[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 14 (Thursday, January 31, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S413-S426]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENSURING THE COMPLETE AND TIMELY PAYMENT OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 325, which the clerk will report
by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 325) to ensure the complete and timely payment
of the obligations of the United States Government until May
19, 2013, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and that
the time in quorum call be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, thanks in part to filmmaker Steven
Spielberg, there is renewed interest today in America's 16th President,
Abraham Lincoln.
A century and a half ago, during one of the most critical times in
American history, Lincoln faced a nation divided by ideology and war.
Only through fierce determination and moral courage was Lincoln able to
preserve the Union.
Today, we again are in an ideological divide. Too often, Congress
fails to agree on key social and economic issues.
Politics is winning out over progress. Like the America of the 1860s,
the unwillingness to compromise has crippled our ability to move
forward as a nation.
As we discuss America's fiscal responsibility today, I would like to
share the words of Lincoln. One of my favorite quotes is this: ``You
cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.''
As a nation we have a responsibility to fulfill existing commitments
to pay our bills, and it is a responsibility we cannot evade. As we
know, the Federal Government officially hit its current authorizing
spending limit--also known as the debt ceiling--on December 31, 2012.
Over the past month, the Treasury Secretary has been using
extraordinary measures to continue funding the government and sending
out Social Security checks and veterans' benefits. Treasury's action
only bought limited time. The debt limit deadline was moved from
December 31 to mid-February or early March. Needless to say, a feeling
of uncertainty has spread across the country. However, on January 23,
the House of Representatives approved a plan to ensure America can meet
our obligations through May 18.
The bill, H.R. 325, which we have before us today, also provides an
incentive for action on the Federal budget. The legislation includes a
provision that would withhold the pay of lawmakers in the House or the
Senate if their Chamber fails to pass the budget blueprint by April 15.
Since 1917, Congress has always taken appropriate action to avoid
defaulting on America's bills. We must continue to fulfill our
responsibility. We must not fail now. There is too much at stake.
Failure to pass this bill will set off an unpredictable financial
calamity that would plunge not only the United States but much of the
world back into recession and more. Every single American would feel
the economic impact. There would be radical cuts in military salaries,
veterans' programs, Social Security benefits, and education. Tax
refunds may not be issued, and our country's credit rating would almost
certainly be downgraded significantly.
I understand the concern over America's deficits and debt. I share
those concerns, and I strongly believe we must develop a long-term plan
to cut the debt and get America's fiscal house in order.
Let me remind you, over the past 2 years we have made real progress
at cutting deficits and debt. We have done so working together across
the aisle.
In 2011, we passed $1.4 trillion in spending cuts. Earlier this
month, Congress passed legislation that reduced the deficit by another
$600 billion. Together, with interest savings, these two actions will
cut the deficit by about $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years.
Add to this the savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan and the savings to America's Federal budget reach almost
$3.5 trillion over 10 years--all together $3.5 trillion over 10 years--
which we already are doing as a consequence of winding down the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan. That is real progress.
In the coming weeks we will have to confront the deficit issue again
when sequestration of spending programs starts on March 1. March 27,
the day the continuing resolution for appropriations expires, brings
tough choices. That is why we are here, to make the tough decisions, to
do the hard work.
The threat of defaulting on our fiscal obligations is extremely
dangerous. It puts America on unstable ground. We all are aware how our
political brinkmanship of 2011 led to the first ever downgrade of our
country's credit rating. It sent shock waves in stock markets across
the globe and nearly crashed the American economy.
We have the opportunity today to avoid that calamity. We have the
opportunity today to avoid another destructive budget battle. H.R. 325
ensures America can meet our obligations through May 18 and provides
the Congress with a necessary calm between fiscal storms.
The House of Representatives adopted the bill by a bipartisan vote,
285 to 144, and it is supported by the administration. The bill before
us is necessary to remove the threat of default that would throw the
U.S. economy into chaos. It gives us time to work together on a
sensible, balanced solution to our Nation's fiscal challenges without
undermining the Nation's economy. It deserves our support.
I congratulate Speaker Boehner on his leadership with regard to this
issue and the House for its bipartisan approach to a tough but
necessary vote. Let's pass this legislation today and move on to the
debate over what further deficit reduction options we need to help keep
America's economy moving forward.
In the words of Lincoln: ``The occasion is piled high with
difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion.''
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. 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
[[Page S414]]
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, En Bloc
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I have two amendments at the desk and I
ask for their immediate consideration, en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Portman] proposes amendments en
bloc numbered 6 and 7.
Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the
amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
(Purpose: To require that any debt limit increase be balanced by equal
spending cuts over the next decade)
At the end of the bill, insert the following:
SEC. ____. DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR REQUIREMENT.
(a) Debt Limit Control.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter I of chapter 31 of title 31,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after section
3101A the following:
``Sec. 3101B. Debt limit control
``(a) Declaration of a Debt Limit Warning.--
``(1) In general.--In the event of a near breach of the
public debt limit established by section 3101, the Secretary
of the Treasury shall issue a debt limit warning to the
[[Page S415]]
Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways
and Means of the House of Representatives that shall include
a determination as to when extraordinary measures may be
necessary in order to prolong the funding of the United
States Government.
``(2) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Extraordinary measures.--The term `extraordinary
measures' means measures that may be taken by the Secretary
of the Treasury in the event of a breach of the debt limit by
the United States to prolong the function of United States
Government in the absence of a debt limit increase.
``(B) Near breach.--The term `near breach' means the point
at which the Secretary of the Treasury determines that the
United States Government will reach the statutorily
prescribed debt limit within 60 calendar days notwithstanding
the implementation of extraordinary measures.
