Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kirk and I speak in succession for up to 15 minutes and that the Democratic side then have two speakers.

Mr. President, I rise again to urge all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to come together and put serious deficit reduction proposals on the floor for full debate, an open amendment process, a constructive debate and votes and action. That is the way we can move forward and resolve this greatest threat we face as a country, out-of- control Washington spending and debt.

We are making a little bit of progress in that regard. After months and months of the distinguished majority leader putting every other issue under the Sun on the floor but spending and debt, we finally forced this central issue to come and be debated.

Last week, many of us banded together, conservatives who were pushing for this debate, and said: Enough is enough. We should cancel the July 4 recess, we should block it so we stay and debate the central issue. That is what we did, and we successfully did that. Unfortunately, the majority leader then proposed that we stay here--yes, because we had blocked the recess--but did not put the central issue on the floor and moved yet another topic. We said: No; we are staying to get to this debate, this important issue, the greatest challenge we face right now as a country, and we successfully defeated his move to another topic.

Finally, with this little bit of progress, we are on the floor at least talking about the right issue. But we don't yet have a strong, meaningful, underlying proposal to act on. We have a sense-of-the- Senate resolution. That is a good basis for debate, I suppose. But, of course, we need more than that. We need serious proposals to debate and amend and vote on and act on. That is the important next step.

When I made these remarks yesterday, the distinguished Senator from New York, Senator Schumer, was in the Chamber and suggested that Republicans, including myself, had not gotten behind a serious, credible proposal. Specifically, he said: Wait a minute. The Ryan budget, which you voted for, doesn't reduce the deficit at all. I said at the time that is incorrect, but I didn't have the numbers in front of me. In fact, I looked it up, and the Ryan budget does significantly reduce the deficit from $1.4 trillion this year to $391 billion at the end of 10 years. That is a major reduction.

As I said to the Senator from New York at the time, my preference even ahead of that is the Toomey budget, which we produced on the Republican side in the Senate. That reduces the deficit from $1.4 trillion right now to zero over 10 years. It balances the budget over 10 years--obviously, major progress.

Again, going back to the Ryan budget, which Senator Schumer brought up, it contains $6.2 trillion in spending reductions compared to spending in President Obama's budget. It adds

total deficits that are $4.4 trillion lower than that in the President's budget. It brings total Federal spending to below 20 percent of the economy. The President's budget is always above 23 percent in that figure. So it puts us on a path to balance. Again, the Toomey budget, my first choice, actually achieves that balance within the 10-year budget window.

In contrast to that, I have to say it is very unsettling that the distinguished majority leader and the majority in this Chamber have not even tried to meet our mandated budget responsibilities. Section 300 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which is the Federal law that controls the budget process, says that by April 15 of every year, a budget resolution is supposed to be passed. We are 83 days and counting past that deadline and no serious attempt to even try to meet that legal mandate has been made by the majority or by the distinguished majority leader. We have had a few budget votes, three Republican budget proposals, and President Obama's budget. The Obama budget got zero votes on the Senate floor. The majority, the majority leader produced no budget proposal. The Finance Committee, led by the majority, produced no budget proposal, not even trying to meet our responsibility, an actual legal mandate under the law.

Through the Chair, I would ask Senator Schumer: Where is your proposal? Where is your attempt? Yes, we have put forth specific proposals that dramatically cut the deficit. When is the majority going to even try? Again, 83 days and counting this year past that deadline. Of course, last year this body, under the same leadership, produced no budget. So we are 448 days and counting in total under the Budget Act. In that time, by the way, our debt has increased $3.2 trillion.

That is why we need serious proposals on this Senate floor to debate, to amend if necessary, to vote on, to act on. At least we are to the topic, but we need serious proposals before us to act on.

Again, I urge all of my colleagues to embrace a three-tier approach, cut and cap and balance: passing a budget resolution which we are mandated to do that includes immediate meaningful real cuts--that is cut; cap, structural budget reform to cap spending in every major category of the budget to ensure we stay on that path to a balanced budget; and balance, a requirement in the U.S. Constitution that we have a balanced Federal budget through the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I support that. All Republicans in this body have coauthored that. That is the third crucial tier of this three-tier approach: cut, cap, and balance.

I hope we get to consideration of those and other important proposals. I hope we not only have a debate around a sense-of-the- Senate resolution, I hope we have real meaningful proposals on the floor, an open amendment process, an open debate and votes and action on this most critical issue. I have endorsed specific proposals. I mentioned two of them. They dramatically reduce the deficit. I have coauthored the balanced budget constitutional amendment that enforces discipline, the straitjacket we need. I support the cap concept for the medium term to get us on that path. But we need to act on that on the floor in a bipartisan way. I urge that as the next necessary step.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, will the Chair inform me when I have consumed 12 minutes?

Madam President, first, I rise to celebrate that we are finally, after months and months of doing everything under the Sun but facing our gravest challenge, which is spending and debt, focused on that on the floor of the Senate. That is progress. We have a long way to go, but at least that is progress.

For months, I have been urging us as a body, urging the majority leader, who controls the floor, please, let's focus on our gravest challenge, Federal spending and debt, and not wait until the eleventh hour, not wait for a crisis atmosphere. Let's put on the floor meaningful legislation about spending and debt.

For months and months, unfortunately, we did everything but that on the floor of the Senate. The majority leader looked for every bill and every topic but that, and it was all sorts of cats and dogs--many of them, quite frankly, trivial, unnecessary legislation, particularly compared to this grave challenge of spending and debt.

Finally, last week, a group of conservatives here said enough is enough. We should not go out on our planned July 4 recess, which was scheduled to be all of this week. We said we are going to block that. It takes unanimous consent for that to happen. We said we would block it and, sure enough, we did. We said, wait a minute, we are not blocking that just to be here. We are not blocking that to be here and continue to move on to every other issue under the Sun but spending and debt. We did that to finally focus on the floor of the Senate on the gravest of all of our current challenges--Federal spending and debt.

We said we are going to vote against the motion to proceed to the Libya debate. Libya is an important matter. In fact, that debate is long overdue in Congress. Those votes are long overdue. But that challenge does not rise to the level of our greatest fundamental challenge right now as a nation, which is spending and debt. We said we are going to block that motion to proceed to yet another unrelated matter, and we did. We rounded up the votes in the last half week and got those necessary votes to block that motion to proceed. As a result, the distinguished majority leader pulled that vote, he vitiated that cloture vote yesterday.

Finally, we have an instrument on the Senate floor--a motion--about this central challenge we face, spending and debt. So that is progress. I urge all of my colleagues to come down and join this most important debate. I continue to urge the majority leader to put meaningful, substantive legislation on the floor about this topic. We have motions on sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. It focuses us on the proper topic, spending and debt. That is progress.

But, of course, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution does not do anything or change anything. We still have further to go in terms of bringing meaningful legislation to the floor, our gravest challenge, Federal spending and debt.

