Mike Lee

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I wish to formally congratulate Dr. Peter Stang of the University of Utah for being awarded the National Medal of Science, the highest honor bestowed by the United States upon scientists. Dr. Stang has been a pioneer in his field, developing methods of creating molecular nano-devices that construct themselves from combinations of chemical building blocks. These devices hold the promise of eventually being used in many revolutionary ways, from enabling artificial photosynthesis to delivering medicine directly to specific individual cells in the human body. In 1957, Dr. Stang's family fled to the United States from Hungary to escape the violent clashes between Hungarians and the Soviet Union. The greatness of the American spirit is reflected in the fact that this young immigrant became one of the nation's top scientists and is now being recognized by the leader of the free world. I thank Dr. Stang for his tremendous efforts to improve our way of life.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, on October 24, the Sons of Utah Pioneers celebrated the 150th anniversary of the final connecting of the Transcontinental Overland Telegraph Line in Salt Lake City, establishing the first coast-to-coast electronic communications system in American history. Much like the Transcontinental Railroad revolutionized transportation in this country, the Transcontinental Telegraph Line revolutionized communication. Sending messages from Washington, DC to California, which had previously taken weeks, took mere seconds after completion of the line. President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Brigham Young sent the first message to President Abraham Lincoln, which confirmed that Utah was still loyal to the United States and not allied with the Confederacy. The line is credited with helping to ensure that most of the West sided with the Union in the Civil War. Congratulations to the citizens of Utah for marking the anniversary of an accomplishment that helped to hold this country together.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, 150 years ago, 309 families founded the city of St. George in southern Utah. It would become the main city in a region known as ``Utah's Dixie'' because of the cotton farms that were established in response to the cotton shortage of the Civil War. To celebrate this important milestone, several hundred people participated in a reenactment of the 100-mile journey of the original settlers, from the city of Parowan to the eventual location of St. George. The trek featured wagons, livestock, and many other aspects of life in the 19th century. Today, St. George is a city of over 70,000 people, and is the seat of Washington County. Congratulations to Mayor Dan McArthur and the people of St. George for reaching the 150-year milestone.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I filed this motion to recommit H.R. 2112 with instructions to send this ``moneybus'' back to the Committee on Appropriations for one simple reason: it spends more for the same set of expenditures in fiscal year 2012 than it did in 2011 to the tune of about $10 billion. I understand there are reasons for this excess. I understand when we look at individual components of the 2012 provisions there may be some cuts in there. But the overall picture, the entire pie, is about $10 billion more than what we had in fiscal year 2011. Unless we can be open and transparent with the American people and acknowledge the fact that we are, in fact, spending more, I think this is a problem. We have to get the fiscal house in order, and this is how it is perpetuated, when we claim we are cutting when we are, in fact, spending more. That is the reason for this motion to recommit. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I stand to speak on behalf of this motion to recommit. What we are looking at here with H.R. 2112 is a measure that actually spends more in each of those areas than what we spent in fiscal year 2011. We are in dire economic circumstances in this country. We are currently spending at a rate of roughly $1.5 trillion annually in excess of what we are bringing in. We have gone to great lengths through a number of accounting mechanisms to demonstrate to the American people that we are doing our best to spend less. In many circumstances, the message that has been sent has been a message of austerity. It becomes increasingly difficult to manage and to maintain that necessary message of austerity, one that is accompanied by hundreds of millions of Americans making sacrifices every day in response to this economic downturn. It becomes absolutely essential that we actually make cuts. To make actual cuts, I think that means necessarily that we have to spend less in fiscal year 2012 than we spent in fiscal year 2011. We will continue, I fear, to lack credibility if we persist in using whatever techniques we use, accounting-wise or otherwise, to claim we are reducing spending when, in fact, this appropriations package--this minibus spending package, as we sometimes refer to it--actually spends more money than was spent in 2011. This is why I have submitted this motion. I hope my colleagues will share this concern I have expressed, which has caused me to submit this motion. The idea of the motion is that we bring our spending levels back down in each of these areas to what we spent in fiscal year 2011. