No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 39 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. All time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 39.

Today's debate is about one very simple but profoundly important goal, Mr. Speaker, and that is restoring our vibrant economy by reducing the crippling weight of the growing debt caused by our Federal Government.

In the coming months, we face a string of deadlines that will force Congress and the administration to address the fundamental challenge of our trillion-dollar deficit and its mounting effect on our economy and jobs in America. We've already exceeded $16 trillion in debt, and Republicans find this debt level absolutely unacceptable and that is why we are here today. By contrast, President Obama seems to be perfectly comfortable with the idea of reaching $23 trillion, which is where we'll be at the end of his second term if we continue his policies in that direction.

While $16 trillion in debt is stifling our economy, $23 trillion would crush it. It would crush the dreams and hopes and aspirations of our great Nation and the people who will certainly follow us, our children and our grandchildren. That's why, today, we're considering this rule and the underlying bill in order to reverse this course. Our great Speaker, John Boehner, and our majority leader, Eric Cantor, are pleased that this bill is on the floor today to discuss not just this important activity with our Members of Congress, but to let the American people know we are serious about what needs to be done to save this country from this crippling debt.

We will use the upcoming weeks and the looming deadlines before us as a means to enacting a more meaningful and lasting reform so that we can begin to grapple with this skyrocketing debt. At the same time, today's rule and the underlying bill will allow us to turn up pressure on the Senate to join the

House in offering real solutions. Together, these actions will help to reignite our engines to grow our economy and to restore discipline and accountability to our Federal budget.

The first of the looming deadlines we face is the debt ceiling limit. The underlying bill would temporarily suspend this limit so that we have the opportunity to craft comprehensive reforms without risking default on the debt that our Nation has incurred. Risking default would be counterproductive to our Republican agenda of restoring economic growth, getting our fiscal house in order, and ensuring that we do not burden future generations with intolerable debt.

We will not risk the full faith and credit of the United States, but neither will we compromise a long-term extension of this debt ceiling without slashing wasteful Federal spending, enacting meaningful entitlement reform, and ending the era of trillion-dollar deficits. By taking this temporary action, we are keeping the focus where it needs to be: resolving the coming debates on sequestration, the expiring continuing resolution, and the fiscal year 2014 budget through fiscal discipline and entitlement reform. Suspending the debt ceiling until May 19 provides the House and the Senate with much-needed time to pass a budget and then consider how best to deal with the sequester.

The underlying bill also takes action to ensure that the Senate becomes an active partner, which we want and need and the American people, I think, expect, in our efforts to reform Federal spending. For nearly 4 years, the Senate has failed to meet its most basic obligation: passing a budget. During this time, the Senate has collected its own paychecks despite being derelict in its most important duty.

In the private sector, there are consequences for failing to do one's job. This resolution will impose the same accountability on Members of Congress that private sector workers face. Oh, yes, and we're putting that same obligation on the House as we would want them to accept in the Senate. That is, if you don't get your work done, you don't get paid.

The power of the purse is the most fundamental duty the Constitution places upon Congress. For far too long, this power has not been wielded with the discipline and accountability necessary to do so responsibly and sustainably. There are a host of challenges that must be addressed, but the entire process begins with a joint budget resolution. As long as the Senate is unwilling or unable to do its job, our efforts in the House to deliver real solutions to the American people will continue to be impeded.

Some have questioned whether the action we are taking is constitutional. The 27th Amendment of the Constitution prohibits legislation that varies the salary of Members of the current Congress. This provision was intended to prevent Members of the House and the Senate from giving themselves a pay raise without first standing before the voters.

This bill upholds both the letter and the spirit of the 27th Amendment. It would not change a Member's rate of compensation in any way; they just don't get to collect it until they do their jobs. And until they get their work done, we simply cannot adopt a permanent extension to that debt ceiling.

This body will work to ensure that the Senate performs the most basic of tasks to pass a budget, and we'll do our job also. We will continue to work for meaningful entitlement and spending reforms to take us beyond our current cycle of crisis and deadlines in favor of long-term solutions. As we do all of this in order to invigorate our economy and put our Nation back to prosperity for ourselves and for future generations, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record an article from The Washington Post dated January 22, 2013.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to now discuss, if I can, this Washington Post article which is out today, which says the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid praised House leaders for moving ahead with a bill that would give the government borrowing authority into the future.

He further said that he not only is very glad that we're going to send a clean debt ceiling bill, but that he felt like it would be good for the Senate to be able to take up this action.

Well, Mr. Speaker, what we're trying to do is to empower those things that we know this institution, the House and the Senate--where we work closer together, where we both do our work.

And yesterday, the gentleman representing the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Ryan, who's also Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, in testimony said that he intended to make sure that he would produce a bill exactly supporting what we are trying to do here today, and would bring that to the floor, and would be faithful in doing that.

Look, maybe people are upset that we're putting their pay at risk. Maybe people are upset because it wasn't their idea. But the bottom line is that Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, the Rules Committee, yesterday said we think it's a good bill, and we were joined by Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader.

When the Senate Majority Leader can agree with Republicans about a great direction to go that will empower the Senate and join with them in trying to make sure that we get our job done, I think that's a rare day. I think that's a good day when we can work together, when we can bring legislation that the Senate openly welcomes and, might I add, the President of the United States, President Obama, would sign this legislation. And he said so in the Statement of Administration Policy.

I reserve the balance of my time.

[From the Washington Post, Jan. 22, 2013]

Reid Say's He's Pleased With House GOP's `Clean Debt Ceiling Bill'

(By Rosalind S. Helderman)

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) praised House

leaders Tuesday for moving ahead with a bill that would give

the government borrowing authority into May, without

demanding deep spending cuts in return.

He said Democrats will discuss in coming days how to deal

with a House provision, attached to the bill, that would

require the Senate to adopt a budget for the first time in

four years or see their pay docked. He said he would be

meeting with the Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty

Murray (D-Wash.) to discuss the Republicans' ``no budget, no

pay provision.''

``I'm very glad that they're going to send us a clean debt

ceiling bill,'' Reid told reporters. ``The other stuff on it,

we'll approach that when we need to. But I'm glad we're not

facing crisis here in the matter of a few days.''

The government hit the $16.4 trillion debt ceiling in

December. The Treasury Department has been using

extraordinary measures to extend the limit but has said that

if Congress doesn't act to raise the limit by the end of

February, the United States will be unable to meet its

spending obligations and will default.

Republicans had been threatening to refuse to raise the

limit unless Democrats offered deep entitlement cuts in

return. They announced a new strategy Monday: Suspend the

debt ceiling until May 19, while pressuring the Senate to

adopt a budget. The House will vote on the temporary lifting

of the debt ceiling on Wednesday.

Reid stopped short of saying the Senate would adopt the

measure without changes if it passes the House on Wednesday.

But by characterizing the House bill as a ``clean'' increase

in the nation's borrowing limit--a longtime demand of the

White House and Democrats--he suggested its passage in the

Senate will not be difficult.

``I'm happy they sent us a debt ceiling not tied to

entitlement cuts and dollar-for-dollar [cuts],'' Reid said.

``That's a big step in the right direction. The other stuff

on it, Sen. Murray is going to be the spokesperson on that

for the next 24 hours or so. We'll see how she wants to

proceed.''

The result of the House action, he said, was to buy time:

``We have many months to work through this,'' he said.

