speak on another very important topic, another amendment filed under this bill. And the topic is sky-high prescription drug prices and the ability to temper those prices, to bring them down, to some significant extent, through what is called reimportation, allowing all American consumers a fair, safe opportunity to buy prescription drugs from Canada or other countries. I filed this amendment, amendment No. 5151, on this Agriculture appropriations bill with my colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson. I thank him for all of his work and support on this amendment and on this issue. This follows up on work earlier this year, when we successfully passed an amendment on the Homeland Security appropriations bill. That was a breakthrough vote, particularly on the floor of the Senate, to allow Americans greater access to those safe prescription drugs from Canada at much more reasonable prices. Our amendment on the Agriculture appropriations bill would go a little further still and expand those opportunities for Americans to buy safe, yet affordable, prescription drugs through reimportation from Canada. First, let me step back and speak about the need for this in general because there is a significant need. At a time when pharmaceutical companies are making record profits, the cost of prescription drugs-- many of which are necessary to keep seniors and other Americans healthy or sometimes, in fact, alive--is skyrocketing. And these are the very same medicines that are sold at a fraction of the U.S. cost a few miles north of our border in Canada. With all that going on--again, in the context of sky-high, record pharmaceutical company profits--Americans are deeply skeptical. I am here to say that Americans should be. Opposing the right of an American to buy a small amount of prescription drugs--approved medication they intend to use for themselves--does not make sense to the average American. Yet that is still, to a large extent, our policy. Many of my colleagues have spoken passionately on this floor, the floor of the Senate, about their own neighbors' stories, about how folks in their States have had to go to cheaper markets, such as Canada, to afford their prescriptions. In September, my colleague from Michigan spoke of her bus trips with her constituents up to Canada to get these more affordable medicines. She traveled there by bus with her constituents, and they were able to get safe, FDA-approved drugs at a fraction of the cost in the United States. She told us about her constituents who were able to buy the cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor for about 40 percent less than the U.S. price, the ulcer medication Prevacid at 50 percent less, and antidepressants such as Zyprexa at 70 percent less. In June, another colleague from North Dakota spoke eloquently of the need to allow reimportation of safe drugs as a way to pressure U.S. pharmaceutical companies that manufacture these very same drugs--our companies are the source of the same drugs--to lower prices in the United States. I have spoken over and over again about my neighbors in Louisiana, their struggles, in many cases, to afford these lifesaving and life- sustaining drugs, being torn by various needs--to pay the rent, the food bill, the gasoline bill, energy costs--and yet have to pay sky- high pharmaceutical costs. Clearly, one part of the solution is reimportation, allowing all Americans to buy safe prescription drugs from other countries such as Canada. As I said, I am proud to be joined by Senator Nelson of Florida on this amendment. He joined me several months ago on a similar amendment which we offered to the Homeland Security appropriations bill. It passed overwhelmingly with 72 votes, a strong consensus show of support on the Senate floor. That amendment was very simple. It said: We are no longer going to let the border security bureaucracy of the Federal Government use taxpayer money to take away those cheaper prescription drugs many Americans go into Canada to buy and bring back to their homes. We are going to let those Americans do that because that is fair and right. We were only talking about Canada. We were only talking about taking them back across the border in quantities that are for their personal use, not to go into business to be a middleman selling drugs to other consumers but for their personal use. That amendment not only passed by a strong vote in the Senate, but it remained in the bill through the entire process. After a lot of fighting, a lot of discussion and argument and work on this crucial issue, we were able to retain an important version of that amendment in the final version of the Homeland Security appropriations bill. President Bush signed it into law. Now we have made that important change that says Americans can go into Canada, buy those safe, cheaper prescription drugs for their personal use and bring them back without border security agents taking them away, confiscating them, and having them out the cost, trouble, and time of their trip. Today Senator Nelson and I offer amendment No. 5151 to the Agriculture appropriations bill. Of course, that bill covers the FDA as well. This amendment builds upon our earlier work and our earlier success and applies that same policy to the Food and Drug Administration, which is another enforcement arm of the Government on this topic. Again, it is simple. We are simply saying: Our taxpayer dollars should not be used to confiscate those prescription drugs bought by Americans in Canada. Just as it should not be used to confiscate them at the border as Americans cross back across the border to their home country, so, too, that bureaucracy, those taxpayer dollars, should not be used to confiscate drugs when they come from mail order or Internet sales. That is exactly what our amendment is about--Canada only, personal use only, a thoroughly reasonable, straightforward provision to honor the American people and give them this limited yet reasonable and important mechanism to get cheaper prescription drugs from elsewhere. I am very hopeful that either this week or in the near future this sort of provision will pass, particularly given the strong vote we had on the earlier Vitter-Nelson amendment. I am also hopeful that in the next Congress we will be able to pass a full-blown reimportation bill to allow broad-based reimportation of safe, cheaper prescription drugs into this country. That is needed by Americans, particularly seniors, across the land. It is a fair and reasonable approach. It is not a magic wand, not a silver bullet. It won't solve the challenge of very high prescription drug prices overnight or alone. But it can and will be an important and significant part of the solution. