senator lee's 2011 annual report to the state

2 1 A nu lRe o t 01 n a pr

Sa e tt

T t o he

U id t e S n t ne Sa s e a r t t o

Mi eL e k e

MICHAEL S. LEEUTAH SPENCER F. STOKESCHIEF OF STAFF

COMMITTEES:JUDICIARY

United States SenateWASHINGTON, DC 20510-4404

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES FOREIGN AFFAIRS JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE

To the Utah State Legislature:

In many ways, 2011 was a transitional year for the country. The American people, tired of broken promises, ushered in a wave of new faces into Congress and expected them to begin immediately addressing the nations most pressing problems.

With a clear message from the people of Utah, we began working on fixing systemic flaws in congressional procedure even before I was officially sworn in. I wrote a letter to Senate Leadership in December of 2010 that ultimately lead to the earmark ban. That momentum carried me into my first year in office when I began researching and developing solutions to problems associated with Congresss out-of-control spending, our mounting national debt, the federal governments overregulation of individuals and businesses, the administration blocking access to Americas domestic energy resources, our inefficient and lengthy immigration process, and a host of other national and Utah priorities. Along the way, I visited with literally hundreds of Utah groups, associations, elected officials, individual constituents, representatives from Utahs schools and colleges, and many others with interests before the U.S. Senate. We held town halls all over the state, began a Mobile Office program to visit every county at least twice, and responded to thousands of letters and phone calls. The Annual Report includes all of the legislation I have sponsored and cosponsored; executive summaries of the work from the committees on which I sit; published press releases, blogs, and other forms of communication; and many other items showing just how we are working to improve the prosperity and liberty of Utahns. Thank you for allowing me to serve you in Congress. Michael S. Lee United States Senator

This 2011 Annual Report is intended to chronicle the activities of my office over the past year. I believe you will see we have been hard at work representing the people of Utah.

316 Hart Senate Office Building

(202) 224-5444

(202) 228-1168 Fax

B t l f rt e a te o h B ln e B d e aa cd u g t A n me me d nt

U id t e S n t ne Sa s e a r t t o

Mi eL e k e

IIA

112TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION

S. J. RES. 5

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring that the Federal budget be balanced.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATESFEBRUARY 3, 2011 Mr. LEE (for himself, Mr. KYL, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. BURR, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. PAUL, Mr. RISCH, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. THUNE, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. VITTER, Mr. CRAPO, and Ms. AYOTTE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTIONProposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring that the Federal budget be balanced. 1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled 3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the severaljbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS

8 States:

VerDate Mar 15 2010

00:20 Feb 04, 2011

Jkt 099200

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 6652

Sfmt 6201

E:\BILLS\SJ5.IS

SJ5

2 1 2 ARTICLE SECTION 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall

3 not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year. 4 SECTION 2. Total outlays shall not exceed 18 per-

5 cent of the gross domestic product of the United States 6 for the calendar year ending prior to the beginning of such 7 fiscal year. 8 SECTION 3. The Congress may provide for suspen-

9 sion of the limitations imposed by section 1 or 2 of this 10 article for any fiscal year for which two-thirds of the whole 11 number of each House shall provide, by a roll call vote, 12 for a specific excess of outlays over receipts or over 18 13 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States 14 for the calendar year ending prior to the beginning of such 15 fiscal year. 16 SECTION 4. Any bill to levy a new tax or increase

17 the rate of any tax shall not become law unless approved 18 by two-thirds of the whole number of each House of Con19 gress by a roll call vote. 20 SECTION 5. The limit on the debt of the United

21 States held by the public shall not be increased, unless 22 two-thirds of the whole number of each House of Congress 23 shall provide for such an increase by a roll call vote.jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS

24

SECTION 6. Any Member of Congress shall have

25 standing and a cause of action to seek judicial enforce-

SJ 5 ISVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:20 Feb 04, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SJ5.IS SJ5

3 1 ment of this article, when authorized to do so by a petition 2 signed by one-third of the Members of either House of 3 Congress. No court of the United States or of any State 4 shall order any increase in revenue to enforce this article. 5 SECTION 7. The Congress shall have the power to

6 enforce this article by appropriate legislation. 7 SECTION 8. Total receipts shall include all receipts

8 of the United States except those derived from borrowing. 9 Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States 10 except those for repayment of debt principal. 11 SECTION 9. This article shall become effective begin-

12 ning with the second fiscal year commencing after its rati13 fication by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 14 States..

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS

SJ 5 ISVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:20 Feb 04, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6301 E:\BILLS\SJ5.IS SJ5

II

Calendar No. 97112TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION

S. 1340

To cut, cap, and balance the Federal budget.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATESJULY 7, 2011 Mr. LEE (for himself, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. PAUL, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin, Mr. HATCH, Ms. AYOTTE, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. COBURN, Mr. CORKER, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. THUNE, Mr. VITTER, and Mr. WICKER) introduced the following bill; which was read the first time JULY 11, 2011 Read the second time and placed on the calendar

A BILLTo cut, cap, and balance the Federal budget. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 4emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the Cut, Cap, and Balance

5 Act of 2011.

VerDate Mar 15 2010

23:22 Jul 11, 2011

Jkt 099200

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 6652

Sfmt 6201

E:\BILLS\S1340.PCS

S1340

2 1 2 3

TITLE ICUTSEC. 101. REDUCTION OF 2012 SPENDING.

Fore purposes of section 302(a) of the Congressional

4 Budget Act of 1974, the estimated allocation of the appro5 priate levels of budget totals for fiscal year 2012 for the 6 Senate Committee on Appropriations shall be 7 8 9 10 11 12 (1) $1,137,000,000,000 in total new budget authority; and (2) $1,277,000,000,000 in total budget outlays.

TITLE IICAPSEC. 201. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that Congress should

13 enact comprehensive tax reform that lowers marginal 14 rates, broadens the base, and simplifies the tax code to 15 increase economic growth while generating revenues that 16 are in line with the historical average of 18% of GDP. 17 18 19SEC. 202. MODIFICATION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT.

Title III of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974

20 is amended by inserting at the end the following: 21 22emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS

SEC. 316. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

(a) IN GENERAL.It shall not be in order in the

23 House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any 24 bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that

S 1340 PCSVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:22 Jul 11, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1340.PCS S1340

3 1 includes any provision that would cause the discretionary 2 spending limits as set forth in this section to be exceeded. 3 (b) LIMITS.In this section, the term discretionary

4 spending limits has the following meaning: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS

(1) For fiscal year 2012 (A) for the defense category (budget function 050), $575,790,000,000 in budget authority; and (B) for the non-defense category,

$435,000,000,000 in budget authority. (2) For fiscal year 2013 (A) for the defense category (budget function 050), $593,476,000,000 in budget authority; and (B) for the non-defense category,


$435,000,000,000 in budget authority. (4) For fiscal year 2015


4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS

(A) for the defense category (budget function 050), $621,853,000,000 in budget authority; and (B) for the non-defense category,




$435,000,000,000 in budget authority. (8) For fiscal year 2019

24


5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 (A) for the defense category (budget function 050), $667,000,000,000 in budget authority; and (B) for the non-defense category,



$457,700,000,000 in budget authority. (c) ADJUSTMENTS.After the reporting of a bill or

19 joint resolution relating to oversees deployments described 20 in subsection (d), or the offering of an amendment thereto 21 or the submission of a conference report thereon 22 23emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS

(1) the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the budget may adjust the discretionary spending limits provided in this section, the budgetary aggregates in the concurrent resolution on the budget

24 25


6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 most recently adopted by the Senate and the House of Representatives, and allocations pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, by the amount of new budget authority in that measure for that purpose and the outlays flowing there from; and (2) following any adjustment under paragraph (1), the Senate Committee on Appropriations may report appropriately revised suballocations pursuant to section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this subsection. (d) OVERSEAS DEPLOYMENTS.If a bill or joint

13 resolution is reported making appropriations for fiscal 14 year 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, or 2017 that provides 15 funding for overseas deployments and activities under16 taken as a result of a declaration of war or Congressional 17 authorization of force, the allowable adjustments provided 18 for in subsection (c) shall not exceed the following: 19 20 21 22 23emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS

(1) For fiscal year 2012, $126,500,000,000 in budget authority. (2) For fiscal year 2013, $50,000,000,000 in budget authority. (3) For fiscal year 2014, $50,000,000,000 in budget authority.

