Mike Lee

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the state of the Nation's economy. Upon taking office, President Obama encountered one of the worst recessions in this country's history. He faced tremendous challenges under any standard. To be sure, it would have been difficult for any President to make the kinds of reforms that would have had an immediate effect on an economy this bad. But at the end of the day we see that although he was handed something that we can fairly characterize as an economic emergency, he, through his actions and through his policies, turned that emergency into a national tragedy. In his first 2 years, instead of focusing on creating jobs and creating a set of circumstances in which the private sector could bring jobs to fruition, President Obama and his substantial majorities in both Houses of Congress used their tremendous advantage to push for greater government control over America's health care choices, more burdensome and debilitating regulations on businesses, and a failed stimulus package that led to record-setting annual deficits. Just look at America before President Obama took office and compare it to our economic situation now. For example, unemployment is up 9 percent from when President Obama took office. The price of gasoline is up 83 percent compared to when he took office. Long-term unemployment is up 107 percent. The median value of a single-family home in America is down 14 percent, and the U.S. national debt is up 43 percent. He has added over $4 trillion to our national debt. Then, last year, President Obama created a standoff with Republicans by refusing to accept a reasonable compromise on spending reforms as a condition for raising the Nation's debt ceiling. He presided over the downgrading of America's credit rating, the first in our country's history, and he has taken every opportunity to block the development of America's energy resources, a source of much-needed revenue and jobs. Perhaps most troubling, this President has intentionally divided the country by waging vicious class warfare campaigns separating average, hard-working Americans by income and then pitting them against one another. The President's record on this score has been repugnant and damaging. Instead of working with Congress to address our genuine economic challenges, the President has responded by starting his reelection campaign early. In a series of taxpayer-funded campaign stops, the President sharpened his divisive message and astoundingly blamed Republicans for legislative gridlock--never mind that the President's most recent budget proposal failed to attract even a single vote in the U.S. Senate, and it was, in fact, Senate Democrats who refused to bring the President's own jobs plan to the floor for a vote. Even today, members of the President's own party are lining up against him to oppose his tone-deaf decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline. This project would create 20,000 American jobs, it would inject much needed private sector capital into our economy, and it would increase the country's energy security, but the President has chosen to block the project as an election-year nod to his friends in the extreme leftwing of the environmentalist movement. President Obama has put the state of our Union in disarray. Certainly he inherited a poor economy, but the decisions he has made and implemented since taking office are making it worse. He was handed an economic emergency, and instead of taking the challenge head-on, he chose to ignore it, and then he turned it into a national tragedy. There is a void of leadership in the White House. He must end the divisiveness and start dealing directly and decisively with the needs of the country. The President has very little time left to show the American people that he can be the kind of leader who will put the country before his own personal political interests. For the sake of all Americans, I sincerely hope he uses that time wisely. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, in defense of the Constitution, I stand against an action taken recently by our Chief Executive. President Obama's January 4, 2012, appointments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and to the National Labor Relations Board are different in kind than previous recess appointments made by Presidents of the United States made by both political parties. These four appointments are unconstitutional because they did not, as required by article II, section 2, receive the ``advice and consent'' of the Senate, even though such advice and consent was necessary under the circumstances. President Obama has asserted that the appointments are constitutional under the recess appointments clause. That clause provides that the President may ``fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.'' That clause does not apply here, however, because the Senate was not in recess when President Obama made the appointments in question. In making these appointments, the President did not state that he believes an intrasession adjournment of less than 3 days constitutes a recess, and there can be little dispute that such a brief adjournment as occurred between January 3, 2012, when the second session of the 112th Congress officially began, and January 6, 2012, when the next pro forma session of the Senate occurred, does not, in fact, constitute a recess for purposes of the recess appointments clause. The Department of Justice has consistently maintained that an intrasession adjournment must be longer than 3 days to constitute such a recess. The text of the Constitution evidences that the Framers did not consider an adjournment of less than 3 days to be constitutionally significant. Indeed, in article I, section 5, we read that ``neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days.'' Now, at the time these appointments--the appointments in question-- were made, the Senate had not received consent from the House of Representatives to adjourn for a period of time of more than 3 days. If an intrasession adjournment of less than 3 days were to be considered constitutionally sufficient for the President to exercise his recess appointment power, it is unclear what, if anything, might prevent the President from routinely bypassing the Constitution's advice-and- consent requirement and appointing nominees during even weekend adjournments. The Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel asserts that the President may unilaterally conclude that the Senate's brief pro forma sessions do not constitute sessions of the Senate for purposes of the recess appointments clause. But this assertion is deeply flawed. It is for the Senate and not for the President of the United States to determine when the Senate is in session. The Constitution expressly grants the Senate the power to determine the rules of its own proceedings. Granting the President unilateral power to override the Senate's determination of when it is in session would undermine the constitutional prerogative and violate the Constitution's fundamental principles of separation of powers. The OLC memorandum on which the President relies asserts that the ``touchstone'' for determining when the Senate is in session is ``its practical effect: viz. whether or not the Senate is capable of exercising its constitutional function of advising and consenting to executive nominations.'' This analysis contradicts the text and the original understanding of the recess appointments clause. The purpose of that clause, we read in Federalist No. 67 which was authored by Alexander Hamilton, was to avoid obliging the Senate ``to be continually in session for the appointment of officers.'' Nothing in either the Constitution's text or in the debate surrounding the recess appointment clause suggests in any way that the President should have the unilateral power to appoint officers and judges at times when the Senate is regularly