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I have a motion to recommit with instructions with respect to H.R. 2112.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President. today we honor WO Jay T. Lane as a hero for an act of incredible bravery and courage. He has earned the Silver Star and I am humbled and honored to submit these words of deep gratitude and appreciation. In 1971, Jay was the pilot of a lift helicopter that was struck by two rocket-propelled grenades, the incredibly deadly weapon of choice for our enemies in Vietnam. It is a miracle that wasn't the end of Jay right then and there. Known as an extraordinarily skillful and talented pilot by his peers, Jay somehow safely landed what was left of the helicopter. Relatively speaking, Jay was OK, but one of the infantrymen on the vehicle was badly wounded. After removing his fellow soldier from the wreckage, Jay then went back into a burning helicopter under intense fire from the enemy to retrieve the first aid kit and began to care for his wounded friend. Knowing he needed to get to a safer area, Jay carried the wounded soldier on his back through the jungle and waited until help arrived. After the episode, Jay's superior officer wrote, ``His gallant actions and devotion to duty were in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Military.'' I couldn't agree more. Jay's bravery stands as a fine example of the character of our men and women who have fought for and defended this country. Those who wear the uniform today still display that same courage in far away places, just as Jay did that day in Vietnam. Without their sense of duty to our country, we would not enjoy the freedoms we have today. It is of the highest calling to provide for the common defense, as the preamble of our Constitution makes clear. I am awed by their sacrifice. Today, I am honored to congratulate Jay T. Lane for earning the Silver Star. It is well deserved.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the city of Orem recently lost a great leader and public servant--Mayor Jerry C. Washburn. Mayor Washburn called Orem his home for over 50 years and acted as the longest-serving mayor in the city's history. He was known as a natural leader who took the time to listen to all opinions, and created an environment that encouraged an open exchange of ideas. As mayor he focused on enriching the quality of life in Orem, and dedicated his time to projects that will benefit generations to come. Citywide streetlights, the swimming pools at SCERA Park, Lakeside Sports Park, and Nielsen's Grove Park are just a few that residents today and in the future will enjoy. Mayor Washburn also served as chairman of the Utah County Transportation Planning Organization, chairman of the Utah County Board of Health, and was a founding board member of the Utah Lake Commission. His life was truly devoted to serving his community, his church, and his family. He will be greatly missed by all who knew him.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to offer my sincerest congratulations to an inspirational constituent of mine, Sue Copinga. Sue is the recipient of the 2011 LifePoint Hospitals companywide Mercy Award. LifePoint's Mercy Award recognizes individuals who follow in the footsteps of the company's founding chairman and CEO Scott Mercy, who passed away in 2000. Sue works at Castleview Hospital in Price, UT and is a patient advocate in the emergency room, while working part time as an emergency medical technician. Castleview Hospital serves residents of Carbon and Emery Counties. Like so many rural hospitals around the country, Castleview is the only hospital for miles around, making it a vital resource where citizens of Carbon and Emery Counties can get the medical care they need. While Sue has a deep history of giving back to others through her job and in her personal life, she demonstrated her extraordinary dedication to caring for others during one of the worst mine disasters in Utah's history. On August 6, 2007, the Crandall Canyon Mine collapsed in the middle of the night, trapping six miners underground. Sue did not hesitate. Immediately after learning of the tragedy, Sue headed straight to the scene to provide whatever assistance was necessary. She spent the following days and nights at the site standing ready, eager and willing to treat the men we all hoped and prayed would be rescued. Then, on