24



(4) For fiscal year 2015, $50,000,000,000 in budget authority. (5) For fiscal year 2016, $30,800,000,000 in budget authority. (6) For fiscal year 2017, $8,500,000,000 in budget authority. (e) POINT OF ORDER IN THE SENATE. (1) WAIVER.The provisions of this section shall be waived or suspended in the Senate only (A) by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen and sworn; or (B) in the case of defense budget authority, if Congress declares war or authorizes the use of force (2) APPEAL.Appeals in the Senate from decisions of the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be limited to one hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the measure. An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.


8 1 2SEC. 317. CERTAIN MANDATORY SPENDING LIMITS.


3 House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any 4 bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that 5 includes any provision that would cause total on-budget 6 mandatory spending, except as excluded in subsection (b), 7 to exceed the limits specified in subsection (c). 8 (b) EXEMPT FROM SPECIFIED LIMITS.The man-

9 datory components of the following functions are exempt 10 from the limits specified in subsection (c): 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 700. (4) Net Interest, function 900. (c) LIMITSING.The ON

(1) Social Security, function 650. (2) Medicare, function 570. (3) Veterans Benefits and Services, function

REMAINING MANDATORY SPEND-

total combined budget authority for all manda-

18 tory spending not exempted in subsection (b) shall not ex19 ceed the following limits: 20 21 22 23emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS

(1) For fiscal year 2012, $701,640,000,000 in budget authority. (2) For fiscal year 2013, $648,701,000,000 in budget authority. (3) For fiscal year 2014, $580,743,000,000 in budget authority.

24 25



(4) For fiscal year 2015, $575,423,000,000 in budget authority. (5) For fiscal year 2016, $574,072,000,000 in budget authority. (6) For fiscal year 2017, $568,519,000,000 in budget authority. (7) For fiscal year 2018, $558,645,000,000 in budget authority. (8) For fiscal year 2019, $558,869,000,000 in budget authority. (9) For fiscal year 2020, $566,867,000,000 in budget authority. (10) For fiscal year 2021, $588,162,000,000 in budget authority. (d) POINT OF ORDER IN THE SENATE. (1) WAIVER.The provisions of this section shall be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. (2) APPEAL.Appeals in the Senate from decisions of the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be limited to one hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the measure. An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members of the Senate, duly cho-

24 25


10 1 2 3 4 5 sen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.SEC. 318. LIMITS FOR SOCIAL SECURITY.


6 House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any 7 bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that 8 includes any provision that would cause total mandatory 9 spending for Social Security (function 650) to exceed the 10 limits specified in subsection (b). 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS

(b) LIMITS. (1) INGENERAL.For

purposes of this sec-

tion the limits are as follows: (A) For fiscal year 2012, total outlays shall be $760,356,000,000. (B) For fiscal year 2013, total outlays shall be $798,614,000,000. (C) For fiscal year 2014, total outlays shall be $841,440,000,000. (D) For fiscal year 2015, total outlays shall be $887,837,000,000. (E) For fiscal year 2016, total outlays shall be $938,547,000,000. (F) For fiscal year 2017, total outlays shall be $995,325,000,000.

24 25



(G) For fiscal year 2018, total outlays shall be $1,057,552,000,000. (H) For fiscal year 2019, total outlays shall be $1,123,629,000,000. (I) For fiscal year 2020, total outlays shall be $1,193,747,000,000. (J) For fiscal year 2021, total outlays shall be $1,265,566,000,000. (2) EXCEPTION.If the Congressional Budget Office determines that projected outlays are expected to exceed the limits specified above due to changes in cost-of-living adjustments contained in present law subsection (c) shall not apply. (c) POINT OF ORDER IN THE SENATE. (1) WAIVER.The provisions of this section shall be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. (2) APPEAL.Appeals in the Senate from decisions of the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be limited to one hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the measure. An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an ap-

24 25


12 1 2 3 4 peal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.SEC. 319. LIMITS FOR MEDICARE.


5 House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any 6 bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that 7 includes any provision that would cause total mandatory 8 spending for Medicare (function 570) to exceed the limits 9 specified in subsection (b). 10 (b) LIMITS.For purposes of this section the limits

11 are as follows: 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS

(1) For fiscal year 2012, total outlays, excluding offsetting receipts, shall be $488,060,000,000. (2) For fiscal year 2013, total outlays, excluding offsetting receipts, shall be $530,767,000,000. (3) For fiscal year 2014, total outlays, excluding offsetting receipts, shall be $560,744,000,000. (4) For fiscal year 2015, total outlays, excluding offsetting receipts, shall be $585,256,000,000. (5) For fiscal year 2016, total outlays, excluding offsetting receipts, shall be $634,769,000,000. (6) For fiscal year 2017, total outlays, excluding offsetting receipts, shall be $657,799,000,000. (7) For fiscal year 2018, total outlays, excluding offsetting receipts, shall be $682,951,000,000.

24 25



(8) For fiscal year 2019, total outlays, excluding offsetting receipts, shall be $745,186,000,000. (9) For fiscal year 2020, total outlays, excluding offsetting receipts, shall be $800,853,000,000. (10) For fiscal year 2021, total outlays, excluding offsetting receipts, shall be

$858,830,000,000. (c) POINT OF ORDER IN THE SENATE. (1) WAIVER.The provisions of this section shall be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. (2) APPEAL.Appeals in the Senate from decisions of the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be limited to one hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the measure. An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.SEC. 320. LIMITS FOR MANDATORY FUNCTION 700 SPENDING.

24


25 House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any


14 1 bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that 2 includes any provision that would cause total mandatory 3 spending for Veterans Benefits and Services (function 4 700) to exceed the limits specified in subsection (b). 5 (b) LIMITS.For purposes of this section the limits

6 are as follows: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS

(1) For fiscal year 2012, total outlays shall not exceed $69,400,000,000. (2) For fiscal year 2013, total outlays shall not exceed $69,400,000,000. (3) For fiscal year 2014, total outlays shall not exceed $71,350,000,000. (4) For fiscal year 2015, total outlays shall not exceed $73,300,000,000. (5) For fiscal year 2016, total outlays shall not exceed $80,500,000,000. (6) For fiscal year 2017, total outlays shall not exceed $77,310,000,000. (7) For fiscal year 2018, total outlays shall not exceed $74,250,000,000. (8) For fiscal year 2019, total outlays shall not exceed $81,600,000,000. (9) For fiscal year 2020, total outlays shall not exceed $83,830,000,000.

24


15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 (10) For fiscal year 2021, total outlays shall not exceed $86,100,000,000. (c) POINT OF ORDER IN THE SENATE. (1) WAIVER.The provisions of this section shall be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. (2) APPEAL.Appeals in the Senate from decisions of the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be limited to one hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the measure. An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this section..SEC. 203. STATUTORY ENFORCEMENT OF SPENDING CAPS THROUGH SEQUESTRATION.

The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control

20 Act of 1985 is amended by inserting after section 253 the 21 following: 22 23emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS

SEC. 253A. ENFORCEMENT OF DISCRETIONARY AND MANDATORY CAPS.