Reid's review was far more positive than that of House

Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who blasted the GOP

measure as a diversion tactic to reporters Tuesday. If House

Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has support from fellow

Republicans, however, he can pass the bill Wednesday without

the votes of House Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman, the ranking member of the committee, who was very faithful and sat through not only the hearing yesterday, but offered her feedback to our speakers who came to the Rules Committee representing the House Administration Committee and representing the Ways and Means Committee. I thought that her questions and her tone were very appropriate.

I think that yesterday the two Republican lead Representatives--the gentlewoman from Michigan, Candice Miller, representing the House Administration Committee; and the gentleman from the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Ryan--adequately not only spoke about, Mr. Speaker, a five-page bill--five pages that we could not only understand, but offer the idea, regardless of who came up with the idea, that represents what I hope will be and believe will be more than 218 votes and I think will be bipartisan. These ideas don't just belong to somebody and we can't share them--they belong to the American people--about a way to move forward, avoiding conflict, working together, coming up with ideas that you can express with great confidence that we believe will work.

Yesterday, during the hearing, we also had some thoughtful conversation.

I'd like to yield 5 minutes to the Rules Committee designee to Chairman Ryan and the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. Speaker, as always, this floor is open to people who have ideas. I'd like to say to the American people and to my colleagues that are listening that the Republican leadership has decided to bring this bill to the floor today. We have no clue exactly what date the United States actually needs to make sure that we pass this bill to avoid not paying our bills. The Secretary of the Treasury is in active notification with our leadership and the leadership of the Senate and perhaps all Members because of his openness to speak about this in the press.

We don't know when that day is, and because we don't know when that day is, that's a good reason to begin working on ideas to see whether we can even pass this bill. I think we're going to. I think it's going to be a bipartisan bill. I don't think everybody necessarily has the same concerns that the gentleman from California spoke of, but what we're trying to do is work together. Conservative Republicans in our party do support this bill. I support this bill as a conservative Republican. Our Speaker, as a conservative Republican, supports this bill.

What it's about is avoiding the problems of chaos, avoiding the problems of doing things at the last minute, avoiding the problems of not addressing the issue, and avoiding the problems where the marketplace loses confidence in what we're doing.

Chairman Paul Ryan, chairman of our Budget Committee, a bright young leader for our country, forthrightly brought this idea to our conference and has sold it. It's the right thing to do. We are trying to do here today the right thing, talking with the American people, letting people see that we're moving forward to avoid conflict and avoid problems.

So it was accomplished with this 5-page bill, a 5-page bill which we will then have two committee chairmen, Paul Ryan representing the Ways and Means committee, perhaps Dave Camp, the chairman of the committee, and Candice Miller of House Administration, work through meticulous, thoughtful ideas that really are not difficult to get because it's a 5- page bill.

We think we're doing the right thing, we think we've got the votes, and we think it's going to provide this country and the Senate and this administration, us all working together, the right thing. So if you want to oppose it, I get that. I can understand the positions held. But passing the bill will be a positive thing. It will offer working- together relationships with the Senate. It is supported and not opposed by the President, and I think that gives us an opportunity to put a good foot forward in this new Congress rather than one where we're fighting, disagreeing, and can't get our act together.

The American people demand that we get things done. The American people are asking, hey, when possible, can you guys work together? Yes, we can. Today is the day where we can say, Mr. Speaker, people from Nebraska, people from Texas, people from Ohio, people from all over this country, can you work together? We're trying to find a way, and I'm proud of that. And with great respect to anybody who would disagree with that, we're going to stand behind our product today with a money- back guarantee--a money-back guarantee: if we don't get our job done, we're not going to take the pay.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentlewoman from Houston, Texas, is absolutely correct. We do need long-term growth of our economy. We need jobs. We need job creation. We need to be able to reduce the debt of this country.

The President is well aware, we're well aware here in Congress that each

of the years that the President has been our President he increased spending. He wants a massive tax increase, and we have a deficit. We have a deficit of $1.3 trillion each of these years.

We're trying to work together. We're trying to, as the President said as he addressed a luncheon just an hour after he was sworn in, that he wants to learn from some of the things that he's done and he wants to do better. Some of doing that better is a chance to perhaps reassess: Did I do the right thing the first time? Did I do the right thing when I continue to raise taxes and demand that we do that?

Higher taxes diminish jobs and opportunity and growth in this country, and that's why we are trying to suggest openly, Mr. President, let's grow some jobs. Let's do the things I think that are more in line with what President George W. Bush did, who is referred to as No. 43 in Dallas, Texas. No. 43 had 60 straight months of economic growth, with the underpinning of reducing taxes so that Americans would go and work harder and see the incentive for creating jobs and would want to buy into the philosophy that the harder that we work, our country benefits. The underpinnings of Social Security, of Medicare, of Medicaid, systems that are very important to our country; reducing the number of people who have to receive government assistance is what happens when you have job growth; protecting the long-term interests of this country and growing the American Dream.

The gentlewoman from Houston is absolutely correct. And the methodology towards getting there is not higher taxes, and it is not higher spending. It is giving more freedom and opportunity. It is having a reduced size of government, not a bigger government. It is giving people an opportunity to have fewer rules and regulations, not more rules and regulations.

So the process that the Republican Party believes in deeply is the rights of individuals, freedom and opportunity, and reducing the size of government, which gives more people opportunities to empower their freedom and opportunity for their American Dream.

It's part of what we're doing here today. I think we believe and I think it works. Look at Texas and you will see where we have job growth, job creation, a healthier economy than other places in the country, and an opportunity to say we want more of it for all of America.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, as I have no additional speakers.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I appreciate my colleagues--the gentleman, Mr. McGovern; the ranking member of the committee, Ms. Slaughter; and those Democrat Members who came down to express themselves. I also appreciate the Republicans who came down to talk about this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, what we're doing is debating a bill, H.R. 325, that ensures that the obligations of the United States are taken care of. We're not trying to stand in the way. Even the United States Senate majority leader said, Great job, House. Thank you very much. We can work with this bill. We can work with you.

Members of my party have said we think this is a responsible way to begin the process to avoid having to make difficult decisions at the very end. We've laid out a process. Yesterday, the gentleman from Wisconsin, our young leader, Paul Ryan, who is the chairman of the House Budget Committee, was asked in testimony, Will you produce your end of the bargain that is in here? Will you take care of your part with the knowledge that we're counting on that?

The Senate has said, as to their part of the bargain, whether they pass this bill or not, they can step up to the responsibility. Those leaders have said, Yes, we think we can.

It's not perfect. By golly, I'm not sure what ``perfect'' is anymore because ``perfect'' may not get passed in this House, but the fair and proper way to handle things is so the American people have confidence in what we're doing, so the markets have confidence in what we're doing, and so the budget is handled. All of these things are placed in a systematic order so that our Members, the Members of this body, can go home and communicate with people as to here is what we think is going to happen next.

Avoiding problems is what Speaker Boehner and our great majority leader, Eric Cantor, are trying to do. They are bringing legislation to this floor that adequately begins the process before we get in trouble. It's a 5-page bill. It's ordered up exactly as the doctor would have wanted--in English, where you can understand it, where it doesn't take a legal degree or for you to have to be in the House for 30 years to figure out what we're trying to say.

What we're trying to say is right here, and that is for the House and the Senate to work together. We do a budget. We lay out to the American people what we're trying to do. We work with the President, and we tell this administration and the government what we're doing. The American people can have confidence in this.

