On the recordApril 9, 2014
that is very good to know that Senator Coburn is objecting--or not objecting--to an offset that is not a real offset. The reason there is some objection from our side, and I think from Senator Sanders as well, is because the Vitter offset is not real. It doesn't generate $1.6 billion in savings. So I think we should go forward with no offset because the $1.6 billion is not a real offset. The CBO analysis of this offset basically says, from our preliminary estimate of the amendment, based on information from the Department of Defense, there are no savings--there are no savings--for drug-related purchases to the current law. The preliminary estimate is zero. With that, I wish to reiterate my unanimous consent request--please don't interrupt--I would like unanimous consent for my amendment, which has no offset--and the bill does not have to go back to the House of Representatives. The bill can go straight to the President's desk. I yield the floor.