24

(a)

ANNUAL

REPORT

AND

SEQUESTRATION

25 ORDER.



(1) REPORT.Not later than 30 calendar days following the start of each fiscal year, the Office of Management and Budget shall make publicly available and cause to be printed in the Federal Register an annual report containing expected budget authority and outlays for the categories and limits established in sections 316 through 320 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The limits established in such sections shall be enforced without regard to the waiver of such limits by either House. (2) ORDER.If the annual report issued by OMB, as required by paragraph (1), shows any category exceeding specified spending caps, OMB shall prepare and the President shall issue and include in that report a sequestration order that, upon issuance, shall reduce budgetary resources by an amount sufficient to bring spending in line with that categorys statutory cap. (3) EFFECTIVEDATE.The

sequestration

order shall take effect no later than 60 days after completion by the OMB. (b) CALCULATING A SEQUESTRATION. (1) INGENERAL.OMB

shall calculate the

24 25

uniform percentage each program within a category that has exceeded its spending cap shall be reduced



to bring that categorys budget authority and/or outlays in line with the limits referred to in subsection (a)(1). (2) IMPLEMENTATION.The sequesters shall be implemented as follows: (A) For the discretionary limits in section 316 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, pursuant to the section 251 with each category sequestered separately. (B) For the mandatory limits in section 317 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, pursuant to the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, except that section 7 of such Act shall not apply. (C) For the Social Security limits in section 318 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Social Security Administration shall modify the program so that all benefits and administrative expenses are reduced in a uniform fashion by a percentage sufficient to allow the program to operate under its cap. (D) For the Medicare limit in section 319 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) shall modify the program so that all

24 25



outlays are reduced by a uniform percentage sufficient to bring the program under its cap. (E) For the Veterans Benefits and Services limit in section 320 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall modify the program so that the program operates under its spending cap. (c) MODIFICATION OF PRESIDENTIAL ORDER. (1) INGENERAL.At

any time after the Di-

rector of OMB issues a sequestration report, Congress may override the order through the passage of a law that either waves or supersedes the spending limitations for that category of federal spending for that fiscal year. (2) SENATE.In the Senate, any motion to move to consideration of a bill to waive, modify, or in any way alter a sequestration order shall be subject to a point of order that can only be waived through an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. This point of order shall not apply to defense spending while the nation is engaged in a conflict which has been justified through a declaration of war or a Congressional authorization of force..

24 25


19 1 2 3 4

TITLE IIIBALANCESEC. 301. REQUIREMENT THAT BBA BE SUBMITTED TO STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL.The Secretary of the Treasury

5 shall not exercise the additional borrowing authority under 6 subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States 7 Code until the date that the Archivist of the United States 8 transmits to the States S.J. Res. 10 as introduced on 9 March 31, 2011, a balanced budget amendment to the 10 Constitution, or a similar amendment provided it requires 11 that total outlays not exceed total receipts, that contains 12 a spending limitation as a percentage of GDP, and re13 quires that tax increases be approved by a super-majority 14 vote in both houses of Congress, for their ratification. 15 (b) AMENDMENTTO

TITLE 31.Effective on the

16 date that the Archivist of the United States transmits to 17 the States S.J. Res. 10, a balanced budget amendment 18 to the Constitution, or a similar amendment provided it 19 requires that total outlays not exceed total receipts, that 20 contains a spending limitation as a percentage of GDP, 21 and requires that tax increases be approved by a super22 majority vote in both houses of Congress, for their ratifi23 cation, subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, Unitedemcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS

24 States Code, is amended by striking the dollar limitation


20 1 contained in such subsection and inserting

2 $16,700,000,000,000.

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS



VerDate Mar 15 2010

23:22 Jul 11, 2011

Jkt 099200

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 6652

Sfmt 6201

E:\BILLS\S1340.PCS

S1340

Calendar No. 97112TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION

S. 1340

A BILLTo cut, cap, and balance the Federal budget.JULY 11, 2011 Read the second time and placed on the calendar


VerDate Mar 15 2010

23:22 Jul 11, 2011

Jkt 099200

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 6651

Sfmt 6651

E:\BILLS\S1340.PCS

S1340

Vote No. 30 PATENT REFORM/Balanced Budget AmendmentSUBJECT: Patent Reform Act of 2011, S. 23. Lee/Manchin amendment No. 115. IN BRIEF: The Lee amendment would express the sense of the Senate that Congress should pass and the States should agree to an amendment to the Constitution requiring a Federal balanced budget. CONTEXT: 1) As of February 7, the national debt was $14.104 trillion. The national debt includes both debt held by the public and debt that the Government owes to itself, mostly to trust funds. 2) Debt held by the public places a burden on the economy because the Government borrows scarce private capital to incur and service such debt. If credit markets tighten, borrowing costs climb. If the debt gets too high the Government will have to monetize it or default. Debt owed to trust funds represents a future obligation to spend at least the amount in the funds--it does not involve borrowing from the public. 3) Debt held by the public stayed under 40 percent of GDP under President Bush for 6 years. Democrats then gained control of Congress and increased spending. They expanded their majorities in the 2008 elections and won the presidency. Borrowing and spending grew greatly in 2009. Under President Obama, debt held by the public is on course to double in 4 years and triple in 10. 4) Deficits from FYs 2004-2008 were as follows: $412 billion, $318 billion, $248 billion, $162 billion, and $455 billion (due in part to the 2008 stimulus bill). The FY 2009 deficit was $1.413 trillion, for FY 2010 it was $1.294 trillion, and for FY 2011 it is projected to be $1.480 trillion (as estimated by the CBO in February) or $1.645 trillion (as estimated in the President's FY 2012 budget). 5) Democrats suffered historic losses in the mid-term elections (6 Senate seats and over 60 House seats) due in large part to voter anger over massive deficit spending by Democrats. ACTION: Amendment Rejected, 58-40

Alexander (R-TN) Ayotte (R-NH) Barrasso (R-WY) Begich (D-AK) Bennet (D-CO) Blunt (R-MO) Boozman (R-AR) Brown (D-OH) Brown (R-MA) Burr (R-NC) Carper (D-DE) Chambliss (R-GA) Coats (R-IN) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bingaman (D-NM) Blumenthal (D-CT) Boxer (D-CA) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Casey (D-PA) Coons (D-DE) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY) Hagan (D-NC) Conrad (D-ND)

YEAs ---58 Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Hoeven (R-ND) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Johnson (R-WI) Kirk (R-IL) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Lee (R-UT) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lugar (R-IN) Manchin (D-WV) McCain (R-AZ) McCaskill (D-MO) NAYs ---40 Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Not Voting - 2 Landrieu (D-LA)

McConnell (R-KY) Moran (R-KS) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Paul (R-KY) Portman (R-OH) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Rubio (R-FL) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Snowe (R-ME) Thune (R-SD) Toomey (R-PA) Udall (D-CO) Vitter (R-LA) Wicker (R-MS)

Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

Vote No. 116 CUT, CAP, AND BALANCE/Motion to ProceedSUBJECT: Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011, H.R. 2560. Reid motion to table the Reid motion to proceed. IN BRIEF: This House-passed bill will cut spending by setting FY 2012 discretionary and direct spending caps (with exclusions for Social Security, Veterans, and Medicare), will quickly reduce total outlays as a percentage of GDP to normal levels and will cap them through FY 2021, and, if Congress first passes a balanced budget constitutional amendment and sends it to the States for ratification, will raise the debt limit to $16.7 trillion, as requested by the President. CONTEXT: 1) Financial markets nearly collapsed late in 2008 due to bad mortgage debt. Democrats then won the presidency and gained large majorities in Congress. Their gains were largely due to voters believing that Republicans had been overspending. Democrats immediately began a spending spree. 2) Democrats said their spending would keep the unemployment rate from climbing above 8 percent; it rose to 10.1 percent and has yet to fall under 8 percent (it is now 9.2 percent). The economy and housing market were weak before this spending spree began. They remain weak. 3) The FY 2010 Obama budget planned on doubling the debt held by the public in 5 years and tripling it in 10; it has been growing more rapidly. Debt held by the public has grown from 40 percent of GDP in 2008 to a projected 69 percent of GDP in 2011. The CBO March baseline projects a $1.4 trillion FY 2011 deficit. Many experts predict a debt crisis will occur within the next few years if deficit spending is not substantially reduced. 4) Democrats adjourned for the 2010 elections without having passed any of the FY 2011 appropriations bills (funding was provided on a series of shortterm resolutions) or even a budget. They suffered historic losses and control of the House in those elections. House Republicans have passed a budget this year; the Senate Budget Committee, under Democrat control, has not reported a budget. It is required by law to do so by March 31 of each year. On May 19, the Majority Leader said it would be "foolish" to produce a budget now. ACTION: Motion to Table Agreed to, 51-46