meeting, even if that body is not conducting substantial business. In addition, the OLC memorandum's functionalist argument fails on its own terms. During the Senate's pro forma sessions, including its session on January 6, 2012, the Senate was manifestly capable of exercising its constitutional function of advice and consent. Notably, at one such pro forma session on December 23, 2011, the Senate passed a significant piece of legislation demonstrating that it is, in fact, capable of conducting business--meaningful business--at such sessions. But regardless of how much business the Senate conducts during pro forma sessions or how much business it indicates in statements that it intends to conduct in advance of such sessions, the Senate has been and continues to be capable of conducting business at such sessions-- including advising and consenting as to nominations for the President should it decide to do so. OLC's argument boils down to an untenable assertion that because the Senate has chosen not to act on the President's nominations during its sessions, it was incapable of doing so. Finally, OLC's assertion that pro forma sessions are not cognizable for purposes of the recess appointments clause violates established constitutional practice and tradition. The Constitution provides that ``[n]either House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days,'' and that ``unless [Congress] shall by law appoint a different day,'' Congress shall begin each annual session by meeting ``at noon on the 3d day of January.'' The Senate has commonly and without objection used pro forma sessions to fulfill both constitutional requirements, evidencing a past consensus that such sessions are of constitutional significance. President Obama's novel assertion that such sessions no longer count for purposes of the recess appointments clause thus upsets precedent and creates an internal contradiction in the treatment of Senate sessions for purposes of the Constitution. President Obama's January 4, 2012, appointments to the CFPB and the NLRB are unconstitutional. As duly sworn Senators, we each have an institutional and a constitutional duty to preserve and defend the prerogatives of the Senate, particularly from the encroachments of the Executive. The President's unconstitutional appointments simply cannot stand. Throughout my time as a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have made it a point to work collaboratively with Members from across the aisle, and I have also gone out of my way to cooperate with the current administration to ensure that the overwhelming majority of the President's nominees to judicial and other positions are considered and receive a vote. Both in the Judiciary Committee and on the floor I voted for dozens of nominees with whom I fundamentally disagreed on various issues simply because they were nominated by a President who was duly elected by the people. But I will do so no more. My concerns, to be clear, are nonpartisan, and I will be equally critical of any Republican President who might attempt to make recess appointments under the same deeply flawed legal theory. Given this President's blatant and egregious disregard for proper constitutional procedures and for the Senate's unquestioned role in such appointments, I find myself duty-bound to resist the consideration and approval of additional nominations until the President takes steps to remedy the situation. Regardless of what precise course I choose to pursue, the President certainly will not continue to enjoy my nearly complete cooperation unless and until he rescinds his unconstitutional recess appointments. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize and congratulate former Utah State Senate President Haven J. Barlow on his recent 90th birthday. He is a true patriot who spent much of his life serving his State and his country, and I thank him for that service. Haven was born January 4, 1922 in Clearfield, UT to Jesse B. and Issadora Beck Barlow. His mother Issadora was killed in a tragic car/ train accident when he was just 9 months old, causing him to learn his share of responsibility at an early age. After graduating from Davis High School, Haven earned a degree in business administration at Utah State Agricultural College, now Utah State University. He joined the U.S. Navy and attended officer candidate school at Harvard University. He served as a naval supply and disbursement officer in the Pacific and the Atlantic in World War II, receiving the Philippine Liberation Medal. Haven and his wife Bonnie Rae Ellison Barlow were married for 58 years before Bonnie Rae passed away at age 79. Haven and Bonnie Rae returned to Davis County after World War II, where they reared their six children in Layton. In 1949, Haven started the Barlow Realty and Insurance Company, and he still checks in daily at the very successful real estate development office. In 1952, Haven was elected to the Utah State Legislature, where he served consecutively for 42 years from 1953 to 1994, longer than any other legislator in Utah history. He served as President of the Utah State Senate for 6 years. While serving as a senator and representative for 42 years in the Utah State Legislature, Haven introduced and sponsored a number of pieces of legislation that formulated the landscape in northern Utah. In the field of education, one of Haven's passions, he supported the establishment of then-Weber State College as a 4-year school, Weber State's transition from college to university, and the securing of funding for the Weber State Davis Campus. Today, Weber State boasts over 24,000 students. Haven also supported the bill that turned Utah State Agricultural College into Utah State University. Haven backed legislation that created the Davis Applied Technology Center, which is now the Davis Applied Technology College. The vocational school trains students in a variety of technologies and skills that can be directly applied to the workplace. Additionally, Haven supported the Ogden-Weber Applied Technology Center, also now a college, which offers similar services to its students. In 1981, Haven was a proponent of the Hill Aerospace Museum, which was founded that year and is now home to over 90 aircraft. The museum hosted its millionth visitor in 1996, and now has nearly 200,000 visitors annually. Even given his many accomplishments, there is perhaps nothing more admirable about Haven than his support for charity. He sponsored legislation that created the Utah Botanical Center, home of a ``giving garden'' which donates all produce to local food banks. He has also donated money and countless hours to the United Way of Salt Lake, and has been known to tell skeptical donors that if they wound up unhappy about their donations, he would pay them back personally. United Way of Salt Lake Regional Director Jim Young has said of Haven, ``[His] irrepressibly positive attitude makes him a joy to be around. He has what a colleague of mine calls `yes, in his heart.' Haven's heart for those around him challenges us to become more involved in our community and make a difference.'' The world is a better place because of Haven Barlow. He is an example for all Americans to follow, and I wish him a very happy 90th birthday.