Mike Lee

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. On countless occasions throughout the State of Utah, I have articulated the fact that I believe we have no business raising the debt limit without first adopting permanent structural change in the form of a constitutional balanced budget amendment. The people of Utah elected me in part based on that promise. Elections have consequences, and in my case this was one of them.

Mr. LEE. Yes, it would. The whole purpose of the balanced budget amendment is to restrict our power and give that power back to the people where it belongs. The power has been abused here. It has been abused over a prolonged period of time, and it has been abused to a severe degree. This is why the election of 2010 brought about some significant outcomes.

Mr. LEE. I would hardly call it weak. Quite to the contrary. Calls for legislation such as this date back a couple of hundred years. Thomas Jefferson was arguably the first one to suggest this kind of proposal. He called for it again and again, and those calls have continued throughout most of our history, but they have accelerated in recent decades. They have accelerated because this body has refused to balance its budget, and it has abused its borrowing power to the point we are spending more than $1.5 trillion a year more than we bring in. It is bankrupting our country. We are burying our children under a mountain of debt. We are killing jobs, we are spending money we don't have, and that is wrong. I would hardly call legislation designed to deal with that in a permanent binding way senseless, and I am insulted that the majority leader would suggest that this is somehow senseless just because he doesn't like it because it will make him less powerful.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, since I was sworn into office this January, about 6 months ago, the House and the Senate have both been understandably and properly concerned with one issue that has perhaps eclipsed every other issue that has come before us in this half-year period of time; that related to our national debt and the anticipated expiration of our debt limit which will hit in just a couple weeks. Many Americans are understandably concerned and have articulated the concern that if we pass the debt limit deadline of August 2 without raising the debt limit, there could be catastrophic financial consequences. In light of that, I, along with a number of my Republican colleagues both in the Senate and in the House, have introduced legislation called the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act to address the debt limit, to address it head on. It says we will raise the debt limit if three conditions are met: first, that we make significant cuts to domestic discretionary spending for the fiscal year 2012 budget; second, we need statutory spending caps to put us on a smooth but steady glidepath toward balancing our budget sometime within the next decade; third, we need a balanced budget amendment passed out of Congress and submitted to the States for ratification. We think all three of these steps are necessarily required before we take the significant additional step of raising the debt limit. Because of the fact that it took us a long time to get to this point, the point where, by the end of the year, we will have accumulated $15 trillion in debt--about $50,000 for every man, woman, and child in America, between $120,000 and $150,000 for every wage earner in America; this is a lot of money--before we extend that debt limit again by an additional $2.4 trillion, we have to solve the problem. We have to address the problem that led to its creation in a real, lasting, binding fundamental way. That is why the most critical part of this legislation, while each part is important, happens to be found in that which rests upon the idea of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. We as Members of Congress could decide right now that over the next 10 years or 15 years, it might be a good idea to cut spending by $2 trillion, $3 trillion, $4 trillion, $5 trillion, $6 trillion, perhaps more--but if we made that promise today as a downpayment to the American people in exchange for the permission of the people to raise the debt limit, it is a promise we cannot make good on because we cannot bind a future Congress. This Congress was sworn in in January of 2011. Elections will be held in November of 2012 and a new Congress will be sworn in based on those elections in January 2013. The same thing will happen again in January 2015 and every 2 years after that for the duration of our Republic. The decisions we make right here, right now can affect the here and now and can be binding for the here and now, but we cannot reasonably expect and we cannot ask the American people, when making a decision so long- lasting and precedent-setting as this one, to simply trust us that future Congresses will see things the same way we do. The only way we can bind a future Congress is by amending our law of laws, that 224-year-old document painstakingly ironed out by some of the brightest men of the last several centuries in Philadelphia 224 years ago. When we amend the Constitution, we make it possible to bind a future Congress. That is what we need to do. We have had some interesting debate and discussion surrounding this proposal. Last Friday, I listened with surprise and dismay as our President said we don't need to amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget, but we do need to balance our budget. In the opinion of the President, Congress just needs to do its job, not amend the Constitution. I think I understand his point. I think he is suggesting that for Congress to do its job it needs to balance its budget. But I have to ask the question, how has that worked out for us? Have past Congresses balanced their budgets? Has the current Congress balanced its budget? Overwhelmingly, the answer is no. It happens every now and then. Some would describe those instances where it has balanced in the last two or three decades as an accident; others, a momentary blip; still others would suggest it was the product of accounting gimmickry rather than an actual act of budget balancing when that occurred. Regardless, we know that balanced Federal budgets are newsworthy indeed because they are very rare. I look forward to the day when they are no longer newsworthy, when they are customary, and the only way to make them customary, based on our experience as Americans throughout most of our Nation's history, is by amending the Constitution to require it, to make this a binding and permanent law. I was shocked and dismayed again to learn that our Senate majority leader, Senator Reid from Nevada, stated just a few hours ago that he does not like this legislation. He made some very disparaging comments about it, notwithstanding the fact and completely ignoring the fact that this is not just the best legislation to address the debt limit issue, right now it is the only legislation. It is the only legislation that addresses this issue that is moving through Congress and that has been reduced to legislative language. It is certainly the only one that has been passed by one body of Congress and is now moving over to the Senate. He is criticizing something when he himself has not offered anything. This is the only show in town. Given how close we now are to the August 2 deadline and, in part, because we punted this so long and, in part, because we have not been having the debate and discussion in Congress we should have been having for months, this is it. This is the only proposal. If Senator Reid has suggestions on how we might change this proposal, I am all ears. I would love to hear what they are. If he has his own proposal, I would love to see what that is. But simply to stand from that desk over there and disparage this legislation is inexcusable, absolutely inexcusable, given the fact that he has offered nothing. Let me read some of his words. He said: ``The American people should understand that this''--``this'' meaning the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act--``is a bad piece of legislation, perhaps some of the worst legislation in the history of this country.'' I don't know what he is referring to. He didn't give specifics, nor has he given any specifics on what he would like to see in its place or how it could be improved. My suggestion to our Senate majority leader is, if he has ideas, please put them on the table because, as we approach this debt limit deadline, we are running out of time. The clock has been ticking for 6 months. We have known this was going to happen. This is not news to us. Why, then, has there been so little debate and discussion in this body? Why is it that we spent weeks and weeks and weeks, often dealing with legislation that paled in comparison to the importance of this issue. The clock kept ticking and we kept debating and discussing other legislation far less important. This, in my opinion, was a gross dereliction of duty. But we still have a few weeks. We can still deal with it. We can still address it. I suggest strongly that we address it by starting with that legislation that has actually been proposed and that we have full debate and discussion. But, no, we are told. Even after the House of Representatives earlier this week passed the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, passed it with bipartisan support, by the way--no fewer than five members of the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives voted to support this. That was passed Tuesday night. We were told later we would be having a vote on Saturday or perhaps Monday. Then, just a little while ago, we were informed by the Senate majority leader that the vote would be tomorrow, giving us little or no time for actual debate and discussion on the floor of what is still, to this moment, the only legislation moving through to address this issue. This is not an appropriate moment for demagoguery. Demagoguery on an issue this important can result in a lot of unnecessary pain. No one disputes that there could be significant negative economic consequences associated with not raising the debt limit. I do not dispute that, not for a moment. That is exactly why I put my neck on the line in order to file this legislation because nothing else was moving forward. I didn't want to do it, but when I was sworn in as a Senator just a few months ago, I understood it was my obligation to do what I could to make things better, to make our constitutional system work. So I filed it. It is an insult, not only to me and to my colleagues but to all Americans when addressing an issue this important, to have so little debate and discussion over this issue. I find it appalling. I find it reprehensible. I demand an explanation, and I demand an alternative solution, if the Senate majority leader is going to pick this apart and say he will not do it. Moreover, I will remind the Senate majority leader that just a few short years ago, in 2006, when we had a different President, belonging to a different party, and this body was in control of another party, if my memory serves me correctly not only did then-Senator Barack Obama vote against raising the debt limit, calling the need to do so the