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Nelson of Florida and many others on this vitally important effort. I look forward to our work on this amendment to the Agriculture appropriations bill. I look forward to our following up on the success we had with our amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill. Most of all, I look forward to passing a broad-based reimportation bill early in the next Congress to give Americans what they deserve-- the opportunity, the freedom to buy safe, cheaper prescription drugs from other sources, Canada, other countries, including by mail order and the Internet. This will give Americans access to cheaper drugs. Perhaps even more importantly, it will break down that system that allows pharmaceutical companies to charge dramatically different prices in other countries versus ours. Of course, we pay the highest prices by far. I look forward to that continuing work. I look forward to those victories, because the American people are waiting for it, counting it, depending on it. We can do this with major safety provisions built in to make sure these drugs are safe and reliable, as advertised. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today to highlight the critical need we have in this country for broadband deployment. We are currently ranked 12th in the world in broadband deployment, and we must improve on this meager standing to be competitive in the world market. The telecom reform legislation that has been reported by the Senate Commerce Committee is the right step in encouraging more broadband. I applaud Chairman Stevens and the rest of the committee for reporting this important bill. We need to end bureaucratic regulation on the video and broadband markets so that more competition will come to the marketplace. Americans deserve to have choices in who provides their telephone service, their cable service, and their broadband internet service. We have the opportunity to get this done for our constituents, and I urge the Senate to pass H.R. 5252, The Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunity Reform Act of 2006, expeditiously. Telecom reform has hit the national stage, and I was proud to support the Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunity Reform Act of 2006 when the Commerce Committee carefully considered the legislation. Our committee voted on this bill over 10 weeks ago, so it's time for the Senate to act. This is our chance to get it right on telecom reform and save cable consumers money on their bills. Despite the hard work of the Commerce Committee, some of our colleagues are holding up this important bill. I believe it is past time to bring this bill to the floor for a debate and a vote. This legislation will usher video competition into communities across the U.S., and it will catapult rural areas into the 21st century digital era. By setting national franchise standards, negotiations between video service providers and local authorities will change from a years-long struggle to a maximum of 90 days. Accelerating the entrance of new companies into our communities will increase television choices, which ultimately lead providers to lower their rates and improve their service. By doing away with the unnecessarily long local franchise process, current and new companies can quickly reach rural communities, where we need it most. Small companies that can't possibly break through the existing red tape will be able to quickly roll out quality service to cable- and high-speed-deprived areas. At the same time, larger companies will have opportunities to increase their investment and build better services to reach even more customers. This is a win-win situation for my State and the country. Also, this bill has numerous other critical components--one of which being the assistance it provides to our Nation's first responders. The First Responder Coalition, a group consisting of tens of thousands of concerned citizens and first responders, strongly supports this legislation as it delivers key assistance for interoperability. ``Interoperability'' is a term that refers to local, State, and Federal agencies being able to communicate effectively during the time of a crisis. This legislation will allocate up to $1 billion in much-needed funds to first responders specifically for interoperable communications, and my amendment adopted in committee will speed up the delivery of that important funding. As we witnessed in last year's devastating hurricane season, local governments need dedicated and easily accessible technology so they can communicate with each other, as well as State and Federal authorities in the event of similar circumstances that require critical early responses. In Louisiana, nothing could be more important for us. I am asking us today to heed the call for the entire country deserving for the great benefits of this bill. We have an opportunity to get the job done right--once and for all--for America's consumers. We need choices in television providers, more broadband deployment, vital interoperability funding, and more technology to rural areas. The Advanced Telecommunications Opportunity Reform Act of 2006 is the right next step for us.