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, today I rise with a heavy heart to mourn the loss of Ogden police officer Jared Francom. Earlier this month, on the evening of January 4, 2012, Agent Francom was senselessly gunned down defending his fellow officers as they attempted to serve a search warrant in Ogden, UT. Five other officers-- Sean Grogan, Kasey Burrell, Michael Rounkles, Nate Hutchinson, and Jason Venderwarf--were wounded in the gun battle. A week later, a crowd of roughly 4,000 family members, friends, and supporters, including more than 1,000 uniformed officers, gathered at a public memorial for Jared to say goodbye to one of America's fallen heroes. The sentiment from all who knew him was the same: Jared was a devoted family man, a dedicated father to his two young daughters, a fun-loving brother and son to his family. At the funeral, which I attended, I heard Jared's brother Ben say that he ``taught people to care for each other and taught others to change the world like he was doing on the streets of Ogden.'' Commenting on the outpouring of support, Jared's brother Travis said: ``I know my brother would be proud, because we all are his family.'' Achieving a goal he had set for himself as a young boy, Agent Francom became a member of the Ogden police force 7 years ago and was assigned to the Weber-Morgan Narcotics Strike Force. Jared's sacrifice should be a reminder to us of the incredible risks our brave law enforcement officers all take as they protect the people they serve. I have a deep and unwavering respect for the law enforcement community, and as a former assistant U.S. attorney I have seen up close how these men and women serve with honor, integrity, and dedication. Jared Francom was no exception. He will be remembered for giving his life in service to the people and to the community he loved. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I stand today to urge my colleagues to support one of the most important pieces of legislation that has come before this body in decades, Senate Joint Resolution 10, the Hatch-Lee balanced budget amendment proposal. The reason why I insist this is so important is because of a crisis we are facing today. We have accumulated about $15 trillion in sovereign debt on behalf of the United States--$15 trillion. It works out to about $50,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. This is an amount of money that could represent an expensive car. It could represent a college education. It could represent all kinds of things. But it represents ultimately debt that Congress has incurred, debt that Congress cannot afford to continue to incur at this same rate, which we are doing every day. We are adding to that debt at an unsustainable rate of about $1.5 trillion every single year. Here is why that is so distressing to me. As the White House itself acknowledged a few months ago, we are now within about a decade, perhaps much less, of owing about $1 trillion a year just in interest on our national debt. Currently we are paying a little over $200 billion a year in interest. By the end of this decade, that number is likely to rise to an astounding $1 trillion a year. We could reach that number much sooner than that. It could happen perhaps in half that amount of time if interest rates suddenly started to climb, as they easily could do, particularly given the fact that we are about 350 basis points below the historic average for yield rates on U.S. Treasury instruments, the means by which our governmental debt is financed. We have to get this problem under control now, because if we wait until then, until we have to pay $1 trillion a year in interest on our national debt, it will be too late to do anything. By waiting, by postponing the day of our accountability, we will have made a choice, a devastating choice, that will prove to signal the downfall of the greatest economy the world has ever known. We cannot allow that to happen--not now, not on our watch, not when the stakes are this high. If we have to make up that difference, the difference between the $200 billion a year we are paying now and the trillion a year we will have to be paying in interest on our national debt a few years from now, that money has to come from somewhere. That money is not something we can expect simply to obtain through an increase in taxation. Over the long haul, we have learned that our tax system is capable of generating a revenue stream equaling a little over 18 percent of all of the revenue that moves through the American economy every single year-- a little over 18 percent of our gross domestic product. As this chart shows, that percentage remains relatively constant. It has remained that way for many decades, going back to at least 1960. It averages out a little over 18 percent of gross domestic product. That remains true even when we go back 30 years or so when our top marginal income tax rates were approaching 90 percent. The economy finds a way to produce no more than a little over 18\1/2\ percent--a little over 18 percent of GDP. So we cannot just raise taxes at that point in order to generate more revenue, because our income tax system, no matter how we tweak it, no matter how high we raise top marginal rates, is not capable of generating that much revenue. What we do when we simply ratchet up those tax rates, if anything, is we shrink the size of our economy. We chill economic growth to the point where we are actually generating less revenue, not more. So we cannot tax our way out of that problem, nor can we at that point simply borrow our way out of that problem. In other words, we cannot borrow an additional $800 billion a year on top of the present-day $1.5 trillion a year we are borrowing, because if we did that, our interest rates would go up that much more. That would make our decision that much more crippling on our economy. There are a lot of reasons why this matters. My colleague from Ohio, Mr. Portman, acknowledged a few minutes ago that this chills job growth when we have this much debt. It is also true that this impairs our ability to fund every conceivable government program from defense to entitlements, such that if we wait in order to make the necessary changes to the way we spend money in Washington, we will wait at our own peril. We will wait at the peril of those who have become dependent on those very government programs that will have to have their budgets slashed immediately, abruptly, severely. We cannot afford to do that. Those who have become dependent on Social Security, on Medicare, on Medicaid, on other entitlement programs, on supplemental nutritional assistance, would be devastated if all of a sudden we cut off funding for those programs, we had to slash those budgets by 30, 40, 50 percent overnight. It is these abrupt changes that prove most difficult for our economy to absorb. I have often said it is something that we can analogize to being on top of a large building. Let's say our $15 trillion debt can be compared to a 15-story building. If you need to get down off of that building, you need to get to the ground floor. If you want to do it quickly, you could decide to jump. If you decide to jump, it is not the fall that will kill you, it is the abrupt halt at the end of that fall. So you need to do something to cushion the fall, to slow it down a little bit so it can be accomplished gradually, so nobody gets hurt. That is where the balanced budgeted amendment comes in. The Hatch-Lee balanced budget amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 10, would bring about severe, significant, systemic changes, but it would do so gradually so that the cuts, while significant over the long haul, are not abrupt, so that the impact is not severe, other than avoiding the severeness of the impact that would otherwise occur. We have to get down from that 15-story building, from that $15 trillion debt. We do that through a balanced budget amendment, one like Senate Joint Resolution 10, which contains a 5-year delayed implementation clause. That would give us time to work out a phased-in glidepath toward balancing our budget. That is what we need do in order to protect and preserve our economic stability, our jobs market, and our ability within the Federal Government to fund everything from defense to entitlements. Those who ignore the need for this amendment ignore the fact that our spending continues to escalate. I want to talk about how much we have spent as a country as a percentage of our overall economy, as a percentage of our gross domestic product. Between the early 1790s and the early 1930s, the Federal Government spent, on