product of a failure of leadership that he was not willing to condone and perpetuate, but every single one of his Democratic colleagues joined him in that vote. Not one of them voted to raise the debt limit. Here we are again approaching the debt limit. Here we are again with only Republicans stepping to the plate and offering a solution. Only this time the solution is a permanent one. Unfortunately, in 2006 and prior and in subsequent debt limit extension votes, there was no serious debate attached to it as to a permanent solution. We have to amend the governing document, the law of laws, the only kind of law that can bind future Congresses in order to solve this problem. We have to do it now. This is part of what it means to be an American. We, as Americans, crave liberty and we eschew tyranny to any degree. Every single time we authorize deficit spending we fuel the unfettered expansion of the Federal Government and all its power. We commit ourselves and our posterity to a future that will include working more and more hours and days and weeks and even months just to pay their Federal tax bills every single year. That is time they will not get back. That is time we will not get back. That erodes our individual liberty. It also erodes our liberty when the same regulatory structure that exists today grows bigger and bigger every year because we are borrowing now more than $1.5 trillion every single year--not because of some aberrational condition, some unusual development that requires an unusual expenditure of borrowed money, but just to cover our basic day-to-day operations. This is what fuels the perpetual expansion of government, and when government expands perpetually, our individual liberty is diminished, unfortunately, and to a corresponding degree. This is unacceptable. But there is a way home. The way home is found in limiting the role of government. We can limit the role of government most effectively at this point in time, I believe, by limiting the pool of money to which Congress has access. The only way to do that is through a constitutional amendment. I wish to close by addressing one final argument that sometimes has been used in response to and against the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. Many of its detractors are making the claim that I find extraordinary, a claim that says: Why are you even supporting this because it can't pass. It is a little bit akin to saying: Why do we even play the Super Bowl when it is expected that one team is going to beat the other team. We have to play. But this one is not a game. This one is for real. When we vote after debating and discussing, Members of this body can and will be held accountable to our constituents. So it will be up to me and each of my colleagues in this body to decide how to vote on this issue. For those who make the unfortunate decision to vote against this, notwithstanding the fact that 75 percent of the American people strongly support the idea of a balanced budget amendment; notwithstanding the fact that 66 percent of Americans--both of these figures according to a CNN poll today--support the principles underlying cut, cap, and balance; notwithstanding the fact that this is the only permanent way of solving our debt problem, if Members of Congress and Members of this body choose to vote against this legislation, they will do so, I believe, at their own peril. They will have to face their constituents and explain why a handful of them were unwilling to raise the debt limit, unwilling to address this problem, unwilling to fix the perpetual deficit spending habit of Congress simply because they did not want a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I think that is a tall order. I think that is difficult to explain. I think those who try to make that explanation to their constituents will do so at their own political peril. But, more importantly, the vote they cast will be at the peril of the people of the United States of America, of their liberty, of their economic stability and of their ability to prosper now and in the future. We can turn this ship around, but in order do it we need robust debate and discussion, and our constituents deserve more. The American people deserve more than to have the kind of sleight-of-hand scheduling and the kind of dismissive, cavalier attitude toward what is being characterized correctly by many as the fight of an entire generation. We need to pass the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. It is not only the best solution, it is the only solution. The time is running out, and I urge each of my colleagues to support this. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. We have now been operating for more than 800 days without a budget having been passed. We are operating at the direction of the party in control of this body on autopilot. It is easy to operate on autopilot. In many ways it is far easier than operating not on autopilot, especially when we are spending more than $1.5 trillion a year more than we are bringing in, more than $1.5 trillion every year more than we have, continuing to bury our children under a mountain of debt. When you are on autopilot, you don't have the same constraints, the same hard choices, the same prioritization demands that need to be made that Americans make every single day as they manage their homes, their lives, their families, their businesses--and State and local governments. This is unfortunate. It is unnecessary, and it is shameful. It should not continue to operate this way. An enterprise as large as the Federal Government, which brings in $2.2 trillion every single year, having access to more money than perhaps any other institution on Earth, ought to be able to operate with a budget. It ought to be able to pass a budget. It ought not be operating on autopilot so as to insulate itself from critiques justifiable and unjustifiable alike, from those who would say: Why are you doing it this way? Why are you doing it that way? To have a debate, a discussion, that is necessary. It necessarily surrounds the budgeting process in any legislative body, in any republic around the world. In the process of operating on autopilot, we are severely exacerbating our deficit problem with our national debt now totaling nearly $15 trillion. What then is the solution? I believe the solution to our current problem, especially as we approach the debt limit, involves the cut, cap, and balance approach, including passage by both Houses of Congress of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, one that would require, in addition to our making immediate short-term cuts and adopting statutory spending caps designed to put us on a firm, smooth glidepath toward a balanced budget, that we also pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. All of these would be passed as conditions precedent to our raising the debt limit, which many of us are willing to do, if necessary, to get those measures passed. We are not willing to raise it without those measures first being passed because we cannot continue to perpetuate this problem, one which we operate on autopilot while burning $1.5 trillion a year that we do not have. This is crowding out other priorities. It is crowding out other investment in our economy. It is killing jobs. It is jobs we need to be focused on because that is what the American people are focused on. They are worried about their ability and the ability of their friends and family members, many of whom are unemployed, to be able to provide for their children, to pay their rent, to buy their groceries. These are things every American ought to be able to have access to and would have access to if only they had access to jobs. But at a time when we are spending at such a rate as we are, when we borrowed to such a degree that we have that our debt-to-GDP ratio is at about 95 percent, we are killing as many as 1 million jobs every year in America as long as we remain in that danger zone. This simply cannot continue. Another thing we face right now that is something I find completely unacceptable is the fact that amidst all of this debate and discussion we have had in recent weeks about the debt limit, amidst the offer on the part of what are now most of the Republicans in the Senate to raise the debt limit under the circumstances I have outlined, the President of the United States responded to those offers by threatening-- promising, perhaps--to cut Social Security to current retirees if the debt limit is not immediately raised and raised only consistent with the conditions that he is demanding right now. I fail to understand why the President of the United States would prefer to make so hasty, so cruel, and so reckless a threat as withholding Social Security checks for current retirees before looking at any other Federal program. Look, we borrow at a rate of about $125 billion a month. That is a lot of money. A lot of people don't make that much money in a whole year. As we are borrowing at that rate, we have to take into account the fact that Social Security benefits cost the U.S. Treasury about $50 billion a month. It is $50 billion out of $125 billion each month that we borrow, assuming that is the portion we borrow. Meanwhile, we are bringing in $200 billion a month in tax revenue. So there is more than enough tax revenue there to cover not only Social Security benefits but also interest on debt and a number of other things as well. That begs the question: Why are Social Security beneficiaries the first to be threatened? Why is it their checks that the President is threatening to withhold first? There is no explanation to this that he has offered, and I hereby demand one. I think our current retirees deserve more than to be used as pawns in a high-stakes political game, one that uses fear and uncertainty and doubt rather than reason and discussion and debate and willingness to compromise. The need for this has never been greater. The consequences for disregarding the need for debate and discussion have never been higher. I urge my colleagues and I urge all Americans to work together to find a solution to this, a solution that need not involve and should not involve threatening America's most vulnerable, including retirees, who rely each month on Social Security, withholding those benefits simply because the President of the United States is unwilling to compromise, is unwilling to meet the conditions many Republicans in this body have acknowledged are their conditions precedent for raising the debt limit. There is a way forward. There is a road that will take us home, and the road home can be found in the Cut, Cap and Balance Act. This is not just the best proposal, this is the only proposal that currently has significant public support from a substantial number of Members of this body. Sometime today or tomorrow, companion legislation will be introduced in the House of Representatives, and we will be moving forward. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider this, and I urge my fellow Americans to carefully consider these and to urge their representatives and their Senators to embrace them and to adopt them. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. That was President Obama in the middle of 2009 who made that comment.