I support this. In fact, as chairman of the Rules Committee, I am asking for our Members and all Members of this body to please see this as a responsible way to deal with the problems that are immediately in front of us but before it becomes a crisis, before it becomes something that we cannot deal with as effectively, and bringing the American people along.

I also want to thank the President of the United States, President Obama, because President Obama said he could live with this.

I want to congratulate Senator Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader. Yes, I'll say that here on the floor because he says it's the right thing to

do, and thank you for passing us a clean bill that will give them the authority and the responsibility to do what they really want to do--not playing hardball, not throwing rocks. As a matter of fact, Senator Harry Reid said, A clean bill--a good thing. Now it's up to them. It's up to them to take up their activities that are for us, and it's up to this House of Representatives.

So, as we finish this, Paul Ryan, the young leader of the Ways and Means Committee, Dave Camp, and others will be here debating these ideas. Immediately after that, you will see that Candice Miller, the House Administration chairwoman, will come and talk with this House and the American people about the responsibility that she has to ensure that what we do is correct and proper. Then this body will have a chance to vote ``yes'' or ``no,'' and that will be an authority and a responsibility once again for Paul Ryan, as the chairman of our Budget Committee, and for those members of the committee, Republicans and Democrats, to do their work, get it done and to produce a bill. We will then comply, but if we don't: no work, no pay. That's something the American people can understand. It's simple. It goes back to 1607: no work, no food.

Members of Congress need to understand we've got to get our job done, so I'm proud of what we're doing here today. I can stand behind this product and proudly say that I think this will pass the smell test of the American people and that it's something they can understand and something they will look forward to. Watch us as we do our job.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I have two amendments at the desk and I ask for their immediate consideration, en bloc.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer first a commonsense amendment to begin to address our Nation's unprecedented national debt. It is hurting jobs in our economy today and is placing an immoral burden on our kids and our grandkids. This is called the Dollar For Dollar Deficit Reduction Act. It ensures every time we raise the debt limit we cut spending by the same amount over a 10-year period.

We all know the growth of the national debt is not sustainable. In the past 4 years our national debt has risen by $6 trillion and is projected to add another $9 trillion over the next decade. These numbers are huge, too big to comprehend. So let's put it this way: If we don't do something, we are really in trouble. Between the end of 2008 and 2022--so 9 years from now--the average household share of the national debt will have risen from $90,000 a household to $160,000 a household. That is how big the debt will get. Today, it is about $130,000 per household.

We know we need to do something. Democrats and Republicans alike talk about it a lot. The debt limit is an opportunity to have this debate. Future

decades will bring even more debt, with the Congressional Budget Office--a nonpartisan group here in Congress--now projecting the debt will top 200 percent of our economy in 25 years. Again, this is unprecedented. It is about 100 percent of our economy right now.

And, by the way, the projection that the debt will be 200 percent of our economy in 25 years is a rosy scenario that assumes we will have peace, prosperity, and relatively low interest rates. I think we can all agree that saddling our children and grandchildren with this enormous debt is not just bad economics, it is immoral.

In reining in the debt, the Congressional Budget Office makes clear that spending is driving future deficits. When we look at the future deficits, it is spending that is creating a major problem. Again, according to the Congressional Budget Office, revenues will surpass their historic average, which is about 18 percent of our economy, as soon as the economy begins to recover. Spending, which has been historically 20 percent of our economy, has already jumped to over 23 percent of our economy and is projected to rise to 30, 40, 50 percent of GDP over the next several decades. So clearly we have a spending problem.

The amendment I offer today will ensure that debt limit increases are matched with equal cuts in Federal program spending over the next 10 years--so for a decade. There are no gimmicks, no timing shifts, but these will be real cuts in the growth of Federal spending.

This chart shows what the results of this would be for the country. The top lines are spending. This is the blue line. The bottom line, the red line, is revenue. So here we are today, 2013. Again, the spending as a percent of our economy is just over 23 percent. If we continue to go the way we are going, what will happen, based on these relatively rosy scenarios about our future, is we will see a dip in the spending as a result of our economy and then it goes up and quickly begins to climb further from that over the coming decades. Revenues, again under the current scenario, continue to grow to the point they go above the historic 18 percent. Here it indicates that by 2022 they would be at 19.1 percent. Spending, under the proposal we have before us today-- this amendment, the dollar for dollar amendment--goes to 19.6 percent, so just about at the 20-percent historic average.

This of course means we are very close to balance. And it means, again, there is a reasonable result to this, which ends up with spending being very close to the historic average, revenue coming above its historic average, and again we are back on track toward fiscal discipline and toward fiscal sanity. That means we can have a stronger economy--the kind of robust economy we all hope for--bringing back the jobs and not leaving to our kids and grandkids such an enormous debt and deficit.

We would still have a deficit here, a small one, and this would be positioning the deficit to get to balance because it would be such a relatively small deficit compared to what we have had in the past. If enacted, the result will be about $3 trillion in savings over the next decade. This is roughly consistent with what other groups have talked about, including the Simpson-Bowles Commission and others. Given the $44 trillion in spending projected over the next decade, this $3 trillion in savings should not be too much to ask. In fact, simply limiting spending growth to about 3 percent per year would accomplish this same result.

So that is essentially what is being required here when you say there will be a dollar-for-dollar reduction in spending over 10 years every time you raise the debt limit by $1. The result is that, again, by 2022 the deficit will fall to less than 1 percent of GDP--very close to balance. The debt as a percentage of the economy would actually be declining as well, and it actually declines to the point where, according to the Simpson-Bowles Commission and others, it would be 60- some percent of the economy, which many view as having stabilized our debt. Again, we have a lot of work to do even at that point, but at least it stabilizes it. It actually declines by about 19 points as a percentage of the economy from its peak in terms of our debt. Future generations would be spared this crushing debt and the economic stagnation we otherwise will face if Washington does nothing.

Some may contend that the debt limit is the wrong place to have this spending debate. I have heard this a lot as I have been promoting this idea. I have to respectfully disagree. The debt limit is about all that has worked. The debt limit is not just about paying past bills, it also presents an opportunity to talk about the future--what should our bills be in the future? It is not about, as the President often says, paying our past bills. Those should be paid. It is about what bills we are going to rack up going forward. We have to make a change. If we don't, the country is headed toward bankruptcy.

Furthermore, nearly every single deficit reduction bill over the past 28 years has been linked to the debt limit. In fact, I would say every single one of the significant deficit reduction packages in the last few decades has been linked to the debt limit. It is all that has worked around here.

In 1985--there are some Members in the Senate today who were here then, and they will tell you that the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings bill, which came out of the Senate, helped reduce the deficit. It was attached to what? A debt limit bill. Since that time, the three largest deficit reduction packages in the 1990s--1990, 1993, and 1997, including the 1997 Balanced Budget Act--were all linked to what? A debt limit discussion. So it is really all that has worked.

The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, which a lot of Democrats were very supportive of, was in 2010. That came out of a debt limit discussion.

Finally, of course, the debt limit was the impetus for the Budget Control Act just 2 years ago, when this Congress made a commitment to save $2.1 trillion over the decade. So just 2 years ago, we agreed to this dollar-for-dollar provision, and it was done as part of the debt limit.

As we discuss the dollar-for-dollar amendment pending today, we have to remember that this is really where the idea came from. Dollar-for- dollar came out of the Budget Control Act. So for folks who attempt to label this idea as untenable, too aggressive, or without precedent, remember that the dollar-for-dollar legislation passed only 2 years ago with only 95 Democratic votes in the House and 45 of the 51 Democrats here in the Senate voting yes. So the idea certainly has precedent, and given the results we talked about earlier, it is a commonsense way to address the debt limit debate today and in the future if this body is going to be serious about getting Washington's spending and debt under control.