Why do I insist this is our top challenge at hand? The facts speak for themselves. Of every $1 the Federal Government spends--of every $1--over 40 cents is borrowed money--over 40 cents of every $1. Imagine if we ran our household that way. It wouldn't take long for one to hit a financial dead end and virtual bankruptcy--if out of every $1 our family was spending, 40 cents of it was borrowed money.

What does that mean? It means we are collecting, as a nation--as a Federal Government--about $2.2 trillion a year. That is a lot of money, $2.2 trillion. The problem is we are spending $3.7 trillion--way, way, way more than we are collecting.

The distinguished majority whip mentioned entitlement spending, and I agree with him that is a big part of the issue which we must face in a careful, substantive way because Medicare is one of those big entitlement programs. It, too, is on an unsustainable path. The average American pays about $110,000 into Medicare over his or her lifetime--a lot of money--but, on average, that average American receives in benefits over $430,000 under Medicare. There again, it is not tough to do the math. That is unsustainable, when the average American pays in $110,000 and receives in benefits over $300,000.

Social Security is another huge entitlement program. This year, it is taking in less than it is spending on current retirees. That day of reckoning was going to be several years down the road, but it has been accelerated. It is here now--right now. Social Security is taking in, in tax revenue, less than it is paying out in benefits to retirees.

What does this mean? This adds up and up and up. So we have more new debt under this administration--more new debt under President Obama-- than the debt compiled under all the previous Presidents combined, from the first George Bush to the latest George, George W. Bush. We have more new debt under this President than the debt accumulated from all those previous Presidents combined. We must do something, and we must do something about the real problem, spending and debt.

Washington, in a bipartisan way, has a spending problem. The fundamental problem isn't that we are undertaxed. We all know that, no matter what station in life we come from. The fundamental problem is, Washington doesn't live within its means, such as we as families do as we sit around our kitchen tables and look at our budgets. Washington has a fundamental spending and debt problem, and we need real solutions--rigorous, disciplined solutions--to get that under control.

How do we go about that? To me, it comes down to three important things: cut, cap, and balance--cut, cap, and balance. Cut: We need to cut the budget now. We need to cut the budget this year and next year. We need immediate meaningful cuts. That is why I support those immediate meaningful cuts in the Federal budget. We can't put off meaningful cuts for 1 year or 5 years or 10 years. We need them right now.

A few weeks ago, we had some budget proposals on the floor. We had several

Republican proposals and we had President Obama's proposed budget. The Obama budget didn't cut in a meaningful way. In fact, it doubled the debt in 5 years and tripled the debt in 10. On the Republican side, we had three different alternatives, all of which cut the budget in a meaningful way, and I voted for all three. We need to start now, today, with cuts.

But that is not enough. That is short term. We need immediate cuts, we need medium-term caps, and we need balance. So let's discuss caps. What do I mean by a cap? I mean we need established spending caps in each major category of the budget that takes some sort of extraordinary supermajority in the Congress to supercede. We need a glidepath to actually get through those caps to a balanced budget in a reasonable period of time.

There are several proposals in this body. There are several proposals in the House, mostly from the Republican, conservative side--virtually all of them--to establish those caps, to get us on that disciplined mandatory path so we reach that balanced budget.

Third, and finally, balance: The goal needs to be a balanced budget, and it can't be a goal generations off. It can't be a goal decades off. It needs to be a goal within our sight. The only way, ultimately, I believe, we can absolutely ensure that is through a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

I am very proud to be a coauthor, along with all my Republican colleagues--every single one of us--of a strong, meaningful, substantive balanced budget constitutional amendment. This has been debated in this body and the House for some time. The last time it was voted on, on the floor of the Senate, it came within one vote of passing. We need to have this ultimate protection and straitjacket and enforced discipline to say we are getting to a balanced budget, we are going to stay there, and we are not going to get in this state again.

Virtually every State in the country has such a balanced budget constitutional amendment under their State constitution, and that enforced discipline works. That straitjacket at the State level works. It works in my State of Louisiana. We have such a provision in our State constitution which says we can't have a State budget which is out of balance. That mandate, that requirement for a balanced budget works. Every year, the legislature, working with the Governor, produces a balanced budget. If they go out of session and 1 month later revenues fall and the budget goes out of balance, they have to come back in within a set period of time and they have to rebalance that budget. It is not fun. It is not easy. It has been particularly difficult in this horrible economy for the last several years, but because of that mandate, because of that constitutional provision, it gets done. That is what we need at the Federal level. We need a balanced budget constitutional amendment.

So I repeat: cut, cap, and balance. It is an important formula. It is simple but substantive and it will get us where we need to be.

I thank the Chair.

I urge all my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to come together and continue this debate and move it to the next level.

As I said when I began, the first thing I wish to do is recognize and celebrate progress because, after months of resistance from the distinguished majority leader, we are finally on the Senate floor actually talking about our most pressing challenge, spending and debt. But it is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It is a procedural motion.

Let's get to the real substance by having meaningful legislation-- cut, cap, and balance legislation--on the floor of the Senate, open to amendments and open to wide-ranging debate. That is the history and tradition of the Senate. Unfortunately, it hasn't been the practice of the Senate all that much in recent years, but we are trying to get back to that. So let's put that meaningful, substantive legislation about spending and debt on the floor of the Senate, have that debate, have amendments, and have a free flow of ideas.

Cut, cap, and balance--we can get there. We can do the work of the American people. We can rein in this runaway Federal spending and debt, and we must. We must do it now. Because if we fail to meet this challenge this year--if we fail to meet this challenge this year--I believe there are going to be dire consequences for our economy and for all American families as a result.

Having this topic on the floor of the Senate is a start, but it is only a start. Let's build on this, put substantive legislation on the floor about spending and debt, and act on that meaningful, substantive legislation.

I yield the floor.

I would be happy to.

Well, first of all, I voted for that budget as well as the Toomey budget. The Toomey budget, which was my first choice and preference, balances the budget in 10 years. That would be my first choice.

The Ryan budget gets us way down the path compared to anything else proposed on the Democratic side, such as the President's budget, which on the Senate floor actually got 0 votes out of 100. So while the Ryan budget is not my first choice, it is a dramatic improvement on the path we are currently on.

If I may respond, through the Chair.

That is not true. It reduces the deficit. It doesn't balance the budget within the 10-year window, which is my strong preference--the Toomey budget does do that--but it gets us going in the right direction. It reduces the deficit, and it is a particularly dramatic improvement over anything proposed by this administration.

I thank my colleague.

I thank Senator Johnson, and I am honored to join him and all our colleagues here to echo the same important message. Everyone knows--everyone paying attention across the country knows--our greatest challenge is out-of-control spending and debt. Everyone knows we face a mounting crisis and an important deadline in terms of the debt limit. So when are we going to face these crucial issues, the top challenges we face as a country? When are we going to face them squarely, directly, constructively on the floor of the Senate? It is just that simple. Let's get to the important matter at hand. Let's debate in a constructive way and let's vote on proposals to curb spending and debt.