Mr. LEE. The American people expect us to stop burying our children and our grandchildren under a mountain of debt, to stop spending money we don't have, particularly when we are spending about 40 cents out of every dollar that is borrowed, much of that being borrowed from foreign sovereign governments such as China. Obviously there are times when as a country we have needed to do this, when our circumstances have required it. The reason Congress was given this power to begin with is to make sure that, particularly in a time of war, Congress had the means at its disposal to provide for our national defense and to provide for other immediate emergent needs. But this practice of what I refer to as perpetual deficit spending has become not just something we do on an emergency basis, not just something we do in a time of war or other kind of unusual circumstance; it has become something we do as a matter of course to keep things moving, to keep business as usual operating in Washington to the point where we are accumulating over $1.5 trillion a year in new debt. Our constituents in every single State expect more and they deserve better. The reason for this has everything to do with the fact that this unites people along every point along the political spectrum. Whether you are a conservative and you care about the deficit because you want to protect our national defense system or because you care deeply about our economy or whether you are a liberal and you care about the deficit because you are concerned about what this will do to our entitlement programs, all of those things stand in grave jeopardy as a result of this practice of spending, this practice that will result in the U.S. Government having to spend a lot more money every single year to pay interest on the national debt, interest that doesn't benefit anyone, interest that crowds out private investment and kills jobs. That is what voters in my State and every State are concerned about.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, the need has never been greater for us to avoid gimmicks. Gimmickry in this context can have very high stakes and can prove most detrimental to our economy and to the ability of our government to function. We have to look out for those gimmicks that would say we are going to make a few cuts now, but most of the cuts we are going to propose in return for our ability to raise the debt limit will involve sacrifices by future Congresses, not the 112th Congress. We will just make a few. But we will say that the 113th and the 114th and successive Congresses after will make the difficult necessary sacrifices. We can't do that. Nothing allows us to bind a future Congress. That is why we need something that is gimmick free. That is why we need to amend our laws of laws, our U.S. Constitution, to place important, meaningful, permanent restrictions on the ability of Congress to engage in perpetual reckless deficit spending of the sort that has produced a national debt now fast approaching $15 trillion, to a degree that is escalating now at a rate in excess of $1.5 trillion every single year. In order to rid the problem, we have to change the root causes. We have to change the ability of the Congress to exercise its authority that it has so severely abused in recent decades under clause 2 of article I, section 8 to engage in deficit spending. A balanced budget amendment, the balanced budget amendment that has been endorsed and embraced and cosponsored by all 47 Republicans in the Senate will do that. We have a growing number of Republicans, a couple dozen, who have now gotten behind the one proposal that would allow us to approach the debt limit with this in mind, and would require the balanced budget amendment to be part of that, and I urge my colleagues to support that.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I stand before you today to discuss a problem that is of concern to 300 million Americans. It relates to our national debt, a debt that will soon cross the $15 trillion threshold. We have been asked to raise the debt limit, extend the Nation's credit one more time. This we have the power to do but we have to ask ourselves the question: Should we exercise that power? Should we incur additional debt yet again without any plan moving forward to change fundamentally the way we spend money in Washington, DC? Our current law requiring us to raise the debt limit periodically every time our existing line of credit dries up dates back to 1982. We have raised the debt limit since 1982 nearly 40 times. I fear if we do it again this time without any permanent binding plan in place, legal restrictions changing the way Congress spends money, we will be right back to the same trough a few months later. That is a problem because as we do this over time we inevitably put pressure on our financial system, pressure that will soon cause our economy dire circumstances, pressure that will in time result in excessive job losses, skyrocketing interest rates, and lots of other economic conditions that would be, to say the least, unpleasant. It is for this reason that 100 Senators from around the country have canceled their plans they previously made to spend time with their constituents in their respective home States this week. That had been our plan, to spend time in our home States. We canceled those plans so we could come back here and have serious, earnest debate and discussion surrounding the best path forward toward moving in the direction of a balanced budget, toward figuring out what conditions, if any, would satisfy the American people who are understandably concerned about the prospect of yet another knee-jerk reflexive debt limit increase. The American people understand the fact that if we choose to do nothing more than say: Well, if we are going to raise the debt limit by $2 trillion, let's make sure we cut $2 trillion from our anticipated spending--they understand that kind of promise is one that is not binding on the Congress if those spending cuts are stretched out over the course of 10 or 15 years or more, as has been discussed, because we here in Congress cannot bind the Congress that will be sworn into power in January of 2013 or January of 2015 or January of 2017. We cannot bind a future Congress. We can make suggestions they can follow, but we cannot bind them--unless, of course, we choose to do that, which has been done only 27 times in our Nation's history, which is, amend the Constitution. That will bind a future Congress. That, I believe, is what we have to do in order to change fundamentally the way we spend money in Washington, to make sure we are not headed back to the same trough a few months from now to do exactly the same thing, leading us closer and closer to the dire circumstances I described a few minutes ago. While we have been here this week, convening during a week that was previously scheduled for a recess, we as a group of Senate Republicans have come together and offered a real meaningful solution. We have offered to raise the debt limit. We have introduced legislation today with 21 Republican cosponsors in the Senate which is a piece of legislation we are calling the Cut-Cap-Balance Act. Here is what it says. It says we will raise the debt limit. We will do so only under three circumstances, only after three very specific conditions precedent have been met. The first two relate to immediate spending cuts to discretionary spending, and statutory spending caps making sure we start putting ourselves right now on a statutorily mandated glidepath toward a balanced budget. The third step, which is by far the most important, involves passage out of both Houses of Congress by the requisite two-thirds margin a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution--one that would cap spending as a percentage of GDP, and one that would require a two- thirds supermajority in order to raise taxes. Upon each of those conditions being met, then the debt limit would be raised, but only then. We would not raise it without those conditions having been met. Because if we do not meet those conditions, we will not be able to look our constituents in the eye and say: We have done what needs to be done in order to make sure we get to where we need to be, in order to get to the point at which we will no longer be in a position of having to go back to the same trough every few months to go through the ceremony of raising the debt limit yet again. We have to remember that every time we do this, we run an increased risk that we will start having to pay higher and higher yields on our Treasury instruments. Every time that happens, we incur more expenses that relate to our ability to remain current on our debt interest payments. Every time interest rates, yields on those debt instruments, go up by 1 percentage point, we have to spend an additional $150 billion a year in interest once our debt instruments catch up with the increased rate. That is a lot of money. That means if we were to return--let's say if interest rates were to go up 3 percent, we can soon find ourselves in a position in which we might be spending as much as $700 billion a year on interest. We are currently paying about $250 billion. Mr. President, $700 billion a year