August 16, a second collapse brought the walls down around rescuers who were working tirelessly to free the trapped miners. The second collapse claimed the lives of three men and injured numerous others. Sue provided emergency care to injured rescuers and miners, despite the dangerous conditions. She voluntarily went into the mine that day not only to help those who were injured, but also to spare fellow EMTs from being put in harm's way. Sue was worried about a coworker with six young children and told this fellow EMT to stay behind, noting that her own children are grown and raised. Sue's commitment to caring for others is also what makes her invaluable as a patient advocate in the emergency room of Castleview Hospital, where she has worked for 14 years. During her days--and often long nights at Castleview--Sue touches countless lives, making a positive impact on each patient she encounters. Sue provides care and compassion to her patients at a time when they need it most, and has come to be known affectionately as ``Grandma Sue'' for the way she soothes children, the most vulnerable of her ER patients--children. Sue's devotion to helping others is not confined to the hospital's walls. She also serves part time as an EMT where she provides patients emergency care and transport in critical situations. When Sue isn't caring for patients in the emergency room or ambulance, she is educating future generations of EMTs. For fifteen years, Sue has given back to her community by teaching countless people how to save others' lives in times of crisis. Sue lives in Elmo, one of Utah's smallest towns. She is the proud mother of 5 children, including a Navajo foster daughter, and has 19 grandchildren. Sue also plays a role in supporting the children of her larger community by leading church youth groups and chairing an annual ``community day'' in her town. It gives me great pleasure to know that Sue's caring, selflessness, and devotion to her community is being recognized through the LifePoint Hospitals Mercy Award.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I stand today to explain my reasons for voting against the debt limit increase we will be voting on in just about half an hour from now. This is a crisis that America faces. It is an ongoing crisis that will neither be created nor eliminated with today's vote. It is a crisis that has been building gradually over the course of years-- decades, in fact. It is a crisis that we certainly have known about ever since this Congress was sworn in in January of this year. This is a crisis that threatens potentially every Federal program, from defense to entitlements, because as we continue to borrow more money as a nation, adding to the already almost $15 trillion we have accumulated in national debt--roughly $50,000 for every man, woman, and child in America; roughly $150,000 for every taxpayer in America--as we continue to add to that enormous debt, we get closer and closer to the unknown but nonetheless existing point at which we will no longer be able to borrow, at least not at interest rates that will make this kind of borrowing sustainable. If interest rates were to go up even to their historically average levels, within just a few years we could be spending something closer to $1 trillion every single year. Just to pay the interest on our national debt, we could be paying more than we pay on Social Security in an entire year, more than Medicare and Medicaid combined, and more than national defense in an entire year. What happens when we get to that point? Where does that money come from? The reality is that every Federal program, from defense to entitlements, could see its coffers raided in an unfortunate Draconian display of fiscal irresponsibility if we continue to punt this problem and not to address it. The legislation at issue today addresses this problem by perpetuating it. I am pleased, of course, that this legislation does certain things and has invigorated a new conversation on the sorts of strategies that need to be in place if we are ever going to address this problem on a long-term basis. Some 7 or 8 months ago, there were still people in this town of Washington, DC, who were saying things along the lines of ``we need another stimulus package'' or ``we need more Federal spending of one sort or another.'' They are no longer saying that. Now the discussion focuses not on whether to cut but how much. There is, of course, renewed discussion about the need for a balanced budget amendment. But talk is different from outcomes. What we need are outcomes. What we need is a fundamental change to the way we spend money in Washington. What we need is to restrict Congress's authority, granted by clause 2 of article I, section 8, of the Constitution, to incur debt in the name of the United States. That power needs to be restricted. The only way we can restrict that on a permanent basis, one that will bind