average, between 2 and 4 percent of gross domestic product every single year with only two notable exceptions, once during the Civil War and the second time during and in the immediate aftermath of World War I. With those two exceptions, Congress's spending was modest, between 2 and 4 percent of GDP. That all started to change in the early 1930s when we reached the double digits during peacetime for the first time in our history. We have, unfortunately, never retreated from that cycle. Federal spending today, as a percentage of GDP, stands close to 25 percent, meaning that for every dollar that moves through the American economy, a quarter of that goes to Washington, is sucked in by the Federal Government, and cannot move on and help to continue to stimulate the economy. That pattern of increased Federal spending as a percentage of GDP is expected to increase in the next few years. It is expected, based on the data provided by the Congressional Budget Office, to reach 26.4 percent of GDP within the next 10 years, by 2021. Some say that figure is too optimistic and that it could actually be much higher than that, it could be significantly higher than 30 percent. At a minimum, we know it will be 26.4 percent or more unless we take pretty significant steps to control our spending. So I find it interesting that many are saying we do not need to make changes, that we can somehow have Congress do its job, that Congress needs to follow the Constitution and do its job and balance its budget. Let me tell you the problem with that. First of all, there is nothing currently in the Constitution that restricts Congress's power to borrow money. Clause 2 of article I, section 8 of the Constitution gives us power to do that, and we have done it. We have done it again and again and again. We have done it so many times in recent years that we have almost lost track. Congress first placed a statutory limit on the acquisition of new Federal debt in 1917, which was the Second Liberty Bond Act. Since 1962, Congress has altered the debt limit through 74 separate measures, and has raised it 10 times since 2001, in the last 10 years. Since 1990, the debt limit has been raised by a total of $10.1 trillion. Nearly half of that increase has occurred in the last 4 years, since late 2007. So this is not a situation in which we are seeing the normal growth of government spending, either in normal numbers, in numbers adjusted for inflation, in numbers measured as a percentage of GDP. By any metric, the amount of Federal spending and the amount of debt acquisition has grown exponentially, giving us this hockey stick-like curve in the acquisition of Federal debt. We cannot continue this practice. We especially cannot continue it given the fact we know that the natural limit on our ability to receive revenue through the income tax system is a little over 18 percent of GDP. So we have to have something in place that keeps us from spending more than we take in. That cannot possibly by accomplished, in my opinion, without something that ups the ante, something that makes it structurally more difficult on a permanent basis for Congress to engage in deficit spending and to spend more than 18 percent of GDP. That is why there are a few critical features in Senate Joint Resolution 10, the Hatch-Lee balanced budget amendment proposal, that I think any viable balanced budget amendment proposal ought to have. First, it needs to apply to all spending. Second, it needs to cap spending at 18 percent of GDP. It also needs to require a supermajority vote in order to exceed that percentage of GDP spending limit in order to raise taxes or in order to raise the debt limit. Without these kinds of provisions, this kind of redundant protection against the inexorable growth of Federal spending generally, and the inexorable growth of deficit spending in particular, our debt will crush the very programs we purport to be protecting. Those who plot against this say we cannot limit spending to 18 percent of GDP or else we will hurt program X, Y or Z. While they are making this argument, it is in reckless disregard of the fact that those same programs will be jeopardized if we continue to borrow recklessly, without structural spending restraint or reform on the horizon. Others have argued we don't need this because somehow it is unenforceable. I am not quite sure what they mean. Perhaps they don't know what a court would do with it. They are forgetting we have other provisions in the Constitution that raise the vote threshold, which is essentially what the Hatch-Lee balanced budget amendment does. In other words, we have other provisions in the Constitution that are followed routinely, without the need for litigation, just based on Members of Congress taking an oath to uphold the Constitution, as we are all required to do pursuant to article VI. Those are complied with every day. For instance, we all know none of us will dispute the fact that it takes a two-thirds supermajority vote in both Houses of Congress to override a Presidential veto. It takes a two-thirds supermajority vote in both Houses of Congress to propose a constitutional amendment. It takes a two-thirds supermajority vote in the Senate to ratify a treaty. We don't dispute the fact that these vote thresholds exist. We don't have to wait for the courts to intervene for us to enforce them within Congress. We follow them. That is what this would do. This says that because Congress has the ability to destroy itself, destroy the economy, destroy the very government we have created through reckless, indefinite, perpetual deficit spending, we must protect Congress from itself--perhaps better said, we must protect people from Congress by requiring that Congress approve any amount of money spent in excess of what Congress brings in or in excess of 18 percent of GDP or in excess of the debt limit by a supermajority vote. We have to have that. It will be followed, and it is absolutely necessary. It is interesting that few, if any, of my colleagues will dispute the fact that Congress should balance its budget. There is perhaps a difference of opinion--maybe even a widespread difference of opinion-- as to how best we should try to close this gap, how best we should close the gap between the money Congress brings in each year through the tax system and the money it spends. There is widespread dispute about where cuts need to be made. I think we all agree we need to balance our budget. That begs the question, if we all agree, as I think we all do, then why can't we agree we need to adopt a permanent structural mechanism that will be embodied in the Constitution that will ensure that actually happens? This proposal remains agnostic as to where cuts will be made. All it says is if we are going to spend more than we take in or more than 18 percent of GDP or raise taxes or the debt limit, we are going to do it by a supermajority vote. That is something the American people support. In fact, 75 percent of the American people support the basic principle that Congress should not, for example, spend more than it takes in each and every year. That brings me to the question of why it is that we should support S.J. Res. 10, the Hatch-Lee balanced budget amendment, and not another proposal--for example, S.J. Res. 24, which I might refer to alternatively as the ``Trojan horse'' balanced budget amendment or as the ``do nothing'' amendment proposal, which purports to be a solution when, in fact, it is not, for one simple reason: It gives Congress unfettered discretion to exempt itself out of the budget balancing requirement it contains. This would, in effect, I am certain, render this amendment, were it to take effect, virtually a dead letter provision. We have seen what Congress does when it has the option of exempting itself out of statutory spending caps--in the pay-go rule, the Gramm- Rudman-Hollings Deficit Control Act, and in other statutory provisions such as this. Congress