Yesterday, we stood together, under Senator Johnson's leadership, and said just that. We said we are going to block any effort to go into a recess or a pro forma session next week--the July 4 recess. We have done that. We have successfully blocked that recess, and we did that because we need to roll up our sleeves. We need to go to work, not go on vacation, and deal with this crucial challenge of spending and debt.

Interestingly, President Obama, in many ways, said the same thing yesterday. He chastised Congress and said: You need to go to work, not go on vacation, and address this crucial issue. Well, great. We have succeeded in canceling that recess. That is a first important step. But why are we continuing to try to move to every other issue under the Sun except the biggest challenge our country faces? Why don't we face this issue, debate it in a constructive way?

Senator Reid, why don't you put measures on the floor that directly address this issue?

With that in mind, those of us who joined together yesterday to block our July 4 recess have written Senator Reid a letter today, and I think it summarizes our point and our position very clearly, so I will read it. It is not long.

Dear Leader Reid:

Yesterday we came together to make it clear that we believe

the Senate should not go on vacation while our country goes

bankrupt. We vowed to block any recess or pro forma session

next week.

We're glad you have accepted that reality. But let's not be

in session just to try to fool the American people into

thinking the Senate is working on the Nation's fiscal crisis.

Let's actually begin a constructive debate on the biggest

challenge our country faces--spending and debt.

With that goal, we write to ask a few simple fundamental

questions: When will you put serious bills on the floor to

directly address spending and debt?

The Budget Act of 1974 requires the Senate Budget Committee

to mark up a budget by April 15th, and tomorrow will mark the

793rd day since the Democratic-led Senate has passed a budget

and the 11th week since missing that deadline this year. When

will the Budget Committee meet to mark up a budget proposal,

and when will you put such a proposal on the floor?

The American people want us to enact meaningful, effective

spending caps. When will you put a spending cap bill on the

floor?

We clearly need the enforced discipline of a balanced

budget constitutional amendment. This measure failed by a

single vote last time it was debated on the floor of the

Senate. When will you put a balanced budget amendment on the

floor?

We await your response and your leadership.

So, again, Mr. President, to summarize, we banded together yesterday and said: As the country goes bankrupt, we shouldn't go on vacation. We are going to block any recess, any pro forma session next week. And we did. But we did it to turn to this challenge: to debate spending and debt in a constructive way, to have votes on that, not to continue to avoid the issue and turn to every other issue under the Sun.

So through the Chair, I would again ask Senator Reid, why don't we turn to this most important challenge of our country. Please put serious bills on the Senate floor that directly address spending and debt. Let's get on with the people's work.

I thank Senator Johnson.

I am glad our Republican freshmen did not get the memo that they were supposed to be seen but not heard. It is exciting for this old dusty establishment when the people who just walked in the door are the ones who are leading it. So I thank all the freshmen who are sitting here.

Washington is addicted to spending, and the ``addict in chief'' is President Obama. He has promised many times to quit, to quit spending, to live within our means, but he keeps falling off the wagon. Now, for the fourth time since he has been President, he is asking Congress to refill the bottle so he can keep spending and keep borrowing and keep increasing America's debt.

Members of the Senate often brag about the fact that we have the power of the purse. Part of that power is to pass laws to limit how much the administration can borrow. It has been a tradition. But both parties over the years have consistently blown through that legal debt limit and increased it whenever we wanted another drink.

The debt limit is supposed to be a stop sign, to stop the administration from spending more than we can afford as a nation. Instead, they have turned it into a green light, where we can just speed through and continue to pour more and more debt onto our children.

But now we have gone from it being just a wink and a nod, where we brag about how much bacon we take home to we are at the point where we could seriously lose our Nation. I think Americans sense that everywhere.

Congressmen and politicians constantly exaggerate and cry wolf, but I think there is a sense all across America that goes beyond partisanship to real worry. That is what I hear everywhere I go.

People somehow intuitively know that if we have debt almost the size of our economy and projecting to even double that over the next 10 years, what they see on TV in Greece and around the world of countries literally coming unglued could very well happen much quicker than we think in the United States.

We have over $14 trillion in debt. We know the President is not serious about quitting this spending binge because the budget he sent us practically doubles that. As we have gone through these last few months of talking about raising the debt limit once again, we have not gotten one proposal from the President to deal with this issue. He has played dozens of rounds of golf and had many fundraisers around the country, but he has been AWOL on this issue.

So not only has he added over $3 trillion of debt since he became President, he has been missing in action when it comes to actually dealing with it. His condescending speech yesterday that told Congress to solve the problem ignored the fact that he was elected as President to lead. Yet he is not even following when it comes to this issue.

We do have a spending addiction, and the only way we are going to stop it and keep our country from going over the cliff is if we have a constitutional requirement that we have to stop spending more than we are borrowing.

Outside Washington that doesn't sound as if it is an extraordinary thing to say. But here last week, one of the

Democratic Senators called me extreme for suggesting we needed to balance our budget. American families have to do it, businesses have to do it, 49 States have to do it, and sometimes it is painful. But we don't have to do it here. The reason we have an unlimited government is that we have unlimited spending in Congress.

We are at a point where we have to make a decision. We have obligated ourselves to borrow more money. We don't have a good choice at this point. But if we are going to give the President more money to spend to meet obligations he has already made, we have to make sure this is the end of this spending addiction. The only way for that to happen is if we in Congress give the people of the United States, and the 50 States, the opportunity to decide for themselves if they want their Federal Government to have a balanced budget.

That is what our condition is. We will help the President deal with this debt ceiling, but he is going to have to agree with us, and so will the Democratic Party, that we are going to send to the States a balanced budget amendment that the States can ratify. Five years after they ratify it, this Federal Government must be in balance.

If we can't do that, if we can't make that commitment to the American people that we are going to stop this addiction, stop bankrupting our country, then we are going to have to go through the pain we have caused ourselves, along with this President, when we don't raise that debt limit.

We need the help of Americans today because the people in Congress do not have the willpower to do what I just said. We need millions of Americans to call us and e-mail us and tell the President and tell Members of Congress that this debt limit should not be raised again, ever, unless we permanently solve this problem for the American people.

I ask unanimous consent for 2 more minutes.

This is very little to ask this Congress to do--to agree, within 6 or 8 years, to do the hard work to balance our budget in return for giving the President more authority to borrow more money.

We owe it to the American people to let them decide for themselves and let the States ratify it. This is a huge decision. All we are asking our Democratic colleagues to do is to let America decide if we should have a balanced budget. Let America decide if it is a radical, extreme idea that we live within our means and stop spending more than we are bringing in. I know how America is going to answer that question, and that is why I want to give them the chance to answer it.

Mr. President, you have the money you need to meet our obligations, but once and for all we need to mean what we say and stop spending this country into bankruptcy.

I thank the Chair. I yield.

Mr. President, I would like to close on my czar amendment and encourage strong bipartisan support.