is roughly what we spend on national defense. It is roughly what we spend on Social Security in an entire year. It is close to what we pay in Medicare and Medicaid combined at the Federal level in an entire year. So where is the difference going to come from when interest rates start to creep up? Even if they go up 3 percentage points, they would still be below their historical average. That money has to come from somewhere, and it will. It will end up coming from the various programs that Americans are most concerned about. So whether you are a conservative, and you might be most concerned about that money coming from our defense budget or, on the other hand, if you are a liberal, and perhaps you are most concerned about it coming from entitlements, you ought to be concerned about our practice of perpetually raising the debt limit and engaging in perpetual deficit spending, especially when that deficit spending is now in excess of $1.5 trillion every single year. This potentially threatens every Federal program out there. It also interferes with the ability of each American to find the prosperity he or she seeks, the ability of each American to live his or her life in the way he or she chooses. That is distressing. It interferes with the liberty of the individual, which is what we have been elected to protect. I am very proud to be part of this 21-Senator coalition consisting of a group of Senators who are concerned enough about this issue that they are willing to say: We understand that we cannot just not raise the debt limit. There are enough people who are concerned enough in this country about not raising it. The abrupt halt in spending that would bring about would create enough uncertainty and chaos that many are unwilling to face that prospect. So recognizing that reality, we have taken the bull by the horns and we are willing to do one difficult thing. In order for us to raise the debt limit, we have to be willing to set things in motion in such a way that will solve the underlying problem and will create permanent structural spending reform within the Congress. I wish to close by responding to an argument made recently by Timothy Geithner, the Secretary of the Treasury, to the effect that we in Congress are essentially mere surplus when it comes to the debt limit increase. He argued that, as I understand it, section 4 of the 14th amendment somehow independently authorizes the executive branch-- perhaps the Treasury Secretary, perhaps just the President--to somehow raise the debt limit without consulting Congress, without an act of Congress in place. That argument is not accurate. That argument is based on an improper reading of the 14th amendment. The language to which he refers reads, in part, as follows: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, shall not be questioned. Adopted in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, this provision simply acknowledges the fact that we can't ignore our debt obligations, that when interest or principal comes due on our national debt, they have to be honored. You will notice that in the middle of it, set off by commas, is a phrase that says ``authorized by law.'' To create law in this country, you have to move something through Congress. That something has to be presented to the President for his signature or a veto. You cannot make a law in the U.S. Government without Congress. Article I, section 8, clause 2 makes that point clear by giving the authority to Congress to incur debt in the name of the United States. So, necessarily, by definition and operation of the plain text of the Constitution, you cannot raise the debt limit without an act of Congress. If anything, section 4 of the 14th amendment simply makes clear that which I wish Secretary Geithner would acknowledge--and I hereby call upon him to acknowledge--which is that he has a legal and a moral obligation to make sure that if the debt limit is not increased, during whatever time it remains in limbo, during whatever time we face the debt limit-induced shortfall, it is his obligation to use the first tax revenues coming in the door to pay our debt obligations, pay the interest being accrued on our national debt. It is his obligation not only as a fiduciary or quasi-fiduciary but also the very provision of the Constitution, section 4 of the 14th amendment--the same provision he cites--binds his hands and requires him to make sure that interest gets paid and prohibits him from bringing about a default on our national debt, which is what he has been threatening on many occasions. There is a way forward. The circumstances in which we now find ourselves are, to be sure, threatening, intimidating and daunting and they are circumstances that bring about substantial disagreement within this body and the other body that meets down the hall from us. But there are answers and solutions to which we can agree. I believe the Cut-Cap-Balance Act provides the proper solution which can appeal to liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans alike. I call on all within the sound of my voice to look at this legislation and jump on board and become part of the solution.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin. There is no issue that is more important or more pressing for the American people than this one right now, where we have reached a point where our debt-to-GDP ratio is about 95 percent. Our economy can't long endure that kind of borrowing. It has an effect that will result in an estimated loss of about 1 million jobs a year for each year we remain above the 90-percent, debt-to-GDP ratio. We simply can't endure that, and the American people can't endure that. We need to increase revenues. The only way to increase revenues is to allow the economy to recover. That won't happen as long as we keep borrowing more and more money while doing nothing to control the underlying problem--the systemic problem that requires a structural reform. The American people understandably, justifiably, and very correctly are demanding that before we raise the Nation's debt limit yet again, before we extend yet another credit card for the United States of America, we commit to some kinds of cuts. Future borrowing requires us to make future cuts. The problem with that is the moment that debt is actually used up, the moment it is incurred, the American people are under an obligation. But if we make a promise today that we are going to cut, let's say, $2 trillion or $3 trillion or $4 trillion over the next 10 or 12 or 14 or 15 years, that is a promise we can't make. That is a promise we can't really commit to because this Congress, the one that sits right now, will not be the same Congress that convenes in January of 2013 or January of 2015 or in future years. We have to make changes right now. The only way we can commit to future cuts, to future structural reforms--the only way we can bind future Congresses--is by amending the U.S. Constitution to change the way we spend money, to limit spending as a percentage of GDP, and to require a supermajority to spend more than we have or to raise taxes. That is what we are demanding. We are willing to work and to come to the table on the debt limit, but we demand some kind of solution that will put us on course toward sanity. That is why we are here.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. I thank my distinguished colleague, my senior Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, for his leadership on the balanced budget amendment over the years. He has been a consistent and stalwart advocate for the cause of amending the Constitution in such a way that restricts Congress's ability to engage in deficit spending. It is the practice of perpetual, reckless deficit spending that has created this almost $15 trillion debt we are now dealing with. It is this practice of perpetual, excessive deficit spending that has fueled the expansion of the Federal Government far beyond the limits the Founding Fathers had in mind and far beyond the natural limits this government can handle. It is important to remember we are now spending through the Federal Government more than 25 percent of our annual GDP. More than one- quarter of every dollar that moves through the American economy is consumed by Washington. This is a problem. This is a problem, and it is, unfortunately, not something that is at all consistent with where we have been historically as Americans. We have to remember that for about the first 140 years of our Republic's existence under the Constitution, our Federal spending was nowhere near this high as a percentage of GDP. Between 1790 and the early 1930s, the Federal Government tended to spend between 1.5 and 4 percent of GDP every single year, year in and year out. There were two blips, two exceptions--one during the Civil War and one during World War I and its immediate aftermath. But after those cycles passed, we went right back to where we had been before. That started to change in the 1930s and we have been on a gradual upswing almost ever since then to where we are now above 25 percent. But it gets worse. By the year 2035, we are predicted to be spending almost 34 percent of gross domestic product by the Federal Government every single year. As a