Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank our Alabama colleagues. They are very gracious, and they are great sports in terms of this whole past week and this bet. So I am honored to be with them as they wear LSU colors for 1 day. Maybe they can keep those ties for January. Maybe after the BCS championship game they will at least wear it for an SEC victor--knock on wood--and we very much look forward to their delivering, as Senator Sessions said, great, delicious, fresh, and perfectly safe gulf coast seafood that all of us are going to enjoy.

So I thank them for being such great sports, and I congratulate their team for being a superteam. That was a heck of a game. It was everything it was cracked up to be. People said it would be a defensive struggle. Yet nobody imagined there would not even be a touchdown: 9-6 in overtime.

I congratulate the Alabama team that played their hearts out and is a great Alabama team.

Of course, I also want to pause and congratulate everybody in the LSU community and the LSU team. That was a hard fought struggle, a hard fought win. A lot of folks came together and made extraordinary plays. Of course, it ended with Drew Alleman's field goal in overtime. But Mo Claiborne and Eric Reid had terrific interceptions, and even the punter, Brad Wing, played a pivotal role in terms of his 73-yard punt that won the field position battle.

So there are a lot of heroes and a lot of good players on the LSU side, and I congratulate the entire LSU community.

With the rest of the State of Louisiana, we look forward--knock on wood--to several more victories leading up to, hopefully, the BCS championship game in New Orleans in the Louisiana Superdome. So, of course, we look forward to that.

Thank you, Mr. President. At this point, I turn to my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Sessions and I have up to 15 minutes for a colloquy.

Mr. President, Senator Sessions and I come to the floor following a discussion of a lot of important issues on the floor to discuss the most important issue back home for us this week, which is the upcoming regular season national championship game between LSU and Alabama. In the history of the SEC, this is the first ever regular season matchup between a No. 1 and No. 2 team in the SEC. As most folks probably know, LSU and Alabama are both 8 to 0 overall and 5 to 0 in the SEC.

Obviously, I know who is going to win. The Tigers are going to win. They have beaten five ranked opponents this year, three of those away from home, as we are going to have to play Alabama. They have outscored all opponents 314 to 92 this year. Not to get

cocky or anything, but LSU has beaten Alabama 8 out of the last 11 years, including 4 of the last 5 times in Tuscaloosa.

We have a lot of strengths. Our senior quarterback Jarrett Lee leads the SEC in passing efficiency. We have a ferocious defense led by lineman Sam Montgomery and defensive backs Tyrann Mathieu and Mo Claiborne. Tyrann, by the way, is much better known as Honey Badger. This is a prelude to the BCS championship which, by the way, is going to be in January in New Orleans in the Superdome.

So we feel great going into this game, and that is why I was very eager to get with both Senators from Alabama and have a friendly wager which the Senator from Alabama will explain. The loser is going to treat the winners to some great gulf shrimp and other seafood. We feel great about it, so we look forward to it.

As I turn the floor over to Senator Sessions, I would just summarize our feelings in Louisiana in a simple way: You all have a great team-- maybe one of the best Alabama teams ever--but it doesn't matter who LSU's opponent is because, as we say in Louisiana, the Honey Badger takes what he wants. We are looking forward to doing that on Saturday night.

Mr. President, should the unthinkable happen, I will do that. Should the unthinkable happen, I will deliver fresh, healthy gulf seafood to Senator Sessions' office as well as Senator Shelby's. We have been in contact with Senator Shelby's office and Senator Landrieu's office and they are part of this friendly arrangement as well. So we will look forward to that. But, most of all, we will look forward to a great game Saturday night, and we will both look forward to a win Saturday night. One of us will have to be disappointed--we will see who--but it is going to be a great game.

Amen.

With that, we yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Vitter amendment No. 769, which we will be voting on a little after noon in the next block of votes. I want to encourage all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to come together in a strong bipartisan way in favor of this amendment. It is a bipartisan amendment, and I thank Senators Sanders, McCain, Stabenow, and Bingaman for being coauthors of it, along with me.