Mr. President, we have a bill before us about the Senate advice and consent process--the Senate confirmation process--and I think it would be a tragedy to consider any bill on that subject and not, in fact, address the biggest issue, the biggest problem with that process that exists now--certainly also in the eyes of the American people--and that is the abuse by the Executive, over several administrations but culminating in this administration, of appointing so-called czars as an end run around the U.S. Constitution, as an end run around the powers of the Senate and the balance of power of advice and consent and confirmation.

My amendment would fix that. It would defund czars and their offices. It is carefully crafted, it is carefully defined, and it would say we are not going to allow these czars to operate when they are essentially taking the place and the function of what should be a Senate-confirmed position. Again, the language is careful. It is carefully thought out, it is carefully crafted, and there are exceptions in the language which are important, so I commend all my colleagues to look at that. But the main point is simple and clear and important: We shouldn't allow any Executive, any administration, to end-run the U.S. Constitution, to end-run the Senate's important and appropriate role of confirmation, or advice and consent.

So I encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

In closing, I thank several Members who have cosponsored the amendment--Senators Paul and Heller and Grassley--and I also thank very much Senator Collins, who has been a leader on this effort and has freestanding legislation on the topic which I support. We have and will continue to consult on this issue until we properly get the job done.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Barrasso be added as a cosponsor.

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

Mr. President, I call up and would make pending amendment No. 499, which is part of the agreement in terms of the debate on this bill.

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

Mr. President, I thank Senators Paul and Heller and Grassley for cosponsoring this amendment, which is about czars--this administration, any administration, usurping the appropriate role and authority of the Senate in the advice and consent process. This is, obviously, directly relevant to this legislation.

As we debate this legislation designed to reduce the number of positions in the government that require Senate confirmation, we should also ensure that the Senate's role is not eroded by unconfirmed Federal czars in very significant positions which should be subject to advice and consent. That is what my amendment is about. That is what my amendment would correct.

This amendment would ensure that any administration--not just this one, any administration, Republican, Democrat, other--is prevented from using so-called czars for similar positions to perform duties that are the responsibility of those positions subject to confirmation by prohibiting funding of those so-called czar positions. Specifically, the amendment would prohibit funding for these czar positions.

The amendment does not unduly restrict Presidential advisory staff. We all agree the President is entitled to direct advisers. Instead, it focuses on ``the head of any task force, council, policy office or similar office established by or at the direction of the President.'' It is aimed squarely at positions created in order to circumvent the advice and consent role of the Senate. Unfortunately, that is exactly what has happened at greatly increasing frequency over the last several years.

It also carves out of the prohibition and allows two things: No. 1, any individuals who are serving in the position of Assistant Secretary or the equivalent position that requires Senate confirmation, that situation is living by the normal, appropriate advice and consent requirement. It also carves out the assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and we include this carve-out simply to ensure that national security concerns are not impacted.

As a result of these carefully crafted exemptions, my amendment would not remove the President's ability to have advisory staff and keeps the focus on the intended targets and the real abuses--czars created to circumvent the scrutiny of the Senate and the advice and consent and the confirmation process.

Under the current administration, we have seen dramatic increases in this practice--in the amount of power given to these so-called czars appointed directly by the President and not subject to advice and consent and confirmation by the Senate.

Politico has written that President Obama ``is taking the notion of a powerful White House staff to new heights'' and he is creating ``perhaps the most powerful staff in modern history.''

President Obama has created many of these new czar positions. Some include a climate czar, a health care czar, a pay czar, and more.

The power of implementing policy and directing Federal agencies was never meant to be put in these czar positions, subject only to the control of the President. That was always meant to be put in high-level administration positions, subject to the advice and consent role of the Senate and subject to Senate confirmation.

So in this bill, which is all about advice and consent and which is all about the confirmation process, we should certainly address the single biggest problem with that process in the eyes of the American people, which is recent administrations--particularly the current administration--just doing a straight end run around the Constitution, trying to ignore the genius of the Constitution, trying to ignore one of the fundamental balances created by the Constitution through Senate confirmation.

With that in mind, I urge all my colleagues, Democratic and Republican, to support this Vitter amendment. This isn't an amendment against the Obama administration; this is an amendment for the advice and consent role of the Senate. This is an amendment in support of balance of powers. This is an amendment to preserve the significance of the confirmation process. Every Member of this Senate should be for that, no matter whose administration it is. Unfortunately, this czar practice has reached new heights recently, which is all the more reason we need to act. But we need to act to preserve and defend the Constitution, to preserve and defend the appropriate role of the Senate under the Constitution, advice and consent and confirmation.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the Community Foundation of North Louisiana on the occasion of its 50th anniversary on June 26, 2011.

The Community Foundation of North Louisiana has had a widespread impact in our State, and I applaud its exceptional efforts to enrich Louisiana communities.

Since 1961, the Community Foundation has been committed to providing emergency aid during disasters, strengthening communities and nonprofit organizations through programs like the Endowment Challenge Program, and establishing partnerships such as the Aspen Ideas Mini-Festival that bring citizens and local leaders together.

Endeavors such as the Genius Fund, the Women's Philanthropy Network, and the Northwest Louisiana Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster are further examples of how the Community Foundation's generosity has successfully improved the community and the lives of so many Louisianans.

Under the leadership of COL James Hellums Tucker, Jr., the foundation has grown from an organization with a modest $21,000 to one that has endowed more than $75 million. And through its goodwill and philanthropy, has awarded more than $40 million for more than 4,000 grants and scholarships so that organizations and students can achieve their goals and realize their dreams.

Again, I am proud to honor and applaud the Community Foundation of North Louisiana, the oldest in the State, on 50 years of charitable giving and congratulate them for their many contributions to our State.

Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge two very special people who have reached a significant milestone in their lives, Mr. and Mrs. John Bearden Williams. This week, Mr. Williams and his bride, Gretchen Schilde Williams, celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary.

John and Gretchen's marriage has been very blessed. They were married on June 6, 1971, in Baton Rouge, LA, at the First Baptist Church. Throughout their marriage they have maintained a strong partnership, working together in ministry and giving of themselves to their church and community.

They have been longtime supporters of the Louisiana School for the Deaf, and Mr. Williams and his children were all featured in the Louisiana Bar Journal for their many years of service to the Baton Rouge legal community. During Mr. Williams' more than 40 years of legal practice, Mrs. Williams was a constant and committed advocate, organizer, and friend. Their unbreakable alliance has served to encourage, uplift, and bring out the best in one another, and the longevity of their union shows their deep and abiding love and commitment to each other, growing stronger throughout their journey. They have raised three children, Stephen Schilde, John Richard, and Cynthia Williams Dashiell, and are now the proud grandparents of five grandchildren--Haley, Jack, Mary Gretchen, Martin, and Scott.

I am pleased to recognize and honor John Williams and Gretchen Williams as they celebrate 50 years of marriage, and I hope their family continues to be blessed.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, American families all around the country, certainly including Louisiana, are suffering as the price at the pump goes up and up. It does so just as we are trying to get ready to enjoy a little vacation time with our families, use more gasoline maybe driving places. That is always tough. But it is not just a typical summer experience. This is worse than ever. I have the sinking feeling this is more permanent. I am afraid this is not a blip, that this is a long-term trend and it is hitting American families in the pocketbook hard. It is hitting Louisianans in the pocketbook hard.