giveth and Congress taketh away. Congress has become a walking, breathing waiver unto itself. When Congress is given the option of saying: I know we are supposed to balance the budget, but we don't feel like it today, it ends up doing that. All Congress would have to do under S.J. Res. 24--the ``do nothing'' amendment proposed-- is simply acknowledge that the United States is involved in a military conflict, and by simple majority vote it can exempt itself out of these provisions entirely. By contrast, the Hatch-Lee balanced budget amendment proposal acknowledges that in a time of war or military conflict, it may be necessary to spend more than we take in. But in the case of an armed military conflict, it requires a three-fifths supermajority vote, and in either a war or another armed military conflict, it specifically provides that in that war or conflict, any overage, any amount spent above and beyond what Congress brings in has to be limited to that required to prosecute that war or that military conflict effort. That is a huge difference. We can't simply give Congress the option of complying with a balanced budget amendment provision only when Congress feels like it. This is a little akin to telling an alcoholic they have to give up drinking, while leaving an open container of whiskey on the table and requiring that person to walk past that bottle or even to carry it around every day. It doesn't work. You have to take it out of the house. You certainly have to take it out of the possession of the recovering alcoholic. This is the challenge of our time--to figure out how to prevent Congress's chronic abuse of its own borrowing authority from collapsing under its own weight, from bringing about the economic collapse of the United States of America. We have to have these structural spending reform mechanisms because our government is run by imperfect people. Benjamin Franklin has often been quoted for a line that says: ``He'll cheat without scruple who can without fear.'' When looking at Congress today, we might say Congress will spend more money than it has whenever it possibly can, whenever it has the option of spending more. As Madison said: ``If men were angels, no government would be necessary. And if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.'' We are, as human beings, not angels, and our government isn't run by angels either. This is why we need the structural permanent spending reform mechanism. We cannot afford to accept a substitute, a cheap imitation, a ``Trojan horse'' balanced budget amendment such as S.J. Res. 24, because if we adopt something such as that, we will create the illusion to the American people that we are actually undertaking efforts to control our out-of-control deficit spending program when, in fact, we are doing nothing. Because it is always the case that we are involved in a military conflict somewhere. Congress will always be able to muster a simple majority, saying we cannot be expected to balance our budget because of that. We have to draw that line in the sand and stand for those who support everything from defense to entitlements. We have to stand for our children and our grandchildren, those who will come after them, those who are not yet old enough to vote, those who have not yet been born and whose parents have yet to meet. Those people are not here to vote against us as we spend their money. This is a particularly pernicious form of taxation without representation. We fought a war over two centuries ago over that practice, and we won that war. We should not subject our children, their children, and their grandchildren after them to that same practice. This is contrary to liberty, contrary to economic prosperity. We cannot stand for it to occur anymore. We have two choices. One choice involves supporting, passing, and submitting to the States for ratification of the Hatch-Lee balanced budget amendment proposal, putting in some permanent restraint, at long last, on Congress's self-destructive borrowing capacity. The other option can take many forms. It can take the option of supporting S.J. Res. 24, which doesn't solve the underlying problem, or it can take the form of doing nothing at all. If we do nothing, we have still made a choice--a devastating choice--a choice that will inure to the detriment of the American people and of the Federal programs that we all rely on, the Federal programs that people rely on to keep them safe, protect them from the ravages of nature, and protect them from the conditions of poverty we seek to avoid in this country. It is, after all, the objective of us all to seek a better, more prosperous, more safe country, but we jeopardize all those interests the longer we allow this practice of perpetual deficit spending to continue. At the end of the day, we have to face our own constituents. Those who choose not to vote for the Hatch-Lee balanced budget amendment will have to face their constituents and tell them why they were unwilling to stand for a proposition so basic as we should balance our budget. There is no excuse, based on the fact that we cannot do this overnight, because it has a delayed implementation clause. It will not take effect until 5 years after it has been ratified by the States. In the meantime, we will be able to set in motion a sequence of events, a series of implementing bills that will allow us to put ourselves on a smooth glidepath toward balancing our budget. We will be able to do that. Those who vote against this cannot look their constituents in the eye and tell them they did everything they could do to get our out-of-control spending habits or our out-of-control deficit spending habits under control. I urge each of my colleagues to do this for themselves, for the programs they want to save, and for their children and grandchildren. Our prosperity, our success as Americans, our survival as a nation, and the success of our government requires nothing less. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my Republican colleagues for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I stand today to urge my colleagues to support efforts to bring forward a balanced budget amendment, one that can be passed out of both Houses of Congress and submitted to the States for ratification. Article V of the Constitution gives us the power to change the Constitution from time to time, to modify our laws, that 224-year-old document that has fostered the development of the greatest civilization the world has ever known. We have done this 27 times. We have done it at times in order to protect and preserve the Nation our ancestors fought so valiantly to create and later again to defend. We have to modify our government, the manner in which we do business, in order to preserve that system, in order to make it strong, in order to ensure that it will continue to be strong for future generations. We made it stronger when, for example, we added the Bill of Rights shortly after the ratification of the Constitution. We made it stronger again when, for example, we added the so-called Civil War amendments, amendments XIII, XIV, and XV, ending slavery and the badges and incidents thereof. We made it stronger when we made clear that women must always be given the right to vote. We have made it stronger a number of times. And the time to make it stronger has come yet again. It is time to modify the Constitution to limit--to restrict-- Congress's current power granted by article I, section 8, clause 2 of the Constitution to borrow money on credit of the United States. The reason we need to do this is because this power has been so severely abused over such a prolonged period of time that it is causing devastating consequences for our economy and for our ability to fund the operations of the government. We have now accumulated over $15 trillion in debt as a country. That works out to about $50,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. It works out, arguably, to