5) The debt limit was reached on May 16. The Treasury Department projects it will be able to use existing authorities to preserve borrowing authority without breaching the limit until August 2. Negotiations on the terms under which the limit will be raised are ongoing. The Vice President was representing the Administration. 6) The President joined the negotiations after an impasse was reached in late June because Democrats suddenly insisted on raising taxes. The President has argued for roughly $1 trillion in new taxes with the promise that roughly $3 trillion in unspecified spending cuts will be made over an unspecified time frame. 7) Democrats have expressed support for higher taxes on millionaires, Republicans have sought passage of the pending bill, and a bipartisan group of Senators (the "Gang of 6") has issued a deficit-reduction outline calling for large immediate cuts followed by more cuts and a large net tax increase over the current policy baseline. Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---51 Hagan (D-NC) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Manchin (D-WV) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) NAYs ---46 Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Hatch (R-UT)

Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Begich (D-AK) Bennet (D-CO) Bingaman (D-NM) Blumenthal (D-CT) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Conrad (D-ND) Coons (D-DE) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Alexander (R-TN) Ayotte (R-NH) Barrasso (R-WY) Blunt (R-MO)

Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR) Moran (R-KS) Murkowski (R-AK) Paul (R-KY) Portman (R-OH)

Boozman (R-AR) Brown (R-MA) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coats (R-IN) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Gillibrand (D-NY)

Heller (R-NV) Hoeven (R-ND) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Johnson (R-WI) Kirk (R-IL) Kyl (R-AZ) Lee (R-UT) Lugar (R-IN) McConnell (R-KY) Not Voting - 3 Kerry (D-MA)

Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Rubio (R-FL) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Snowe (R-ME) Thune (R-SD) Toomey (R-PA) Vitter (R-LA) Wicker (R-MS)

McCain (R-AZ)

Vote No. 229 BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT/Rejection

SUBJECT: Joint resolution proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States, S.J. Res. 10. Passage. IN BRIEF: This resolution sponsored by Senate Republicans proposes an amendment to the Constitution to require a balanced budget each year beginning 5 years after ratification; under the proposal, spending in a year will not exceed 18 percent of GDP, two-thirds majority votes in each House will be required to raise taxes or deficit spend (lower thresholds will apply during declared wars or military conflicts), and three-fifths majority votes will be required to raise the debt limit. CONTEXT: 1) In 1995, the House approved a balanced budget constitutional amendment but the Senate fell one vote shy of doing the same after 6 Senate Democrats who had supported an identical proposal the previous Congress changed their votes (see 104th Congress, first session, vote No. 98). The national debt at that time was less than $4.9 trillion. It is now over $15 trillion; $4.5 trillion of this amount has been accumulated since President Obama took office. 2) More than $4 trillion of the $4.5 trillion increase under this President has been in debt held by the public, which has reached $10.4 trillion (the remainder is intragovernmental debt, which represents future promises to spend but does not require borrowing from either non-Federal entities or the Federal Reserve). Federal debt as a percentage of GDP is approaching the level at which other deeply indebted governments have defaulted. 3) The debt limit was reached in May but the Treasury Department used existing authorities to avoid breaching it until a compromise was reached and enacted on August 2 to increase the limit and cut deficit spending (see vote No. 123). The compromise includes a section requiring each House to vote on passage of a balanced budget constitutional amendment no later than December 31, 2011. Constitutional amendments require two-thirds majority votes of Members present and voting in each House and ratification by threefourths of the States. 4) The House failed to pass a balanced budget constitutional amendment proposed by Republicans by a vote of 261-165 on November 18. House ACTION: Joint Resolution Defeated, 47-53

Republicans had weakened their proposal in an attempt to gain Democrat support. They gained the votes of 25 Democrats and lost the votes of 4 Republicans. 5) The Senate has agreed by unanimous consent to consider and vote without amendment on two balanced budget constitutional amendments, the first of which is sponsored by Republicans and the second of which is sponsored by those Senate Democrats who say they favor a constitutional balanced budget requirement but oppose the spending limits and restrictions on tax hikes in the Republican proposal. YEAs ---47 Alexander (R-TN) Enzi (R-WY) McConnell (R-KY) Ayotte (R-NH) Graham (R-SC) Moran (R-KS) Barrasso (R-WY) Grassley (R-IA) Murkowski (R-AK) Blunt (R-MO) Hatch (R-UT) Paul (R-KY) Boozman (R-AR) Heller (R-NV) Portman (R-OH) Brown (R-MA) Hoeven (R-ND) Risch (R-ID) Burr (R-NC) Hutchison (R-TX) Roberts (R-KS) Chambliss (R-GA) Inhofe (R-OK) Rubio (R-FL) Coats (R-IN) Isakson (R-GA) Sessions (R-AL) Coburn (R-OK) Johanns (R-NE) Shelby (R-AL) Cochran (R-MS) Johnson (R-WI) Snowe (R-ME) Collins (R-ME) Kirk (R-IL) Thune (R-SD) Corker (R-TN) Kyl (R-AZ) Toomey (R-PA) Cornyn (R-TX) Lee (R-UT) Vitter (R-LA) Crapo (R-ID) Lugar (R-IN) Wicker (R-MS) DeMint (R-SC) McCain (R-AZ) Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Begich (D-AK) Bennet (D-CO) Bingaman (D-NM) Blumenthal (D-CT) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Conrad (D-ND) Coons (D-DE) Durbin (D-IL) NAYs ---53 Hagan (D-NC) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Manchin (D-WV) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Webb (D-VA)

Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY)

Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA)

Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)

Why we need a balanced-budget amendment - Op-Eds - Press O...

http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ID=cb4930...

Mike Lee, United States Senator for Utah Op-EdsMar 04 2011

Why we need a balancedbudget amendmentTurning rhetoric into realityBy Mike Lee

As originally published by the Washington Post Amending the Constitution is not easy, nor should it be. That the Constitution has been amended just 27 times demonstrates that the process is reserved for only the most important circumstances. Our nation's critical need to balance the federal budget rises to that level. Any effort to amend the Constitution will start in the Senate Judiciary Committee. So far, ve other Republican members of the committee, on which I serve, have introduced or co-sponsored a balanced-budget amendment. This week, 58 senators - including all 47 Republicans, 10 Democrats and Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent - recognized this urgent need and expressed support for a balanced-budget requirement. I have put forward a proposal that would require a balanced budget every scal year; limit federal spending to 18 percent of gross domestic product; and require a two-thirds vote in Congress to increase taxes, raise the debt limit or run a specic decit. A similar measure in the House has more than 120 co-sponsors. This is a vital issue and one on which I am committed to lead the effort in the Senate. The vast majority of states have constitutional or statutory mandates to