At the same time we see historic turmoil in the Middle East. We see so many signs that we need to get hold of our energy picture. So energy and the need for, among other things, increased domestic energy production is absolutely crucial.

That is why it is so darn disappointing what we are going to do or,

perhaps more appropriately, not do on this crucial subject in the Senate this week.

First of all, it is disappointing because we are going to end up doing nothing. We are going to have some votes--we are going to have some debate--that are more or less messaging votes and nothing comes of it. That is disappointing because America needs leadership and action, not just posturing.

Secondly, it is disappointing, in my opinion, when we look at the two proposals before us. Because I am deeply disappointed in them, I am going to vote against both proposals--the Menendez bill and the McConnell bill--although for very different reasons.

The first vote will be later today on the Menendez bill. I am afraid this bill is just pure political demagoguery--attacking Big Oil because I suppose the author and some Members think that is an easy target and meanwhile doing nothing substantive about the real problem, providing no relief to Americans who are paying more and more at the pump.

The bill purports to do away with taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil. Let me give the factual translation of that. The factual translation is to increase taxes on certain energy companies by disallowing them from claiming the same sort of deductions and credits that thousands of other American businesses and manufacturers can claim, some of which go back and are almost as old as the income tax itself. That is the factual translation.

Let me also give the translation of what it would do, according to nonpartisan sources, such as the Congressional Research Service. It would decrease gasoline supply and increase price at the pump. What a great result. American families are suffering as it is going into the summer with historically high prices. Measures are being proposed on the floor that would actually decrease supply and increase price, exactly the opposite of what we need.

I am completely open to doing away with all sorts of deductions and exemptions in the Tax Code, but we should do that overall, across all industries, across all groups in America as part of fundamental tax reform. We should not just demagog the issue and target one industry and a few companies.

The President's own deficit commission suggested that brand of fundamental tax reform. I agree with that general approach. Unfortunately, so far the President has not led on that issue, perhaps because it would mean not just impacts on big oil but maybe favorite companies of his, such as GE, that might have to pay some taxes or maybe gold mining companies in Majority Leader Reid's State of Nevada would also have to sacrifice very attractive special tax benefits.

Let's get serious about two serious issues: fundamental tax reform and let's look at that and lead on that and let's get serious about energy.

I also have to say I am deeply disappointed with the McConnell bill. It does some positive things at the margin in terms of opening access. But meanwhile, the very first section of the bill, the very first substantive section, which is section 2, actually increases the regulatory burden in the permitting process.

I can tell you, living in the gulf, we have been trying to slog through that overly burdensome permitting process to let energy companies get permits to begin with. That process is already too burdensome, too cumbersome, too long. It virtually shut down the gulf, produced less energy, and has thrown a lot of Louisianans and Americans out of work. We need to streamline that process. We need to accelerate that process, not add any new burdens and any new hurdles in it.

Unfortunately, section 2 of the McConnell bill does exactly that. It increases the burdens and requirements and hurdles of even the new Obama regulations that have been put in place since the BP disaster. Specifically, since the BP disaster, the Obama administration has required containment plans to be presented and approved by the Interior Department before exploration plans and drilling permits are issued.

This bill would go further than that and add a new layer and a new level and a new requirement that even before submission to Interior, these containment plans would have to be third-party reviewed. Again, I think this is a completely unnecessary extra burden, extra hurdle, extra layer of requirement. We need to make the permitting process smoother, more streamlined, more accelerated, not move in the opposite direction.

Secondly, while the McConnell bill opens a little bit more access, it is very modest. It does not touch the eastern gulf. It hardly touches the Atlantic. It does not touch the Pacific coast. It does nothing onshore, including in our western shale areas, where there are enormous oil resources trapped in that western shale which we can access because of new and safe technology. I am also disappointed that the bill is so modest in terms of increased access.

To summarize, this week is pretty darn frustrating for me. It is frustrating because we are not going to do anything. There is going to be a whole bunch of sound and fury, in the end signifying nothing--all too common an experience in the Senate.

When we look at the two specific proposals, they are darn frustrating--the first pure demagoguery; the second moving in the wrong direction in terms of the permitting process and not being big and bold enough in terms of opening access.

The United States is the single most energy-rich country in the world, bar none. Only Russia even comes close. No Middle Eastern country--Saudi Arabia, anyone else--comes close to our overall energy richness, our resources. But we are the only country in the world that puts 95 percent of all those resources off-limits under law; says, no, can't touch the eastern gulf, can't touch the Atlantic, can't touch the Pacific, can't touch Alaska offshore, can't touch ANWR, going to make it difficult in western shale.

Over and over we make it difficult to impossible to produce good, reliable American energy right here at home. Most recently we have done that by virtually shutting down the only productive part of the United States in terms of energy--the western Gulf of Mexico. That is what we need to change. We need to change that in a big way.

In closing, let me say, I am a proponent of all of the above. It is not either/or. It is not just oil and gas. But it is also not just new, undeveloped, advancing forms of technology and energy. We need all of the above in a big way. Let's come together around that commonsense wisdom of the American people who favor all of the above, and let's start doing all of the above aggressively. But that surely has to include much more domestic production of energy, open access to all these vast resources we have. We can do it. We can do it safely. We need to do it to provide some relief to American families.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I wish to acknowledge and honor a very special group, the Louisiana HonorAir. Louisiana HonorAir is a not-for-profit group that flies as many as 200 World War II veterans a year up to Washington, DC. On May 28, 2011, a group of 85 veterans will travel to Washington as part of this very special program.

I want to take a moment to thank all the brave veterans visiting our Capital for this trip:

Mr. Jack A. Adams; Mr. Sidney L. Agnelly; Mr. Paul K.

Anderson; Ms. Theresa J.R. Anderson; Mr. Walton H. Blanchard,

Sr.; Mr. James C. Bond, Sr.; Mr. James E. Bowie; Mr. Warren

B. Braud; Mr. Herman Broussard; Mr. Henry A. Buchholz, Jr.;

Mr. Elmer H. Cates; Ms. Bonnie Clabijo; Mr. John S. Cordero,

Sr.; Mr. Robert G. Daigle, Sr.; Mr. James P. Daigre; Mr.

Albert J. Daube; Mr. Dudley J. David; Mr. Henry F. Deist; Mr.

Dudley E. Duhon; Mr. Rene I. Duhon; Mr. Woodrow Duhon; Mr.

Sherman Faught; Mr. Arthur C. Flory.

Mr. Roman A. Guidry; Mr. Edwin Hardy; Mr. Ernest Haydel;

Mr. Harold C. Hill; Mr. Lloyd E. Hogan; Ms. Lillian F.

Hoover; Mr. Warren D. Huggins; Mr. Gordon L. Jarnigan; Mr.

