the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: mr. president, i stand today to explain my reasons for voting against the debt limit increase that we will be voting on in just about a half an hour from now. this is a crisis that america faces. it's an ongoing crisis that will neither be created nor eliminated with today's vote. this is a crisis that has been building gradually over the course of years. decades, in fact. it's a crisis that we have certainly known about ever since this congress was sworn in in january of this year. this is a crisis that threatens potentially every federal program from defense to entitlements, because as we continue to borrow more money as a nation, adding to the already

almost $15 trillion that we have accumulated in national debt, roughly $50,000 for every man, woman and child in america, roughly every $ -- $150,000 for every taxpayer in america. as we continue to add to that enormous debt, we get closer and closer to the unknown but nonetheless existing point at which we will no longer be able to borrow, at least not at interest rates that will make this kind of borrowing sustainable. if interest rates were to go up even to their historically average levels, within just a few years, we could be spending something closer to a trillion dollars every single year just to pay the interest on our national debt. we could be paying more than we pay on social security in an entire year, more than medicare and medicaid combined, more than national defense in an entire year. what happens when we get to that point? where does that money come from? the reality is that every

federal program from defense to entitlements could see its coffers raided in an unfortunate draconian display of fiscal irresponsibility if we continue to punt this problem and not to address it. the legislation at issue today addresses this problem by perpetuating it. i am pleased, of course, that this legislation does certain things and has invigorated a new conversation in the sorts of strategies that need to be in place if we're ever going to address this problem on a long-term basis. seven or eight months ago, there were still people in this town in washington, d.c., who were saying things along the lines of we need another stimulus package or we need more federal spending of one sort or another. they are no longer saying that. now the discussion focuses not on whether to cut but how much. there is, of course, renewed discussion about the need for a

balanced budget amendment, but talk is different than outcomes. what we need are outcomes. what we need is a fundamental change to the way we spend money in washington. what we need is to restrict congress' authority granted by clause 2 of article 1 section 8 of the constitution to incur debt in the name of the united states. that power needs to be restricted. the only way we can restrict that on a permanent basis, one that will bind not only this congress but future congresses that come after us is through an amendment to the constitution. this legislation raises the debt limit by about $2.5 trillion. this is a record-breaking sum. not too many years ago when i was in high school, this was roughly equivalent to our entire national debt. now through one piece of legislation, we're increasing, expanding our already huge national debt by roughly that

same sum. and it doesn't contain any permanent binding structural spending reform mechanism of the sort that will be necessary to make sure that we get out of this problem, to make sure that we end the problem that we've created through congress' reckless pattern of perpetual deficit spending. that's why i have insisted since before i was even sworn into office that before we raise the debt limit, we need to pass a balanced budget amendment and submit it to the states for ratification. nearly every state balances its budget each and every year. it's not news when a state does this. i look forward to the time when it will no longer be news when congress does the same. now, there are significant cuts discussed in this legislation and proposed, but i want to be clear on one thing. although these cuts are large on a long-term basis, on a short-term basis, they are less so. on a short-term basis, within the next year, this proposes to cut about $7 billion, out of the

fiscal year 2012 discretionary spending budget. some dispute this number and suggest as some of my colleagues have already that in fact the fiscal year 2012 budget will spend $23 billion more, others concede the point and say okay, let's assume for purposes of this discussion that it does, in fact, cut $7 billion from what otherwise would be new deficit spending. $7 billion is roughly equivalent to the amount of debt that we've added to our total debt portfolio just in the last 30 hours or so, roughly the period of time that has elapsed since this legislation was announced late sunday night until this very moment. because we're borrowing about $4 billion of new debt every single day.

stated differently, this amounts to less than .2% of a cut. i do believe that we have made progress and i commend our leadership for working so hard to focus the discussion on the need for cuts. we have, unfortunately, had democratic leadership in this body that has been bent on delaying the announcement of any deal as long as possible and preventing legislation like the cut, cap and balance act from coming to the floor where it could have been stowdged an open debate, discussion, and amendment process as well it should have been. i regret the fact that it didn't come to that. the fact that that legislation which could have solved this problem, could have and would have put us on a path towards fiscal responsibility towards ending this problem once and for all was not even allowed its day, its day this the u.s. senate could be debated and

discussed on the merits. at the end of the day, we have to come to terms with the fact that the course we're on from a fiscal standpoint is utterly unsustainable. adding more debt to our already bursting portfolio of debt is only going to contribute to this problem unless, of course, we move forward and adopt a balanced budget amendment. i believe the time to do that is right now. the american people overwhelmingly support this. to the tune of about 75%. to my great astonishment, some of my colleagues and even the president of the united states have suggested that this is somehow a radical idea, an idea that is so radical as to be absurd and not worth considering a balanced budget amendment, even though three out of every four americans believes we need a balanced budget amendment. i want to close by referring to a quote by a man named william morris who in the late 1800's