result, the Federal Government will be commanding a very substantial portion of the American economy. That makes every American less free. The more government spends--the more money it has access to and the more it borrows on our behalf--the less free we become, the less individual liberty we have to spend our money, to use our resources, to devote our lives to the pursuits we choose. That is why the cut, cap, and balance pledge is necessary to support individual liberty and to protect our most basic freedoms, because it will protect us from the inexorable growth of the government. We are at an important time in American history. We are at a time when we are being asked to extend our debt limit once again; a time when we are being asked to say: Yes, we are going to give the Federal Government authority to borrow even more money against our unborn children and grandchildren. This is a problem. One reason we are willing to sign this pledge is that we are willing to say: OK. We have been put on a path with government spending at this rate. We can't halt that spending immediately. We are willing to consider raising the debt limit but if and only if certain conditions have been satisfied to make sure this doesn't continue in perpetuity. We need cuts. We need some kind of significant cuts to our spending right now. We need some kind of statutory spending cap to put us on a gradual glidepath toward a balanced budget. Most importantly, we have to amend the U.S. Constitution so as to say this will not continue in perpetuity and future Congresses will not be able to do what Senator Hatch referred to a minute ago, which is exempt itself out of statutory spending caps once it has adopted them. We can't bind future Congresses to cut $2 trillion over the course of a decade or more because we can't command future Congresses to do what we want it to do unless, of course, we amend the Constitution, which is why we have to do that right now. This is essential to economic progress in America. This is essential to economic well-being and to individual liberty in America. I would love to talk with anyone who wants to about this. I have invited Utahans who may be in town and I invite anyone within the sound of my voice, here or elsewhere, to join me in my office this Wednesday--today--and every Wednesday at 3:30, when we have what we refer to as a JELL-O bar. Utah consumes more JELL-O per capita than any State in the Union. We serve up JELL-O and we will talk about the cut, cap, and balance pledge. Thank you very much.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I stand to talk about a looming crisis in this county, a problem that has the potential to affect every American from every State, from every political party, of every political ideology. That issue relates to our national debt. We have accumulated nearly $15 trillion in debt through the Federal Government, which is a lot of money split up amongst 300 million Americans. It works out to close to $50,000 a head. A lot of people don't make that much money in a year, and yet that is what every man, woman, and child owes on a per capita basis the moment they are born. If it is calculated out on the basis of debt per taxpayer, the number is much larger, anywhere between $120,000 and $150,000 per head, depending on how you calculate it. We are now approaching the August 2 deadline given to us by Secretary Geithner that has been identified as the time by which we must increase our national debt yet again, a debt that has been raised time and time again, resulting in our accumulation of about $10 trillion of new debt in roughly the last decade. This is a problem, and it is a problem that is only going to become more severe the longer we kick this can down the road without doing anything to change the way Washington brings money in and the way Washington spends money. I want to talk for a minute first about how Washington brings money in. There are those who have suggested in this town very recently that what we need right now is a tax increase in order to address the debt crisis. I could not disagree more, and I need to state with the greatest emphasis I am able to place on this issue that a tax increase is something I would oppose, something I would devote every ounce of energy in me to opposing. The reason is we have in Washington something that is not a revenue problem. What we have is a spending problem. Spending is the crisis that we need to address. But on a more fundamental level we have to remember what we do when we raise taxes. When we raise taxes, we chill investment. It is investment that we rely on for the creation of jobs. We have to remember that government doesn't have the power to create jobs, because it can't create wealth. It can create policies. It can adopt laws and regulations designed to promote or deter certain kinds of behavior. It can raise revenue through taxation. But it can't create wealth. All it can do is set in place certain circumstances that might allow wealth to be created or, in other circumstances, might deter new wealth from being created. To have true wealth creation leading to true job creation, you have to have a circumstance in which willing investors with capital are ready to invest, have the reasonable assurance and promise that if they invest their money and thereby place it at risk, any gains resulting from that risky behavior will be gains that inure to their benefit, not taken away by some third party and not taken away by the government. So when we raise taxes, in effect what we are doing is deterring investment, deterring investment at a time when we are hemorrhaging jobs, and we can ill afford to lose any more. Not one job should be lost as a result of something the government does. We need to find ways to get the government out of the way so job creation can occur. But it can't occur whenever we punish the investor, whenever we tell the investor: Invest at your own risk, because if you dare to make a profit, we are going to take away more of that money than we have previously been taking away in taxes. For that reason, I continue to emphasize the fact that I will oppose any attempt to address this debt limit crisis by raising taxes, and I will continue to oppose any effort to raise taxes. Spending is the problem. As to the question of how Washington spends money, if the definition of insanity is the practice of doing something again and again expecting to achieve different results than we have achieved every time in the past, then we would be insane if we approach this debt limit discussion with the same kinds of tired, malfunctioning, unproductive strategies that have been employed in the past, strategies that focus exclusively on immediate cuts or even long-term cuts. Let me explain what I mean. As we approach the debt limit discussion, there will be those who will want to focus a lot of the attention on long-term spending cuts. In other words, they might say, If we are going to raise the debt limit by $1 trillion, then we need to find $1 trillion in cuts that can be made. If we are going to raise it by $2 trillion, then we need to find $2 trillion to cut. But of course we can't cut $1 trillion out of our budget immediately. That is not possible. We can't do that in 1 year. That would have to be stretched over a period of many years. Most likely, in this scenario, as it has been discussed, it would be stretched over a period of a decade or more. We do have the power to control what we do in this Congress, but we can't bind the Congress that will take power in January of 2013, January of 2015, or 2017. Every 2 years, we get a new Congress in place and that Congress has the power to make those decisions that will best fit what they decide is in order at that time. We can't bind them permanently. So any promise that we make right now to cut, let's say, $2 trillion relies on the promise that that will be honored by future Congresses. We can't bind them to do that. There is one way, however, we can bind them. That is by amending for the 28th time that 224-year-old document that has fostered the development of the greatest civilization the world has ever known. When we amend the U.S. Constitution, that is the one credible way, the one binding way in which one group of Americans can bind a future group of Americans. That is why I have said that the only circumstance in which I think it is appropriate for us to raise the debt limit is a circumstance in which Congress has first passed a balanced budget amendment out of Congress by the requisite two-thirds margin in this body and in the House of Representatives, and submitted it to the States for ratification. In that scenario, and only in that scenario, can we proceed with any degree of confidence that the commitments we make now to the American people, to make not just immediate cuts but long-term changes to the way we spend money, it is only in that scenario that those promises can be and will be honored, because it is only in that scenario that we can bind a future Congress. That is why I have pledged to vote against, and to oppose in any way I can, any debt limit increase that involves something short of prior passage of a balanced budget amendment, in addition to any caps, in addition to any