1 of 3

2/3/12 1:20 PM



balance their budgets each scal period. Even during this tough economic climate, most states have been able to prioritize their obligations and make tough choices. The federal government should be expected to do the same. First, a balanced-budget requirement will ensure we do not continue to drive our country further into debt by trying to do all things for all people. There are some programs we simply cannot afford, but decit spending makes it too easy not to say no. When Republicans and Democrats are forced to spend only what we take in, Congress will not be able to sidestep tough decisions about our national priorities. Second, balancing our budget today will avoid even tougher choices tomorrow. Proponents of investments in areas such as education, infrastructure and energy should welcome a balanced-budget amendment because it will help make money available in the future for these priorities. Under the president's recent budget proposal, which runs a decit every year, payments on the national debt will quadruple over the next decade, crowding out important resources. Delaying the inevitable only increases the severity of the cuts to important programs. Finally, a structural budget restraint is necessary to overcome Congress's insatiable appetite to spend. Both parties deserve blame for irresponsible spending. A balanced-budget amendment is the only way to ensure that Congress acts in the best interest of the country, regardless of who is in power. Critics worry that an amendment that requires a two-thirds vote to circumvent under any circumstance may prove problematic in the case of an emergency. But history shows that in real emergencies, it is not difcult for Congress to produce a supermajority. Three days after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the House passed an emergency supplemental spending bill, 422 to 0. The Senate passed it 96 to 0. In contrast, Americans were told that President Obama's stimulus bill was a necessary response to an economic emergency. After passing on pure party-line votes in the House (246 to 183) and Senate (60 to 38), the bill failed to create the kind of job growth the president promised. The stimulus would not have passed had it been held to the standards of our proposal, which required a two-thirds vote, and that would have saved taxpayers2 of 3 2/3/12 1:20 PM



nearly $1 trillion. I am ready and willing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see that a balanced-budget amendment clears the Judiciary Committee and receives a full vote on the oor of the Senate. My proposal is strict, enforceable and holds the federal government to a necessarily higher standard. Other senators have good ideas, and I am open to considering and incorporating additional proposals as long as a meaningful balanced-budget amendment remains in effect. The federal government has run out of excuses. I agree with the president that the federal government can and should live within its means. A balanced-budget amendment will turn that rhetoric into a reality. The writer is a Republican senator from Utah.

Permalink: http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2011/3/why-weneed-a-balanced-budget-amendment

3 of 3

2/3/12 1:20 PM

Reforms, Not Just Cuts, Needed Before Debt-Ceiling Increase -...

http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ID=f84350...

Mike Lee, United States Senator for Utah Op-EdsApr 25 2011

Reforms, Not Just Cuts, Needed Before Debt-Ceiling IncreaseIn response to the Obama Administrations efforts to force a debt-ceiling increase, a number of Republicans and even a few Democrats have demanded spending cuts. Reducing short-term spending is important and enjoys widespread support among the American people, but raising the debt ceiling without fundamental, structural spending reforms would be a mistake. Like many conservatives, I was disappointed by the spending cuts agreed to as part of the most recent continuing resolution. I was of course pleased that we were talking about how much to cut rather than whether to cut. Nevertheless, the nal deal perpetuated our countrys debt problem, reducing spending by just $38 billion (much less than that, according to the Congressional Budget Ofce) in the face of a $1.65 trillion annual decit. Worse, it did nothing to address the underlying reasons for our ballooning debt. By some estimates, we would have to raise the debt ceiling by $738 billion in order to fund government at current levels through the end of this scal year. Even an additional $40 to $50 billion in spending cuts would be trivial when compared to our current decit and our almost-$15 trillion debt. Those who insist that we have no choice in this matter ignore the grave risks associated with raising the debt ceiling yet again without making any serious effort to address the underlying problem. It would therefore be irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without rst adopting a reliable, binding mechanism i.e., a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budgetto end its perpetual expansion. For that very reason, I will oppose any and every effort to raise the debt ceiling until Congress passes a balanced budget amendment and presents it to the States for ratication. I invite members of both political parties and both houses of Congress to join me (and a growing list of others) in making1 of 2 2/3/12 1:20 PM

Reforms, Not Just Cuts, Needed Before Debt-Ceiling Increase -...

http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ID=f84350...

this pledge. Only by passing a balanced budget amendment can Congress credibly assure the American people that they wont have to endure a repeat performance of the debt-ceiling charade every few months for the rest of their lives. Such fundamental reform would, moreover, send a positive signal to nancial markets, help reafrm the value of our currency, and put us on a path toward more meaningful and permanent spending reductions. Now is the time to pass a balanced budget amendment. The amendment I have cosponsored with Senator Orrin Hatch has the support of the entire Senate Republican Conference. In March, a sense of the Senate resolution expressing the need for a balanced budget amendment attracted all 47 GOP Senators, plus 11 votes from Democrats, leaving us just 9 votes short of the 67 needed to pass a constitutional amendment. A House version of the Hatch-Lee amendment is gaining momentum and, with a strong Republican majority in the House, the odds are good that it would receive signicant support if brought to the oor for a vote. Americans overwhelmingly favor a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. And unlike another short-term spending bill, it would not be subject to a presidential veto. Some insist that we simply must raise the debt ceiling, and that a decision not to do so would be unthinkable. If those making that assertion really believe it, then they should be willing to make signicant concessions in order to secure the votes of those wholike meare equally convinced that the truly unthinkable consists of blindly extending the debt limit without permanently restricting Congresss decit-spending authority. The only way to do that is through a balanced budget amendment. I will continue to oppose any effort to raise the debt ceiling until Congress passes a balanced budget amendment. If every Republican will make the same pledge, we will pass a balanced budget amendment this year, effectively ending the era of perpetual decit spending.

Mike Lee is a U.S. Seantor from Utah.

Permalink: http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2011/4/reformsnot-just-cuts-needed-before-debt-ceiling-increase

2 of 2

2/3/12 1:20 PM

Breaking the Debt-Ceiling Cycle - Op-Eds - Press Ofce - Mik...

http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ID=66cb4e...

Mike Lee, United States Senator for Utah Op-EdsApr 27 2011

Breaking the Debt-Ceiling Cycle"We will raise the debt limit. We always have. We will do it again. Pres. Barack Obama President Obamas words highlight the charade that surrounds the recurring debate over whether it is in Americas best interest to increase the debt ceiling. The president articulates a simple sentiment that pervades his administration: Business in Washington is best when its business as usual. The pattern of pretending to debate the factors contributing to Washingtons debt addiction is a rehearsal of rhetoric that, while increasingly circular, produces one-directional results. As the arguments for and against raising the debt ceiling make their way back and forth between the White House and Congress, continuing this exercise without a balanced-budget amendment in place means that the debt ceiling will perpetually move in only one direction: up. With the political will for debt reform gaining momentum propelled by the nations declining credit rating, rising oil prices, and high unemployment it is clear that the status quo can no longer be king. The debt-ceiling charade must come to an end, and the federal government must implement binding, permanent, structural spending reforms most important, a balanced-budget amendment. Blindly raising the debt ceiling yet again carries signicant risk indeed, a risk that easily rivals that associated with not raising it. In the last three years, gross federal debt has grown from 64 percent to 93 percent of GDP. Debt of this magnitude crowds out much-needed private investment and could lead to reduced private-sector growth, persistent unemployment, a devastating scal crisis (think of Greece), and skyrocketing interest rates. The nancial shortfalls created by such conditions could seriously impair Congresss ability to fund everything from defense to entitlements.

1 of 3

2/3/12 1:21 PM



Too often in the current debate, Washington overlooks these daunting threats to our economy that will result from perpetually increasing our national debt. Instead of acknowledging those threats and trying to address them, the establishment uses scare tactics that have proven reliable in the past. For example, Treasury secretary Tim Geithner, following the lead of past administration ofcials, presents only the doomsday scenario in which the economic consequences of not raising the debt ceiling would be catastrophic. Having abdicated its duty to develop a responsible scal policy, the federal government forces the American taxpayer to choose between taking on more debt and facing the unthinkable. As history suggests, the strategy of creating a debt-ceiling boogeyman works every time, and, without a balanced-budget amendment in place to stop it, the cycle continues. Elected ofcials who have grown dependent on perpetual decit spending will again quickly reach the limit on each credit card the taxpayers reluctantly give them. Having maxed out one card, they habitually demand another, using threats of scal Armageddon to extort taxpayers into giving them just one more. Unfortunately, as the president reminds us, they will do it again that is, unless we insist that this time be different. This time, the American people should refuse to let Congress raise the debt ceiling without rst passing a balanced-budget amendment, one that would compel Congress to hold the line on future spending. And considering that Americans overwhelmingly oppose raising the debt ceiling but overwhelmingly support the idea of balanced-budget amendment, it shouldnt be too difcult for members of Congress especially those who agree that refusing to raise the debt ceiling would be unthinkable to commit to passing a balanced-budget amendment before (and as a means of gaining public support for) raising the debt ceiling. Recently, all 47 Senate Republicans signed on to Senate Joint Resolution 10, a balanced-budget amendment proposal sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch and me that would prohibit Congress from spending more than it collects each year unless two-thirds of the members of both houses voted to authorize a limited decit for a specied purpose. It would likewise prohibit Congress from spending more than 18 percent of annual GDP, raising taxes, or raising the debt ceiling without a supermajority vote in both houses. Similar legislation, introduced just a few days ago by Rep. Joe Walsh of Illinois, is gathering momentum in the House. Under this proposal, a simple majority of Congress couldnt impulsively raise the debt ceiling to accommodate perpetual spending increases. As this debate moves forward, I will aggressively oppose efforts to raise the