The amendment is very simple. It would give all Americans another avenue to get safe, cheaper prescription drugs by allowing the reimportation of prescription drugs for personal use from Canada only. Again, it is very modest and very restricted. We are just talking about Canada. We are just talking about, of course, FDA-approved prescription drugs. We are just talking about small quantities for personal use, not big quantities, not wholesalers, not folks in that business. We are specifically excluding biologics. We are specifically excluding things listed on the controlled dangerous substances schedule. So it is a very modest, straightforward, limited amendment, but it would still be real in terms of the relief it would give Americans, particularly seniors, who are so often under the crunch--another opportunity for safe, cheaper prescription drugs.

In its form as I have described, this is nearly identical to a bipartisan Vitter amendment that was passed in the last Senate. It passed on a strong bipartisan vote, and I thank Members who voted for that.

This problem, again, is real. It hits millions of Americans. It hits seniors particularly hard.

Let's just take three very common prescription drugs.

Nexium. In the United States, it is about $635 for a certain amount. In Canada, that same volume of the drug is $386. For Lipitor, the price difference on average is $572 in the United States versus $378 in Canada; Plavix, $644 in the United States, $434 in Canada--huge price differences of 39 and 34 and 33 percent. That cost crunch is what all too often causes seniors to have to make horrible choices between prescription drugs they need for their health or other necessities such as food and utilities. Let's give those Americans real relief, and we can in this simple, straightforward amendment.

Let me say two things in closing. First, there have been safety concerns brought up about the amendment. We have real safety concerns about counterfeit drugs in general, but I do not believe--and I would not offer this amendment if I did believe--this amendment expands those vulnerabilities or concerns at all. As an example, the distinguished Senator from Maryland brought up several cases documented in the press in the last few years, and those are serious cases of counterfeit drugs, but none of them have anything to do with reimportation; none of them have anything to do with Canada; none of them have anything to do with small quantities of drugs for personal use. They are other unrelated safety concerns. This amendment would not expand those vulnerabilities.

Finally, this vote is about the amendment I have described, but I think it is also about the intersection of money and power and politics in Washington. President Obama often decries that intersection of big money and big power in Washington, and I agree with him. But I think the single biggest example of that sort of money run amok in Washington--buying power and influencing politics in the last few years--has been big Pharma dealing with the White House, specifically visiting the White House over and over during the development of ObamaCare and in the end supporting ObamaCare. And, oh, by the way, in the end the President no longer supports reimportation, which he had consistently up to that point. I decry that sort of intersection of money and politics. If my colleagues do as well, they will support this amendment. If my colleagues disapprove of that sort of action by PhRMA and that interaction of big money and power politics, my colleagues will support this amendment too. I urge strong bipartisan support.

Again, I thank my colleagues from both parties for coauthoring and supporting this amendment.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this amendment is bipartisan. I thank the bipartisan coauthors. The amendment would allow the reimportation of small, personal use quantities of safe FDA-approved prescription drugs from Canada only. It is a very modest amendment. It is for personal use only, not large quantities, no wholesalers, Canada only, no biologics, and no controlled dangerous substances. It is essentially identical to an amendment we passed on a bipartisan basis in the last Senate.

I urge a strong vote in favor of this.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I call up the Vitter second-degree amendment.

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

Mr. President, this is a second-degree amendment to the Menendez amendment. The Menendez amendment would actually expand the already dominant role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the mortgage marketplace when there is an unlimited taxpayer bailout liability toward that.

My amendment would simply say, particularly if there is going to be this expansion, we should limit taxpayer liability to $200 billion, and the taxpayer should definitely be paid the dividend they were promised. I think that is a very reasonable taxpayer protection.

I reserve the remainder of my time for the ranking member of Banking.

Mr. President, I yield back the time, and ask for the yeas and nays.

And if I could address the Senator through the Chair.

I have a modification to my amendment which will take about 1\1/2\ minutes.

Madam President, I call for regular order with respect to amendment No. 769 and that the amendment be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Stabenow and Bingaman be added as cosponsors to the amendment.

In closing, let me state that this again very tightly narrows the amendment to a very specific purpose, to allow safe FDA- approved prescription drugs to be reimported for individual consumer use from Canada, and Canada only.

In doing so, this makes it a nearly identical amendment to that which

was approved in the last Senate on a strong bipartisan vote. I urge and look forward to that same strong support for this Vitter amendment No. 769.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement, I call up Vitter amendment No. 769.

I ask unanimous consent to waive the reading of the whole.

Mr. President, let me briefly explain what this amendment is about, and I will be very brief. It will allow for personal use drug reimportation from Canada only. In doing so, this amendment is nearly identical to an amendment I proposed previously on the Senate floor last Congress which passed in a very strong bipartisan vote.