not only this Congress but future Congresses that come after us, is through an amendment to the Constitution. This legislation raises the debt limit by about $2.5 trillion. This is a recordbreaking sum. Not too many years ago, when I was in high school, this was roughly equivalent to our entire national debt. Now, through one piece of legislation, we are increasing, expanding our already huge national debt by roughly that same sum, and it does not contain any permanent, binding structural spending reform mechanisms of the sort that would be necessary to make sure we get out of this problem, to make sure we end the problem we have created through Congress's reckless pattern of perpetual deficit spending. That is why I have insisted since before I was even sworn into office that before we raise the debt limit, we need to pass a balanced budget amendment and submit it to States for ratification. Nearly every State balances its budget each and every year. It is not news when a State does this. I look forward to the time when it will no longer be news when Congress does the same. There are significant cuts discussed in this legislation and proposed, but I want to be clear on one thing: Although these cuts are large on a long-term basis, on a short-term basis they are less so. On a short-term basis, within the next year, this proposes to cut about $7 billion out of the fiscal year 2012 discretionary spending budget. Some dispute this number and suggest, as some of my colleague have already, that, in fact, the fiscal year 2012 budget will spend $23 billion more. Others concede the point and say: OK, let's assume for purposes of this discussion that it does, in fact, cut $7 billion from what otherwise would be new deficit spending. Now, $7 billion is roughly equivalent to the amount of debt we have added to our total debt portfolio just in the last 30 hours or so, roughly the period of time that has elapsed since this legislation was announced late Sunday night until this very moment, because we are borrowing about $4 billion of new debt every single day. Stated differently, this amounts to less than two-tenths of 1 percent of a cut. I do believe we have made progress. I commend our leadership for working so hard to focus the discussion on the need for cuts. We have, unfortunately, had Democratic leadership in this body that has been bent on delaying the announcement of any deal as long as possible and preventing legislation such as the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act from coming to the floor, where it could have been subjected to an open debate, discussion, and amendment process, as well it should be. I regret the fact that it didn't come to that, the fact that that legislation, which could have solved this problem and would have put us on a path toward fiscal responsibility, toward ending this problem once and for all, was not even allowed its day in the Senate to be debated and discussed on the merits. At the end of the day, we have to come to terms with the fact that the course we are on, from a fiscal standpoint, is utterly unsustainable, and adding more debt to our now-bursting portfolio of debt will only contribute to this problem--unless we adopt a balanced budget amendment. The time to do that is right now. The American people overwhelmingly support a balanced budget amendment, to the tune of about 75 percent. To my great astonishment, some of my colleagues and even the President have suggested that a balanced budget amendment is somehow a radical idea--so radical as to be absurd and not worth considering--even though three out of four Americans believe we need a balanced budget amendment. I will close by referring to a quote by a man named William Morris, who said this in the late 1800s: One man with an idea in his head is in danger of being considered a madman; two men with the same idea in common may be foolish, but can hardly be mad; ten men sharing an idea begin to act, a hundred draw attention as fanatics, a thousand and society begins to tremble, a hundred thousand and there is war abroad, and the cause has victories tangible and real; and why only a hundred thousand? Why not a hundred million and peace upon the earth? You and I who agree together, it is we who have to answer that question. It is not just one or two of us who have this idea in our head that we need to restrict Congress's borrowing power because it has been so severely abused over such a prolonged period of time; it is three out of four Americans. I urge my colleagues in the Senate and our counterparts in the House of Representatives to join the American people in at least the same proportion in supporting the idea that never again should we raise the debt limit without a balanced budget amendment in place. This is a permanent, long-term problem. It requires a permanent solution. The only permanent solution is that which involves an amendment to the Constitution.