about $120,000 to $150,000 for every taxpayer in America. This is lot of money. It also represents between 90 and 100 percent of our gross domestic product annually, depending on whose statistics you follow. This is troubling, given that there is an abundant amount of research indicating that once a country's sovereign debt-to-GDP ratio crosses the significant 90-percent threshold--which we have now done--economic growth tends to slow, tends to slow to a point that an economy as large as ours can expect to lose as many as 1 million jobs a year. We can't afford to lose jobs, especially when we know one of the major causes is our national debt. It is time we change the way we do business. It is time to change the manner in which Congress acquires new debt. This is no longer an issue that is either Republican or Democrat, that is either liberal or conservative. It is simply American. I remind my colleagues, whether you are concerned on the one hand about preserving America's leading edge, its ability to fund its national defense program or, on the other hand, if you are most concerned about funding our entitlement programs, you should want a balanced budget amendment because this is what we need to do, this is what we have to do in order to protect our ability to fund both of those things and everything else we do, you see, because by the end of this decade, according to the White House's own numbers, we will be paying close to $1 trillion every year to pay the interest on our national debt. Just the interest alone. We are currently spending a little over $200 billion a year on interest--still a lot of money but about $800 billion lower than what we are likely to be spending by the end of this decade. Where will that additional $800 billion every single year come from? This isn't a discretionary sum. This is money we have to pay. It is the first thing we have to pay. Where will that $800 billion difference be made up? At that point, we can't expect simply to raise taxes to make up that difference. I am not aware of any tax increase plan that could bring in that much additional revenue every year, without stagnating our economy to the point that we might, within 1 year or 2 years, bring in less revenue rather than more--certainly not $800 billion more. Nor am I aware of any plan whereby we could simply borrow an additional $800 billion to pay that interest, because doing so, of course, would cause our interest rates to skyrocket, grow out of control, and our interest payments would be even more significant at that point, thus further impairing our ability to fund everything from defense to entitlements. So at that point, the only option on the table would be dramatic, severe, abrupt, even Draconian cuts to everything from defense to entitlements and everything in between. We don't want this. There is a better way. And the better way forward consists of a severe permanent structural spending reform that can be achieved only through a balanced budget amendment. Let me explain what I mean by that. And, more importantly, let me explain what I don't mean by that. We have to be aware of things that masquerade as balanced budget amendments, things that will actually do the job instead of purporting to do the job, distracting the public's attention away from the need to do this while in effect doing nothing. We need to be aware of what I sometimes call the Trojan horse balanced budget amendment proposal. There are a few hallmarks of what a real, effective balanced budget amendment would accomplish. First and foremost, it has to apply to all spending in requiring Congress to provide a supermajority vote for any borrowing authority. There are some who have suggested we should have a balanced budget amendment that exempts certain categories of entitlement spending. But, of course, as we all know, it is entitlement spending that continues to consume a larger and larger share of our national budget each and every year. It is entitlement spending that is anticipated to have shortfalls for sums that will have to be expended for Americans alive today. It could range anywhere from $50- to $60- to $110 trillion in unfunded entitlement liabilities. So simply exempting entire categories of entitlements is one of these hallmarks of a Trojan horse balanced budget amendment. We can't do that. We need it to apply to all Federal outlays, all Federal spending. Second, an effective balanced budget amendment must cap spending at the average historic level of Federal revenue. Over the last 40 years, our average take, our average income as a percentage of GDP, has been about 18 to 18.5 percent of our gross domestic product. We need to make sure we are not spending more than that; that Congress can't, without a supermajority vote, spend more than 18 percent of GDP in any given year. Otherwise, we run the risk that Congress will find a way through tricky accounting schemes to circumvent the restrictions to make sure it is not spending more than it takes in. Third, the supermajority requirement must apply to the folks in both Houses of Congress every time Congress wants to spend more than it takes in. Any balanced budget amendment proposal that allows for a simple majority to bring about an exception to these spending limitations is one that Congress can and will use to circumvent the amendment entirely. Let me explain what I mean. We have had in the past certain statutory legislative limitations on Congress's spending and borrowing power. Some of these have been known as the Graham-Rudman-Hollings legislation, and also the pay-go rules. But because Congress makes those laws and because they haven't been reduced to a constitutional amendment, just as Congress giveth, Congress taketh away, and Congress has seen fit to exempt itself of those rules. A balanced budget amendment, even while enshrined in our Constitution, becomes no more effective than those statutory or internal rules unless every time Congress wants to get around those limitations Congress is required to cast a supermajority vote to justify that excess. Finally, an effective balanced budget amendment must require that Congress cast a supermajority vote anytime we raise the debt limit. This will give us an additional guarantee that tricky accounting mechanisms will not be used to circumvent some of these most important restrictions. Without these restrictions, Congress will continue to spend out of control, because Members of Congress tend to be rewarded when they spend and they tend to be criticized when they cut, and political pressures are such that I fear this spending will continue out of control in perpetuity until that moment in which we reach our natural mathematical borrowing limit--not our statutory debt limit, our natural mathematical borrowing limit. It is at that point when the most abrupt, the most painful, the most Draconian cuts will have to be made. We can do this in a way that makes sense. We can do this in a way that is sensitive to the needs of the most vulnerable Americans, those who have become the most dependent upon our entitlement State, most dependent for their day-to-day existence on these very programs. Those programs will have to be cut abruptly and in a most painful manner unless we take the necessary steps right now and start moving onto a smooth glidepath toward a balanced budget amendment. We may not be able to balance our budget overnight, but we can do it over the course of a few years. That is exactly what this would allow us to do. I have worked closely with a number of my Republican colleagues in supporting S.J. Res. 10, a balanced budget amendment proposal that has the support of all 47 Republicans. One of my close allies in this endeavor has been my friend and colleague, the junior Senator from Kentucky. I would like to ask him to share his perspective on why this is necessary. So I ask Senator Paul why does he think this is so important for us to have this amendment right now.