Eugene B. Johnson; Ms. Geneva R. Johnson; Mr. Hubert Lane

Joyner; Mr. John M. Key; Mr. Julius J. Klos; Mr. Albert L.

Klotz, Jr.; Mr. Fred C. Kraus, Jr.; Mr. Anthony Labruzza; Mr.

Emile A. Lambert, Jr.; Mr. Joseph H. Lauff, Jr.; Mr. James

LeBlanc; Mr. Robert D. Lowe; Mr. Curtis J. Marcello; Mr.

Eustace A. Marionneaux; Mr. Joseph T. McKay.

Mr. Stephen L. McMurray; Mr. Tanner A. Messina; Mr.

Randolph J. Olano, Jr.; Mr. Roy Patton; Mr. Lawrence J.

Pellegrin, Sr.; Mr. Earl J. Perere; Mr. Sidney J.

Quatrevingt; Mr. William C. Rabalais; Mr. Ralph L.

Richardson; Mr. Joseph J. Rockoforte; Mr. Alger J. Rodriguez;

Mr. John T. Roshto; Mr. Benjamin Rush; Mr. Louis C. Salzer;

Ms. Florence F. Smith; Mr. Charles C. Spence; Mr. Clifton J.

Stutes; Mr. Percy Thibodeaux; Mr. Wallace W. Thibodeaux; Mr.

Ernest G. Walden; Mr. Bobby E. Williams; Mr. Clifton O.

Wilson.

While visiting Washington, DC, these veterans will tour the World War II Memorial, Arlington National Cemetery, the Iwo Jima Memorial, and the Korean Memorial. This program provides many veterans with their only opportunity to see the great memorials dedicated to their service. Thus, today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring these great Americans and thanking them for their devotion and service to our Nation.

Mr. President, tomorrow, May 6, will mark the 1-year anniversary of the formal moratorium placed on Gulf of Mexico energy production by President Obama and Secretary Salazar. I wish to speak on the eve of that occasion, particularly as our constituents continue to see the price at the pump go up and up, with really no end in sight. I think those two facts are deeply related because I think this moratorium, which continues as a de facto moratorium--a ``permatorium'' or a permit logjam to this day--is really one of the most poorly thought out, mismanaged, and ill-conceived energy decisions in terms of domestic energy production in our history.

The first of these moratoriums in the gulf--there are actually three different formal moratoriums--was announced on behalf of President Obama by Secretary Salazar 1 year ago tomorrow, May 6, 2010. It was done, in retrospect, we find out, very hastily and without scientific backing and justification. I say that because after that first moratorium was put down on May 6, 2010, on June 22 a Federal judge, Martin Feldman, of the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled against this job-crushing moratorium. It banned drilling below 500 feet of water for 6 months. But Judge Feldman put it on hold because he found that under Federal law it had failed to properly weigh a number of factors, including the economic impact it would have on the industry and surrounding communities.

I might add, in a hearing we had in the Senate about the administration's decision to place the moratorium in effect, it was shocking to hear administration officials say very directly--no holds barred--that they never considered any economic impact in the decision whatsoever. Again, failing to properly weigh the economic impact of the decision has been a chronic problem in some agencies, such as the EPA.

Unfortunately, this administration seems to have brought that same knee-jerk reaction to the Interior Department with the same economic illiteracy. In the Interior Department's infinite wisdom, on July 12, Secretary Salazar issued a backup second moratorium. The court struck down the first moratorium on the basis of existing Federal law, so he just came and issued a second moratorium on deepwater drilling. The second moratorium would soon be met with resistance and disappointment as coastal Louisiana communities would realize there was nothing they could do to stop Interior, which seemed hell-bent on adversely impacting their jobs.

On October 12, Secretary Salazar celebrated an illusory victory by lifting that moratorium, and at the time, he claimed that ``the policy position we are articulating today is that we are open for business.'' That is what Secretary Ken Salazar said on October 12. Unfortunately, those of us who live in Louisiana and along the gulf coast know that is not true. What he should have said is, the policy position we are articulating today is that we are open for business as long as you don't need a permit from the Interior Department, because that second formal moratorium was lifted, but that brought us to the initiation of the third moratorium--not a formal moratorium but a de facto one, a permatorium, a complete permit logjam in this administration and at the Department of the Interior. Again, this has been commonly and accurately referred to as a de facto moratorium, sometimes a permatorium, an absolute permit logjam. Secretary Salazar has perpetuated that, and Director Bromwich has perpetuated that. They repeatedly stated it doesn't exist, but the facts, the statistics, the numbers make bare that lie.

It would not be for 4 more months--until February 28 of this year-- that the Interior Department would issue the very first permit to drill in deep water an exploratory well. So, again, big celebration, big announcements that the formal moratorium was lifted, but for 4 months zero permits and only 4 months later the first deepwater exploratory permit.

To date, even since February 28 of this year, there have only been 12 deepwater permits issued in the gulf. That pace is well below the pace before the BP disaster--about 60 percent slower than the prespill pace. This is for shallow and deep water combined. The pace of only deepwater new well permits--permits that would increase domestic supplies and our reserves--is forthcoming at the average pace of one per month--just a trickle, just a tiny percentage of the predisaster pace.

Tomorrow will be 1 year since the Obama administration implemented this moratorium policy, the first of three crushing moratoriums, two formal moratoriums, the ongoing de facto moratorium. The Energy Information Administration--and that is a nonpartisan division of the Department of Energy--is now estimating that the falloff in domestic production this year alone will be about 200,000 barrels per day--that is a lot of oil, 200,000 barrels per day--and an additional 200,000 barrels per day in 2012. To put this falloff in production that is expected from the Obama administration's policy in perspective, as a result of the permitting logjam, by 2012 we would lose as much production in the Gulf of Mexico as we currently import from Brazil and Colombia combined. These are the two countries, by the way, that are supported with taxpayer-funded guaranteed projects related to their energy production. This falloff in production in the gulf by 2012 is roughly equivalent also to what we imported in January from Iraq.

There are several points I would like to highlight for tomorrow's anniversary of the initiation of this moratorium policy.

First, the price of gasoline at the pump is now $3.98 a gallon. It has more than doubled since President Obama took office. There is perhaps not a greater antistimulus for our economy than the doubling of the price at the pump.

Second, seven deepwater rigs have left the Gulf of Mexico. They are gone,

and they are not coming back anytime soon. In addition, five are cold- stacked or without a contract. That is a total of 12 rigs. Ironically, that is exactly the same number of deepwater permits the Interior Department has issued--a trickle compared to pre-BP levels.

Third, what minor credit I should give the Interior Department for this abysmal pace of permitting will be noted when I release my hold on the nomination of Dan Ashe. I am currently holding that nomination of a top-level Interior Department official. I said I would hold it until we got at least 15 deepwater exploratory permits. At the time I initiated that, there were zero. As I said, that is now finally up to 12. I said I would lift the hold when we got to 15. We are just three away. We will get there. I will lift the hold. But that is merely a trickle of what our pace needs to be.