immediate cuts that may be raised. We have got to have cuts. We have got to have some kind of spending cap, where we cap spending as a percentage of gross domestic product every year, and we have got to have a constitutional amendment requiring that and requiring the revenues and outlays match each other from year to year. If we don't have this, then we are at great risk for the practice of perpetual deficit spending in which Congress year in and year out spends more than it takes in. Congress can sustain this for a period of time. But where, as is now the case, the amount of money Congress spends is in excess of $1.5 trillion a year more than it brings in, we have reached a certain point of unsustainability at which, if we continue with this practice, a halt in borrowing will be much more immediate, much more Draconian than anything that could be within our control. At some point, those who would be willing to loan us that money, who would be willing to buy U.S. Treasury instruments of one form or another to finance our debt, will eventually start demanding a higher and higher yield. That means that instead of spending about $250 billion a year on interest on our national debt, as we are currently paying, the time could very soon come in which we might have to pay something closer to $700 billion just to pay the interest on our national debt. In fact, if we were now required to pay interest rates on our Treasury instruments consistent with the 40-year average, we would be about there. Mr. President, $700 billion is a lot of money. Seven hundred billion dollars in a year is roughly what we spend on Social Security. It is roughly what we spend on Medicare and Medicaid combined in a year. It is roughly what we spend in national defense in an entire year. If we have to spend that amount of money every year, as we could easily have to spend within just few years' time if we continue spending at this rate, that is going to crowd out funding for every Federal program out there. Whether you are most concerned, as many conservatives might be, about protecting national defense or whether you are most concerned, as many liberals are, about protecting our entitlement programs, you ought to insist, as I have been insisting, that we will not raise the debt limit until such time as the Congress has passed a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That is why I am pleased to support the ``cut, cap, and balance'' pledge and why I will continue to take this position in addition to standing firm on my position that we ought not even consider any tax increase at a time when we can least afford it. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of quorum.

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, my distinguished colleagues who have spoken this afternoon have pointed out a truth that is impossible to refute, which is, at the rate the Federal Government is spending, we will have acquired $15 trillion of debt by the end of this year. That is a lot of money. It is requiring a lot of interest payment. That interest payment is only going to grow large in the coming years. The Obama administration is already predicting that by the end of the decade, we will be paying $1 trillion a year just to service the interest on our national debt. To put that in perspective, that is more than we spend on Social Security in an entire year, more than we spend on Medicare and Medicaid combined in an entire year, more than we spend on national defense in an entire year. I actually believe that 10 years is putting it optimistically. I think that day is coming much sooner. For that reason, I believe this body needs to pass a budget, a budget that balances. The problem has been this body has refused to do this. Every time we proceed with the idea that we will cut so many billions of dollars over the next 10 years or every time we adopt statutory spending caps, as we did with the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act almost 30 years ago, as we did with the pay-go rules, Congress has treated those as something Congress can exempt itself out of. Congress has become a walking, breathing waiver unto itself. The problem is that we, as a legislative body, cannot bind future Congresses. We can legislate. We can appropriate only for this Congress. So our commitment now to save later is not binding--unless, of course, we adopt an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will bind future Congresses. That is why I have said I will oppose any and every attempt to raise the debt limit until such time as Congress has passed out of this body and presented to the States for ratification a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution--one that would require a two-thirds supermajority vote to authorize Congress to spend more than it takes in, in any given year, and to spend more than 18 percent of gross domestic product in any given year. We cannot continue in perpetuity to rely on this kind of deficit spending. This will hurt every single Federal program. Whether you are most concerned, on the one hand, about preserving our ability to provide for our national defense or, on the other hand, if you are most concerned about preserving our entitlement programs, you ought to want a balanced budget amendment. You ought to be unwilling, as I am, to raise the debt limit until that amendment has been passed out by this body and passed by the House of Representatives and submitted to the States for ratification. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Budget Committee, with whom I have appreciated the opportunity to work and would say, again, that he orchestrated a fine series of Budget hearings with some fabulous witnesses who made us all nervous but gave us some valuable insight. I say to Senator Conrad, I appreciate those good hearings and I appreciate the opportunity to work with you and I am sorry we are not able to mark up a budget this time, it looks like.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Kentucky for standing up for the fourth amendment principles he has articulated today. This is an important issue to all Americans. Americans are at once concerned about our national security. They want to make sure we can identify and apprehend those people who would harm us. At the same time, Americans are firmly committed to the idea of constitutionally limited government--the concept that regardless of how passionately we might feel about the need for certain government intervention, we can't ever allow government to be operated completely unfettered. We have liberty in place whenever government is controlled by the people, and whenever there are certain things that are beyond the reach of the government. Senator Paul has helped identify some key areas of concern that have been implicated by the PATRIOT Act. He has suggested that we ought to at a minimum have a robust debate and discussion over some amendments that might be proposed to the PATRIOT Act before we proceed. Three months ago we had a discussion, we had a vote, and there were a few of us who voted against the PATRIOT Act--not because we don't love America, we do. We want to protect America. We voted against it because we love America, because we believe in a constitutionally limited government, because we want to make it better. We want to make this something that can at the same time protect Americans but without needlessly trampling on privacy interests, including many of those privacy interests protected by the fourth amendment. Bad things happen when we adopt a law without adequately discussing its merits. Years ago, when the PATRIOT Act was adopted, there were a number of people who raised some of these privacy concerns. For that and other reasons, Congress made the decision way back then--almost 10 years ago--to adopt the PATRIOT Act and adopt certain provisions of it subject to some sunsetting provisions so that Congress would periodically be required to debate and discuss these provisions. It does us no good if every time it comes up we are told we have to vote for it or against it; we can't really debate and discuss it or consider amendments to it. We were told 3 months ago that at the end of May--and we are now here--we would have an opportunity to debate, discuss, and consider amendments. That opportunity has now been taken away from us and with it the chance to address many of these important privacy implications, many of which do implicate the fourth amendment in one way or another. Senator Paul has referred to some of them, including some of the implications of the national security letters which, while not directly implicated by the expiring provisions at issue right now, are inextricably intertwined with other issues that are in front of us, including those related to section 215 orders and including the roving wiretap issue that is up for reauthorization. So I speak in support of the idea of robust debate and discussion, especially where, as here, it relates to something that is so important to the American concept of limited government and so closely related to our fourth amendment interests. We ought to have robust debate, discussion, and an opportunity for amendment. I thank Senator Paul for his leadership in this regard.