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I acknowledge the Creative Planters Garden Club of Louisiana. After the catastrophic destruction of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, this organization has dedicated itself to rebuilding the horticulture in Louisiana, and I would like to take a few moments to highlight their efforts. Unfortunately, like many other citizens in south Louisiana, several members of this organization lost their homes to the hurricanes that ravished our State in 2005. While many members of the Creative Planters Garden Club are rebuilding their livelihoods, they are also volunteering their time to rebuild their State. Their priorities include replacing landscape projects devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and replanting the rose garden in New Orleans Botanical Gardens in City Park. It is community involvement like this that enriches our State. For more than 23 years the Creative Planters Garden Club has worked to enhance Louisiana communities by promoting civic stewardship and horticulture education. They have worked in conjunction with many State and local government agencies to teach and encourage gardening to children. I applaud the members of the Creative Planters Garden Club of Louisiana for their continued service to the citizens of their community.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge the Fort Miro Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution in Monroe, LA. Beginning September 17 and ending September 23, this great organization will observe its annual Constitution Week. Today, I'd like to spend a few moments highlighting the importance of their efforts. The Daughters of the American Revolution petitioned Congress in 1955 to set aside a week to celebrate the Constitution. Thanks to their petition, Congress through a joint resolution on August 2, 1956, requested that the president declare September 17 to 23 as Constitution Week. This week sets out to emphasize citizens' responsibilities for protecting and defending the Constitution, inform people that the Constitution is the basis for America's great heritage, and encourage the study of the historical events surrounding its framing in September 1787. This year on September 17 at 3:00 pm, this long-time chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution will participate in ``Bells Across America'' to commemorate the signing of the Constitution and to recognize all citizens of the United States of America. I applaud the Daughters of the American Revolution for their continued dedication to celebrating the importance of the Constitution through education and activism. Moreover, I commend the Fort Miro Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution in Monroe, LA, for doing this fine work on behalf of the State of Louisiana.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 1, 2006, at 11 a.m., in closed session to receive a briefing from the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, August 1, 2006, at 2:15 p.m. to hold a business meeting.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 at 2 p.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226. Panel I: TBA. Panel II: Peter D. Keisler to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit. Panel III: Judge Valerie L. Baker to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California; Francisco Augusto Besosa to be United States District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico; Judge Philip S. Gutierrez to be United States District Judge for the Central District of California.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, August 1, 2006, at 9 a.m., for a hearing entitled ``Offshore Abuses: The Enablers, The Tools and Offshore Secrecy.''

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, August 1, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water be authorized to hold a hearing on interpreting the effect of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in the joint cases of Rapanos v. United States, and Carabell v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on ``The Waters of the United States.''

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, August 1, 2006, at 10 a.m. in 430 Dirksen Senate Office Building for a hearing on nominations.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 1, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., in open session, to receive testimony on the Boeing Company Global Settlement Agreement.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, and I also rise to put its provisions in perspective and to dispel some of the myths and simple inaccuracies that, unfortunately, have been propagated in many places, including on the Senate floor. It is important to understand what this important Energy bill does because it does do significant and important things, and it is also important to understand what this bill does not do because it does not do several things that opponents have claimed. So let's go down these two simple lists. This Energy Security Act does many important things. It brings new sources of domestic energy to the market over the next few years. All of us should agree that is a very important and necessary component of securing our energy future--not the only component, not the only thing we must do but a very important component of what we must do. This bill generates new revenue for the U.S. Treasury. There has been enormous misinformation about that. There have been claims that the producing States are somehow raiding the Federal Treasury. What the States are doing is producing more Federal revenue for the Federal Treasury. If that is a raid, let the raids begin, and we will soon erase the deficit. This bill promotes parity with nearly 90 years of onshore energy production policy by recognizing the importance of reinvesting in our offshore energy-producing areas to ensure the sustainability and liability of domestic energy production and independence. For decades and decades, producing States onshore, on Federal land, have shared 50 percent of the royalty produced on those Federal lands. This begins to achieve some parity with that by allowing coastal producing States 37.5 percent. This provides dedicated revenue streams for the State side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. That fund makes grants available to all of our States for 50 percent of the costs of parks, soccer fields, and other recreational opportunities. This fully complies with the budget resolution we passed last year and the reserve fund amendment I included in the Senate's budget resolution this year, and it