Fourth, today I will be introducing an important piece of legislation. It is called the Agency Overreach Moratorium Act. We need a moratorium. We need a moratorium on regulatory overreach, agency overreach, as we see in the Interior Department, in EPA, in many other agencies. This legislation is intended to prevent Federal action that would unilaterally destroy jobs on Federal lands on the OCS. That is happening every day at the Interior Department. Instead of issuing permits to find American energy, they are issuing regulations, the most recent on a whole new category of contractors--completely unnecessary because they were already regulating the drillers. That is regulatory overreach, and that is job-killing action. My Agency Overreach Moratorium Act will lay out the real moratorium we need on job-killing action out of Washington, out of this administration, not on domestic energy production.

I thank all of my colleagues, and I hope we will all come together soon around a commonsense, proactive domestic energy policy. It needs to include a lot. I am a fervent believer in all of the above, but it certainly needs to start lifting the continuing de facto moratorium on U.S. energy production, on U.S. jobs, on good additional Federal revenue to the U.S. Treasury to lower our deficit if we are going to get on the right energy path.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge and honor a very special group of veterans. In appreciation of their selfless service to our country, Brookshire's Grocery and Super 1 Foods have sponsored a World War II Heroes Flight that will take 33 World War II veterans to Washington, DC, free of charge. A group of 27 veterans will be in Washington May 10-12, 2011, for this very special trip.

I want to take a moment to thank all these brave veterans visiting our Capital city this trip:

Peter Ballas, Shreveport, LA; Sam Canter, Blanchard, LA;

Nick DeFatta, Shreveport, LA; Les Eckhard, Shreveport, LA;

Chuck Fellers, Shreveport, LA; Mason Ferguson, Shreveport,

LA; Dale Foster, Homer, LA; James Fraiser, Minden, LA;

Bootsie Frazier, Shreveport, LA; Aubrey Gaston, Choudrant,

LA; Frank Guraedy, West Monroe, LA; Bobby Harrell,

Shreveport, LA; Snookie Harrison, Shreveport, LA; Ken

Hawkins, Bossier City, LA; Robert Hawkins, Shreveport, LA;

Gene Hodgkins, Monroe, LA; Pete Johnson, Shreveport, LA;

Dorothy Kneipp, Keithville, LA; Glenn Murphy, Alexandria, LA;

Don Odom, Homer, LA; Earl Owens, Shreveport, LA; Frank

Porter, Shreveport, LA; Ray Rushing, Shreveport, LA; Grady

Shows, Shreveport, LA; Don Tompkins , Bossier City, LA;

Wilmer Warrington, Shreveport, LA; Fred Wells, Shreveport,

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

Mr. President, I rise today to explain why I am voting no on the budget deal later this afternoon.

First and foremost, I am voting no because I do not think this is a meaningful, substantial start to getting our hands around what is the biggest threat and potential crisis we face as a nation--out-of-control spending and debt. I suppose $38 billion is more of a cut than we have ever done. But if we put it in any other context, it is very modest indeed.

Take a look at the 8 days leading up to the announcement of this deal and those 8 days alone--barely more than a week. We as a nation racked up $54 billion of brandnew debt, way more than the $38 billion of cuts in just 8 days. That gives some perspective on exactly how modest and how limited in meaning this is.

When you dig a little deeper to look at the details of the cuts, I am afraid the picture gets even worse. A lot of these cuts are paper cuts only--only cuts on paper that do not have a meaningful impact in the real world. There has been significant reporting about this. The Justice Department fund and other examples--that probably accounts for $12 billion or $13 billion of the cuts.

In addition, yesterday the CBO issued a report that said only 1 percent of those cuts--$350 million or so--would have an impact this fiscal year. All the rest is pushed off well into the future. Because of that, I am voting no. I think we need a much stronger start to getting our fiscal house in order.

In addition, I am very concerned about what this budget deal continues to fund in terms of policy, in terms of impact on Americans' lives. The clearest example of that for me is the continuing funding of Planned Parenthood. I believe it is morally wrong to end an innocent human life. I also believe it is morally reprehensible to take tax dollars of millions of pro-life Americans in order to fund organizations that do just that. Americans should not be forced to subsidize abortions, much less fund our Nation's largest abortion provider. That is what Planned Parenthood is, pure and simple.

Opponents of defunding Planned Parenthood have argued in the news and even on the Senate floor that the organization provides many other health care services other than abortions, such as mammograms. We have seen recently that is a big fiction. Planned Parenthood's CEO repeated this assertion recently on news shows. She claimed:

If this bill ever becomes law--

Meaning the defunding of Planned Parenthood--

millions of women in this country are going to lose their

healthcare access--not to abortion services--to basic family

planning, you know, mammograms.

As I said, in recent days, this has been shown to be a huge fiction. Live Action, which is a pro-life group, recorded calls in the last several days to 30 Planned Parenthood clinics in 27 States. In each conversation, a woman calls in and asks if she can schedule an appointment for a mammogram. And in each conversation, without exception, the Planned Parenthood representative tells her they do not provide mammograms. Period. One staffer admits:

We do not provide those services whatsoever.

Another explains:

We actually don't have a mammogram machine at our clinics.

The staffer at Planned Parenthood in DC was perhaps clearest. She said:

We do not provide mammograms . . . we don't deal with the

health side of it so much. We're mostly a surgical facility.

By the way, surgery means one thing: abortion.

This Planned Parenthood staffer is exactly right: 98 percent of their services to pregnant women constitute abortions--98 percent.

This chart lays this out very clearly. This pie chart represents 2009 Planned Parenthood services to pregnant women. The universe of services to pregnant women, abortions is in dark red, 98 percent. Adoption referrals is in blue. I apologize if you cannot see that. The sliver is that tiny. You have to be up close. And all other prenatal care is in green. That is the reality of Planned Parenthood.

We have also seen a recent onslaught of ads that claim Planned Parenthood is simply a leading provider of women health services, but abortion accounts for roughly one-third of the $1 billion generated by its clinics. In fact, Planned Parenthood's annual report acknowledges it provides primary care to 19,700 of its 3 million clients. Number of clients: 3 million; those to whom it provided primary health care: 19,700.

The provision to cut title X funding for health services, such as breast cancer screenings, HIV testing, counseling, and other valuable family planning services, would not block funding for those services at nonabortion providers. It would simply block funds from subsidizing America's largest abortion provider, and abortion is almost everything Planned Parenthood does.

Furthermore, Medicaid spends $1.4 billion on family planning each year. Not $1 of those funds would be affected by this resolution and this proposal. The question we face today is not if family planning and women's health services will be provided but, instead, if we are going to use that as an excuse to fund the biggest abortion provider in the country which does little else.

Although I personally believe abortion is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution, I recognize the sad reality that abortion on demand is legal in this country. Again, this debate is not about that. It is not about whether Planned Parenthood has the right to perform abortions, and it is not about funding true health care services. The question before us is whether millions of pro-life taxpayers have to fund this entity.