``(b) Presidential Submission of Debt Limit Legislation.--
``(1) Savings recommendations from the president.--Any
formal Presidential request to increase the debt limit under
this section shall include the amount of the proposed debt
limit increase and be accompanied by proposed legislation to
reduce spending over the sum of the current and following 10
years by an amount equal to or greater than the amount of the
requested debt limit increase. Net interest savings may not
be counted towards spending reductions required by this
paragraph.
``(2) Calculation.--The spending savings under paragraph
(1) shall be calculated against a budget baseline consistent
with section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985. This baseline shall exclude the
extrapolation of any spending that had been enacted under an
emergency designation.''.
(2) Subchapter analysis.--The table of sections for chapter
31 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item for section 3101A the following:
``3101B. Debt limit control.''.
(b) Congressional Requirement to Restrain Spending While
Raising the Debt Limit.--
(1) In general.--Title III of the Congress and Budget Act
of 1974 is amended by inserting at the end the following:
``SEC. 316. DEBT LIMIT INCREASE POINT OF ORDER.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Point of order.--Except as provided in subsection
(b), it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of
Representatives to consider any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report that increases the
statutory debt limit unless the bill contains net spending
reductions of an equal or greater amount over the sum of the
current and next 10 fiscal years. Net interest savings may
not be counted towards spending reductions required by this
paragraph.
``(2) Components of net spending reduction.--
``(A) Calculation.--The savings resulting from the proposed
spending reductions under paragraph (1) shall be calculated
by the Congressional Budget Office against a budget baseline
consistent with section 257 of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. This baseline shall
exclude the extrapolation of any spending that had been
enacted under an emergency designation.
``(B) Availability.--The Senate and the House of
Representatives may not vote on any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report that increases the
public debt limit unless the cost estimate of that measure
prepared by the Congressional Budget Office has been publicly
available on the website of the Congressional Budget Office
for at least 24 hours.
``(C) Prohibit timing shifts.--Any provision that shifts
outlays or revenues from within the 10-year window to outside
the window shall not count towards the budget savings target
for purposes of this subsection.
``(b) Senate Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--
``(1) Waiver.--In the Senate, subsection (a)(1) may be
waived or suspended only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
``(2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under subsection (a)(1).''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The table of contents set forth
in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after section 315
the following new item:
``Sec. 316. Debt limit increase point of order.''.
(Purpose: To amend title 31, United States Code, to provide for
automatic continuing resolutions)
At the end of the bill, insert the following:
SEC. _____. END GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWNS ACT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``End
Government Shutdowns Act''.
(b) Automatic Continuing Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 13 of title 31, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 1310 the
following new section:
``SEC. 1311. CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a)(1) If any appropriation measure for a fiscal year is
not enacted before the beginning of such fiscal year or a
joint resolution making continuing appropriations is not in
effect, there are appropriated such sums as may be necessary
to continue any program, project, or activity for which funds
were provided in the preceding fiscal year--
``(A) in the corresponding appropriation Act for such
preceding fiscal year; or
``(B) if the corresponding appropriation bill for such
preceding fiscal year did not become law, then in a joint
resolution making continuing appropriations for such
preceding fiscal year.
``(2) Appropriations and funds made available, and
authority granted, for a program, project, or activity for
any fiscal year pursuant to this section shall be at a rate
of operations not in excess of the lower of--
``(A) 100 percent of the rate of operations provided for in
the regular appropriation Act providing for such program,
project, or activity for the preceding fiscal year;
``(B) in the absence of such an Act, 100 percent of the
rate of operations provided for such program, project, or
activity pursuant to a joint resolution making continuing
appropriations for such preceding fiscal year; or
``(C) 100 percent of the annualized rate of operations
provided for in the most recently enacted joint resolution
making continuing appropriations for part of that fiscal year
or any funding levels established under the provisions of
this Act;
for the period of 120 days. After the first 120 day period
during which this subsection is in effect for that fiscal
year, the applicable rate of operations shall be reduced by 1
percentage point. For each subsequent 90 day period during
which this subsection is in effect for that fiscal year, the
applicable rate of operations shall be reduced by 1
percentage point. The 90-day period reductions shall continue
beyond the last day of that fiscal year until the new
appropriation has been enacted.
``(3) Appropriations and funds made available, and
authority granted, for any fiscal year pursuant to this
section for a program, project, or activity shall be
available for the period beginning with the first day of a
lapse in appropriations and ending with the date on which the
applicable regular appropriation bill for such fiscal year
becomes law (whether or not such law provides for such
program, project, or activity) or a continuing resolution
making appropriations becomes law, as the case may be.
``(b) An appropriation or funds made available, or
authority granted, for a program, project, or activity for
any fiscal year pursuant to this section shall be subject to
the terms and conditions imposed with respect to the
appropriation made or funds made available for the preceding
fiscal year, or authority granted for such program, project,
or activity under current law.
``(c) Expenditures made for a program, project, or activity
for any fiscal year pursuant to this section shall be charged
to the applicable appropriation, fund, or authorization
whenever a regular appropriation bill or a joint resolution
making continuing appropriations until the end of a fiscal
year providing for such program, project, or activity for
such period becomes law.
``(d) This section shall not apply to a program, project,
or activity during a fiscal year if any other provision of
law (other than an authorization of appropriations)--
``(1) makes an appropriation, makes funds available, or
grants authority for such program, project, or activity to
continue for such period; or
``(2) specifically provides that no appropriation shall be
made, no funds shall be made available, or no authority shall
be granted for such program, project, or activity to continue
for such period.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections of chapter
13 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 1310 the following new
item:
``1311. Continuing appropriations.''.