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 to address this body to honor the life of one of Utah's great citizens. A good friend of mine is former Utah Governor Norman Bangerter, who announced on Saturday that his beloved wife of 58 years had passed away after a long-time battle with Alzheimer's disease. Colleen Monson Bangerter, having been born in 1935, was the mother of six children, the mother also of one foster son, and in many respects was a friend to all of Utah's 3 million residents. She served faithfully in many capacities, including as PTA president and other offices within the PTA. She also served faithfully in a variety of positions as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Just a few years ago, she and her husband, former Governor Bangerter, served as they presided over the mission of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in South Africa. They worked hand in hand throughout their entire lives--in raising their children, in running Governor Bangerter's campaigns, and in running the State throughout his time as Governor, which wasn't an easy time for our State. During Governor Bangerter's two terms in office, our State faced significant financial difficulties, faced significant flooding challenges, and the Bangerters weathered these adverse conditions well, serving as standing examples to all the citizens of Utah for what it means to rise to the challenge of adversity. Colleen Bangerter was someone who had friends in many corners, and she also had many talents, some of which are not known by everyone, including the fact that she was the State hopscotch champion in the State of Utah in 1947. There are not many First Ladies in the United States who can claim that distinction, and she definitely did. She was also pleased to have been the recipient of the highest award that can be granted by the Boy Scouts of America, which she received just a few years ago. But of all the honors, including the honors that went along with being the First Lady of the State of Utah and serving with someone who, in my opinion, was one of the great Governors ever to serve our State, her greatest honor, her greatest prize was that of her family. She loved being a mother, loved each of her 6 children, their 30 grandchildren and 18 great grandchildren. We as Utahns mourn the loss of this great citizen of our State. We mourn the loss of this friend. Our thoughts and our prayers go out to former Governor Bangerter and his family.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. In that series of books, the crucial conversation line of the books, one of the things he encourages people to do is to find whatever common ground they can reach. I think there is common ground among the American people generally that we should balance our budget. Not everyone agrees about how we balance the budget, what should be cut, but they do agree we should balance it. That being the case, that is where we ought to focus our efforts. We should focus our efforts on amending that law of laws, that 224-year-old document that fostered the development of the greatest civilization the world has ever known. We should change it, again, to improve it, to restrict Congress's borrowing power. The plan proposed by the Democrats that is now about to come before us puts our budgeting process on autopilot. It doesn't require another budget for 2 years, preserving the ability of ObamaCare to fund itself without a single additional debate in Congress. This is wrong. This is not the right approach. I object to it. For that reason, I, along with some of my other Republican colleagues, am prepared to vote on this and vote no on it right now. We are not the ones delaying this vote.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, a number of us, myself included, have been arguing since January--ever since we arrived here and were sworn in this very room--that the national debt is a permanent problem. The almost $15 trillion that we now owe as a nation is permanent. It is going to take a long time to pay off. There are people who are not yet old enough to vote. There are people who will be born in a few years who are not even here who will one day have to assist in paying off that debt. The fact that this is a long-term problem means it requires a long- term solution. That is why we have been saying all along that we ought not raise the debt limit yet again--extending our national debt by another $2.5 trillion, more or less, without a permanent solution in place. Herein lies the problem. It is difficult or impossible for one Congress to come up with a set of budget numbers that would necessarily bind future Congresses. We can come up with a plan to cut $2 trillion or $3 trillion over a 10-year or 15-year period, but if future Congresses don't want to go along with that, they can find their way out of it. This has happened again and again as we have seen with Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, as we have seen with the pay-go rules. Congress becomes a walking, breathing waiver unto itself. We need a permanent solution. This is why we have settled on the need for a balanced budget amendment. As my distinguished colleague--the junior Senator from Kentucky--has just pointed out, there is no intransigence in our position. Those of us who identify with the Republican Party, those of us who identify with the tea party are people who want a solution. We were sent here with a mandate by voters, a mandate that says the Federal Government is too big and too expensive. Now, resistance to this message from the other side of the aisle, as vehement as that resistance may be, is not genuine if what it says is, in this instance the insistence for a balanced budget amendment is itself reflective of an unwillingness to compromise. There are myriad opportunities to compromise within that general framework. We have offered that. We have extended that. Republicans have now submitted no fewer than two bills that have passed the House of Representatives to address the debt limit issue, both of which have been stopped dead in their tracks over here without further opportunity, most importantly, without a response by the Democratic Party in the Senate or otherwise. If there is either party in this discussion that is refusing to compromise, it is not ours. If there is any group that has failed to offer solutions, it cannot be described as the tea party movement. I ask my colleague--the junior Senator from Kentucky--do you see any element within the tea party movement, any element within the Republican Party that is unwilling to compromise or that is wanting to block just for the sake of blocking?