By the way, it wouldn't apply to this first short-term debt limit extension. This would apply to the debt limit extension that we all hope will be a longer term agreement with Republicans and Democrats, including, as the chair and the ranking member of the Finance Committee just talked about, tax reform and entitlement reform--working together to solve these problems. This would provide the impetus to do that.

So whether that is in 3 months or, as some are suggesting, 6 months from now, given the fact that Treasury will be able to use some authorities to help extend that debt limit, that is when this would apply. It would not apply to this short-term debt limit, but it is putting the discipline in place now that we employed only 2 years ago to be able to get real savings for our country.

The debt limit is also an important tool for deficit reduction because it is all we have had. And when you think about it, we haven't had budgets. The only recent restraint came in the context of the debt limit and dollar-for-dollar reductions in the Budget Control Act. This is partly because the Senate has not passed a budget, as we all know and we all have heard about, in over 3 years. I understand the majority is committed to passing a budget in the Senate this year. I commend them for that. I hope they will. But reconciling it with the House, of course, will be a challenge, and future years also remain uncertain. So in the absence of a budget, the fact remains that the debt limit has been the effective tool we have used.

By the way, the fact also remains that now nearly two-thirds of all

spending is not even subject to the budget. Why? Because it is on autopilot. It is not annually appropriated. It is the mandatory spending. So even if we have a budget, which I hope we do, still, the debt limit is the most likely way for us to get at the bigger picture since 62 percent of spending is on autopilot--or mandatory--and not subject to the annual appropriations process that would be part of the budget agreement. This is why the debt limit is likely to remain the most successful tool for deficit reduction.

Common sense tells us that while Washington pays its past bills, it also has to take steps to reduce its future bills. Based on one poll I saw, 72 percent of Americans agree that when you increase the debt limit, it should be matched by equal cuts, dollar-for-dollar--72 percent of Americans. It is common sense. We did it 2 years ago. It leads us to a result that seems reasonable.

Most people think we need to get spending under control. The revenues are going to go up based on the CBO projections here, and we get to virtually a balance over 10 years if we put this in place, with the permitting of about 3 percent growth in spending every year. So this is not an unreasonable result. It is a sensible solution. Congress did it a couple years ago.

I hope my colleagues will join me on a bipartisan basis to say that with regard to the longer term debt limit extension we are facing somewhere in the 3- to 6-month period, that we put in place this discipline and then allow the committees to do their work. We should go back to regular order. The Finance Committee chairman has made this point repeatedly, and so has the ranking member. Other members have. We need hearings. We need to have an open process. We don't want these last-minute bills that people haven't had a chance to read and staff hasn't had a chance to review.

This would put us in that position--knowing that we have this discipline in place, we can achieve this, and we must achieve this for the sake of our kids and grandkids. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I now would like to offer a second amendment. I have been asked to offer these two amendments together. The second amendment is another idea because it doesn't have to do with the debt limit per se, but it has to do with how we avoid government shutdowns. This is bipartisan legislation, and it is a bipartisan idea whose time I believe has come.

Every year since 1997 and in all but 2 years since 1985, Congress has reached the October 1 fiscal year-end without doing all the appropriations bills. Think about that. Every year since 1997, we have not been able to reach agreement on all the appropriations bills, and only twice since 1985 have we ended the fiscal year with having all the appropriations bills done.

What is the result? In some years there has been a relatively quick vote on what is called a continuing resolution to continue government spending in those areas where we haven't completed our work. In other years the result has been a real showdown, with the threat of government shutdown. And then in some years we have had an actual government shutdown. In fact, it has happened way too often, and the reason is that, again, we haven't been able to come together as Republicans and Democrats, the House and the Senate, working with the President, to put forward these appropriations bills in regular order, and so we face these shutdowns. And we actually have faced some last- minute budget bills, many of which are full of surprises because Members haven't had a chance to read them and staff has not had a chance to review them.

These shutdowns, by the way, when we have had them, have created real problems. Americans hoping to travel abroad find that their passport applications can't be processed. Disease surveillance ceases at the Centers for Disease Control. Recruitment of Border Patrol agents stops. Families planning to go on vacations to national parks find their destinations closed. It is not a good way to run a government, and I think we should avoid those shutdowns.

Some make the reasonable argument that these shutdowns are an acceptable price to pay if they lead to spending cuts. I understand that is an argument out there, but in fact, as I look at it, I think the opposite has occurred. The 1996 government shutdown that a lot of people talk about produced such a large backlash that it seems as if a lot of lawmakers decided to abandon spending restraint altogether. A proof point might be that after that 1996 shutdown, nondefense discretionary spending nearly doubled over the next decade. So it seems to me as though the case for spending restraint was harmed, not helped, by the 1996 government shutdown.

The last-minute budget bill that usually results from the threat of government shutdown tends to have a lot of surprises in it. It is a real problem because over the years Congress has found itself just hours away from a government shutdown, often forced to vote on these thousand-plus page bills--an omnibus spending bill that folks have not had a chance to read and our staffs haven't sufficiently reviewed. It is not the fault of our Appropriations committees, which do their best under tight deadlines. I think it is the fault of these artificial deadlines themselves.

With hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, we could all use more time to better understand what we are voting on. This bipartisan amendment would solve these problems.

For all regular programs or activities whose appropriations bills have not been approved--whether it is all the bills or whether it is only one bill--the End Government Shutdown Act would automatically continue the current level of spending, no significant disruption, no crisis for citizens, no furloughed employees, no rush to approve a last-minute budget deal that people haven't had a chance to look at.

Yet we don't want these continuing resolutions to take the pressure off lawmakers to complete their work, so after 120 days there would be a 1-percent reduction in spending. It would be across the board in a normal year. Because the new fiscal year is October 1, this would mean lawmakers would have until January 29--well after the holiday break--to complete their work on the appropriations bills.

And this year, should Washington fail to come to an agreement on the continuing resolution, spending would remain at whatever the current level of spending is for those first 120 days.

Under this amendment, after the 120-day period, spending levels on any remaining unfinished bills would continue to be reduced across the board 1 percent every 90 days. I doubt that would be necessary because I think the appropriators of the House and Senate would come together to solve the problems. But every 90 days, there would be an additional 1 percent reduction until the appropriations bills for the yearlong continuing resolution have been enacted.

These eventual small cuts are designed to keep both sides at the bargaining table. They aren't so small as to be irrelevant, but they are not so large as to gut any programs. Priorities of both Republicans and Democrats would be subject to the same across-the-board cuts, and both parties, therefore, would have an incentive to come to an agreement to fully fund the priority programs and reduce funding for lower priorities.

This bipartisan amendment may not be each lawmaker's idea of perfect. It is certainly not mine. I would rather get all the appropriations bills done, but that is not what is happening. But we should all agree that it improves upon the current situation where we bounce from crisis to crisis, worried about government shutdowns as well as the rushed bills we have to vote on to avoid shutdown. The American people want us to complete our work in a logical way, and this amendment helps us to do that.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense, bipartisan approach.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 8

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, the new chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say to my colleagues, both Democratic and Republican colleagues, that they ought to vote against this rule. The bill before us today was not the product of deliberation in either the Ways and Means Committee or the House Administration Committee. There were no hearings. It was brought before the Rules Committee last night, and not a single amendment was made in order. This is a closed rule.