Mr. LEE. I could not agree more with that assessment. It is important for us to remind our colleagues of that because according to a recent CNN poll, the American people overwhelmingly support this by a margin of about 75 percent. Those who oppose it, those who are Members of this body, those who are Members of our sister body--the House of Representatives--who choose not to support it, will cast their ``no'' vote at their own political peril because the American people are standing and they are demanding more. They understand that, in the words of Benjamin Franklin: ``He'll cheat without scruple who can without fear.'' When Congress is free to spend more than it takes in every single year without political consequence, bad things happen. When Congress starts to manipulate more and more of the economy, that is something the American people understand is hurtful rather than helpful to them, to the people on the ground, to the person who is unemployed and looking for a job, to the person who is underemployed or underpaid for the work he does, to the single mother who is just worried about taking care of her children, to the grandparents who are worried about the future of their grandchildren, worried about the fact that for the first time in American history, Americans fear their posterity will enjoy a lower standard of living than what they have enjoyed. All this is due to the fact that Congress has no real boundaries to its authority and recognizes no real limits on its ability to spend our hard-earned money. This has real consequences. We can forestall those negative consequences right now if we will act to restrict, on a permanent and structural basis, Congress's ability to engage in deficit spending. Accept no imitations, beware of the Trojan horse balanced budget amendment, the one that can be circumvented easily by a simple majority vote. Beware of the balanced budget amendment that limits, as a percentage of GDP, Congress's ability to spend money. Look out for these principles. If we get this balanced budget amendment passed, submit it to the States for ratification. They will ratify it, and we will find our best days, as Americans, are yet ahead of us. I urge my colleagues to cast a vote in favor of S.J. Res. 10. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE. Perhaps it is inherent in the institution itself, in the forces at play, that have made Congress uniquely vulnerable to this kind of massive deficit spending. Whatever the reason, we know Congress is not willing, is not able, or at least in recent years has not been inclined except in rare, unusual circumstances to balance its own budget. That being the case, we cannot assume that Congress will all of a sudden start doing its job, as those who have used this argument have insisted. Part of Congress's job, as Congress has come to perceive it, is to engage in deficit spending. One of Congress's powers, as Members of Congress who read the Constitution will point out, is to borrow money on the credit of the United States. So it is not enough to simply tell Congress to do its job because it has regarded this kind of massive deficit as consistent with that mandate, consistent with that injunction. Meanwhile, Congress is continuing to occupy a larger and larger share of the American economy. We have to remember that for the first 150 years or so of our Republic's existence, we were spending between 1 percent and 4 percent of gross domestic product at the Federal national level, with only two brief exceptions--once during the Civil War and once during and then the immediate aftermath of World War I. But that all started to change in the 1930s when we broke into double digits for the first time ever during peacetime. We have never really gone back. Now the Federal Government is spending about 25 percent of GDP annually. Roughly a quarter out of every dollar that moves through the American economy every year is taken out of the real economy by Washington. It is absorbed within the Federal morass that is our government. That is a problem. That needs to change. I fear, I suspect, I firmly believe that it will not change until we take this power away, until we at least impose severe restrictions on Congress's borrowing power because it has become part of Congress's nature to engage in this kind of out-of-control deficit spending. I would like to ask Senator Paul another question. How does he think it would impact the lives of Americans, of Kentuckians, on a day-to-day basis, if we were to pass a amendment such as this and have it ratified by the States?

Mr. LEE. I think most Members of Congress would acknowledge that their constituents want the Federal budget balanced. Why is it not enough for us just to tell Members of Congress: Please balance it. We don't want to have to restrict your authority. We don't want to have to take the keys away from the irresponsible driver. We just want you to be responsible. Why doesn't that work?

Mr. LEE. So they are paying for Washington's fiscal irresponsibility in the form of job losses and in the form of increased prices for goods and services and in the form of inflation. It is likewise my experience with my State legislature that they seem to be very supportive of it. In fact, I have a document here signed by the legislative leaders of my State: by Governor Gary Herbert, by Utah house of representatives speaker Rebecca Lockhart, and by Utah State senate president Michael Waddoups. It concludes essentially as follows: We urge the United States Senate and House of Representatives to pass a balanced budget amendment and send it to the states for ratification. Additionally, we urge Congress to make Utah's current resolution part of the Congressional Record. They also proceed to explain why they feel so strongly about this. They say: Not only for our own sake, but for future generations as well, the states must now combine in an unwavering resolve with convincing action to put the nation's financial house in order. Passage of your own state's resolution urging the support for a balanced budget amendment can help make this happen. Please join with Utah to call upon Congress to immediately pass a balanced budget amendment. We respectfully encourage you to urge your congressional delegation to act in your behalf. They are calling not only on Congress but also their fellow State legislators throughout the country to urge this same action from Congress. In the same breath, they also adopt it, and they supported wholeheartedly the specific balanced budget amendment proposal that is found in S.J. Res. 10. I thank them for doing that. I think they reflect the views of so many of our State legislatures which balance their budgets every single year. Most of them do. It is not news when they do it. It is not news because it is what is expected. It is expected because that is what they do. I look forward to the day and age when it is no longer news when Congress balances its budget. I would like to ask Senator Paul another question. Why is it that so many are fond of saying, as our President has recently said, ``We don't need a balanced budget amendment; what we need is for Congress to just do its job''? Why isn't that enough to carry the day?

Mr. LEE. What is my colleague's sense as to how the various State legislatures are likely to respond to a constitutional amendment proposed by both Houses of Congress? Does he think they would likely ratify such an amendment by the necessary three-fourths margin?

Mr. LEE. If the Congress is consisting of a Senate and House, and the Members of the Senate and House are elected representatives of the people who stand for reelection at regular intervals, and if the American voting public overwhelmingly supports a balanced budget amendment, why haven't we then passed it and given the States an opportunity to ratify such an amendment?

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE. I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be divided equally.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I rise to speak today in opposition to the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to be a judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The DC Circuit is arguably the most important Federal appellate court in our Federal judicial system, with primary responsibility to review administrative decisions made by countless Federal departments and agencies. It has also served in many instances as a steppingstone for judges who are later appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. As a result, the Senate has historically very closely scrutinized nominees to the DC Circuit. When evaluating particular nominees, we have also carefully considered the need for additional judges on that court. In July 2006, President Bush nominated an eminently qualified lawyer, Peter Keisler, to fill a seat on the DC Circuit. Mr. Keisler is among the very finest attorneys in the country. Because of his nonideological approach to the law, Mr. Keisler enjoys broad bipartisan support throughout the legal profession. Despite these unassailable legal qualifications, Democratic Senators blocked his nomination. He did not receive any floor consideration whatsoever, not even a cloture vote, and his nomination languished in the Judiciary Committee. At the time, a number of Democratic Senators sent a letter to the Judiciary Committee chairman arguing that a nominee to the DC Circuit ``should under no circumstances be considered, much less confirmed, before we first address the very need for that judgeship''--the judgeship he would occupy. These Senators specifically argued that a DC Circuit's comparatively moderate caseload in 2006 simply did not justify the confirmation of an additional judge to that court. Five