Mr. PORTMAN. 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
[[Page S416]]
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
[[Page S417]]
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
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask
for its consideration.
Ms. MIKULSKI. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S418]]
Without objection, the pending amendment is set aside.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Toomey] proposes an
amendment numbered 8.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To protect Social Security benefits and military pay and
require that the United States Government prioritize all obligations on
the debt held by the public in the event that the debt limit is
reached)
At the end of the bill, insert the following:
SEC. ____. ENSURING THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE UNITED
STATES AND PROTECTING AMERICA'S SOLDIERS AND
SENIORS ACT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Ensuring the Full Faith and Credit of the United States and
Protecting America's Soldiers and Seniors Act''.
(b) Prioritize Obligations on the Debt Held by the Public,
Social Security Benefits, and Military Pay.--In the event
that the debt of the United States Government reaches the
statutory limit as defined in section 3101 of title 31,
United States Code, the following shall take equal priority
over all other obligations incurred by the Government of the
United States:
(1) The authority of the Department of the Treasury
contained in section 3123 of title 31, United States Code, to
pay with legal tender the principal and interest on debt held
by the public.
(2) The authority of the Commissioner of Social Security to
pay monthly old-age, survivors' and disability insurance
benefits under title II of the Social Security Act.
(3) The payment of pay and allowances for members of the
Armed Forces on active duty.
(c) Limited Debt Limit Authority.--
(1) In general.--If the Secretary of the Treasury
determines, after consultation with the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, that incoming revenue will
not be sufficient to finance the priorities listed in
subsection (b) over the following 2 weeks, the Secretary, in
coordination with the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget, shall--
(A) notify Congress of the expected revenue shortfall; and
(B) raise the debt limit by the amount necessary to cover
the difference between incoming revenue and the revenue
needed to finance the priorities listed in subsection (b) on
a 2 week basis.
(2) Limit.--The debt limit increase provided by paragraph
(1)(B) may not exceed the difference between expected outlays
for the listed priorities and expected revenue.
(3) Excess revenue.--If incoming revenue exceeds the amount
projected by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation
with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
needed to finance the priorities listed in subsection (b)
over the 2-week period, any amount in excess shall be held in
reserve and applied to the following 2-week period.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I wish to address the substance of this
amendment, but let me start with a little context on this underlying
bill. The underlying bill, of course, suspends the debt ceiling from
now until May 18. What that means is in the meantime, the
administration will be able to borrow as much money as it wants within
certain constraints, but a very large sum of money over the next 3\1/2\
months, at which point the debt ceiling will be reinstituted at a
higher level. We expect the government will probably borrow something
on the order of $400 billion between now and such time as the debt
ceiling is reestablished.
We have $16.4 trillion in debt today, so by the time the debt ceiling
is reapplied, reimposed, it will be just under $17 trillion. At that
point we will be right back to the standoff we were at very recently, a
standoff over what to do about this massive amount of debt we already
have and the massive amount of additional debt the administration would
like to create. The administration's position is very clear: They want
additional borrowing authority with no strings attached--no conditions,
no limits on future spending. They just want to be able to keep
borrowing. Some on our side of the aisle believe very strongly that any
increase in the debt ceiling that authorizes still more borrowing needs
to be accompanied with some measure of spending discipline so we can at
some point begin to regain control over these out-of-control deficits
and the debt.
In any case, what we know for sure is that this tension will reemerge
and that we do not have a resolution in place now. If this measure
passes, which very likely it will, and it will be signed into law, we
have just kicked this can down the road until May--maybe June or July
at the most--but we surely will be back at this point where we are
having this argument.
Here is what else we know. We know that tax revenue, ongoing tax
revenue coming into the Government's coffers, is going to be about 75
percent of all the money the Government is planning to spend in the
coming year--or is likely to spend. Since 75 percent does not cover
everything, the other 25 percent is meant to be borrowed. Therein lies
the necessity of raising the debt ceiling, precisely to fund the
difference between all the Government wants to spend and the tax
revenue it is going to have.
It is important to note, by the way, that raising this debt ceiling
is not about paying for past bills incurred. I know that is repeated
around here all the time. It is totally untrue. We have a funding for
the appropriations process that expires at the end of March. There is
no appropriation that is in place going forward. The debt ceiling
increase, the authority to borrow more money, is all about funding
future spending, which is part of the reason why some of us think this
is a very sensible moment to try to bring some discipline to that
future spending.
What would happen if we do not raise the debt ceiling right away? If
we do not, we would have to have a 25-percent cut in all government
spending. That is pretty massive. That is pretty problematic. The
administration and some actually go way overboard in the threats they
attach to this. They threaten to inflict the maximum possible economic
damage if the debt ceiling is not raised promptly upon the point at
which they run out of their maneuvering room. So you hear threats about
a default on our debt and senior citizens will not get their Social
Security check and our military folks will not get paid. All kinds of
the most disruptive, most damaging, and most dangerous kinds of
outcomes are threatened by the administration. This is unnecessary.
This is not true. This is not what would happen. But there is an
incentive, of course, to try to scare and intimidate Republicans into
giving the administration the unconditional ability to keep on
borrowing and spending as they have been doing, and that is why we hear
this.
My amendment is an attempt to absolutely minimize the disruption, the
danger, and the drama. It is an attempt to get away from ``government
by cliff'' and to have a sensible approach to bringing our spending
under control. It is called the Full Faith and Credit Act. What it does
is it says very simply, since none of us can guarantee the debt ceiling
is going to be raised on any particular date--we all know how we are
going to vote. We cannot control anyone else's vote. We certainly
cannot control a single vote in the House and we cannot control what
the President is going to do. Therefore, we can never know for sure
whether and when and under what circumstances the debt limit will be
raised.