Americans spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on prescription drugs. Prescription drug prices are skyrocketing, and they continue to skyrocket, and that causes real hurt and angst among many American families, particularly American seniors. They shouldn't have to choose between lifesaving medicine and other basic needs of life, such as food and electricity, and yet often the reality is that they do have to make that choice.

My amendment would help ease a little bit of this pain by giving Americans more options. But in doing so, it is very narrow, it is very cautious, it is very specific. It applies to only individual consumers--not wholesalers--bringing in for their personal use FDA- approved prescription drugs, and only from one country; namely, Canada.

As I said, in doing so the language is nearly identical to the Vitter amendment to the DHS appropriations bill that passed the Senate last Congress with a strong bipartisan majority, 55 to 36, with 9 members not voting.

This would provide real relief to millions of Americans, including seniors. It would allow reimportation from Canada--a very safe source country--including through mail order and over the Internet. The language, again, was restricted to personal use reimportation. Wholesalers cannot participate. It only applies to a consumer who gets a valid prescription from a doctor. So this amendment would specifically prohibit funding to the FDA to the extent that they would crack down and prohibit and police against this narrow activity.

Back home and in Washington, Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle often talk about doing something about skyrocketing prescription drug costs. This is a very specific, narrowly tailored, cautious but effective means where we can do something, where we can have an impact, where we can help tens of millions of Americans, including many vulnerable seniors.

I hope Democrats and Republicans will come together again, as we did last Congress, and give a strong, healthy bipartisan majority to this idea. It is the right thing to do. It would help Americans, it would help seniors, and it is a very careful, cautious approach: personal use only, not wholesalers, Canada only.

Again, I urge that we adopt this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I will speak for up to 10 minutes, but I would first defer to the Senator from Michigan for a unanimous consent agreement.

Madam President, today is the 1-year anniversary of President Obama and Secretary of Interior Salazar finally lifting the formal moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico following the BP disaster. But simply lifting the moratorium did not solve the problem. I return to the Senate floor today to again say that still, a year later, that problem is not solved because there is a continuing permit logjam.

It started with a de facto moratorium. Now there has just been a trickle of permits, and there is a continuing permit logjam that has dramatically shut down and slowed energy activity in the Gulf of Mexico. That must change.

Of course, this is vitally important for my State of Louisiana and the livelihoods of tens of thousands of my citizens. That must change for the good of the country as well, for our economic well-being and to increase our revenues to address deficit and debt.

As we talk about jobs and various jobs bills and jobs proposals, we must focus on the domestic energy sector, and we must change the situation. We must reverse this virtual shutdown of the gulf for the good of the country, and I hope we do that.

To that end, I joined Congressman Jeff Landry yesterday in a meeting with Obama Director Michael Bromwich and other high-ranking administration officials who have to do with this very permitting and leasing process. We wanted to sit down with these officials in the Obama administration to again make this very point. The formal moratorium was lifted a year ago, but the problem persists, and we need to do better. We need to issue permits at a much more healthy pace. We need to get that important domestic energy activity back up and running in the Gulf of Mexico.

Recently, there was an independent study by HIS Global Insight which put some hard numbers on this situation. That study said leasing in the Gulf of Mexico is down about 65 percent from pre-formal moratorium levels. It also pointed out that the waiting line of people and companies to get permits has almost doubled. It has increased 90 percent.

So what does that mean? That means far less activity in the gulf, far less energy activity for the country, and far fewer jobs--jobs we need now more than ever in this horrible economy.

Let me give some other relevant numbers. As of the end of September-- just a few weeks ago--there were 21 floating rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, of which about 18 are currently drilling wells. That compares, premoratorium, to 33 floating rigs with 29 drilling wells at that time. That is a 37-percent drop in both the number of rigs and those drilling.

Since the moratorium began, 11 rigs have left the Gulf of Mexico. Only one of these has returned. In addition, three more are sitting idle. Seven of these rigs have left to go to African countries, including Egypt, Nigeria, Liberia, and the Republic of Congo. Three have gone to South America, mostly to Brazil and French Guiana; and the remaining rig was mobilized to Vietnam. This all translates to about 60 wells lost based on the original contract terms for these rigs.