Mr. LEE. That certainly appears to be the case. It is a reminder to us of the fact that no matter how much we might be tempted at times to demagogue this issue, no matter how tempting it might be for certain Members of this body to cast blame elsewhere, they cannot escape one simple fact, which is the American people are demanding more. They are demanding that we spend less. They are demanding that we stop this barbaric practice of perpetual massive-scale deficit spending. Why? Because it erodes individual liberty. It takes money people have not yet made and spends it and obligates them to repay it--in some cases before they are old enough to vote, in other cases before they are even born. We need a permanent solution. When we put something in the Constitution, it serves as a permanent reminder of the fact that we, as a people, have made a decision, and we are going to move forward. Not everybody will necessarily agree as to how best we should move forward having made that decision. The American people overwhelmingly, to the tune of 75 percent, support the idea that we should amend the Constitution to restrict Congress's deficit spending power.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I have a friend by the name of Ron McMillan, who lives in my hometown of Alpine, UT. He is the author of a number of books dealing with business negotiations, dealing with trying to figure out how compromise can be reached.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I feel compelled to come to the floor this evening to refute some of the arguments that have been made by some of my colleagues, points that are important for the American people to understand, points that, if not clarified, could lead to a misunderstanding, lead to resentment which is misplaced. One of the points I have heard made this evening by one of my colleagues is that the debt limit issue has never been held hostage quite like it has now. I am not quite sure what was meant by this, but I do want to clarify this point. If someone had held this hostage before on any of the dozens and dozens of times the debt limit has been raised over the course of many years, maybe it would have been a good thing. Maybe it would be a good thing for us not to be dealing with right now a national debt that has almost reached $15 trillion. Maybe we should consider the fact that those who are being held hostage are those who will one day have to repay this debt, considering that some of those people are not yet here because they have yet to be born, and in some instances, their parents have yet to meet. We have to ask the question whether they are being held hostage themselves--held hostage to a government that always demands more money so it can exercise more power over us. And as it acquires more power, exercises more of that over us--thus restricting our liberty--it demands more money. As it acquires more money, it exercises more power, and the process perpetuates itself. This is how we get to the point where we are almost $15 trillion in debt. This is how we get to the point where the American people are being held hostage. So if this process has not been held up in the past, then shame on those who could have held it up but did not. It is incumbent upon us who serve here and now to represent those who are sometimes underrepresented to represent those most vulnerable members of society who are not yet old enough to vote or not yet born. This is a multigenerational problem. It is a multigenerational obligation we are taking upon our entire country in connection with this debate. So if my colleague who made this point just about half an hour ago meant that we should never have vigorous, aggressive debate and discussion over whether it is a good idea to take on $2.5 trillion in new debt in one fell swoop, perhaps we should revisit that assumption; perhaps we ought to second-guess ourselves just a little bit more than we have in recent decades lest we hold hostage an entire generation. Another point that was made by that same colleague is that Republicans have put forward plans to challenge, to undermine, to bring about immediate cuts to Social Security and Medicare. This simply is not true. Quite to the contrary. The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act--of which I was the lead sponsor in the Senate before it was introduced in the House by my friend Jason Chaffetz, where it was later passed--Cut, Cap, and Balance Act actually protected Social Security and Medicare. It bolstered, it strengthened those programs. So it is utterly false and, I believe, disingenuous for anyone to argue that proposal--or any other that I am aware of, for that matter--would bring about cuts to Social Security and Medicare. This is not the point of this legislation. Quite to the contrary. The point of this legislation is to protect what we need to do through the U.S. Government. Whether you are someone who would describe himself as a conservative and perhaps most concerned about national defense or whether you are perhaps more liberal and you are most concerned about protecting our entitlement programs, you ought to agree with the principles underlying the cut, cap, and balance approach, with the fact that we need a balanced budget amendment, because if we do not put these measures in place now, if we do not agree now that we need to restrict our borrowing authority, every one of those programs will be jeopardized as we reach the mathematical, the