David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the children who are killed as they leave their mother's womb. There is no legitimate debate about the nature of this procedure. It has been described and the bottom line remains, babies begin to leave the womb with life, they finish leaving the womb without it because of this procedure. Opponents of the bill decry the way this procedure is described. Their real problem is that the truth hurts, and in this case it horrifies; and they do not want the American people to know the horrible reality of this so-called medical procedure that even the AMA has said is ``not good medicine'' and ``not medically indicated'' in any situation. Opponents also label those of us who are for the bill as right-wing extremists. But is the AMA a group of right-wing extremists? Is Everett Koop a right-wing extremist? Are the great majority of the American people who strongly support this ban all right-wing extremists? The debate makes clear that opponents of this bill are the fringe in this debate and the extremists in this debate, and the American people know that. Mr. Speaker, if this body is to have any credibility at all on addressing the issue of violence in our society, we must outlaw this government-sanctioned violence against the most vulnerable and innocent among us.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Madam Speaker, I want to stand today in strong support of this important concurrent resolution to increase awareness of a very serious health problem, the growing gap between organ supply and demand. Last year, of the 60,000 people on organ transplant waiting lists, only 20,000 received needed transplants. As the number of patients waiting for organ transplants expands each year, clearly we must redouble our efforts to increase organ donations. In my State of Louisiana, organ and tissue donations are increasing, in large part thanks to a new and innovative computerized database that shares information on donated organs with members of the medical community and their patients. For instance, in 1999, 900 organs were donated in Louisiana, coming close to matching the nearly 1,200 Louisianans awaiting transplants. I think this represents real progress, and I am proud that my State is leading the way. However, I do remain very concerned that this administration's answer to the growing shortage across the country of organs is to attempt to federalize the organ allocation system and allow HHS bureaucrats to override medical decisions by local organ transplant groups. I believe it would be terrible to undercut the successful efforts of local organ procurement groups. Instead of dictating organ allocation policies, we should lend our voice to increasing organ donations nationwide and support this type of resolution, as we are on the floor today.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is Veterans Day, and it is also day 168 since this House passed the Social Security lockbox bill. Memorial Day, the 4th of July, Labor Day, Yom Kippur, Columbus Day, the World Series, and tomorrow Veterans Day all will pass since this body acted to permanently stop the raid on Social Security. In those five months, the other body has failed to consider providing lockbox protection for the Social Security Trust Fund. Mr. Speaker, time after time, an effort was made to bring the bill to the floor, but those efforts were all unsuccessful. And all the while, the leader of the obstructionists, the man who sits in the White House, accused the Republican Party of being against Social Security. Once again, the truth did not get in the way of White House rhetoric. We will soon be recessing, heading home for Thanksgiving, Hanukkah, Christmas, New Year's. Let us pledge not to let too many of those precious holidays pass before we pass in the House and the Senate Social Security lockbox protection.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to be amazed by the lax defense policies of this administration. Today our Navy has more than 200 fewer ships than during Desert Storm. Red China has six times our land forces and North Korea has developed a missile that delivers weapons of mass destruction to U.S. territory, and now the Clinton administration says it will ignore the vote of the Senate, abide by the rejected test ban treaty, just as they ignored H.R. 4 that calls for a missile defense. Despite the fall of the Soviet Union, the world remains a dangerous place. Yet under President Clinton the will of the Congress is ignored and defense spending has not even kept pace with inflation. We must insist that the President follow the will of the Congress regarding national defense; modernize our weaponry and above all, above all, increase pay and benefits so that no soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines have to rely on food stamps to feed their families.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday we reached a milestone in the wait for the other body to consider the lockbox bill this House passed on May 26. Sunday was day 150 since the Lockbox bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) to protect Social Security from the Congressional big spenders passed this House by the overwhelming vote of 416 to 12. That is right. On Sunday, when President Clinton's supporters were on TV talk shows accusing the Republican Congress of threatening Social Security, it was exactly 150 days since those very Clinton supporters took the Lockbox bill hostage. They refused to allow a vote to stop the raid on Social Security forever. Now it has been 152 days since this body passed the Lockbox bill, and the other body has not acted. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are committed to stopping the raid on Social Security, now and in the years to come. We hope the President will join us by offering real leadership to pass a real Lockbox bill.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 522, I was late arriving on the House floor. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 523, I was late arriving on the House floor. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, I think all of us can agree that the key to improved education is increased accountability. The real question is what do we mean by that? The usual response from the education establishment is that increased accountability has to mean increased Federal mandates, specific program dictates, basically jumping through specific bureaucratic hoops. But that emphasis on process has failed our schools and our children miserably. States recognize, as people on the ground in the trenches, so to speak, recognize this, including my State of Louisiana: we are requiring schools and districts to demonstrate annual progress toward meeting actual performance standards; and as a result, those schools that are meeting their goals and those schools that are not have been identified, and my district, St. Tammany, is leading the way, scores demonstrably better than other schools, and they are a model in my area. We need to piggyback on that concept, and the choice is clear. Congress can support these successful State efforts and improve academic achievement by allowing States to use Federal dollars more effectively rather than insisting on simple bureaucratic hoop jumping, and that is what the debate is about, what does accountability mean, jumping through certain hoops or achieving bottom line results? Results matter. Results mean educating our kids, and we need to focus on those results.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as an original cosponsor of a strong bill to provide patient protection, and I rise in support of this version in particular, because many of its provisions are the strongest available on the very patient protection issues we care about. This version goes further than any other proposal in granting access to hospital emergency rooms and ambulance services, and in ensuring that women have hassle-free access to OB/GYNs. It goes further by providing a quicker independent review process and fully protecting employers from lawsuits while allowing patients the right to sue their HMO. So this very version, in my opinion, goes further on so many important fronts on the patient protection issue, even leaving the liability debate to the side. Mr. Chairman, many would rather create partisan issues or enrich the coffers of trial lawyers than provide meaningful protections, the strongest available, to patients. Let us stop the political gamesmanship and pass strong patient protection.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, this is day 132 of the Social Security lockbox held hostage in the Senate. Today's seniors and the seniors of tomorrow demand that we act as responsible stewards of the hard-earned money that they pay into Social Security. Now there are two things we need to do to protect Social Security: first, we must act responsibly this year and pass spending bills without dipping into Social Security, and we are; second, we must work to see that institutional protections like the lockbox become law. This House passed the lockbox bill by a vote of 416 to 12 on May 26. For 132 days, the other body has held this bill hostage. I hope President Clinton and all who say they are concerned about protecting Social Security call on the Senate for action on the Social Security lockbox bill.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, on May 26 of this year, 3 days before my election, this body passed a Social Security lockbox bill authored by my distinguished colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger). It was by an overwhelming vote of 416-12. We are here today, and we will be here every day to demand that the Senate act on this measure. A lot has happened since passage on May 26. Four months, a total of 131 days, have gone by. The American League won the All Star game. The NHL and the NFL began play. The President got a home loan. And the other body voted six times to block Social Security lockbox legislation. But one thing has not changed. The American people are rightly demanding that we protect Social Security through institutional safeguards like the lockbox. Simply put, the other body is holding the lockbox bill hostage. One hundred thirty-one days is long enough.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 1999 and to commend my friend and colleague from South Carolina for introducing this important legislation. This legislation, Mr. Chairman, is simply designed to narrow the gap in the law by providing that an individual who injures or kills an unborn child during the commission of federal crimes of violence will be guilty of a separate offense. Now my friends on the other side of the aisle raise a couple of arguments; number one, that there are constitutional problems with this. Clearly this is not the case. This is virtually proven by the fact that there are numerous State laws in this regard, none of which have been seriously challenged or struck down, and they also suggest that this somehow impacts abortion rights. Clearly that is not the case. This does not, in fact, impact any current abortion rights. So these opponents do not make valid points on either of these two issues. I think in trying to, they only underscore, in my view, their own extremist position on the issue because the bottom line in this legislation is about combating violence against pregnant women, violence against the unborn, and it is about holding violent criminals accountable for the crimes they commit. Mr. Chairman, in my view, to oppose this is wrong and is extremist, so I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, at a time when our country is enjoying unprecedented peacetime prosperity, Americans' cynicism toward government remains high. Now we may fuel that cynicism further because we have all talked for months about making Social Security our top priority, and we now clearly have the ability to stop spending Social Security money for other purposes, but we may go ahead and do just that anyway. This August I held town hall meetings throughout my district, speaking to thousands of people, and they made one thing very clear: they want us to protect Social Security funding. In short, they told me, hands off Social Security. They want Congress to stop spending the surplus dollars in the Social Security trust fund, like Congress has been doing for the past 30 years. This year we have already effectively erased the $14 billion non- Social Security surplus. In coming weeks we must resist the urge to dip into the Social Security surplus to pay for Government programs we cannot afford. Instead, by making Social Security revenues off limits, Congress can give workers the confidence that the money they pay into Social Security will be there only for Social Security and for them in the future. Only by ensuring that any new Federal spending does not come at the expense of Social Security can we truly protect the surpluses that will be needed for Social Security and Medicare reform. Mr. Speaker, we have an enormous opportunity to do the right thing. We must make sure that we do that and set the proper precedent for future budgets.