My point is the sensible and prudent and responsible thing to do is
have a plan to minimize the downside if the debt ceiling is not raised
immediately upon reaching it. This has nothing to do, by the way, with
the current circumstances of suspending the debt ceiling. This is all
about the next time, in May or June or July, when we find ourselves
facing these circumstances.
What my bill says is, if we get to that point, the Federal Government
would be obligated to prioritize three categories of spending: That
would be interest on our debt to make sure we do not default on our
debt and create a financial crisis; it would be Social Security
payments to everybody who qualifies for a Social Security payment so
that no senior citizen has to worry and wait to get their check; and it
would be Active-Duty Military personnel so that no soldier has to worry
or wonder whether they are going to get paid.
By the way, what my bill does is it goes a step forward and says not
only will the Federal Government have to prioritize those three
categories, but it says in the event on any given day the tax revenues
were not sufficient to cover those three payment obligations, the
Treasury Secretary would be authorized to borrow additional amounts to
ensure that those payments were made.
What does it do? It guarantees that it would be absolutely
impossible, under any circumstances, to default on our
[[Page S419]]
debt, to miss a Social Security payment to anyone, or to be late with
the military pay to anybody. That is what it would do. It would take a
little bit of the drama and the risk and the uncertainty and the
potential damage to the economy off the table and allow us to have an
honest, sensible discussion about how we are going to get spending
under control.
Mind you, these three categories of spending, if you add them all
together, cumulatively account for about one-third of all the spending
the government is scheduled to engage in over the course of this fiscal
year. Ongoing tax revenue is about three-quarters of all the spending
that is going to occur. So clearly there is far more than enough tax
revenue to cover these items, but tax revenue comes in in a lumpy
fashion. It doesn't come in smoothly and uniformly over the course of
the year, hence the provision that allows the Treasury Secretary to
borrow in the event that they needed to in the short run to smooth it
out.
Let me say something that is of more fundamental importance. This
amendment is not intended to be a replacement for raising the debt
ceiling. Unfortunately, as long as we are running structural deficits,
we are going to have to borrow money to fund them. This amendment, if
it were to pass and be signed into law, does not mean we would not have
to raise the debt ceiling at some point. Of course we are going to have
to until we get to the point where we have balanced budgets and do not
have to continue to run deficit spending.
By the way, I do not think it is desirable or optimal to cross into
that threshold where we are living under the rules of prioritization,
because it is very disruptive to not be paying all the other bills on
time as we ought to. That is much better. But my point is, there is
something even more important here and that is to fundamentally bring
our spending and deficits under control. Trillion dollar deficits, a
total debt that now exceeds the total economic output of our country--
we have a disastrous fiscal situation on our hands. It is right now
costing us jobs, economic growth today, and it is guaranteed to result
in a full-blown fiscal crisis and a meltdown if we do not change the
path we are on.
The only time we have ever been able to persuade this President to
agree to significant spending reductions was the last time we argued
over the debt limit and we did end up getting spending cuts as part of
that. I think the urgency of getting our spending under control and
getting our fiscal house in order so we can avoid a fiscal crisis and
have the kind of economic recovery we need is what necessitates a
prioritization bill so we can take the shrill excesses and the threats
that some are claiming off the table and have a real discussion and
real solutions about how we are going to get spending under control.
My strong hope is that we can bring an end to ``government by
cliff.'' Senator Portman has an amendment, I believe, that he is going
to introduce, which would prevent the danger of a government shutdown
in the event that a CR, a continuing resolution, expires. It makes all
the sense in the world. We should not find ourselves backed up against
the wall at midnight on December 31 with a great calamity threatened if
we do not pass some bill that nobody has ever seen. This is a terrible
way to run the government and that is what we have been doing. What my
bill does is it eliminates the risk of default and it creates the
opportunity for us to bring some spending discipline associated with
any future debt limit increase. The bill of Senator Portman will avert
the risk of a government shutdown.
I fully support his other efforts to make sure we have a dollar in
savings for every new dollar in debt we create. We have an obligation
to do that. We have already have too big a debt burden. We have to
begin curbing the problem that causes it, and that is too much
spending.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. As I say, it will not
have any effect on the specific bill under consideration to temporarily
suspend the debt limit. It will make a much more manageable and a much
less disruptive discussion when we address the debt limit once again in
May or June--or when that day surely will arrive.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to speak on two amendments. It will
be the first amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio, his first
amendment, and also I will speak on an amendment offered by the Senator
from Pennsylvania. I think the Senator from Maryland, the chairman of
the Appropriations Committee, will speak on the second Portman
amendment.
I chuckled this morning. I see two new Members, very able Members of
the Senate, who are now members of the Senate Finance Committee, follow
their urges to offer amendments immediately to bills before the Senate.
Senator Portman is doing that, Senator Toomey is doing that, and I
commend them, very much commend them for being so interested in the
subject and allowing their intellectual juices to flow and come up with
something that is new and different and in their view might make some
sense. I think part of this is because of the newly found efforts here
in the Senate, and desire in the Senate, certainly among rank-and-file
Members, to do something.
What you hear around here is: ``Regular order.'' That is something I
very much subscribe to, namely let the committees do their work.
Senator Portman and Senator Toomey are certainly following that
tradition by offering amendments so the Senate Finance Committee, or in
this case the Senate floor, is doing its work with respect to the
pending measure.