economic borrowing capacity of the U.S. Government. The more we borrow, the more we run into the risk that those who lend us money, those who buy our U.S. Treasurys, will one day be unwilling to lend us more money, at least not without additional interest payments. We could very quickly go from spending about $250 billion a year in interest, as we now are, to spending something much closer to $1 trillion a year in interest based on just a few interest rate points. As that goes up, our ability to fund everything goes down. In closing, it is important to point out that what is being requested here is the largest debt limit increase in American history--about $2.5 trillion. Unprecedented. The idea here is to give the U.S. Congress enough borrowing power to take us almost 2 years down the road. Two years, by the way, is roughly the amount of time that has elapsed since the Democrats in the Senate even introduced a budget. One has to ask, why extend the debt limit for such a long period of time? The President gave us the answer the other day. He wants to insulate himself from the political process. He wants to make it not a political issue. Political issues are themselves things the voters are concerned about--as well they should be--because voters pay taxes, voters are affected by decisions we make. We need to have voters connected, not disconnected from this process. We need to act now, but we need to act responsibly. The only way to do that is to raise the debt limit only after we pass the balanced budget amendment. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE. He gets to decide it only if we allow him to decide it. We outnumber him, and if we vote contrary to his will, we can overrule him. If enough Members of this body are willing to stand up for truth and justice and the American way, debate and discussion and the rule of law, this thing he is trying to do to us won't happen. We can have actual debate and discussion. We have responded. We have responded politely and well to his directive that we would stay here this weekend. We had made plans. We have canceled plans in our home States. All of a sudden, his high and mighty speech earlier this week telling us we had to stay here is no longer important when he disagrees with some legislation we put forward. He would rather shut down debate and discussion. He would rather end the process that is absolutely necessary to avert this crisis that is quickly coming than he would to have to confront the facts, offer up his own solution and respond to the valid points that have been made in this debate and in this discussion.

Mr. LEE. Absolutely. Absolutely. Look, the American people understand that power is most dangerous in government when it is consolidated into the hands of a few people. It becomes even more dangerous when that power is wielded under cover of darkness. The great thing about sunlight is it illuminates and it disinfects. We need that illumination and that disinfectant during that process, because it is corrupt. A process that allows something of such profound importance to be decided by a handful of people, who tell their colleagues: You plebeians don't worry about it; this is for us high- minded people; we will decide; you will follow; and we will do it in such a way that you won't have time to read it, to review it, to debate it, to discuss it; this is corrupt, and it has to end.

Mr. LEE. I think the American people would be profoundly disappointed by that statement. More importantly, they would be profoundly disgusted by the fact that it wasn't enough for the Senate majority leader simply to say: I disagree with it or to point out areas in which he might disagree with it or might want to improve upon it. He went so far as to say it is not even worth our time to debate and discuss this. That smacks of tyranny. Americans don't respond well to tyranny, and this is unacceptable.

Mr. LEE. It is the law, and notwithstanding the fact that we don't have a court order enjoining us to do that, we still have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. I think that means especially on an issue so fundamental, so important, so sweeping as the budgeting process, we should be complying with that law or at least making an effort to do so. What I see here is not only a lack of effort to comply with that law but a deliberate, conscious effort made with malice aforethought to avoid the law. That is damaging. That is wrong.

Mr. LEE. There is nothing wrong with it, and quite to the contrary. This is exactly the kind of activity that our Constitution contemplates, authorizes, and with good reason. I should note here it is significant that in this body each State is represented equally. A relatively small State such as mine, the State of Utah, has the same number of Senators as a large, heavily populated State such as California or such as New York because we represent the States. We represent the States as States. One of our jobs is to make sure that their sovereign interests are vindicated in this body. To suggest that we should not balance our budget, to suggest that we should not propose a balanced budget to be considered by the States--keeping in mind that it is the States ultimately that ratify it if three-fourths of them choose to do so--is insulting to the very States we represent. It somehow suggests our States can't handle it when the States overwhelmingly, almost every one of them, balance their budgets every year.