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend you for your efforts to include language and funding in this Conference agreement to address so many of the urgent needs of our constituents in Louisiana, in particular two critically important projects. As you know, Mr. Chairman, flood control is a major issue in Louisiana with so many low- lying areas susceptible to high waters and flooding, especially during the hurricane season. The Southeast Louisiana (SELA) flood control project is an aggressive effort by federal, state and local officials to protect thousands of Louisianians from the loss of life and property through the construction of extensive flood control mechanisms in the most vulnerable areas of our state. Your willingness to include $47 million for this project together with language to reinstate the Corps' current authority to expedite construction for this project and to proceed with continuing contracts for construction is deeply appreciated. Furthermore, with regard to the SELA project, it is my understanding that the conference report language and the current authorization for this project, specifically Section 533(d) of the 1996 Water Resources and Development Act, allows the Corps to proceed with expedited funding of construction contracts above the current authorization level as long as the projects provided for by these contracts are determined by the Corps to be ``technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and economic as applicable.'' Secondly, I applaud you and the conferees for including $15.9 million in the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) budget for the Inner Harbor Navigational Canal (IHNC) Lock Replacement Project in New Orleans and inserting language in the Conference Report that would expedite the community mitigation plan associated with that project. Finally, regarding the IHNC lock replacement project, I believe that the Corps is directed to work in good faith to arrive at an equitable solution to value the properties that it acquires from the Port of New Orleans to complete this project. Accordingly, under such direction, the Port's property and facilities require valuation at the full replacement cost in the same manner that the Corps is employing in its acquisition of certain Coast Guard property to be acquired by the Corps for this project.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, today, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the Cunningham-Spence-Buyer-Moran-Ortiz amendment to the Veterans/ Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill for FY 00, H.R. 2684. While I believe the world remains a dangerous place and consider the selective service essential to ensuring the United States Armed Forces possesses adequate manpower for national emergencies, I cannot support legislation which cuts vital hurricane funding protection and environmental research for South Louisiana. By striking $5 million from the FEMA Management and Planning account, the Louisiana coast will be unable to implement a buoy system to monitor hurricanes as they approach our coasts. Furthermore, the FEMA Management and Planning account includes funding to develop a New Orleans hurricane evacuation plan for a Category 3 or greater storm. Surely, providing $1 million to take steps toward implementing an evacuation plan for New Orleans is a small price to pay both in terms of lives and money. In addition to the hurricane funding cuts, Congressman Cunningham's amendment would threaten to cut $1 million in funding from the University of New Orleans Urban Waste Management Center's budget. The UNO Urban Waste Management Center not only identifies the economic impact and benefits associated with various recycling programs, but it also provides additional educational institutions and national government agencies important waste management assistance. In a $92 billion appropriations bill, it is unfortunate that we have not learned our lesson from previous hurricane tragedies and targeted superfluous spending to continue the selective service, instead of vital protection for the citizens of South Louisiana.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about missile defense. It is very simple. It simply states that no funds in the act shall be used to implement the memorandum of understanding entered into on September 26, 1997, between the United States, Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and the Ukraine. This is a memorandum of understanding regarding the 1972 ABM Treaty. Precisely the same amendment word for word passed this House last year easily, 240-188. And so this amendment merely continues that status quo in the law and does not change present law in that sense. The memorandum of understanding of September 26, 1997, and related documentation essentially does two things. First of all, it changes the parties to the 1972 ABM Treaty, updates that treaty if you will, by supplementing instead of the old Soviet Union, the former Soviet Republic that I mentioned. The second thing the memorandum and related documents does is it really expands that treaty, expands the scope to disallow more theater missile systems. The Clinton administration has frankly admitted, and this House has voted on many occasions, that this is a new treaty and this must be put before the United States Senate and ratified by the United States Senate. This has never happened. The memorandum has not gone there. It has never been ratified. Now, I strongly believe we should develop aggressively missile defense systems and not renew and expand the old ABM treaty, particularly to expand its scope and disallow more theater systems. But really, this amendment is far simpler than that and really deals with much more of a threshold question. This is not so much a defense issue but a constitutional issue. The memorandum of understanding has not been put before the United States Senate. It has not been ratified by the United States Senate. Everyone, including the Clinton administration, agrees that this must occur because it is essentially a new treaty. That has not happened. So until and unless that happens, we should not spend money enforcing that new regime, particularly when it is highly controversial and goes to the heart of our missile defense debate, particularly when this House has voted not to spend that money in the past, particularly when this House and this Congress has voted affirmatively to aggressively develop missile defense systems, including theater systems.