The loss of these rigs isn't just loss of equipment; it is loss of important energy and economic activity, and it is loss of jobs. It is lost spending of $6.3 billion and an annual loss of direct employment of 11,500 jobs over just 2 years. When we look at indirect employment, it is a multiplier that brings that lost job figure to way more than that.

Again, it started with the formal moratorium. The formal moratorium was lifted 1 year ago today, but the problem persists because there was a de facto moratorium, and there is still a permit logjam.

Another example of this enormous problem isn't just permitting. Another example is lease activity by the administration. Again, that is completely separate and apart from permitting. But the dramatic decline in lease sales, lease activity that the administration is putting out, shows the same problem mindset. What do I mean?

Well, in the last fiscal year, the administration had no new lease activity--zero, nothing, nada. What that means is--just a few years ago the income to the Federal Government from lease sales was almost $10 billion, and that has fallen like a rock through the floor and is now zero. That is another indicator of a problem mindset in this administration, leading to a dramatic economic slowdown. We need to reverse this. We need to do better for the economy, for jobs, and for that important revenue it brings to the Federal Government which could lower deficit and debt.

So as we talk about the need to create good American jobs, as we also talk about the need to grapple with our deficit and debt situation and dramatically lower deficit and debt, as we talk about the need for revenue to be part of that picture, domestic energy has to be part of the solution, and it can be a big and productive part of the solution to both of those huge problems--the need to create good American jobs and the need to lower deficit and debt. If we aggressively pursue domestic energy production, starting in the gulf, fully reopening the gulf, getting the permit process to a pace at least equal to pre-formal moratorium levels, get lease activity back online, and then expand to other areas of our resources off the Atlantic, Pacific, offshore Alaska--we have enormous resources that are now off-limits to energy production--if we do that, we can grow jobs, we can grow Federal revenue and lessen deficit and debt, and we can help attack both of those major economic problems for the country.

Again, yesterday, I met, along with Congressman Landry, with Director Bromwich to make those points, to give specific examples of what we can be doing to go down that path in favor of good American jobs and lowering the deficit and debt. I hope it made a difference. Ultimately, only time will tell. But this needs to be part of our overall economic approach. This needs to be part of our deficit and debt reduction approach, and it can make a major contribution to solving both of these problems.

I hope in a bipartisan way we will do that, and urge that in the Senate, and the administration will break through the negative mindset they have had for several years and do that in an aggressive way. Our country needs it. Our workers need it. We need it as taxpayers to lower the deficit and debt, and this would be a very productive way forward.

Madam President, with that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I move to vitiate the quorum.

Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. President, I move to vitiate the quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a true American hero. On August 5, 2011, our State and Nation lost a great patriot when Navy SEAL CPO Robert Reeves, aged 32, died in Afghanistan during combat operations in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Chief Reeves was raised in Louisiana by his loving parents Jo and James Reeves, and he graduated from Caddo Magnet High School in Shreveport, LA, where he played both soccer and lacrosse.

After 1 year at LSU, Chief Reeves enlisted in the U.S. Navy and joined the SEALs in 1999. Since that time, he has been assigned to various SEAL teams where he made several combat deployments in support of the global war on terror, distinguishing himself in combat operations during 13 years of service in the U.S. Navy.

A decorated soldier, he served as a member of the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, or SEAL Team Six as it is more commonly known, and was the recipient of four Bronze Stars--earned for his bravery and meritorious service. He carried out his duties with pride and without reservation and each of us owes him our gratitude for his selfless sacrifice.

There is no doubt that this tragic loss will not only be felt within the Reeves family but also the Navy and the entire Nation. My deepest thoughts and prayers are with his family during this extraordinarily difficult time. Our Nation is safer and stronger because of brave heroes like Chief Reeves. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me as we honor the life of Navy SEAL CPO Robert Reeves and his legacy, as well as all the other brave men and women in our Armed Forces who have given the ultimate sacrifice in service to our great Nation.

Madam President, I am happy to be the first to take the distinguished majority leader up on his offer and be here on the Senate floor to talk about this very important matter.

I plan on voting no on this proposal. It is a very important matter. It is in many ways the greatest challenge we face as a nation. So I don't come to this decision lightly, but I do come to it firmly for three primary reasons.

First of all, this bill, this so-called solution, doesn't fundamentally change our spending and debt picture. It just plays around the margins. It doesn't make any big change whatsoever.