So if my friend from Texas wants to usher in a new policy of openness in this Congress, we should have had this rule open so that Members could have an opportunity to express themselves and to have their viewpoints made known. But, again, it is a completely closed rule.

So this rule should be defeated. It should go back to the Rules Committee. We ought to come back with something that allows this Chamber to be able to do its deliberation.

And Mr. Speaker, we ought to be here today to raise the debt ceiling, not because we like the idea of raising the debt ceiling, but because that's the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do for our country and for our economy.

It is the right thing to do for the businesses of this country, so that they have some certainty that we will not default on our debts. And if they had that certainty, they would then invest in our economy and help create more jobs and help create more opportunity for people.

You know, one of the things I have heard from Republicans and Democrats who I've bumped into at all types of occasions, they may have differences on our tax policy, they may have differences on our economic policy, but the one thing that everybody seems to agree on is that Congress ought to provide certainty. And this is anything but certainty, because what we are doing today, thanks to the Republican leadership, is to bring a short-term extension of the debt ceiling to the floor, which means that they have decided, once again, to play partisan politics with the debt ceiling.

This is a bad idea. This is not the way a mature governing body ought to behave. We ought to do our job.

Next month the United States will hit the debt ceiling and, without action, the United States will default on its debts. Now, the last time the Republican leadership played this dangerous game of economic Russian roulette, they threatened the full faith and credit of the United States for the first time in our history. For some reason they seem hell-bent on doing it again.

We need to be clear about one thing. The debt limit is not about new spending, it's not about increasing the deficit. The debt limit is simply the way Congress pays for things that we have already bought, things like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, by the way, that my friends on the other side continue to insist that we don't pay for; it just goes on a credit card. Things like the Medicare prescription drug benefit that was not paid forward that my friends on the other side of the aisle championed, things that the Republicans have voted for over and over and over again.

Now, we can and we should have an open and thoughtful debate about our spending priorities and our deficit. That is what we're supposed to do. But playing games with the debt limit, threatening to default, should not be an option. But that's just what the bill before us does. It, once again, kicks the can down the road.

Now, instead of passing a clean, long-term debt ceiling bill, one that could ensure that America doesn't default on its debt and obligations, the Republicans have chosen to bring a bill up that would put us right back in the same place that we're in now in May, 3 months from now.

So what's next, Mr. Speaker? A 3-week extension of the debt ceiling? Three days? Three hours?

My Republican friends go on and on about how the business community needs and deserves certainty from Washington, but treating the full faith and credit of the United States like just another political talking point is no way to create certainty.

How ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the Republican Party, the party that took

a record surplus and turned it into a record deficit, the party that put two major wars on the Nation's credit card, the party that refused to pay for two rounds of tax cuts and a massive, expansive prescription drug benefit, now wants to pay its bills. Now wants to pay its bills.

The same group of people that got us into this mess are now telling us that they want to get us out of this mess. The fact is, on the issue of the deficit and on the issue of the debt, my friends on the other side of the aisle, I do not believe, have any credibility.

You know, there's an old show business saying, Mr. Speaker: you got to have a gimmick. And my Republican friends never cease to disappoint me. They always have a gimmick. They believe in government by gimmicks. And this No Budget, No Pay bill is another gimmick.

Let's kind of play this out. What their bill says is if the House doesn't pass a budget bill by April 15, we don't get paid. If the Senate doesn't pass a budget bill by April 15, they don't get paid.

Now, I have no doubt that they have the votes to ram whatever they want through the House of Representatives, and I expect that they will bring us yet another budget bill that has the same extreme, excessive spending cuts in programs that benefit the middle class and poor that they brought before us last year. So I think they will bring a bill to the floor.

And let's say the Senate does bring a budget bill to the floor and they pass it. This bill does not require that there be a conference report that is voted on by both the House and the Senate as a condition of whether or not Members get paid.

So, again, this is not a solution. What this is just more political gamesmanship. You pass something in the House that may be totally irreconcilable, something that will never be able to be conferenced with the Senate. Senate, you pass whatever you want, it doesn't have to be conferenceable with the House, and there we are. And there we are, 3 months from now, in the same position that we are in now.

You know, the way this should be done, and I know this is a radical idea, but the way this should be done is the leadership of the Republican side should speak with the leadership of the Democratic side, and let's see if we can kind of agree on a way to proceed. There ought to be serious discussions.

I'll also point out for my colleagues and for those who are watching, there were a couple of occasions over the last year and a half where Speaker Boehner came very close to coming to agreement with the White House on a bigger deal. And on those two occasions the Speaker walked away and said no after he came very close to saying yes.

Why did he say no?

It had nothing to do with the Senate not having passed a budget resolution. It had everything to do with the fact that when the Speaker came back and talked to his Republican rank-and-file Members, they all said no. They said no. It doesn't cut Medicare enough. It doesn't cut Social Security enough. It doesn't cut food stamps enough. It doesn't cut education enough. It doesn't cut job creation enough.

There are people on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, who are using this not as an opportunity to balance our budget, but they're using this as an opportunity to gut government, to end the public sector. They see this as their opportunity. And as a result, we have this uncertainty. And as a result, the American people pay the price. As a result, this economy is not recovering as quickly as it needs to be.

I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, this closed rule. This is not the way we should begin this session.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, enough of the gimmicks. It's time to get serious about doing the people's business, and this is not doing the people's business.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I'm glad the gentleman from Texas agrees with Harry Reid. I hope he agrees with Harry Reid on more things in the future. But the fact of the matter is this show business before us does nothing other than postpone this

debate on the debt ceiling for 3 months. It doesn't require a finished product. It does not require that we actually have something that amounts to a deal that goes to the President's desk. The House will pass their extreme budget, like they always do. The Senate will probably do something. And then nothing else is required. There's no requirement for a deal in order to get your pay.

This is show business. And what we should be doing is providing certainty to the business community that we're not going to default on our obligations in 3 months. And we ought to come together and figure out a way to be able to get this budget in balance without destroying the social safety net in this country. Again, the problem has always been--and let's be clear about this--as much as I get frustrated with the Senate, the problem on this is not the Senate. The problem is the rank-and-file Republicans in the House Republican Conference who, every time the Speaker of the House goes to them with a deal, they say, No. They always say it doesn't cut deep enough, it doesn't eliminate programs that help the poor, it doesn't eliminate programs that help the middle class, it doesn't eliminate programs that help create jobs. Because the ultimate goal of so many on the other side is not about a balanced budget. They don't care about balanced budgets. They're the ones who took this balanced budget that Bill Clinton had and turned it into one of the worst deficits and debt in our country. They don't care about that. They care about eliminating the public sector. That's what this is about. Three months? Please. Three months? What kind of certainty is that?

I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to tell the gentleman from Georgia that I appreciate his many, many, many, many years working here in Washington, not only as a Member of Congress, but his many years as a congressional aide. So you have a perspective here based on many, many years of service in Washington. But I would just say that if someone were to tell me that the Republican leadership were to bring yet another closed rule to the floor, I'm sad to say that I'd respond: I'm not surprised.

This is a closed rule. This is a bill--whether it's five pages or a hundred pages, it doesn't make any difference--that did not come out of a committee process. The Ways and Means Committee didn't hold hearings or a markup. The House Administration Committee didn't hold hearings or a markup. This did, as my colleague from New York said, basically come out of your retreat, and you hand a bill to all of us here. What's even more startling is that you do not allow anybody, Democrats or Republicans, to amend it. Completely closed. Completely closed.