2 of 3

2/3/12 1:21 PM



debt ceiling until both the Senate and the House pass the Hatch-Lee Balanced Budget Amendment. I invite my colleagues in both parties and in both houses of Congress to do the same. Those who fail to do so will render prophetic President Obamas words: We will raise the debt limit. We always have. We will do it again. This Article was Originally Published in the National Review Online Permalink: http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2011/4/breakingthe-debt-ceiling-cycle

3 of 3

2/3/12 1:21 PM

Cut, Cap, and Balance - Op-Eds - Press Ofce - Mike Lee, Unit...

http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ID=3839d6...

Mike Lee, United States Senator for Utah Op-EdsJun 27 2011

Cut, Cap, and Balanceby Sens. Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee

Its been called the most preventable disaster in American history. The coming debt crisis is so predictable its difcult to nd a single economist, expert, politician or American taxpayer who doesnt warn of the consequences of spending and borrowing ourselves into oblivion. A recent publication from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Ofce called Americas debt problem daunting. The debt-to-GDP ratio has just crossed 90%, a threshold linked to lower average economic growth. If left unchecked, our ballooning debt will almost certainly lead to the countrys long-term economic decline. Fortunately, the solution is basic and one that is followed by most responsible state and local governments, families and business owners. When faced with tough times they know they must eliminate spending on the things that arent absolutely essential. Then they make a budget for the things they need and have the discipline to stay within that budget. Finally, they stop borrowing and spend no more than they take in. These steps are the common-sense force behind a bold new proposal in Congress that will put the country on a scally sustainable path and fundamentally change the way Washington spends money. Its called Cut, Cap, and Balance. First, Congress must make immediate spending cuts that will signicantly reduce the decit. Next, it must enact spending caps that put the federal government on a glide path toward a balanced budget. And nally, Congress must pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that forces Congress to spend no more than it takes in each year, limits spending as a percentage of the gross domestic product, and requires a supermajority to

1 of 2

2/3/12 1:21 PM

Cut, Cap, and Balance - Op-Eds - Press Ofce - Mike Lee, Unit...

http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ID=3839d6...

increase taxes or raise the debt ceiling. Cut, Cap, and Balance is a common-sense proposal for dealing with the most signicant economic and scal crisis since the Great Depression. It directly addresses the fundamental problems of a system that encourages overspending and unsustainable borrowing. The hard choices can no longer be put off. We must take action immediately. To that end, we have both signed the Cut, Cap, and Balance Pledge, which commits signers to oppose any increase in the nations debt ceiling until all three of the plans conditions have been satised. We believe the federal government should not plunge the country deeper into debt unless it rst directly addresses the underlying problem and makes fundamental structural changes to the way Washington spends taxpayer money. To date, not a single Democrat in Congress has signaled support for the Cut, Cap, and Balance approach. Instead, they have called for more reckless spending and irresponsible job-killing tax increases. We will continue to press our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to sign the pledge, support a balanced budget amendment, and pass debt ceiling legislation consistent with Cut, Cap, and Balance. We know what needs to be done; we just need the will to act. Now is the time to cut the decit, cap future spending, and balance our budget to preserve the prosperity of the next generation.

Permalink: http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2011/6/cut-capand-balance

2 of 2

2/3/12 1:21 PM

Obama's "Recovery" Worst in Modern Times - Op-Eds - Press O...

http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ID=1da6f8...

Mike Lee, United States Senator for Utah Op-EdsJul 08 2011

Obama's "Recovery" Worst in Modern TimesThe evidence that President Obamas economic policies have failed continues to mount. The unemployment rate notched up to 9.2 percent in June. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the labor force fell by more than a quarter of a million workers, dropping the labor force participation rate to 64.1 percent the lowest rate of labor force participation in nearly 30 years. While no one expected our economic problems to be solved overnight, there was the reasonable expectation that our bounce back from the downturn that began in 2007 would proceed along the lines of previous recoveries after recessions. History tells us that today, more than three years after the recession began, things should be getting better. But they arent. Every economic statistic, from the housing market to economic growth to employment, indicates a struggling, depressed economynot one on the rebound. Take unemployment. In the 28 months since the signing of an $814 billion stimulus billwhich White House economists claimed would prevent unemployment from reaching even 8 percentthe unemployment rate has remained stubbornly above 9 percent, and 4.2 percent higher than it was at the beginning of the recession. That compares to an average increase of only 1.1 percent in past recessions. Even more worrisome, at the same point in past recoveries total employment had grown by 3.9 percent; in the Obama recovery total employment has fallen more than 5 percent. Instead of getting back to work, Americans are dropping out of the workforce.

1 of 3

2/3/12 1:21 PM



Or look at housing. Despite unprecedented amounts of federal spending and a host of tax credits aimed at reviving the faltering housing market, the bust continues. In the estimation of most analysts, the real estate market collapse was the primary driver of the downturn, and most believe that a moderate recovery in home prices is a prerequisite for a sustainable recovery. Yet foreclosures remain extremely high, and a record 28 percent of homeowners are now underwater on their mortgages. The median singlefamily home price has declined 15.5 percent since the start of the recession; over the same period in previous recessions, the average home price increased 24.1 percent. If we turn our eyes to economic growth, we see the same story. In the rst quarter of 2011, the economy grew at an anemic 1.9 percent. Since the recession began, real GDP has risen by less than 1 percent, compared to an average increase of 9.9 percent after past recessions. Simply put, the approach of the Obama administration to get this economy on its feet again has been a patent failure. All the money spent trying to stimulate the economy has turned out to be counter-productive, sucking resources and capital out of the private sector and pouring them down the black hole of the federal government, while reducing individuals and businesses spending and hiring out of fear over rising debt and taxes. This is unquestionably the worst recovery in modern times. Still, the President continues to push for policies like tax increases that will further weaken our economy. The better approach to raising revenue is to grow our economy, not by raising taxes on Americas job creators. Along with 20 of my colleagues, I have proposed the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, legislation aimed at growing our economy by reigning in government spending. The bill would reduce total spending next year by $142 Billion, set caps on spending over the next decade, and require Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment before it can raise the debt ceiling. Reducing our annual decit and national debt will accomplish at least two things to help get our economy back on track: (1) decrease the dead weight loss of tax receipts as interest payments swallow an increasing larger share of total budget outlays and (2) lessen the crowding-out of private investment by large amounts of federal spending. It is past time to turn the page on the failed Keynesian approaches of this administration and reverse course. If we make a concerted effort to deal with the decit by getting government spending under control once and for all, the American economy will come roaring back, as it always has in the past.

2 of 3

2/3/12 1:21 PM



This Op-Ed Originally Appeared in The HillPermalink: http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2011/7/obamas-recovery-worst-in-modern-times

3 of 3

2/3/12 1:21 PM

Washington doesn't know best - Op-Eds - Press Ofce - Mike Le...

http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ID=b4de66...