To put it differently, I don't want to default under any circumstances, but I don't want a downgrade of our credit rating either. From everything the markets and the credit rating agencies-- Moody's and Standard & Poor's--have said for months, this would result in a downgrade. This would result in higher interest rates--first for the government and then for all of us--on our home mortgages, on our car payments, and everything else. Why? Because, again, it doesn't fundamentally change our spending and debt picture. It only cuts $7 billion in the first year and $3 billion in the second year, a total in the first 2 years of $10 billion. That is basically a minuscule rounding error in terms of the size of the Federal budget.

Over the next 10 years, we continue to mount up $7 trillion worth of new debt. So we are at $14 trillion now; we are going to add on another $7 trillion of new debt under this plan, and we do nothing to stabilize our debt-to-GDP ratio, which is perhaps the most important metric that economists and others point to.

We need to do better. We need to have some plan to balance the budget. This plan never balances. This plan has mountains of new debt still building. This plan never stabilizes our debt-to-GDP ratio.

Again, I don't want to default. I will vote to avoid a default. But I do not want a downgrade either that costs every American in a meaningful way.

Second, I have looked very hard at the enforcement provisions of this bill, and I am convinced that even the meager numbers in this bill, in terms of cuts, are going to be blown, are going to be waived, because there is no meaningful enforcement. The only thing it will take to bust the numbers in this bill is a new bill that passes by a simple majority in the House and by 60 votes in the Senate. We are constantly looking at those sorts of vehicles, particularly when we are probably going to have disaster appropriations and disaster bills coming to the Congress. There are no real teeth in this bill. There is not adequate enforcement.

To their credit, several Members of this body and several Members of the House have spent months talking about how good, meaningful enforcement mechanisms could work. The Gang of 6 had real enforcement mechanisms that they spent a lot of time on. Senators here, such as Bob Corker, had meaningful enforcement mechanisms built into their proposed legislation. None of those are in this bill. Those could easily have been adopted. Those could easily have been put in the bill; they were not.

Third, and finally, I am very concerned that the triggers in this bill that are supposed to be there to ensure a second round of savings and deficit reduction are not going to work. I do not see how they are going to incent, particularly the Democrats, particularly the left, to move to a new package of savings and deficit reduction. I think, rather, the triggers will be triggered, and we will have unsustainable defense cuts and also unsustainable cuts to doctors and hospitals in Medicare. That is perhaps another reason, going back to point No. 2, that even the numbers in this bill are not going to hold. They are going to be waived; they are going to be busted.

I have to say I hope I am wrong on all three counts if this bill, in fact, passes. But I have looked at it carefully, soberly, and that is the clear conclusion to which I have come. I hope we can do better. I hope we do better because we must for the American people, because we need to start turning around our completely unsustainable spending and debt situation.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise to ask support, bipartisan support, for the Vitter amendment which we will be voting on at 12 noon. This amendment is very simple. It is very straightforward. I think it is important and makes a central point.

The amendment says these funds in this bill will not be spent unless and until we have a 2012 budget, unless we start with first things first and decide what the overall budget framework is and then move forward with spending, with appropriations bills consistent with that budget. That is all it says. It is simple, straightforward, but it is an important point.

Folks around America, including in the market, are scratching their heads. They look at Washington and us and the Congress and the President and see almost complete dysfunction in the complete lack of a budget, even lack of an attempt to get a budget in place, which is a glaring, maybe the top example of that.

This isn't just a good, commonsense idea, something every family does, something every small business does; this also happens to be required by Federal law.

The Federal Budget Act mandates that we pass a budget by April 15 of every year. We have not done that. The House passed a budget. The Senate, quite frankly, has not even tried. The Senate Budget Committee has not even met to begin to do that in regular order, through the normal process. In fact, it is worse than that. The Senate didn't even try to do that last year under the same current leadership. So we are now over 800 days and counting, that the Senate, under this leadership, has not even tried to comply with Federal law and adopt a budget.

Again, my amendment is very simple. It says first things first. We need a budget so any appropriations bill, any spending is only done consistent with and in the context of that budget.

That is the right way to do it. That is the right way to run a railroad. That is what every Louisiana family does in setting its plans. That is what every Louisiana business does in setting its plans. That is what the American people and the markets want from us.