Look, I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle-- especially the freshmen who campaigned on the platform of openness and transparency--you vote for this rule, you're the problem. You're the problem if you vote for this rule. So I would again urge my colleagues, just on the process alone, this is not the way that we should proceed.

The other thing I would remind my friends who are saying that somehow this is going to produce a result, this doesn't require a result. This requires the House to once again pass its budget--which, as we all know from last year's experience, represents the extreme of the extreme; I mean, it's irreconcilable with the Senate--and the Senate can pass whatever they want, but it doesn't require a finished product. What the American people want is a finished product, not a gimmick to kick the can down the road for 3 months. Yeah, everybody is happy we're not going to default today. But 3 months, that's it? I mean, I think we can do a heck of a lot better than this.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Let's be clear. This House is not open to new ideas. If it was, we would not be coming to the floor with a bill that is a completely closed rule so that Members cannot offer their ideas in the form of amendments.

Secondly, their gimmick even has a gimmick to it. They say that if the Senate doesn't act or the House doesn't act on a budget, they don't get paid. Really what they do is they get paid at the end of the year. So their pay is not taken away.

This is show business. Instead of show business and instead of gimmicks, we ought to be coming to the House floor in a bipartisan way trying to figure out how to solve some of these budgetary problems. I regret very much that this is the best we can do, kicking the can down the road for 3 months.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

We have a gimmick before us that withholds pay if we don't pass a budget, but not if you don't get a deal. It doesn't matter whether the budget is irreconcilable or partisan. Here is the other gimmick. It doesn't really withhold anybody's pay. It just delays when you get the check.

The problem is not the United States Senate, I want to tell my friends. It is my friends on the other side of the aisle who do not want a deal, who want instead to basically annihilate and eviscerate the public sector. I say to my friends, if you want to balance the budget, pay for your wars, pay for your tax cuts, pay for your giveaways to the very wealthy in this country. What is before us is not a solution.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' to not kick the can down the road, to deal with the problems as we see them right now. And I also urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, those especially who call for transparency, vote ``no'' on this closed rule. This is a closed rule. Nobody has an opportunity to offer any other ideas. This is not the way we should be dealing with budget issues. Vote ``no'' on this closed rule.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, isn't it true that no matter what happens with this bill that Members will get paid no matter what?

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and that the time in quorum call be equally divided.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, right now the Federal deficit stands at roughly $16.4 trillion. I don't know how anyone can hear that number and not be appalled, nor do I believe there will be, over 10 years, $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction. In fact, I don't see any deficit reduction except, perhaps, bringing our soldiers back, but that is not particularly deficit reduction since it looks as though we are going to have difficulty maintaining the military with the strength it has had in the past.

Think about it, $16.4 trillion. It is incredible. The Federal Government is currently operating with just $25 million of so-called headroom underneath a statutory debt limit which, to be more precise, is $16.394 trillion. We are told that we reached the debt ceiling at the beginning of the year, and in order for the government to pay for obligations without further borrowing, Treasury has been using so- called ``extraordinary measures,'' such as changing the finances of certain Federal savings plans.

Sadly, the use of such measures has become the norm under this administration and under this Senate majority, where budget and debt decisions are continually made through last-minute, closed-door deals. I don't think the American people can stomach another cliff scenario. I don't think they

want to turn on the news and see another clock counting down to the latest in a string of perfectly avoidable crises.

There is a better way to legislate. I am not talking about some novel or unheard of approach. I am talking about doing things through the regular order. Anyone watching the Senate operate over the last few years probably doesn't know what I am talking about. There is a process that has been established to facilitate compromise and move even controversial pieces of legislation over the finish line.

Under this process bills are assigned to committees where they are debated and discussed in hearings and markups. Committees are able to consider and process proposals before legislation is brought to the Senate floor. While this system isn't perfect, moving a bill through the committee greatly improves its prospect for passage in a divided Senate.

This isn't meant to be a civic lesson. I know my colleagues understand how the committee process works. As we debate yet another major piece of legislation that hasn't gone through a committee, I don't think a reminder is out of order. We need to return the Senate to regular order, which includes processing budgets through the Senate Budget Committee and processing the debt limit through the Senate Finance Committee.

We are told if we pass this legislation, the administration will be able to borrow to be able to pay off incoming obligations until May 19. Then, presumably, we will be back to the use of ``extraordinary measures,'' which as I understand it will get the government through the end of July before we are once again talking about a possible default.

That is not the way to run a government. Prospects of more debt limit impasses and threats of future defaults serve only to elevate uncertainty among the American people about whether the Federal Government will honor its financial obligations. Unfortunately, this administration has continued to play on this uncertainty for political purposes. Rather than working with Congress to resolve our fiscal mess, the President throws out suggestions that Social Security recipients would not receive their benefits or that our troops would not get paid. Indeed, it seems that the President is more interested in engaging in political fights and manufacturing straw men than he is in eliminating threats to the fiscal security of our Nation's seniors and our troops.

At the same time, we wait for the first Senate budget in 4 years. I was heartened when I heard the news that the Democratic leadership plans to move forward with a budget this year. However, I am disappointed by indications that no effort will be made in the budget to rein in our unsustainable entitlement programs. I hope that is not true because, to borrow a phrase from the President, ``We can't wait.'' Entitlement reform can't wait.

Even the trustees of Social Security and Medicare have stated that the entitlements are unsustainable, and they urge quick action. Those trustees include senior officials in the Obama administration who could hardly be viewed as deficit hawks.

These are the problems our Nation faces. Our fiscal and economic well-being literally hang in the balance of these debates. If the Senate is going to be up to the challenge of fixing these problems, we are going to have to start doing things differently. We shouldn't wait until the Nation's finances reach yet another cliff sometime this summer before we start talking again and addressing our unsustainable fiscal situation. That is not what the American people want to see, and that is not the direction in which we should be going.

I believe my colleague from Montana feels the same way; that we can start the talks now in committees and do the things we should in committee and report bills to the floor. Even if we can't support them, at least they will be done the right way. A return to regular order would provide a potential solution, but it wouldn't require that we begin work immediately; that we don't just wait until the last minute and have these decisions made in the office of the majority leader.

Even if we were to pass the stop-gap debt limit suspension measure before us, there is precious little time for us to act. I have suggested and will continue to suggest that the Senate Finance Committee begin to engage now on a longer term debt limit solution. The bill before us would only eliminate the prospect of Federal default until sometime in the summer. That means if we go through regular order, we have only a few months at best to debate, have hearings, process proposals, and make decisions.

I am not under any illusions this process will be easy. If we want to avoid another cliff scenario in late July, this is the best way to go forward. It is the best path forward.

We don't need any more last-minute deals to avoid going over cliffs. We certainly don't need any more countdowns or threats of default and downgrades to our Nation's credit rating. Of course, we don't need to wait in the hopes that President Obama will finally break his string of failures to arrive at a so-called grand bargain. We have the tools at our disposal to address these problems, but, as I said, we need to start now, immediately.

As the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, I am committed to working with my colleagues on the committee--those on both sides of the aisle--to reach a long-term solution on the debt limit. I believe this process can put us on a path to tax and entitlement reform, which is the key to righting our Nation's fiscal course and putting us on a better economic footing.