Mike Lee, United States Senator for Utah Op-EdsAug 29 2011

Washington doesn't know bestPresident Barack Obama recently called the 16 months leading up to the 2012 election a critical period to debate [our respective] vision[s] for America. He noted that much of the debate will focus on governments role in creating the kind of growth that we need. The president seems to think he will win that debate. I say and I hope every Republican candidate for president says: Bring it on. Its well past time to have a spirited debate over the proper role of government, and the proper reach of government into our lives. Clearly, there are two very different visions for what this role should be. One vision assumes that government is the problem-solver of rst, and last, resort. Every issue we face as individuals and as a nation should be addressed, controlled, regulated, overseen and xed by the government. Under this paradigm, we can restore economic prosperity only by maintaining or expanding the federal governments current spending levels even if it means we engage in perpetual, large-scale decit spending. The other vision rests on the opposite assumption: the rm conviction that individuals have sovereign rights and responsibilities to control their actions and their fate. This vision holds that the private sector, not government, is the source of innovation, competition, growth and jobs. It holds that economic conditions will not improve until we take afrmative, deliberate steps to restrict Congresss borrowing and spending practices. Federal spending and government interference has so run amok that such steps must include a constitutional amendment requiring Congress to balance its budget and spend no more than a xed percentage of gross domestic product.1 of 3 2/3/12 1:22 PM

Washington doesn't know best - Op-Eds - Press Ofce - Mike Le...

http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ID=b4de66...

Proponents of each vision can be found in both political parties. The rst approach has become familiar to us over many decades; many prefer it for that very reason. For incumbent federal ofce holders, this also has the added allure of protecting Washingtons existing power structure. Members of Congress are more powerful when they can borrow and spend unlimited sums of money and therefore have a built-in reason to prefer the status quo. The second approach, in contrast, would signicantly limit the power wielded by each member of Congress and otherwise upset the status quo. Americans either love it or hate it for that very reason. Most love it. According to a recent CNN poll, 75 percent of American voters agree that we need a balanced budget amendment. This statistic is not just a statement by the American people about budgeting. It derives from the deeply held, deeply American dedication to self-reliance and responsible stewardship. Balancing the national check-book is merely a symbol of a much larger responsibility: to prioritize; to understand that progress requires hard work and sacrice, and to make the tough choices. When faced with a crisis, Americans have a remarkable track-record for choosing well. We chose independence over British tyranny. We chose emancipation over slavery. We chose freedom over fascism. We chose equality over segregation. The time has come for us to make another choice. To do that, we should ask ourselves: Has the Washington knows best approach, which inexorably leads to excessive borrowing and spending, made jobs more plentiful? Enhanced economic activity in America? Strengthened the dollar and our own purchasing power? Led to robust economic growth and expansion? Improved our outlook for future prosperity? Or not? Never have freedom and prosperity been so thoroughly intertwined. Never have both of them been more threatened. We have a chance to save them both. Lets not waste it. This article originally appeared in Politico

Permalink: http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2011/8/washington-

2 of 3

2/3/12 1:22 PM

Congress Needs Structural Reform - Op-Eds - Press Ofce - Mi...

http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ID=0e10b9...

Mike Lee, United States Senator for Utah Op-EdsAug 30 2011

Congress Needs Structural ReformThere is very little accountability in Washington when it comes to how the federal government spends taxpayer money. Having watched how things work from the outside, I was frustrated at the obvious waste and abuse of Americans hard-earned dollars. The system looked like it was intentionally set up so Congress and the President could continually nd ways to put off difcult decisions. After almost eight months in the trenches, it is still challenging to get much done that will begin to solve our problems, but Im a little more optimistic. Thats because the reformers who were sent to Congress in 2010 have not simply tried to impose a different ideology on national policy. Instead, we have begun to push for changes to the process itself. Even before being sworn in earlier this year, I and several of my new colleagues demanded Congress end the use of earmarks. Though these special projects didnt usually come with a high price tag when compared to a $3 trillion budget, earmarks were the grease that pushed through outrageous spending bills the country could not afford. Now, without earmarks, legislators have not been able to dangle these in gifts in front of members of congress in order to win their votes. The result has been more senators and congressmen willing to vote in the best interest of the country, rather than their own political interest. Additionally, after more than 15 years, a balanced budget amendment to the constitution is again part of the national debate. If passed by Congress and ratied by the states, the amendment would be an incredibly signicant structural reform that would begin to solve our debt problem immediately.

1 of 2

2/3/12 1:22 PM

Congress Needs Structural Reform - Op-Eds - Press Ofce - Mi...

http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ID=0e10b9...

With a balanced budget amendment in place, Congress wouldnt be able to just focus on what to spend money on. They would be forced to explain how the government is going to pay for it and be held accountable if the numbers didnt add up. The push for structural changes also includes political third rail issues like Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, as well as reforming the tax code and defense spending. There is greater enthusiasm to take on these enormous challenges because, as we saw with our credit rating being downgraded, the consequences of ignoring them are too great. When Congress returns, I plan on continuing to work on these issues and more to make sure this isnt the rst generation in history to leave things worse then we found them. As part of the August recess, I am holding several town halls around the state so Utahns can voice their concerns to me directly. I will be at the Fairview City Hall on August 30 at 6:00 pm and invite everyone in Sanpete County to attend. Id like to hear everyones ideas on how to get our country back on track and share some of my experiences since being elected your Senator.

Permalink: http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2011/8/congressnees-structural-reform

2 of 2

2/3/12 1:22 PM

A Pro-Growth Jobs Agenda - Op-Eds - Press Ofce - Mike Lee...

http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ID=1a8606...

Mike Lee, United States Senator for Utah Op-EdsSep 21 2011

A Pro-Growth Jobs AgendaPresident Obama began and ended his speech last Thursday by correctly identifying America's unemployment problem as a crisis that deserves urgent action by Congress. After two and a half years, it's encouraging that the President nally recognizes the true magnitude of our job shortage. Unfortunately the President's proposal was a predictably disappointing iteration of the failed economic prescriptions he offered in 2009. The President gave several similar speeches during his recent round of taxpayer-funded campaign stops. When those speeches received a less-thanenthusiastic response, the President took the unusual step of calling for a joint session of Congressapparently hoping to create the perception that he had formulated a new approach to promoting job creation. Those wanting to hear something other than a tax-and-spend agenda were surely disappointed. In fact, it's difcult to believe that much thought went into the jobs speech beyond copying his 2009 address, which outlined the failed $800 billion stimulus package. In 2009, the President insisted that Congress devote nearly a trillion dollars to a stimulus package designed to create new jobs in construction, green energy, and rail projects, while giving hiring incentives to employers. The President now claims once again that more spending will lead to new jobs for construction workers, as well as (this time) teachers and veterans. He also promised there would be similar incentives for businesses that hire new employees. The President was wrong in 2009. Americans understandably have little condence that pursuing the same failed policies will work this time. Adding a trillion dollars to our staggering national debt hasnt signicantly affected the employment rate, and short-term tax incentives do not create the kind of certainty employers need to create jobs. A small, short-lived bump in employment may give rise to a comparably small, short-lived bump in the

1 of 3

2/3/12 1:22 PM



President's approval rating, but will have little if any lasting inuence on the overall health of our economy. We need real solutions now. Instead of lecturing Congress to pass yet another stimulus package right away, the President should be focusing on ways to minimize the federal government's burden on individuals and job creators, giving them more money in their pockets and more freedom to invest, save, innovate, and prosper. A pro-growth jobs agenda would include: (1) Enforceable spending restrictions. Immediate spending cuts will reduce the decit and national debt, and signal to businesses, investors and the credit-rating agencies that the federal government is serious about balancing its budget. It will also signicantly reduce our debt-service costs, which over the next decade are expected to balloon to $1 trillion per year. Whatever one's vision of government may be vast and expansive or limited and dened interest payments of this magnitude will severely limit our ability to nance current government programs. The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, which I sponsored in the Senate and was later passed in the House, proposes the most comprehensive and serious spending reform in the last two decades. Passage of the CCB Act would create the kind of certainty the market needs to create jobs across the economy. Furthermore, scal discipline will encourage improved monetary policy and help reverse the ruinous trend of a rapidly depreciating currency.