all reduces America's dependence on volatile foreign energy sources. Those are all very important goals. Those are all goals achieved by this bill. Just as importantly, there are many things this bill does not do which opponents have confused in the debate. This bill does not in any way affect offshore California, the west coast, the Northeast, or anywhere on the east coast. This bill is focused on the Gulf of Mexico and has the support of the Senators from all of those Gulf Coast States. This bill does not change offshore policy in any area other than the Gulf of Mexico, which today provides up to 30 percent of our energy. This bill does not raid the Federal Treasury of funds from current revenue streams. It does not increase the deficit. As I said, what this bill does is the opposite. It allows production activity which would not occur otherwise. What does that mean? That means increased Federal revenue--$1 billion toward deficit reduction--not decreased Federal revenue. This bill does not provide funds for the expansion of Federal land acquisition programs through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I find, quite frankly, the opposition to this bill enormously frustrating. So many of these same Members of the Senate--others in the broader debate--are some of the loudest voices about high, increasing energy prices, oil prices at the pump, natural gas prices and what that does to our competitiveness. I agree with those concerns. Those are very legitimate concerns. Yet we bring a bill to the floor of the Senate that can absolutely have a short-term impact, a positive impact, bringing prices down, and, no, they have to oppose it. That is not good. That cannot be part of the solution. The cost of natural gas has increased 400 percent over the last several years. Natural gas is a mostly continental commodity. Its importation through LNG is possible, but that alone cannot have enough of an impact to bring down prices the way we want to see them come down. So we need to produce more domestically. This bill will do that and help bring down natural gas prices. Gasoline prices have increased from $1.28 in 1996 to over $3.60 in some areas of the country today. Of course, these surges were exacerbated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. These huge spikes don't impact us just at the gas pump or when we pay our heating and cooling bill. They affect us everywhere--at the grocery store, when we buy clothes, at the hardware store, the airlines when we go on trips, restaurants when they pay higher energy bills, and also in the job picture. When we decry jobs moving overseas, high natural gas prices in this country are a huge factor, particularly in select industries such as our chemical industry. Yet, again, the folks who run to the floor of the Senate to beat on these issues and try to take advantage of them politically the most are among those who are opposing this bill. It makes no sense to me, and it is enormously frustrating to me. They also seem to be opposed to this bill because they are just opposed on virtual religious grounds on more oil and gas production. We need to do a lot of things to secure our energy future, and certainly that involves research and new technology and new forms of energy. But as we do that--and we are doing that, and we will do more, and we must do more--as we do that, the fact is, for the next several years and several decades we will have an economy in some ways dominated by oil and gas. So if we want to give consumers relief, if we want to secure our energy independence in the short term, we also at the same time need to attack that side of the question, and this bill does that, domestically increasing our independence. It is just completely irresponsible for people to say we can't address that side of the equation. We must, as we must address the longer-term side of the equation, with new technology, new sources of energy, new science and engineering. Those both have to be necessary components of a solution. I would have a little more sympathy with some of these arguments if Senators from many of these other States, not in the directly affected region in the gulf, were producing at least other forms of energy. They don't like oil? They don't like natural gas? There are other things folks in different parts of the country can do. There is nuclear. There is solar. There is windpower. The fact is, so many of the critics from these other places do not contribute to the Nation's energy needs in any of these categories. The Department of Energy has some interesting statistics. State by State, what does a State consume in energy and what does it produce? California consumes eight times more energy than it produces. Massachusetts is the winner. It consumes 65 times more energy than it produces. Florida consumes 11 times more energy than it produces. This is not being part of the solution. This is not sustainable. It is particularly ironic when some voices from these very same places decry a bill as we have on the floor which can be part of the solution, which can lower energy prices even in the short term and can get us to the longer term as we transition to new energy sources. Finally, as I mentioned, there is a whole myth that many of these same opponents bring up that somehow we are raiding the Federal Treasury. If bringing in more Federal revenue is raiding the Federal Treasury, then let the raid begin. That is what this bill does. It increases Federal revenue--$1 billion more for the Federal Treasury, $1 billion more of deficit reduction. That is the plain and simple fact. Why is that? Because this bill expands production which expands revenue which, even in the new rules of revenue sharing under this bill, increases Federal revenue and decreases the deficit. For any opponents to claim that this somehow increases the deficit and raids the Federal Treasury is simply untrue. It is factually incorrect. There is more Federal revenue, bringing down the deficit. S. 3711 is positive. It is concrete, it is taking action now. It is a step forward. It can have an impact that can make life better for average Americans, even in the short term, and help bring down energy