gave us the following quote. ""one man with a dangerous idea is in danger of being a madman. two men can be foolish but hardly mad. 10 men sharing an idea begin to action. 100 draw attention as fanatics. 1,000 in society begins to tremble. 100,000 and there is war abroad. and the cause has victories tangible and real. and why only 100,000? why not 100 million and peace upon the earth? you and i who agree together, it is we who have to answer that question." it's not just one or two of us who have this idea in our head that we need to restrict congress' borrowing power because that power has been so severely abused over such a long period of time. it's three out of every four americans, and i urge each of my colleagues in the senate and each of our counterparts in the

house of representatives to join the american people in at least the same proportion in supporting the idea that never again should we raise the debt limit without a balanced budget amendment in place. this is a permanent, long-term problem. it requires a permanent solution. the only permanent solution is that which involves an amendment to the constitution. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: i will support this legislation but with very serious reservations. i start with the premise this debt limit extension is not the one piece of legislation that will change everything wrong in washington. it is at best a reversal of previous tax-and-spend policy with some movement down the road to fiscal responsibility. the bill sets us on a course

that if we adhere to it, will eventually enable us to balance our budget. draw down our debt, put entitlement programs on a sustainable path, and create the conditions for strong economic growth. that it could have been better is absolutely true, as a substantive matter. but politically, the white house and the tax-and-spend democrats in congress would not agree to more. they control this chamber, and the executive branch of government. a second premise of republican leadership was that the united states government must pay its bills, not just to investors in u.s. bonds but to fulfill commitments to the american people. from social security to national defense, we have obligations that republicans insist must be met. so default was not an option. that meant agreeing to terms for debt extension that satisfied neither party.

a third premise for republicans was that we must focus on job creation and restoring a healthy economy. that meant not only con strange washington's spending -- constraining washington's spending through greater accountability but preventing job-killing tax hikes and in this we succeeded. and contrary to some public talk there is nothing in this legislation that what would cause future tax increases. if there were, i wouldn't support this legislation. so with this legislation we've prevented tax increases demanded by the president, cut spending over the next 10 years, and created a mechanism to address additional savings especially in programs like medicare, medicaid, and social security. all of which will eventually default on their commitments without reform. and we averted a credit crisis for the united states government. here's why i have such serious

reservations about the legislation. in an effort to extract a pound of flesh from republicans, the white house, frustrated that it couldn't raise taxes, insisted on massive cuts in defense spending, some $350 billion by white house reckoning over the next 10 years. potentially, $18 billion less than the president's own budget just for next year. moreover, the white house insisted that defense suffer an additional $492 billion in cuts over the same period if the select committee set up by this bill fails to produce or congress refuses to adopt recommendations on how to cut overall government spending to meet the goals of the bill. mind you, these cuts in defense were not the result of careful planning and analysis.

they were just arbitrary percentages thrown out in negotiations, totally unconnected to actual defense requirements. worse, the cuts that would be triggered if the committee recommendations failed were intentionally designed to be so large, so unimaginable, so irresponsible that congress would be inseptemberred to -- incented to approve the committee recommendses. the phrase "armageddon" was used to characterize this scheme. can you imagine anything more irresponsible than for the commander in chief of the military to promote, not just promote but insist on the knowing destruction of the u.s. military as a means to threaten congress? the theory was the consequences of inaction by congress must be so severe that no responsible senator or representative could dare allow the result, that we

would be forced to accept the select committee's recommendations on pain of seeing the u.s. military decimated. this should never have been agreed to by members of congress. but most of all, should never have been promoted by the president. to me, it comes close to violating our oath of office and the president's responsibilities as commander in chief. but it is done. my vote will not change it. the best way for me to avoid this armageddon is to stay in the fight and if necessary, urge my colleagues to disregard this provision. 60 senators would have to agree. but i cannot imagine senators evened the president when faced with the actual versus the hypothetical choice of knowingly to destroy the military of the united states to knowingly allow it to happen when we would be

able to prevent it. as reckless as this president is to congressional testimony plate much less contemplate our military, i cannot imagine the american people would countenance such action. as i evaluate the work of the committee, if anyone says to me well, remember the trigger is armageddon for the u.s. military, my response will be let's take that debate to the american people and let them decide. the thought that this trigger would force senators to make unwise concessions underestimates the american people's commitments to their own security. the white house has miscalculated. it is so draconian that it will not work, even this president could not implement it. so, because we cannot default on our commitments, because we have to start somewhere on our new journey towards fiscal sanity and this is a good start, because we have to focus on job creation, not more taxes

that will kill job creation, we should adopt this legislation. but because of its irresponsible and dangerous, even cavalier treatment of national defense, we will need to work very hard to restore spending necessary for our national security and commit to reject the threat of arm ged don inserted into this -- armageddon inserted into this bill by the white house. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.