In the last few weeks, there has been great discussion about Moody's and Standard & Poor's and the threats to downgrade U.S. Treasury notes. What they have been saying is loud and clear. It is not a pure focus on the debt ceiling; it is even a more important focus as well on the underlying issue of spending and debt. They have been saying what every economist also says: We are on a completely unsustainable path in terms of spending and debt. They want to see a real change in that--the start of a real change, adding up to at least $4 trillion of deficit reduction. We need to do that.

Step one to doing that is to have a budget. We can't begin to do that without a budget plan, without an outline. Again, that goes to the core, the simple, fundamental, straightforward and important point of this Vitter amendment. I urge my colleagues to put first things first. I urge my colleagues to say we need to start doing our business, starting with a 2012 budget.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise to make pending the Vitter amendment which is at the desk, and I will be happy to explain what it is about. If it is necessary, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and make the Vitter amendment pending.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive reading of the admendment.

Mr. President, I will read it. It is very short, and I will explain it. This amendment simply says:

None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available

by this Act shall exceed the level of the concurrent budget

resolution for fiscal year 2012.

That is the entire amendment.

The point this amendment makes is a pretty simple but a basic and important one. We do not have a concurrent budget resolution for fiscal year 2012. We are in the process of passing an appropriations bill, spending money without a budget, without a game plan, without a framework. That is clearly putting the cart before the horse and clearly having things backward in a dysfunctional process.

Every Louisiana family, every Louisiana small business, as families and businesses do in Minnesota, sits down and makes a budget, and then they spend money under that budget. That is the rational, straightforward way to do things. Unfortunately, that is not what we are doing in Congress and in the Senate.

This simple, straightforward process is not only rational, it is not only commonsensical, it is also required by law. Under Federal law, the Congress is mandated to pass a budget, to pass a concurrent budget resolution by April 15 of every year. We are months beyond April 15-- several months and counting--and not only do we not have this required budget, this game plan, this framework which we are supposed to be living by, but on the Senate side we have not even made a meaningful effort to get there.

The distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee has not made an effort in committee to come up with a Senate budget resolution. There has been no effort in committee, and so no Senate budget has been sent to the floor. In fact, the same thing happened in the previous fiscal year. So we are now not just several months past this year's April 15 deadline, but we are over 800 days since the last time we had a budget resolution as required by Federal law--800 days, over 800 days and counting.

I am afraid this is exactly the sort of thing the American people shake their

heads at. This is exactly the sort of thing they scratch their heads about, shake their heads at, and say: What is wrong in Washington?

Every Louisiana family has a budget they have to live within. Every Louisiana small business has a budget and that is their framework and they operate within that. Yet Congress, apparently, does not get it, particularly the Senate does not get it under this majority leadership and is not even making an attempt to do what is not only a good, sound idea but is required by Federal law.

Again, I just suggest we put first things first: We have a budget and then we only spend money, only pass appropriations bills pursuant to and consistent with that budget. That is why, again, my amendment is very simple:

None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available

by this Act shall exceed the level of the concurrent budget

resolution for fiscal year 2012.

I urge us all to do the right thing. We will have different ideas about a budget. We will have different priorities. We will have an important and healthy debate, but we need to follow the law. We need to follow common sense. We need to have a budget and then only pass spending and appropriations bills under that budget and consistent with it.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor a young man who is now one of our Nation's finest Olympians.

Joel Murray of West Monroe, LA, was recently invited to represent the United States of America at the 2011 Special Olympics World Summer Games in Athens, Greece. Joel is an eight time Louisiana State golf champion and a two time national gold medalist, and this year was the first time in his 13 years competing in the Special Olympics that he was invited to compete in the World Summer Games.

As a result of his dedication and commitment to the game he loves, Joel competed in Level V Stroke Play, the highest and most challenging level, and won a silver medal.

Joel is also a 2011 Louisiana Special Olympics gold medalist, was recognized as the Louisiana Special Olympics male athlete of the year and was inducted into the Louisiana Special Olympics Hall of Fame.

If his list of accolades wasn't long enough, in 2009, Joel set a 54- hole tournament record for the Special Olympics Golf National Invitational Tournament. And away from golf, Joel devotes his time to counseling young adults with disabilities at the Louisiana Youth Leadership Forum.

Mr. President, I am proud to honor Joel Murray and applaud him on his remarkable accomplishments.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.