(2) Restrictions on regulatory overreach. While all Americans expect clean air, clean water and competitive business practices, very few believe it is necessary (much less desirable) to have 165,000 pages of regulations to achieve those goals. Such regulations cost businesses $1.75 trillion annually and have a chilling effect on economic growth and job creation. Congress should immediately pass S. 1438, the Regulation Moratorium and Job Preservation Act, and S. 299, the REINS Act. The former would place a moratorium on all new regulations until unemployment reaches 7.7%, the rate at which unemployment stood when the President took ofce. The latter would restrict Congresss pernicious practice of delegating its authority to unelected, unaccountable executive branch bureaucrats from assuming the power of legislators. Regardless of how competent these public servants might be, individuals who are neither elected by nor accountable to voters cannot be entrusted with the sensitive task of

2 of 3

2/3/12 1:22 PM



making major rules and regulations carrying the force of federal lawat least not without Congress's explicit approval. (3) Encourage domestic energy production. The President should reverse his assault on the productive sector of our domestic energy industry and remove excessive barriers to increased energy production. America has vast quantities of untapped oil and gas resources primarily because the regulations surrounding their development require an unnecessarily prolonged and restrictive federal regulatory approval process. Congress should act on legislation such as S. 706, the Domestic Jobs, Domestic Energy, and Decit Reduction Act, to encourage on- and off-shore energy exploration.

Enacting another stimulus package would be the wrong approach to promoting job growth. We need bold, transformative proposals to get Americans working again. By focusing on getting government out of the way of those who actually create jobs, Congress may pursue a more promising and prosperous agenda than what the President outlined in his speech. Click here to read article as originally published in Roll Call

Permalink: http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2011/9/a-progrowth-jobs-agenda

3 of 3

2/3/12 1:22 PM

Obama's unserious plans are losing the future - Op-Eds - Press O...

http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ID=8e9980...

Mike Lee, United States Senator for Utah Op-EdsSep 27 2011

Obama's unserious plans are losing the futureIn consecutive weeks, President Obama has presented two painfully unserious and economically misguided proposals. The rst, his $450 billion "American Jobs Act," is another stimulus proposal, based on the ill-conceived notion that more government spending is the answer to what ails the economy. The second is the president's plan to raise taxes by $1.5 trillion on American job creators. Both plans are a far cry from "winning the future," as the president claims on the campaign trail. Like the president's last stimulus, which cost nearly $1 trillion and failed to turn the economy around, Stimulus 2.0 assumes that massive government spending on feel-good projects (with the administration picking the economic winners and losers) will result in job creation and jolt the economy out of its doldrums. This assumption is already a proven loser. Stimulus 1.0 ended in bad investments, massive corporate welfare, wasteful spending and more debt. What was supposed to keep unemployment below 8 percent, create millions of new jobs and hasten the economic recovery instead stands as a textbook example of the failed liberal notion that we can spend our way out of an economic hole. The most egregious failure of the rst stimulus is the now-infamous case of Solyndra, a California solar energy company, which received a $535 million stimulus loan guarantee from the Department of Energy. At the time, Obama said such investments were "leading the way toward a brighter, more prosperous future." Vice President Biden said, "We are not only creating jobs today, but laying the foundation for long-term growth in the 21st century economy." Solyndra has now led for bankruptcy and more than 1,000 jobs have been lost, sadly emphasizing the disastrous consequences of economic meddling

1 of 2

2/3/12 1:22 PM

Obama's unserious plans are losing the future - Op-Eds - Press O...

http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/op-eds?ID=8e9980...

by the federal government. President Obama then followed up his poor jobs plan with an equally unserious and overtly political decit reduction proposal. It relies heavily on enormous tax increases at a time when the economy can least afford them. Worse, Obama all but ignores entitlement spending, the greatest driver of our decit. His plans makes no mention of Social Security -- which can be made solvent for the next 75 years with just a few relatively easy adjustments -and would reduce Medicare and Medicaid spending by just 3 percent over the next decade. The president's tax plan will allow entitlements to balloon out of control, threatening not only the solvency of those programs, but our entire economy. Obama's focus on small-ticket spending items, like ending subsidies for corporate jet owners, reveals he is much more concerned about election-year talking points than positive reforms to create jobs and make the economy grow. Rather than waste our time debating these plans, or engaging in political gamesmanship over the decit, Congress should now focus on how to get the federal behemoth out of the way so that American companies and workers can thrive. We should push for enforceable spending restrictions (like the Cut, Cap and Balance Act and the Balanced Budget Amendment) that would signicantly reduce our debt service costs and make it easier to nance our current obligations. We should put a moratorium on new federal regulations, which are strangling economic growth and job creation. And we should encourage domestic energy production, reducing our dependence on foreign oil and reversing this administration's assault on our domestic energy industry. Two years after the passage of the rst failed stimulus, we have little to show for it other than an increase in our federal debt. Yet this administration appears to have learned anything useful about how the economy works. Congress should reject Obama's new attempt to tax and spend our way out of an economic hole, and instead get to work paring away the taxes and regulations that stand in the way of job creation. >>Read original article in the Washington Examiner Permalink: http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2011/9/obamas-unserious-plans-are-losing-the-future

2 of 2

2/3/12 1:22 PM

Senators Lee and Kyl Release Balanced Budget Amendment - P...

http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=...

Mike Lee, United States Senator for Utah Press ReleasesJan 27 2011

Senators Lee and Kyl Release Balanced Budget AmendmentWASHINGTON, DCSenator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) today introduced a Balanced Budget Amendment to the United States Constitution. The amendment includes three pillars: (1) requiring a balanced budget for each scal year, (2) limiting federal spending to no more than 18 percent of GDP, and (3) requiring a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress in order to increase taxes, raise the debt ceiling, or run a specic decit in a particular year. Senator Kyl stated, We cant wait any longer to ensure Congress will rein in wasteful Washington spending. This balanced budget and spending limit amendment will do just that. The federal government is too big and too expensive and the temptation for Congress to continue to spend billions and even trillions of dollars it does not have is simply too high. Again and again, even well-intentioned efforts to restrain decit spending through the normal budget process have failed, said Senator Lee. A balanced budget amendment is the only certain method to ensure that the federal government consistently lives within its means. This past Novembers election made clear that the American people will no longer tolerate reckless government spending and ever-expanding federal debt. The amendment that Senator Kyl and I have introduced is the essential rst step in putting the nations scal house in order. In addition to Senator Lee and Senator Kyl, the number two Senate Republican leader, the amendment has received broad support from conservative leaders including Senators Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, David Vitter, Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio and John Thune as original co-sponsors as well as endorsements from conservative organizations like the Club for

1 of 2

2/3/12 12:19 PM

Senators Lee and Kyl Release Balanced Budget Amendment - P...


Growth, Americans for Tax Reform, FreedomWorks, and Americans for a Balanced Budget Amendment.

Permalink: http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2011/1/senatorslee-and-kyl-release-balanced-budget-amendment

2 of 2

2/3/12 12:19 PM

Lee: Don't Hit Taxpayers, Show Fiscal Restraint - Press Releases...


Mike Lee, United States Senator for Utah Press ReleasesFeb 22 2011

Lee: Don't Hit Taxpayers, Show Fiscal RestraintWASHINGTON Today, Senator Mike Lee of Utah released the following statement ahead of next weeks budget debate and amid accusations of a potential government shutdown: The question remains whether Senate Democrats will follow President Obama in penalizing the American people with massive tax increases, or whether they will instead take responsibility for years of excess and make sensible spending reductions in the current budget. Frankly, American taxpayers are not to blame for our massive decit and we should not look to balance our budget on their backs. Americans are overtaxed as it is. The charge lies with Congress to show some scal restraint. Further, the threat from Democrats to shut down the government in order to protect excessive spending is utterly disappointing. That threat is unnecessary, irresponsible, and unwarranted. Republicans have suggested closing a mere fraction of our $1.5 trillion decit, and this suggestion deserves serious consideration without resorting to talk of panic. This is another unfortunate reminder of why we need a procedural restraint, such as the Lee-Kyl proposal for a Balanced Budget Amendment, so we can avoid the kind of politics that could endanger our prosperity.

Permalink: http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2011/2/lee-don-t-hittaxpayers-show-s

senator lee's 2011 annual report to the state

Documents