The measure before us is not a long-term solution to the debt ceiling or our fiscal predicament, nor is it intended to be. I am convinced that if we want a long-term solution, and if we want to avoid facing yet another cliff, we need to restore regular order in the Senate. I think anything short of that is not going to work.

We have good people on both sides of the floor, people who love this country, people who really can work together if they will. We have committees set up to take care of these problems, but they are being bypassed. We must find ways of working through the committees.

We have a number of people on both sides who need to deal with the uncertainties, the problems and the difficulties in these fiscal matters. I have confidence in our chairman and in his leadership, and I know this is not his fault. I think he would prefer regular order, as would I. It puts a lot more burden on us as committee members, but that is where it ought to be. We ought to be able to face these problems.

We have excellent people on both sides on the Finance Committee. I would like to see the Finance Committee do its work and have the confidence that we should and get this done in a proper manner, in the right way, before we go off the fiscal cliff again or before we need to be faced with the fiscal cliff.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the debt limit alone, under the current administration, had been increased by over $5 trillion. That is simply unsustainable.

Not to worry, I have recently been told. We have made massive progress toward promising deficit reduction. I hear this even though we have not seen any significant actual reduction.

I have been hearing bold claims by my friends on the other side of the aisle about having attained trillions in budget ``savings'' and deficit reduction in just the past couple of years alone. They have gone so far as to say that we have had $2.4 trillion of deficit reduction legislated in the past 2 years. Of course, the deficit reduction has not been realized. It represents promises and plans that even Democrats seek to undo. It is amazing to me that they make these claims.

I have heard bold claims that we have somehow legislated deficit reduction totaling as much as $3.6 trillion from my friends on the other side. I have heard that deficit reduction that has been promised can be broken down to an 80-to-20 ratio of spending cuts to tax hikes.

While I often applaud creativity, I have to say these deficit reduction claims and the ratio of spending reductions to tax hikes is more than creative. It is more like Enron accounting, and if you were running a company in the private sector and made such claims, you would probably end up in jail.

Let me make a few brief comments on the Democrats' Enron accounting of deficit reduction.

First, the so-called spending cuts they identify have not yet been realized, and even they are working hard to undo some of them, if not all of them.

Second, the so-called spending cuts are only cuts if you are selective in the starting point you use to measure whether spending is being cut. Relative to what spending levels would be, had we not had a Democrat spending spree, spending has increased even if you include plans put forward in the Budget Control Act, which have not yet been realized.

Third, the spending-cut-to-tax-hike number thrown around by my friends on the other side of the aisle counts only one discrete tax hike--the one associated with the fiscal cliff bill.

Why do Democrats want to entirely ignore the massive tax hikes associated with ObamaCare that have already gone into effect, with more to come?

Fourth, spending cuts that my friends on the other side of the aisle are banking on when they devise their Enron accounting have not yet been set in place. Until fiscal year 2013 comes to a close, those spending reductions have not actually occurred, and Congress has a long history of promising cuts without delivering.

It is ironic to me that my friends on the other side of the aisle fight tooth and nail against any true reductions in the outsized spending of the current administration. Then when budget realities force consideration of reductions, and legislation is passed promising reductions, Democrats boast of having cut spending to reduce deficits.

Finally, when it comes to actually implement any spending cuts, Democrats want to undo them and replace them with yet more taxes. That is what we are hearing from the other side with regard to the sequestration.

I believe our country faces a large spending problem and that our debt is too big and grows too fast. I believe presenting a picture of our finances that would pass muster only in the Enron accounting department is a disservice to the American people. If my friends on the other side of the aisle want more tax hikes to pay for more spending, then they should just say so. And some of them do, by the way, and I compliment them for doing that, even though I think it is crazy. Cloaking their desires in manufactured claims that we have somehow cut spending 4 to 1 relative to tax hikes is simply dishonest. And I do not think I have been wrong in calling it Enron accounting.

Frankly, I am getting a little sick of it because they throw these figures around as though they are really tax cuts, and they are not tax cuts, and they never will be according to my friends on the other side in what their actions show. So it is important that we get rid of the fuzz and get rid of the buzz and get rid of the phony stuff and the Enron accounting and start realizing that we need to have some real tax reductions.

Frankly, we need to have some real spending reductions. Even if we cannot get tax reductions, we ought to all be working on spending reductions. We ought to be looking at every aspect of this economy, every aspect of our budget, every aspect of our legislation, and we ought to be looking for as many spending reductions as we can find.

Spending is out of control. Even today, you know they are going to be spending well over 22 percent of GDP, according to the best of estimates. The economic results of yesterday that were in the paper of this slow growth ought to be waking up everybody on both sides of the aisle that we are not doing our job. The reason we are not doing our job is because we phony up these numbers that are not really spending reductions, and then we act like everything is hunky-dory, when, in fact, things are not hunky-dory.

We are in real trouble in this country, and it is inexcusable to let the greatest country in the world have to go through this type of charade because we are unwilling to face the music that every individual family in this country has to face on balancing their budgets and on balancing ours.

I think it is time to cut the charade and quit talking about spending reductions that do not materialize and amount to nothing but Enron accounting.

Mr. President, I ask that both sides be charged equally for the time we are in a quorum call.

If the Senator from Pennsylvania will withhold? After he speaks, the Senator from Montana will speak, and then may I be recognized on the Portman amendment? I ask unanimous consent I be recognized after the Senator from Montana.

Mr. President, I stand as the chair of the full Appropriations Committee to respond to two Portman amendments. I will comment on one and speak to the one related to automatic CRs, which is in the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee.

First I will speak to the dollar-for-dollar cuts, which the Senator from Montana and chair of the Finance Committee spoke to. I want to say I absolutely support his position. As an appropriator, I agree with his arguments. The dollar-for-dollar cuts would make the Boehner rule permanent. It would raise the debt limit by mandating a $1 trillion cut in spending. This amendment could allow the minority of 41 Senators to dictate the fiscal policy to the majority.

I also oppose the Portman amendment related to automatic continuing resolutions. What does the amendment do? It sounds good. I must say I have great admiration for the Senator from Ohio. He has a well-known reputation for working on a bipartisan basis. When he was in the House, he worked so well with my colleague Senator Cardin. I look forward to having these kinds of discussions and seeing how we can work out some of these issues.

In listening to the debate, I think we are all in agreement of our goals, but we disagree on the means.

As I read it, Senator Portman's amendment says if Congress fails to pass an appropriations bill or a continuing resolution related to it, instead of a government shutdown, automatically a continuing resolution would go into effect.

Now that sounds good. However, there is an additional part that says every 3 or 4 months, if Congress fails to replace the CR, it would decrease agency funding by 1 percent across the board.

That sounds pretty good too because, after all, what is 1 percent? Well, 1 percent compounded has Draconian results. This amendment would set up essentially the framework for many sequesters that would go into effect automatically if Congress doesn't pass the appropriations.

I agree with the Senator from Ohio that we need to follow regular order, which means bringing up appropriations bills one by one, open, transparent, debatable. If you want to shave or save, offer amendments. If we had regular order, we would be able to pass our bills.

We cannot have a situation in the Congress where we have not been able to bring up bills because of the filibusters and deleterious tactics of some Members, and then when we can't bring them up, we are punished for it.

I oppose this amendment for three reasons. The amendment is the wrong solution, regular order is the solution.

Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Is that okay with the Senator?

I thank the Senator for the courtesy. Both the Senator from Montana and I have been hit by this bug.