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, after careful thought and consideration, I rise this evening in support of patient protection. I do this for a very simple reason in the final analysis. I believe that doctors, not insurance companies or HMOs, must have the final say on patient care. That is why I have many strong concerns with the Senate bill and would oppose that legislation in its present form. Here are the provisions I believe are important to Americans, including those in my district: Legislative protections against abuse should be extended to the more than 100 million not covered in the Senate bill. There must be independent external medical review. Patients need maximum flexibility to select doctors and should be able to see pediatricians and OB/GYNs without referrals from other doctors. ER visits should be governed by a prudent lay person standard. Doctors should define medical necessity. There must be meaningful economic sanctions against companies that refuse to provide care approved by the external review process. I know the importance of controlling health care costs, but a business bottom line, Mr. Speaker, should never be allowed to take precedence over medical necessity. We can allow insurers to continue to control costs and provide necessary patient protections. Many States have done that, including my own, Louisiana, including our neighbor, Texas. We can do it as a Nation.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the Department of Defense Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2000. This legislation reaffirms Congress' commitment to a strong national defense and takes a positive step toward restoring our hollowed-out military. This legislation provides funding for key defense projects such as the LPD- 17 and the Navy Information Technology Center. By providing full funding for the LPD-17, the United States Navy receives a highly reliable, warfare capable ship and the most survivable amphibious ship ever put to sea. The LPD-17 design incorporates state-of-the-art self-defense capabilities, C4I, and reduced signature technologies advances that will prove priceless over its 40-year service life. LPD-17 also incorporates the latest quality of life standards for our Sailors and Marines. Furthermore, I would like to thank the Chairman for his foresight in placing additional funding above the President's request into the DIMHRS account for the Navy Information Technology Center in New Orleans. Funding for the Navy Information Technology Center will ensure continued development of the information software needed to handle personnel and pay management files for the Navy and other armed services. By investing in these improvements now, the Office of Management and Budget estimates the Navy will be able to save billions of dollars in the future. These savings will result in additional funding to rebuild our national defense. The legislation also includes the first significant increase in defense spending in 14 years, and will also boost pay for the nation's 1.4 million active-duty service men and women by 4.8 percent. Once again, I would like to thank the Chairman for crafting an excellent bill, and I look forward to continuing to work with him and his staff.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this historic tax cut bill. These words are my first on the floor since being sworn in on June 8, and that is appropriate because this legislation in so many ways is what I came to Congress to do. I do not just mean cutting taxes. I mean celebrating marriage and family by attacking the marriage penalty; honoring small family business by phasing out the death tax which is the death of so many small family businesses; encouraging economic growth through cuts in the capital gains tax. I mean being fiscally responsible by locking up Social Security tax revenues 100 percent and by demanding a reduction in the national debt before we trigger some of the tax cuts. But most of all, I mean increasing freedom by sending money and power back to the individual and the family. The President wants targeted tax cuts. That means even in the case of a tax cut, Washington decides how and where and when and why money is spent. What is most significant about this bill is that individuals and family decide and freedom is increased.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, distinguished Congressman Tauzin and other members of the Louisiana delegation, I am honored, humbled, awestruck to stand before you today. My goal in the years ahead is simply this: to become at ease and comfortable with you as I become a respected colleague and friend; to become at ease and comfortable with the ways of the House as I become an effective Congressman; but never to become so at ease and comfortable that I lose these feelings of honor, of humility, of awe. And how could I? This is the people's House. You, we, are the people's representatives, a vital part of the most powerful and moral political experiment in human history. I look forward to always honoring you as the people's representatives and to working constructively with you on the people's business. In closing, I would like to recognize the forces that have brought me here today: God; family, led by my parents and wife; friends; and, of course, the wonderful people of Louisiana's First Congressional District. They are here today, they are here always, and I thank them from the depths of my heart.