I want to start by saying how much I appreciate the efforts of the
Speaker, Speaker Boehner. He has done a good job giving us a few
months' breathing room here in the Congress with respect to the debt
limit increase; that is, having the House pass on a bipartisan basis a
measure which extends the debt ceiling limit for another several
months, to May 18. That gives us a chance to figure out how we are
going to get our fiscal house better in order, cut the debt, and deal
with some other vexatious issues such as the sequester and the
continuing resolution.
The amendment, I must say, though, offered by my good friend from
Ohio is a throwback to an effort that was undertaken essentially a year
or two ago. With all due respect, it didn't work. What was that?
Namely, it was the Sanders amendment, which is for every dollar
increase in the national debt there be a dollar cut in Federal
spending. This was something that was tried, the House of
Representatives tried, the Speaker negotiated with the President, and
it didn't work. Frankly, it led to a big confrontation, if you will, on
August 11, where the debt was reaching its limit, there was no
agreement on spending cuts, and the credit agencies began to downgrade
U.S. credit. It didn't work. I again say I am very proud of the Speaker
for trying a different approach.
It is also important to point out that if this amendment were to
pass, we would have to send this bill back to the House. We are already
now on a good track for the Senate to pass, without amendment, the
House-passed bill. If that happens, then the world knows that the U.S.
Government will not be in debt until at least May 18, and because of
measures the Treasury Secretary will not exceed the debt limit until
sometime in August.
We will be in debt. We have a big debt. The debt is about a $16
trillion debt, but we will not reach our debt limit if the House bill
is passed by the U.S. Senate. In my judgment, it is very important that
we pass this House amendment so that we in the Senate and the House of
Representatives can get to work on how we reduce the debt and how we
get our house in order as best as we possibly can.
I thank my friend from Ohio for his approach. Dollar for dollar, this
has been attempted in the past. It has been rejected by the Speaker in
the House of Representatives, and it has been rejected by the majority
of the House of Representatives. This is an idea that was once tried,
but it didn't work. I submit, with all due respect, it would not work
this time either for the reasons I just mentioned and for the
additional reason that it would further complicate an effort to
increase our debt limit for a short period of time, which allows us to
do our work.
I now wish to turn to the Toomey amendment. Again, I thank my
colleague from Pennsylvania, a member of
[[Page S420]]
the committee, for industriously coming up with an idea. I must say,
with total respect, I don't think the idea works. Basically the idea is
that when the debt limit is reached, the limit would be increased only
for the purpose of addressing principal and interest on the debt held
by the public or Social Security benefits and military pay, and that is
it. The debt limit is automatically increased only for those three
reasons and not for other reasons; that is, not for other programs the
U.S. Government has an obligation to fund.
What are some of the other programs? Medicare, veterans' benefits,
disability benefits, Medicaid, Pell grants, special education for
disabled children, and highway funding. The list is extremely lengthy.
I just mentioned a few.
What happens if the Toomey amendment is law? First of all, we have
reached our debt limit. What are the credit markets going to think?
What are credit agencies going to think? They are going to think, oh,
my gosh, the U.S. Congress has not increased its debt limit but for
essentially on a daily basis Social Security, interest on the debt, and
military pay. It is not for military procurement or men and women in
the Air Guard. It is just military pay. It sounds as though it is just
for active-duty pay. Think of what will happen. Think of the chaos.
Other agencies are not going to know whether they will be funded. They
have no idea. According to the Toomey amendment, it is up to the
Treasury Secretary to prioritize. How can he do that when there is no
money there and the debt limit is not increased? Frankly, I cannot
believe this amendment is even offered. With all due respect to my
friend from Pennsylvania, it is so nonsensical.
With respect to the two amendments that are offered here, the first
being the Portman amendment, I say to my friends, it has been tried in
the past and it didn't work. It didn't work when the President and
Speaker were trying to negotiate a deal on August 11. It caused chaos
in the markets. That is one of the reasons the markets fell so much in
August of 2011.
If this amendment is agreed to, it will have to be sent back to the
House. It will mean putting this issue of extending the debt limit
increase for 3 months in tremendous jeopardy. I don't think we want to
do that. I think it is the wrong thing to do.
The second amendment, the Toomey amendment, is totally unworkable. It
will cause even more chaos at a time when we are trying to calm the
markets, at a time when we are trying to get more confidence, more
credibility, not less. In my judgment, both--especially the latter--
will result in a lot more worry in the markets, not more confidence. It
will create more worry, more uncertainty, and for those reasons I think
these amendments should be rejected.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COATS. In deference to the Senator from Maryland, I went through
the cold-and-cough crud that caused her to begin coughing, so I fully
understand why she needed to take a break. I am more than willing to
step aside when she comes back.
In the interest of time, since I am next up--I know we are trying to
move toward a vote at 12:15 p.m.--I wish to proceed. I will be happy to
suspend when the Senator gets back.
This afternoon the Senate will vote on a bill recently passed by the
House to suspend the debt ceiling for 4 months. First, I wish to
commend the House on one aspect of the legislation, which I strongly
support, and that is the suspension of salary for Members of Congress
if we do not pass a budget by April 15.
As I mentioned on the floor yesterday, Congress, by law, is required
to pass a budget. It has been nearly 4 years since it has done so. As a
result, the Senate has blatantly ignored its legal duty, not to mention
its moral duty, to enact a budget. This is completely irresponsible,
and, quite frankly, it is embarrassing. If this body cannot fulfill its
most fundamental duty under law to pass a budget, then I say we don't
deserve to get paid.