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to Mitchell McBride, an intern on my staff.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I could not agree more that we should not have a government shutdown. I could not agree more that we need to take steps to protect and improve our economy. I could not agree more that we need to take steps to make sure our brave uniformed men and women are fairly compensated and otherwise treated. I must, however, express my profound, albeit respectful, disagreement with my colleague, the junior Senator from New Jersey. This is not a possible shutdown that we are facing as a result of the Republican Party or as a result of the tea party. As a lifelong Republican and as a founding member of the Senate Tea Party Caucus, I can tell you unequivocally that there is not one member of this body, nor is there one member of the Senate Tea Party Caucus who wants a government shutdown, certainly no Republican. From the outset, Republicans have attempted to bring forward proposals to make sure we do not get into a shutdown. The question we need to ask ourselves is, Why does the President of the United States, President Barack Obama, want a government shutdown? Let's ask a few questions. Why was it that a few months ago, after the election but before the new Congress took over, when the President had both Houses of Congress under the control of his party, why did he opt not to pass a full budget for fiscal year 2011? That was the first seed he sowed in the direction of a government shutdown. I submit it was one that was either irresponsible on the one hand or deliberate and malicious on the other, intending to bring about a sequence of events that would culminate inevitably in a government shutdown. No. 2. Even after the new Congress convened, after the balance of power shifted completely in the House of Representatives and after a number of seats in this body shifted and the new Congress convened in January of this year, the President did not bring forward something that could attract both Houses of Congress to approve and that he could fund the government with for the balance of the year. He instead chose to operate on a series of continuing resolutions. We are now moving up against what I believe will be our seventh continuing resolution if it is passed. What we have from the President is radio silence in the direction of what we need to do to move forward. A number of us have suggested all along in this process that at a point in time in America when we have a national debt approaching $15 trillion, at a point in time when we are adding to that debt at a staggering rate approaching $1.7 trillion a year, it does not make sense and it is not responsible to continue, even in small increments, perpetuating that degree of reckless, perpetual deficit spending. What we want to see more than anything isn't any specific set of social issue legislation. It is not any specific degree of spending cuts. It is instead a plan, some plan that will move us in the direction of a balanced budget, that will put us on track so we might once again enjoy the benefits of a balanced budget, so we might again enjoy the day and age when we don't have a debt-to-GDP ratio well in excess of 90 percent. We know when we have a debt-to-GDP ratio in excess of 90 percent, it slows economic growth by as much as half every year, costing our economy as many as a million jobs every single year. This ultimately is about jobs. Our sprawling debt kills jobs and kills economic growth necessary to create jobs. So, no, this is not a quixotic quest for perfection. This is a quest for that which will suffice to get us back on track toward fiscal responsibility. I mentioned two seeds the President has planted to lead to a shutdown, the first being his refusal to push through a budget for the entire year, fiscal 2011; the second being his reliance on continuing resolutions. The third seed he sowed, one I am not sure we will be able to get around this time, much as we wish to, is his threat in the last hour or two, his promise to veto the continuing resolution the House is expected to pass this afternoon. It may have passed moments ago. He is threatening to veto that before it even gets over here. One must wonder, why does the President want a shutdown. We have to remember, these are not drastic changes that have been proposed. In fact, they are not even sufficient to get us back on track so we can say this heads us in the direction of an eventual balanced budget. These are minor cuts. Yet the President insists on moving us inevitably, inexorably in the direction of a shutdown. While we are on the subject of addressing a false blame placed on the Republican Party and the tea party, I care to address the accusation made by various of my colleagues, an accusation I believe made in ignorance and that, in any event, is manifestly incorrect with regard to the tea party. This is a movement whose views are not extreme. What is extreme is a $15 trillion debt we are adding to at a staggering rate of $1.7 trillion a year. That is extreme, as is what has happened in the last few years, including the U.S. Government takeover of everything from our banking industry to auto manufacturing to our health care industry. Those things are extreme. The tea party movement is something that is shared by many Americans, regardless of whether they appear at a rally of any kind. It is a spontaneous grassroots political phenomenon that simply recognizes our Federal Government has grown too big and has become too expensive. We need to do something about that. Many of us who consider ourselves part of the tea party movement and believe the best solution, perhaps the only solution, is to return to that 223-year-old founding document we call the Constitution, look to those powers that are identified as something within the exclusive ability, the exclusive power and control of the Federal Government. The more we do that, the more we believe we can turn to constitutionally limited government of the sort that can operate on a balanced budget. This is not necessarily even a politically conservative movement. It is neither conservative nor liberal. At the end of the day, it need not be Republican or Democratic. It is simply American. It recognizes this country was founded upon the principle that national governments, as they become large and powerful, have a certain tendency toward gaining an excess of power and spending an excess of money, and to prevent a form of tyranny. A national government can function best when it has limited enumerated powers of the sort we granted the Federal Government a couple of centuries ago, powers including things such as national defense, establishing a uniform system of weights and measures, regulating trademarks, copyrights, and patents, and so forth. Included in that list we won't find anything about a government takeover of health care or manufacturing industries or the banking industry. This is neither liberal nor conservative, neither Republican nor Democratic, and it certainly isn't extreme. It is simply American. It is what makes us great. It is part of what has created the strongest economy and the greatest civilization the world has ever known. At the end of the day, as those who have planted quite deliberately the seeds for an inevitable shutdown seek to blame others, we have to remember the seeds they have sown, and we have to be willing to cast blame where blame is due. The blame here cannot and, as long as I am standing, will not be placed at the feet of the Republicans or of the tea party. We do not want a shutdown. We will do everything we can to fight against it. If we have one, it will be because the President of the United States and members of the other party in this august body have refused to put forward a palatable, defensible budget. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, what we have with the situation with Libya presents us with a fundamental question, one we have wrestled with for a couple centuries as a nation. The founding era was a time that was fraught with wars. It was a time when we learned that executives sometimes abuse their power. Sometimes they will take us into wars in faraway nations without the support of the people, knowing full well it is the sons and the daughters of the people on the ground who are asked to make the ultimate sacrifice in those battles. We channeled the war power in the Constitution so as to make sure these debates would always come to the forefront, that they would always be brought up by the elected representatives of the people in Congress. For that reason, although we give power to the President to be the Commander in Chief in article II of the Constitution, in article I of the Constitution, we reserve that power, the power to declare war, to Congress. This is how we guarantee that the people's voice will be heard and that people's sons and their daughters will not be sent off to war without some public debate and discussion by those who have been duly elected by the people and stand accountable to the people. We have, over time, clarified the intent. We have made clear there are certain steps that have to be taken. We have also made clear that although there is, to be sure, a certain unknown continuum, a continuum that can be hard to define in every circumstance, between the President's plenary authority as Commander in Chief, on the one hand, and Congress's power to declare war on the other, there does come a point at which we can recognize that we are at war and that some authorization is required by Congress. This very body, Congress, has, through the war powers resolution, attempted to distill some of these principles. In section 1541 of the War Powers Act--it is found at 50 United States Code section 1541--we are told there are circumstances, three circumstances to be precise--