prices, help increase our energy independence, help produce new revenue, not just to the producing States; but also to the Federal Treasury--help reduce the Federal deficit. This is a win-win-win-win, and I urge my colleagues to support this important energy legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 3711, and I specifically rise in strong support of the majority leader's actions to ensure that we have a focused debate on the carefully crafted provisions of S. 3711 and not be thrown off track by numerous amendments about all sorts of ancillary energy and other issues because I rise in support of actually doing something, not merely talking about everything, as the Senate so often wants to do, and at the end of the day doing nothing. That is the choice we have. The choice is what we so often do: Talk about everything under the Sun, have wide-ranging debates. This body is a great debating society, but at the end of the day does nothing. The other choice is focusing on the carefully crafted provisions of S. 3711, having a fair debate on those provisions and passing it into law, doing something concrete, real, meaningful, that will have an impact soon on people's wallets, on people's pocketbooks, on our energy future. That is what this choice is all about, and I stand strongly for doing something and not just talking a good game. What is it we would be doing, Mr. President? Well, S. 3711 would be doing more to secure our supply of domestic energy than anything we have done in a long time. It is not everything under the Sun, it is not a silver bullet, it is not a magic wand, but it is a major, concrete, specific step forward that would help secure our energy future. What is that? It is 8.3 million acres of area in the gulf opened to exploration and production for the first time ever; 1.26 billion barrels of oil, brandnew production; and 5.83 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, brandnew production. That is doing something, and that is doing something that will have an impact on our energy future--not in 20 years, not in 10 years, but very soon. We will see this production in a few years and we could see its impact on prices even sooner than that. As folks in the energy industry recognize that we are opening this brandnew area to both oil and gas exploration, we could see a positive impact, bringing prices down even sooner than the production would begin. So I am in support of doing something strong, concrete, and meaningful--not just talking a good game and, at the end of the day, doing nothing. The distinguished Senator from New Mexico made some points in opposition to this proposal. He said it was very regrettable that he and others were not completely open to propose any amendment with regard to this bill. Let's not kid ourselves. Let's understand what is going on here. The distinguished Senator is absolutely flat out against the central provisions of this bill. His effort is to gut this attempt at moving us forward in terms of energy independence. He would take out of this bill one of its most central and important components: royalty share. It is easy for him to take this position. His State of New Mexico gets enormous Federal revenue from production onshore on Federal land. Everything that is produced on Federal land in his State--as in any other State--his State gets 50 percent of that royalty. So it is very easy for him to take the position that offshore should be a completely different situation; offshore should be zero. That doesn't affect his constant revenue stream for States such as his in New Mexico or for States such as Wyoming, where 50 percent of the revenue from onshore mineral production royalty is going directly to his State coffers. In addition, if you look at the 50-percent Federal share, most of that goes to a Federal fund that goes back to the States in terms of land reclamation as well, so that all told, 90 percent of that royalty produced on Federal land in his State essentially goes back to the States. So he has a very convenient situation in his State which has been that way for years. It is very easy for him to protect that but, at the same time, block coastal States from having a similar situation. But there is no good reason we should do that. We should equalize the playing field. We should make Federal policy equal and right. Look at last year, 2005. Federal offshore production yielded, in terms of Federal revenue, $6.32 billion. Of that enormous total--$6.32 billion-- only $75 million went to the States in terms of a royalty share. Compare that to the situation of the Senator from New Mexico. Federal onshore revenue for that same year yielded $3.5 billion of royalties, and half of that went to the States--$1.75 billion went to the States of New Mexico and Wyoming and many other States. So, of course, it is easy for the Senator from New Mexico to protect what he already has but try to deny it to coastal States. The fact is the impacts are the same, and the impacts are dramatic. He talked about them himself, the dramatic negative impacts with regard to coastal erosion and other impacts on the Louisiana coastline and all of the coastlines of the Gulf States. That is one of the primary reasons we have royalty share at the heart of this bill, which the Senator from New Mexico would strip out with his amendment. But that is not the only reason we have that royalty-sharing provision in the bill. The predominant reason is the overarching national reason, the reason that will promote our energy independence in the future, and that is simple. If we allow coastal States to share in the royalty obtained from production off their shores, we can change the dynamics dramatically. That will change the not-in-my-backyard attitude of so many coastal States and usher in more domestic production in the future. That is the model we are building with S. 3711, the positive model that will do, over time, even more than what this bill alone does, opening up 8.3 million acres, 5.83 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 1.26 billion barrels of oil. That is what the bill itself does. That is significant. That is concrete and positive. But when we put this model in place