However, another aspect of the bill that would suspend enforcement of
the Federal debt limit until at least May--and according to recent
statements issued by the administration possibly until August--concerns
me. I understand why the House is taking this approach for political
and tactical reasons, but unfortunately, this decision only continues
the practice of governing from crisis to crisis, cliff to cliff, and
pushing through flawed, haphazard legislation at the last minute as we
did with the vote on the fiscal cliff, which is a great example of how
this body should not function.
As a result of this practice, Members are left deciding between
choosing the lesser of two evils. Never again will I, nor I believe
many of my colleagues, support any legislation that is negotiated in
secret, bypasses the regular process where we have an opportunity to
take it up in committee and amend it, if necessary, and then present it
to the Senate for debate and evaluation or amendment. Never again will
I support something that takes us into the wee hours of the night into
New Year's Eve and New Year's Day and then just have a few minutes to
try to evaluate it with no debate and no opportunity to amend. This is
no way to govern a country. It is no way to strengthen a weak economy
and spur job creation, and it is no way to restore confidence among
consumers and investors, which is such a critical factor in making for
[[Page S421]]
robust growth, which we are not enjoying right now. Eventually all of
us have to stand up and say enough is enough. Pushing these debates up
until the last minute, creating our fiscal cliffs, and passing short-
term measures must cease.
The people of Indiana have had enough. Across the country the
American people have had enough of Washington postponing real action on
the most serious challenge facing our country, namely the out-of-
control plunge into further deficit spending and debt.
Both Republicans and Democrats, the President and the Congress,
liberal and conservative economists and nonpartisan people, all agree
that our continued increase in debt is unsustainable. We all know that
what has been fueling this fire that has engulfed our fiscal house is
spending. To date our meager efforts to deal with this looming fiscal
calamity are like trying to put out a five-alarm fire with the
occasional squeeze of a squirt gun.
I note that the Senator from Maryland is on the floor. If she wishes
to resume, I would be happy to suspend my remarks.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Is that okay with the Senator?
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator for the courtesy. Both the Senator
from Montana and I have been hit by this bug.
Mr. COATS. I was hit by it 2 weeks ago so I fully understand what the
Senator is going through.
Ms. MIKULSKI. 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.
[[Page S422]]
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.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I send my sympathy and empathy to the
Senator from Maryland. Having gone through the same thing, I fully
understand what she is dealing with and trust she will recover quickly.
Picking up where I left off, dare a politician stand here and
acknowledge this? Many don't want to. But the truth is this: The main
driver of our debt and deficit spending is the runaway mandatory
spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
Despite those who claim it is political suicide to touch these
programs and despite the fact none of us are saying we should eliminate
these programs, this is an area where many don't want to tread. But I
believe these programs, which provide much needed benefits for many
Hoosiers and Americans, need to be preserved. But our goal and our
challenge is to find common ground on not how to eliminate these
programs but how to save these programs, both for current retirees and
for future generations. If we don't take steps to reform these
programs, we risk not only bankrupting our country, we risk having to
tell the recipients of the benefits of these programs we no longer can
fulfill their needs and our propositions.
It is difficult for me to support any effort to increase the debt
limit when we continue to avoid taking the necessary steps to eliminate
deficit spending and control our debt in the future. Despite several
bipartisan attempts over the last 2 or 3 years, including efforts by
the Simpson-Bowles Commission--the President's Commission--the Gang of
6 and the supercommittee of 12, we have failed to put together a
credible, long-term deficit reduction package. How then can we continue
to raise the debt limit over and over again without agreeing on a way
to reduce it in the future?
Repeatedly and thoughtlessly raising the debt limit represents a
political moral hazard, a taxpayer bailout for big government
politicians who don't want to be bothered by controlling spending.
Congress continually increasing the debt limit is akin to consumers
having the ability to increase their own credit borrowing limit with no
oversight. We just keep increasing the credit limit to pay for more and
more spending. It reminds me of a parent dealing with an irresponsible
teenager who was given a credit card, asked to stay within the credit
limits but month after month after month continues to exceed the limit
as the debt piles and the interest on the debt accumulates. Eventually,
the parent has to take away the card and take the scissors and cut it
up. At what point do we in the Congress take the congressional credit
card, cut it up, and get control of our spending?
I urge my colleagues and the President to focus not on how to get
enough votes to raise the borrowing limit again but on how we can truly
begin the essential task of eliminating deficit spending and reducing
our debt as a percentage of GDP.
Part of what makes America so remarkable is we have the ability in
this great country to control our destiny. The problems we face are not
insurmountable, but they are not avoidable either. It is time we take a
stand and do what the people we represent sent us to do. It is time we
make the changes we pledged we would make when we were seeking office,
and it is time we take control of our country's financial future and
put America on a path to prosperity.
With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I am going to lay out and discuss a motion
to commit which I have at the desk, and we are going to be voting on
that motion to commit later today. It is very simple, very
straightforward. In fact, I will read it:
Mr. Vitter moves to commit the bill H.R. 325--
That is, of course, the debt limit increase which we have at the desk
which we are debating--
to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the
same back to the Senate within 7 days with legislative
language that makes changes in existing programs that reduce
Federal spending by the increase amount required by section
2(b) . . . over the period of fiscal years 2013 to 2022.
It is very simple. By whatever amount we are increasing the debt
limit, so too would we reduce spending. The idea is to start actually
paying for what we spend or at least paying for the extra we are going
to borrow. It is a commonsense idea, a straightforward approach, and it
is not Draconian. We can do it. It starts to put discipline into the
process.