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I am on the floor to speak again in support of amendment No. 115, which I propose in connection with the patent reform bill, a bill I support and a bill I intend to vote for and a bill that is going to be used as a vehicle for this amendment that calls for the sense of the Senate on support for the need of a balanced budget amendment. I am grateful to have the support of my good friend, the former Governor of West Virginia, now the junior Senator from West Virginia, Joe Manchin, who is cosponsoring this amendment with me. Here is what it does. It calls on us as Senators to come forward and vote on whether we think we should amend the Constitution and submit that to the States for ratification to restrict our power to engage in perpetual deficit spending. We, as Members of Congress, are authorized, pursuant to article I, section 8, clause 2 to incur debt in the name of the United States. This power has been abused over time to such a degree that we are now almost $15 trillion in debt. By the end of the decade, we will have amassed annual interest payments that will be approaching $1 trillion. This threatens every government program under the Sun. Whether you most want to protect Social Security or national defense or any other government program, you should be concerned about this practice that will threaten the livelihood of so many Americans who depend on these programs one way or another, whether it is to fund their day-to-day existence or fund programs that provide for our safety and security as a nation. We do have an increased reason to be optimistic about this for a few reasons. First, we have recent polling data showing Americans overwhelmingly support the idea of a balanced budget amendment. Secondly, a recent GAO report shows we could find at least $100 billion annually in wasteful government spending. This is the type of wasteful Washington spending we ought to have eliminated a long time ago, that we could eliminate and would be forced to eliminate if we, in fact, had a balanced budget amendment. It would also require us to address issues that will confront our children and grandchildren. As a proud and happy father of three, I can tell you, as difficult as the choices we will have to make may be, I am unwilling, as a father, to pass these problems on to my children and my grandchildren who are yet unborn. I am unwilling to pass along to them a system that mortgages the future of coming generations for the simple purpose of perpetuating government largess and wasteful Washington spending. All this amendment does is call on Members of the Senate to come forward and say they support the idea. By voting in favor of this amendment, they do not have to embrace any particular balanced budget amendment proposal. But what they do say is that they want the wasteful Washington spending to stop, they want the perpetual deficit spending practice to stop, and they want us to stop the practice of mortgaging the future of coming generations. This is immoral, it is unwise, and it ought to be illegal. Soon it will be. With this amendment, we will set in motion a sequence of events that will lead to just that. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise to speak on an issue that is very important to me. The immediate subject I am going to address is an amendment I am going to propose to our pending patent reform legislation. This amendment calls upon the Senate to get the sense of the Senate that we need a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As I prepared for this day, I reviewed the maiden speeches of a number of Senators who served in this august body, and I have seen a consistent theme in the speeches that have been given over the course of the last 50 or 60 years. Over and over, they address spending. These issues have spilled over, Congress after Congress, until the point we have reached today, the point at which our national debt stands at an astounding figure, close to $15 trillion. As I like to say, $15 trillion is a lot of money. A lot of people do not make $15 trillion in a whole year. Even when you divide $15 trillion by 300 million Americans, you are left with a figure of about $50,000 a head. This is not an inconsequential number. This is not a problem any of us created. It is a problem each of us inherited. Yet it is a problem I think none of us wants to leave to our successors. It is a problem that requires us to do something different than we have done in the past, and by this I mean I think we need procedural, structural, and indeed constitutional reform. We need to put Congress in a straitjacket because we have been unwilling or unable in the past to make the difficult spending decisions that have to be made. In the past, there has been a great debate between, on the one hand, some Republicans who have been unwilling to cut some programs, to consider in any context cuts in the area of, say, national defense; you have had others, perhaps from the other party, who have been unwilling to consider any cuts to any entitlement program. But we are now faced with a scenario in which both sides of the aisle can understand that our perpetual deficit spending habit places in jeopardy every single aspect of the operations of the Federal Government. To paint one scenario, I would like to point out that the budget projections produced by the White House just a couple weeks ago predicted, based on a fairly optimistic set of projections, that over the next 10 years we will acquire enough new debt that, when added to our existing debt, will cause us to be spending almost $1 trillion every single year just on interest on our national debt. To put that in perspective, $1 trillion is more than we currently spend on Social Security in an entire year. It is more than we currently spend on Medicare and Medicaid combined in an entire year. It is significantly more than we spend on national defense in any year. This $1 trillion number is one that could actually be much larger if some of these projections turn out not to be correct. We now face a moment when both liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, regardless of what they most want to protect in their Federal Government, have to realize that what we most want to protect is placed in grave jeopardy by our current spending practices. I am troubled by the fact that as we approach debate surrounding a continuing resolution this week, a continuing resolution that is likely to operate for just a few weeks to keep the Government funded, we are still talking about adding, on an annualized basis, to our national debt at a rate exceeding $1.5 trillion a year. I think the American people deserve better. I know they demand better. Some of the things we saw in the 2010 election cycle portend something much greater for what we are going to see in the 2012 election cycle. The polls support the fact that what we can see from the 2010 election cycle is that Americans want Congress to balance its budget. They want us to do something more than just talking about it. They want us to put ourselves in a straitjacket. Benjamin Franklin used to say: He will cheat without scruple who can without fear. I think the congressional corollary to that might be that Congress, which can continue to engage in perpetual deficit spending, will continue to do so unless or until they are held accountable by the people or required by that Congress to put itself in a straightjacket. That is the straightjacket we need. That is why I am proposing this amendment so, at a minimum, before this patent reform legislation, which I support wholeheartedly, moves forward, we can all agree as Members of this body that we need a constitutional amendment to keep us from doing what is slowly killing the economy of the United States and gradually mounting a severe challenge, an existential threat to every Federal program that currently exists. I invite each of my colleagues to vote for and support this amendment and to support S.J. Res. 5, a constitutional amendment I have proposed that would put Congress in this type of straitjacket. Here is, in essence, what S.J. Res. 5 says: If adopted by Congress by the requisite two-thirds margins in both Houses and approved by the States, three-fourths of them as required by article V of the Constitution, it would tell Congress it may not spend more than it receives in a given year, it may not spend more than 18 percent of GDP in a year, it may not raise taxes, and it may not raise the national debt ceiling without a two-thirds supermajority vote in both Houses of Congress. That is the kind of permanent binding constitutional measure I think we need in order to protect the government programs we value so highly and upon which 300 million Americans have come to depend, in one way or another. I urge each of my colleagues to support this amendment and to support S.J. Res. 5. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 115 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LEE. This is a self-explanatory amendment. I am a supporter of this legislation, the patent reform bill. I also point out that this amendment does not bring about any substantive change to that legislation, nor does it lock anyone into a particular variation of a balanced budget amendment proposal. I am happy to work out an agreement as to the timing for a possible vote, and I hope we can get to that sometime soon. I yield the floor.