of sharing royalties with the appropriate coastal States, then we open possibilities in the future even more. That is why this royalty-sharing provision is so central and so important to this bill. It is a new model to get us to greater energy independence, to get us away from the pervasive not-in-my- backyard mentality that has gripped virtually every State around the country and has shut off area after area after area to offshore oil and gas production. This bill will do all of those things in a fair and reasonable way. It will open new areas of land to production, it will open enormous new energy assets, and it will create this model that we can build on in the future to create more energy independence for our Nation. That is what we so desperately lack. As I said at the beginning, this body is very good at debating, at talking, endlessly sometimes, about every proposal under the Sun, but so often at the end of the day we do nothing after those endless debates. This is an opportunity to do something real and concrete, and to create a model that will provoke even more action in the future. Because we can have endless debates in this Chamber about securing our energy independence, and every Senator here in the context of this debate will likely come to the floor and talk about his or her commitment to securing our energy independence, what are we going to do about it? If we don't change the dynamics of our energy policy, the not-in-my-backyard mentality, which has put a stranglehold on us for years, will continue to survive. But if we change the model, if we allow coastal States to share in the royalties produced from production off their own shores, give them the decision and give them some of the benefits, then we will change the dynamics and, in my opinion, over the next 10 years open significant new areas to offshore oil and gas production and significantly increase our energy independence. That is why S. 3711 is so important. It does something real and meaningful and concrete right away. We are acting, not just talking. Even more importantly, we are building a model for the future, a positive model that will promote our energy independence by allowing us to go after those resources, including offshore, where the vast majority of our energy assets are in the future. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Child Custody Protection Act, which prohibits transporting a minor across State lines to obtain an abortion if doing so abridges a parental notification or consent statute in the State in which the minor resides. The bill also provides an exception for cases where an abortion is necessary to save the minor's life. I am proud to say that I am a cosponsor of this bill and I supported it in past Congresses. One of the most important roles of parents is to provide guidance and comfort to their children. Parents are more mature and possess the wisdom of experience that children simply cannot possess. In no other circumstance is the need for parental guidance more important than when a child requires medical care. Who is in a better position to provide a child's relevant medical and psychological history and other valuable medical information than a parent? Not only has the Supreme Court recognized the importance of parental rights with regard to the ``care, custody, and control of their children'' as ``perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests,'' they have also acknowledged the importance of parental guidance and consent when a child is faced with a difficult decision by stating ``the law's concept of family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life's difficult decisions.'' At a time when a school nurse cannot even administer aspirin to a child with a headache without parental consent, how can we allow a child to have an abortion, a major medical procedure with potentially deadly consequences, without parental consent? I can think of no other time when parental guidance and consent is more important than when that parent's minor daughter is pregnant and contemplating abortion. A minor girl, who is undoubtedly under incredible stress, does not have the maturity to make the decision to have an abortion on her own. And, it makes matters worse when the girl receives pressure to have an abortion from the father, the father's family, or others. As a father, it appalls me to learn that oftentimes older adult males pressure young mothers to have an abortion without telling anyone and transport these young girls into States without parental consent laws to hide instances of statutory rape. Studies show that the majority of today's teenage mothers are being impregnated by adult men. One study of 46,500 schoolage mothers in California found that two-thirds of the girls were impregnated by adult males, with the median age of the father being 22 years old. The fact that many of these adult males could be charged with statutory rape creates an incentive for them to transport young girls across state lines to have an abortion to avoid criminal prosecution. Mr. President, the pro-abortion lobby has come out in full force against the Child Custody Protection Act saying that it infringes upon a girl's right to have an abortion. I have two major objections to that argument. First, I do not believe that a minor child has the right to an abortion without her parents' consent. At a time when children cannot even be given aspirin without parental consent, they should not be able to undergo a major medical procedure with potentially deadly consequences without parental consent. Second, the Child Custody Protection Act is not about the right to have an abortion; it is about protecting the rights of parents and the well-being of children. It is commonsense legislation that says if one State has established a legal principle for its residents, neighboring States should not discourage those residents from following that principle. This is hardly a radical or extreme proposal; rather, it is necessary, constitutional, and it is carefully and narrowly drawn. I hope that my colleagues can support this very important, commonsense legislation, which protects our most vulnerable citizens--our children.