Every year since 2000, the government has increased its funding of Planned Parenthood on average $22.2 million per year. As a direct reflection of that, the number of abortions they perform has dramatically increased, even though the overall abortion rate, thank God, in the United States has declined until 2008.

This chart lays out the situation clearly. What is in green represents government grants and contracts to Planned Parenthood. It has consistently gone up and up, a significant increase virtually every year. What is in red represents abortions by Planned Parenthood. Very interesting. There is

virtually the same slope of an increase, while at the same time for this entire period until 2008 abortions nationwide were actually going down.

I do not understand how anyone can look at this and say there is not a connection, say we are not using taxpayer dollars to promote and fund abortion. This notion that it is not used directly for abortion services is a convenient fiction because it is a shell game, because it, in fact, funds Planned Parenthood, and 98 percent of what they do is about abortion.

According to their latest annual report, Planned Parenthood boasted more than $363 million in taxpayer funding, the same year it performed an unprecedented 324,000 abortions.

Planned Parenthood's abortion rate massively outpaces its adoption referrals in particular. In 2008, a woman entering a Planned Parenthood clinic was 134 times more likely to have an abortion than to be referred for an adoption.

In fact, this final chart shows that as Planned Parenthood's abortion rate steadily increased to that staggering number of 332,000 in 2009, its adoption referrals actually decreased to 977 that same year. So again, abortions are in deep red, adoption referrals are in blue, and all other prenatal care is in green. What is the reality, what is the history, what are the facts? Abortions go up dramatically in Planned Parenthood, prenatal services go down, and adoption services go down as abortions go up.

Planned Parenthood has made a profit every year since 1987, including a $63.4 million return in 2009. There is no justification for subsidizing Planned Parenthood's profitable venture with taxpayer dollars, particularly when roughly half or more of those taxpayers deeply disagree with abortion. The sanctity of human life is a principle Congress should proclaim at every opportunity, and the time has come to respect the wishes of so many millions of Americans who have adamantly opposed using taxpayer dollars for abortions by denying all Federal funding to this abortion machine.

This is a social issue, of course. It is also a fiscal issue. Our Federal budget is out of control. We are facing unsustainable debt. So given that, in particular, isn't it time to stop funding an organization that millions of Americans have fundamental problems with? If our Federal Government has any hope of regaining fiscal restraint, we have to make significant cuts--more significant than are being proposed in the deal before us today.

I refuse to believe that Planned Parenthood is the one sacred cow that should stand untouched and be untouchable. The time has come to change this situation and to respect the wishes of the huge majority of Americans who, whether they are pro-life or prochoice, think taxpayer dollars should not subsidize abortion. And that is clearly what is going on with Planned Parenthood.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleague Senator Landrieu in introducing today this RESTORE the Gulf Coast Act of 2011. I want to also thank her and compliment her on her leadership on this issue. Senator Landrieu has been developing this legislation tirelessly since the tragedy, working with many others who will soon be cosponsors, we hope, in this effort.

I also want to recognize Congressman Steve Scalise and his Louisiana House colleagues for having similar legislation in the House.

As we near this 1-year anniversary of the disaster, first we need to remember the victims, the human victims--the 11 people who lost their lives and their families. Those families still have a huge hole in their lives, and we need to continue to remember them and pray for them.

But we also need to help restore the affected area. A lot of other lives were impacted through the environmental and economic devastation. We need to work on that as well.

This RESTORE the Gulf Coast Act of 2011 would go a long way in restoring those lives, in healing those impacts. This was a horrible tragedy, and, of course, the physical, the environmental damage was borne by these five Gulf Coast States. Therefore, we think it is more than fair that 80 percent of the fines directly related to this event-- which would not have been incurred, would not be in existence but for this tragedy--be dedicated to restoration along the gulf coast.

Senator Landrieu, with my support, and others, has worked out a very fair formula to impact all of the Gulf Coast States in a positive way. We think it is more than fair because it assures some minimum funding to all of the affected States and then has another pot of money that is specifically focused on direct impacts. We think this is a very fair way to go about it. It also dovetails with the work that has been going on in the States and federally through the President's commission on impacts.

So we think this would be an excellent way to approach it. It is more than fair to the Federal Government and to the Federal taxpayer because the money retained that is still flowing to the Federal Treasury more than covers all the expenses of the Federal Government related to this event. It goes well beyond those direct expenses.

Again, I thank my colleague for her leadership, and I ask all of our colleagues to come together around this effort. This concept has been explicitly endorsed by President Obama. This concept has been explicitly endorsed by the President's commission on the oilspill. All of those folks have absolutely said, yes, 80 percent of these Clean Water Act fines need to stay on the gulf coast for much-needed restoration. This legislation will get that done in a fair, straightforward way. I urge all of my colleagues to support it and help pass it in the next few weeks and months.

Mr. President, with that, I turn the floor back to my colleague from Louisiana.

Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleague Senator Landrieu in introducing today this RESTORE the Gulf Coast Act of 2011. I want to also thank her and compliment her on her leadership on this issue. Senator Landrieu has been developing this legislation tirelessly since the tragedy, working with many others who will soon be cosponsors, we hope, in this effort.

I also want to recognize Congressman Steve Scalise and his Louisiana House colleagues for having similar legislation in the House.

As we near this 1-year anniversary of the disaster, first we need to remember the victims, the human victims--the 11 people who lost their lives and their families. Those families still have a huge hole in their lives, and we need to continue to remember them and pray for them.

But we also need to help restore the affected area. A lot of other lives were impacted through the environmental and economic devastation. We need to work on that as well.

This RESTORE the Gulf Coast Act of 2011 would go a long way in restoring those lives, in healing those impacts. This was a horrible tragedy, and, of course, the physical, the environmental damage was borne by these five Gulf Coast States. Therefore, we think it is more than fair that 80 percent of the fines directly related to this event-- which would not have been incurred, would not be in existence but for this tragedy--be dedicated to restoration along the gulf coast.

Senator Landrieu, with my support, and others, has worked out a very fair formula to impact all of the Gulf Coast States in a positive way. We think it is more than fair because it assures some minimum funding to all of the affected States and then has another pot of money that is specifically focused on direct impacts. We think this is a very fair way to go about it. It also dovetails with the work that has been going on in the States and federally through the President's commission on impacts.

So we think this would be an excellent way to approach it. It is more than fair to the Federal Government and to the Federal taxpayer because the money retained that is still flowing to the Federal Treasury more than covers all the expenses of the Federal Government related to this event. It goes well beyond those direct expenses.

Again, I thank my colleague for her leadership, and I ask all of our colleagues to come together around this effort. This concept has been explicitly endorsed by President Obama. This concept has been explicitly endorsed by the President's commission on the oilspill. All of those folks have absolutely said, yes, 80 percent of these Clean Water Act fines need to stay on the gulf coast for much-needed restoration. This legislation will get that done in a fair, straightforward way. I urge all of my colleagues to support it and help pass it in the next few weeks and months.

Mr. President, with that, I turn the floor back to my colleague from Louisiana.