Little germs are doing to me what my opponents couldn't, which is stop me from talking. I thank the Senator for his courtesy.

Mr. President, I oppose the Portman amendment related to automatic Continuing Resolutions with cuts if Congress does not pass appropriations bills. I acknowledge the legitimacy of his concerns, and I agree that we are all tired of governing from crisis to crisis. And I share his goal of keeping the government open so our Federal agencies can carry out their missions, and serve the American people. But I very much oppose this proposed solution.

Now, what does the amendment do? It sounds good, and I must say, I have a great admiration for the Senator from Ohio. And he has a well- known reputation for working on a bipartisan basis. He has worked so well when he was in the House with my colleague, Senator Cardin. And I look forward to having these kinds of discussions and seeing how we can work out some of these issues. I think in listening to the debate, we all are in agreement of goals, but we disagree on means.

His amendment, as I read it, says if Congress fails to pass an appropriations bill or a Continuing Resolution related to it, instead of a government shutdown, an automatic Continuing Resolution would go into effect. That sounds good. However, there's an additional part that says, after four months, if Congress fails to replace the Continuing Resolution, it would decrease agency funding by one percent across the board. Well, that sounds pretty good too. Because after all, what is one percent?

Well, one percent every 90 days compounded has draconian results. This amendment would set up essentially the framework for mini- sequesters that would go into effect automatically if Congress doesn't pass appropriations bills.

I oppose this amendment for three reasons. First, the amendment is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The amendment's stated purpose is to establish automatic Continuing Resolutions, but the amendment wouldn't just extend funding for government operations. It would also cut funding one percent across the board for every 90 days that Congress doesn't pass Appropriations bills or a Continuing Resolution. Mr. President, this amendment just creates a new crisis instead of providing confidence and clear direction. This type of robotic-cutting Continuing Resolution would add uncertainty to the operations of the Federal government.

Second, this amendment is the wrong solution to a long-standing problem. A problem we have become too familiar with, and too comfortable with. I'm talking about not operating according to regular order. I agree with the gentleman from Ohio, we need to follow a regular order. Regular order means Congress receives the President's budget. Regular order means the Appropriations Committee holds hearings and marks up bills. Regular order means bringing up appropriations bills on the Senate floor, one by one, a process that is open, transparent, and allows debate. If a Member wants to save money or shave spending on these bills, that Member can offer amendments. If we had regular order, we would be able to pass our bills.

The solution to the problem of governing from crisis to crisis, of avoiding Continuing Resolutions and government shutdowns, is not an automatic Continuing Resolution. The solution is to get back to regular order, where Congress makes smart decisions about where to make needed investments and where to cut. Permanent robotic-cutting Continuing Resolutions are not the solution.

You have a situation in Congress where we haven't been able to bring up bills because of filibusters, and because of the dilatory tactics of some Members. We can't bring our bills up, and we're punished for it. There are those who have thrown sand in the gears of regular order by tying up appropriations bills with controversial riders and calls for draconian cuts, and then complain when we have to do Continuing Resolutions to keep the government working for the American people. They can't have it both ways. Regular order is the solution.

Third, this amendment simply gives up Congress's Constitutional responsibility, the power of the purse. This amendment would put the government on auto-pilot for months, perhaps even years. In a divided Congress, it is hard to come to an agreement on spending. But every time we pass a Continuing Resolution, we are giving the executive branch more and more control over the federal budget. This means Congress gives up control to OMB and Cabinet officers.

By not passing our bills, we weaken Congressional oversight. The Appropriations Committee is the only committee that reviews every spending account of every agency. The Committee digs down further than any other committee to make sure that agencies are not wasting taxpayer dollars. And when we find things that need to be fixed, we fix them in our bills. But if we can't get our bills to the President's desk, then our efforts at oversight are not realized.

Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Ohio that we should stop our dependence on Continuing Resolutions, especially long-term Continuing Resolutions. They are a terrible way to govern. It is time for us to show we can govern. The American people want to see us govern. We all need to work together in good faith and in a timely manner. This is what the Appropriations Committee does.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. President, I also oppose the amendment from the Senator from Ohio that demands a dollar in cuts for every dollar increase in the debt limit.

Under this amendment, the debt limit could not be raised without spending cuts equal to the amount to be raised, unless the requirement is waved by a super-majority of 60 votes. This amendment would make the ``Boehner Rule'' permanent. The amendment means that in order to raise the debt limit by $1 trillion, Congress would need to cut $1 trillion in spending over the next ten years.

This is a terrible amendment. The point has been made before, but I make it again. The debt limit is not about cutting spending, it is about paying for spending that Congress has already authorized. If enacted, the Portman amendment would require trillions and trillions of dollars in cuts to earned benefits programs over the next decade. Cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and all of our other mandatory programs. It would also squeeze discretionary spending, including defense, to the point where I doubt our agencies could carry out their most basic responsibilities.

I remind my colleagues that under this amendment, if the Congress were to pass a tax cut, revenues would fall but spending would not. So the next year, when less revenue comes in, Congress would be forced to pay for the tax cut with equal spending cuts. If Congress passed another huge tax cut for the wealthy, like the Bush tax cuts, then Congress would have to cut programs for the middle class to pay for it.

And I also remind my colleagues that if Congress passed emergency spending, like the Sandy bill, then guess what? Next year, Congress would have to find even more cuts to earned benefits or to discretionary spending to pay for that.

The Senate has a history of always protecting the rights of the minority. But it is one thing to protect the interests of the minority party, and it is quite another to allow a minority of 41 Senators to dictate policy to the majority. By requiring an affirmative super- majority of 60 votes to raise the debt without draconian spending cuts, this amendment gives veto power to the minority over most fiscal decisions that the majority supports. Tax changes, spending, earned benefit reforms, Budget Resolutions, and even Reconciliation. That is simply not acceptable.

Mr. President, the objective of this amendment is obvious to me. The American people do not support cuts to their earned benefits, to Social Security and Medicare. This amendment is a way to force huge cuts in these programs without ever having to justify them.

I suggest that if Members want to cut a trillion dollars from Social Security over the next ten years, let them come down and offer an amendment that does just that. And if Members want to change the rules for Medicare, in order to remove Americans from eligibility for Medicare, or from Medicaid, let them come to the floor with legislation in hand to do just that.

We're talking about trillions of dollars here. Chained CPI is not going to do it. Cuts to providers won't do it. And that's the problem. Cuts of this magnitude require immediate cuts to Social Security. And these cuts reduce the number of people helped by Medicare and Medicaid. And of course, they gut non-defense discretionary spending. And I say to my colleagues, if I'm overstating the case, I look forward to someone coming down here and offering legislation that saves trillions of dollars and doesn't do those things.

We need to get our financial house in order. But we need a balanced solution, one that includes revenues, sensible reforms to earned benefits that save money but do not hurt the middle class, and spending cuts.

This amendment could not be less balanced. This amendment is all cuts and no revenues, and contains not one specific policy that would save a single dollar. Tens of millions of middle class Americans work their whole lives, play by the rules, and pay their taxes every year so one day they can retire with some dignity and some security guaranteed to them. That's the promise this government made, and it's a promise the Congress needs to keep. With reforms to revenues and with reforms to our earned benefits programs. With frugality. With compromise. That's the solution to our fiscal challenges.

Mr. President, this amendment would fundamentally rewrite the social compact between the government and its citizens. Without a single hearing. Without a single witness. This approach is unacceptable, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield the floor.