This bill before us suspends the debt limit until May 18. That is
estimated to mean between $300 billion and $400 billion in additional
deficit spending. So under this motion to commit, that is the savings
we would find. Those are the cuts we would make: $300 billion to $400
billion total over 10 years. Obviously, that is $30 billion to $40
billion a year. That is thoroughly doable. It is meaningful. It takes
some work, but it is thoroughly doable, and those savings would be such
a small percentage. The part for this year would only be about 3
percent of the deficit and around 1 percent of total Federal spending.
If we can't find between $30 billion and $40 billion a year in
savings, is
[[Page S423]]
there truly a way we can agree to major budget reforms? If we can't
find those modest savings, should we be borrowing more money to just
spend and spend and spend?
Let me be clear. My limited motion is not enough. We need more
spending cuts and we need more and fundamental budget reform and we
need it now. But I am proposing a reasonable first step that is
concrete and meaningful as a downpayment toward fiscal soundness.
This bill is short term. It is a patch. It is for 3 months. But it
puts us on the right path. It is a concrete, meaningful first step.
Surely, we should have learned by now; Congress passed the last debt
limit deal in 2011, but we got a credit downgrade anyway. As we
continue to rack up more and more debt--without spending reform,
without budget reform--a new downgrade has to be on the way. It is not
a question of if; it is a question of when.
All the credit rating agencies have maintained their negative
outlook, including after the fiscal cliff deal. The problem, as it was
with the deal passed on New Year's Day, is not that we are taxed too
little; the problem is we clearly spend too much. Not enough folks in
this building recognize that. Everybody in the real world recognizes
that, and certainly the credit rating agencies recognize that.
So why don't we take this reasonable, concrete first step? Again, my
modest amendment is a small downpayment but an important step, concrete
action during the time for which this bill would increase debt, as we
work toward a more comprehensive solution.
If we are going to raise the debt limit, we must at least show the
taxpayers, the credit rating agencies, and the world that we are
serious about getting our fiscal house in order. Without this type of
amendment--or in this case a motion to commit--we are not saying that
in any way, shape, or form with this bill. That is why without this
sort of motion to commit or a roughly similar amendment, I cannot vote
for this debt limit increase.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in a bipartisan way around
this approach. I think it would be a step in the right detection.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the order.
Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S424]]
Amendment No. 9
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment
No. 9.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paul] proposes an amendment
numbered 9.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To prohibit the sale, lease, transfer, retransfer, or
delivery of F-16 aircraft, M1 tanks, or certain other defense articles
or services to the Government of Egypt)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN MILITARY SALES TO EGYPT.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the United States Government shall not license, approve,
facilitate, or otherwise allow the sale, lease, transfer,
retransfer, or delivery of F-16 aircraft, M1 tanks, or other
defense articles or services listed in Category VI, VII, or
VIII of the United States Munitions List to the Government of
Egypt.
(b) United States Munitions List Defined.--In this section,
the term ``United States Munitions List'' means the list
referred to in section 38(a)(1) of the Arms Export Control
Act (22 U.S.C. 2778(a)(1)), as in effect on January 1, 2013.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I rise today to present an amendment that
would stop the transfer of F-16s and Abrams tanks to Egypt. I think it
particularly unwise to send tanks and our most sophisticated fighter
planes to Egypt at a time in which many are saying the country may be
unraveling.
Ironically, a year ago, the Arab spring occurred. Hundreds of
thousands of people gathered in Tahir Square to protest against the
government that was instituting martial law. Ironically, the current
President now has instituted martial law. Once again, the dread
``indefinite detention'' is threatened to citizens in Egypt.
As the rioting expands, many see Egyptian descending into chaos. What
is President Obama's response to this? To send them some of the most
sophisticated weapons we have, F-16 fighters and Abrams tanks. I think
this is particularly unwise. This amendment will stop it. I think this
is particularly unwise since Egypt is currently governed by a religious
zealot, a religious zealot who said recently that Jews were
``bloodsuckers'' and ``descendents of apes and pigs.''
This does not sound like the kind of stable personality to whom we
should be sending our most sophisticated weapons. I think it is a grave
mistake to send F-16s and Abrams tanks to a country that last year
detained American citizens on trumped-up political charges, to a
country that currently is still detaining Egyptian citizens on trumped-
up political charges.
I think it is a blunder of the first proportion to send sophisticated
weapons to a country that allowed a mob to attack our embassy and to
burn our flag. I find it objectionable to send weapons, F-16s and
tanks, to a country that allowed a mob chanting ``death to America'' to
threaten our American diplomats.
I am concerned that these weapons, some of the most sophisticated
weapons in the world, someday may be used against Israel. I am
concerned these weapons threaten Israel's security. I am concerned that
we are sending weapons to a country with a President who recently was
seen to be chanting ``Amen'' to a cleric who was saying, ``death to
Israel'' and ``death to those who support Israel.''
I think it is foolhardy to support and send arms to both sides of an
arms race. We send 20 F-16s to Egypt, which already has 240 F-16s. We
send 20 in addition. What does Israel feel? They have to have two for
every one Egypt has. It escalates an arms race and makes it more
difficult for Israel to defend herself.
Today we have a chance to stop this folly. I urge my colleagues to
instruct the President that we will not send any more F-16s and any
more Abrams tanks to the current Government of Egypt.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering H.R. 325.
Mr. McCAIN. How much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Only Democratic time remains.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I speak in opposition to the amendment
evidenced by my friend, the Senator from Kentucky, which would prohibit
the sale, licensing, approval, facilitation, transfer, retransfer, or
delivery of any defense articles and services to the Government of
Egypt, including F-16 aircraft and M-1 tanks.