years have now passed and Ms. Halligan has been nominated to that very same seat on the DC Circuit. But the court's caseload remains as minimal as it did then. According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, the DC Circuit caseload per judge is approximately one- fourth that of most other Federal courts of appeals. In each of the past 2 years, the DC Circuit has cancelled regularly scheduled argument dates due to lack of pending cases. For several years the court has experienced a decline in workload in terms of total filings, actions per active judge, and pending appeals. Almost every metric indicates the same direction. Indeed, since 2006, when Democrats blocked Mr. Keisler's nomination, the total number of appeals filed in the DC Circuit has decreased--decreased--by 12 percent. According to the Democrats' own standards, and particularly when there are judicial emergencies in other courts across the country, now is not the time to confirm another judge to the DC Circuit. It is most certainly not the time for us to consider confirming a controversial nominee with a record of extreme views of the law and the Constitution. Many of my colleagues have discussed these views, so I will limit myself this morning to one example. In 2003, while serving as solicitor general of New York, Ms. Halligan approved and signed a legal brief arguing that handgun manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers should be held liable for criminal actions that individuals commit with those guns. Three years later, in 2006, Ms. Halligan filed a brief alleging that handgun manufacturers were guilty of creating a public nuisance--that they, themselves, were guilty of creating a public nuisance. Such an activist approach is both bewildering and inconsistent with the original understanding of the second amendment and the rights under the second amendment that American citizens enjoy. In conclusion, as measured by the Democrats' own standards and their prior actions, now is not the time to confirm another judge to the DC Circuit, and it is certainly not the time to consider such a controversial nominee for that important court. For these reasons, I cannot support Ms. Halligan's nomination, and urge my colleagues to oppose her confirmation. Madam President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEE. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I rise today to speak in support of amendment No. 1126 to the current pending legislation. The purpose of this amendment is to make clear that the United States shall not detain for an indefinite period U.S. citizens in military custody. I understand this has been the subject of a lot of debate. I also understand this would be a break not only with the current pending legislation but also with current practice, based on Supreme Court precedent and lower court precedent that some have interpreted to deem this a constitutionally permissible practice. It has often been suggested by several of my colleagues that it is the province of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, and that statement is absolutely correct as far as it goes. But it is not the beginning of the analysis and the end of the analysis. We, as Senators, independently have an obligation, consistent with and required by our oath to the Constitution--which I took just a few months ago just a few feet from where I stand now--to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That means doing more than simply the full extent of whatever the courts will tolerate. In this instance, what we are talking about is the right of the U.S. military to detain indefinitely, without trial, a U.S. citizen, simply on the basis that person has been deemed an enemy combatant. Now, there is a real slippery slope problem here, and it is the very kind of slippery slope problem for which we have protections such as the fifth amendment and the sixth amendment. You see, under the fifth amendment, a person cannot be held for an infamous crime unless they have been subjected to a process whereby a grand jury indictment has been issued. A person cannot be held and tried for a crime without having counsel made available to them and without the opportunity for a speedy trial in front of a jury of the peers of the accused. We can scarcely afford as Americans to surrender these fundamental civil liberties for which wars have been fought, for which the founding era, the founding generation fought so nobly against our mother country to establish and thereafter to protect. We have to support these liberties. I think at a bare minimum, that means we will not allow U.S. military personnel to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, regardless of what label we happen to apply to them. These people, as U.S. citizens, are entitled to a grand jury indictment to the extent they are being held for an infamous crime. They are also entitled to a jury trial in front of their peers and to counsel. We cannot, for the sake of convenience, surrender these important liberties. I am not willing to do that. That is why I support this amendment, amendment No. 1126, to the pending legislation. I encourage each of my colleagues to do so. I want to point out that yesterday I voted against what became known as the Udall amendment. I did so in part because I do not believe that fixed the problem I am talking about. The Udall amendment did not even purport to address current practice or the policies as they have been established in recent years: that this kind of detention is in some circumstances acceptable. It called for a study and it eliminated certain provisions in the proposed legislation, but it did not fix the underlying problem. This Feinstein amendment, amendment No. 1126, does fix that. That is why I support it. I encourage each of my colleagues to do the same. When we take an oath to the U.S. Constitution--to uphold it, to support it, to protect it, to defend it--we are doing more than simply agreeing to do whatever the courts will tolerate. We are taking an oath to the principles embodied in this 224-year-old document that has fostered the greatest civilization the world has ever known. Thank you, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the current amendment be set aside so I might speak briefly regarding amendment No. 1126.

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

Mr. LEE. Wonderful. The second request is withdrawn.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article written by Mallory Factor and published in Forbes magazine.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I stand in support of this resolution. I do so for the following reason. Article I, section 1 of the Constitution makes abundantly clear that the legislative power of the United States shall be vested in Congress, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Legislative power is the power to make rules carrying the force of generally applicable law--in this instance, generally applicable Federal law. It was with wise reason that our Founding Fathers entrusted this power to those people entrusted by the citizens of the respective States for a limited time to make law because they understood that those who have the power to make law have the power to infringe on the individual liberties of the American people, such that whenever they exceed those powers, they can be held accountable to those they represent and on whose behalf they will be legislating. Every single time we act, we have an effect on the American people. We need to be held accountable at regular intervals for those decisions--every 6 years in the case of Senators, every 2 years in the case of Members of the House of Representatives. Occasionally, Congress has chosen to delegate that power. For instance, Congress might say we hereby enact the Clean Air Act and give power to the EPA to implement rules and enforce those rules, to make sure we have clean air. To the extent that we do that, particularly where the EPA or some other agency acts in a way that might have a very significant impact on our economy, I think we are selling the American people short of their birthright, which is the guarantee that laws will not be made on their behalf, particularly significant ones such as the one we are addressing today, without those who voted for them being held accountable. There are great people at the EPA, as there are in every branch and office of our Federal Government. But it is only those people in Congress who are constitutionally authorized to make generally applicable Federal law. It is only these people who stand at regular intervals for reelection, accountable to their people. This is what the Congressional Review Act does. This is why this approach, this resolution under the Congressional Review Act, is so important. I have heard some of my colleagues suggest this somehow represents an attempt to circumvent the normal legislative process. What I am saying is, this is the normal legislative process. When we are looking at a rule that by the EPA's own estimates could cost as many 3,000 energy sector jobs and could cost the American people $2.4 billion in compliance costs annually, we need to look seriously at the fact that we need to hold ourselves accountable. If this rule is a good idea, if in fact this is necessary to protect the American people, if in fact the benefits of this outweigh the costs, then we should be confident. We should be comfortable discussing it, debating it, and passing it into law. That is what we are doing. I am supporting this resolution because I support the legislative process envisioned and mandated by the Constitution, and I urge each of my colleagues to do the same. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE. About 5 minutes.