There are many problems with this amendment. I would like to explain.
First, the amendment is not revenue neutral. The Congressional Budget
Office has not provided an official score, despite my request, but
there is a way to avoid the basic fact that there are numerous costs
associated with this amendment. The defense articles the Senator from
Kentucky wishes to block and prohibit are manufactured by American
workers and defense companies. They have contracts to produce this
equipment, and American workers are doing that as we speak.
If the Federal Government steps in, as my colleague's amendment would
mandate, those contracts would have to be immediately broken, and U.S.
production lines would have to be shut down immediately. There is a
cost of breaching a contract in this country, and there should be. That
does not change just because the government is the one doing the
breaching. This is also as it should be.
So the Senator's amendment would obligate the Federal Government to
pay the many costs to American businesses and workers for breaking our
commitments to them. Furthermore, many of these defense articles have
already been produced. They have already been paid for. They are
technically the property of the Egyptian Government already. If the
Congress prohibits these defense articles from being delivered to
Egypt, they become the responsibility of the U.S. Government. We will
have to store them somewhere, and that is not free either.
In short, there are a lot of hidden costs in this amendment. If this
provision becomes law in its current form, it will add to the national
debt. This is fiscally irresponsible, and I cannot support it on these
grounds alone.
Second, and more important than the costs associated with this
amendment, it is harmful to America's national security interests. I
know as well as anyone that Egypt is beset now with many problems.
I was in Egypt 2 weeks ago with a bipartisan delegation of my
colleagues. The Muslim Brotherhood-led government, which I would remind
my colleagues was elected by the Egyptian people, has done a poor job
of governing in an exclusive and pluralistic way, establishing the rule
of law, and building democratic institutions.
The results of the Egyptian Government's failing are plain to see in
the awful street violence and expanding unrest in Egypt. President
Morsi's government has not been able to stem the violence and has often
made matters worse. Egyptian police seem to have neither the capacity
nor the legitimacy to restore order. The fact is, despite its flaws,
the Egyptian Army remains one of the major stabilizing forces in Egypt
today. If, God forbid, the current unrest worsens, and Egypt tips
deeper into civil conflict, the one force in that country that might be
capable of pulling Egypt back from the abyss is the Egyptian military.
If the Senate were to adopt the amendment proposed by the Senator
from Kentucky, we would not only be harming the effectiveness of the
Egyptian military, which, by the way, is not objected to by the
Israelis, who probably understand better than anyone what defense
capabilities might be used someday to threaten their security, we would
be rupturing a decades-long partnership and denying and squandering our
influence with the leaders of one of the most important institutions in
Egypt.
The ramifications of this decision would be enormous, especially when
it comes to the ability of U.S. ships, including U.S. aircraft carriers
and other
[[Page S425]]
vessels, to transit the Suez Canal securely and effectively. I would
urge the Senator from Kentucky to call the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff and ask him what effect this would have on the U.S. military
and America's overall national security.
As I say, this amendment would be even more detrimental to our ally
Israel, for which the continuing instability in Egypt is an abiding,
clear and present danger. I have seen no objections raised by our
Israeli allies to U.S. military assistance to Egypt, nor do I expect to
see any. Here too I would urge my colleague to pick up the phone and
call the Israeli Ambassador or just recall what I am sure he heard from
Israel's leaders during his recent visit there a few weeks ago.
This amendment is absolutely harmful to the national security of our
ally Israel. The timing of the amendment is also detrimental because
our government is currently engaged in discussions with the Egyptian
Government and military about the need to shift our security
cooperation more toward the kinds of programs and equipment Egypt needs
to combat the threats they increasingly face: porous borders, a rising
threat from terrorism, deteriorating conditions in the Sinai, and a
security sector in dire need of reform. It is in Egypt's interest to
move in this direction, as they are beginning to do. It is in our
interest to help them.
If we adopt this amendment, the promise of this entire endeavor will
be destroyed. Egypt will suffer, Israel will suffer, and the United
States will suffer.
I oppose this amendment because it is uninformed and oblivious to the
world challenges America faces and our continuing need to work with
America's partners, imperfect and frustrating though they may be, to
defend our Nation, our interests, and our allies in an increasingly
dangerous world.
Finally, the Middle East is in a period of transition and change that
we have not seen practically in its entire history. The Egyptians are
key and vital to what happens in that part of the world. It is the
heart, soul, and center of the Arab world. One out of every four Arabs
who live in the Arab world lives in Egypt. It is the cultural and
historic center of all the Arab world.
It is vital we do whatever we can to see that Egypt makes a
transition to a free, democratic, and open society. That is in grave
danger today. To pass this amendment today and send this message to
Egypt in this very unstable and unsure time, I believe, would be
exactly the wrong message at this time. I would also point out that
this legislation has nothing to do with Egypt. It has nothing to do
with Egypt.
A decision of this magnitude, in my view, requires hearings, debate,
and legislation that would stand by itself, rather than in a 15- or 20-
minute discussion on the floor of the Senate. For that reason alone, I
urge my colleagues to overwhelmingly--as we have other amendments of
the Senator from Kentucky--reject this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PAUL. I find the argument spurious and, frankly, absurd that not
giving F-16s to Egypt is somehow against the interests of Israel.
Imagine this. The President of Egypt has called Jews bloodsuckers and
descendents of apes and pigs. The President of Egypt has also said that
when we look at the relationship of Israel and her supporters--he stood
next to a cleric, chanted ``Amen'' and said ``Amen,'' that we should go
after and destroy Israel and the supporters of Israel.
Somehow it is a good idea to ship weapons to this country and to this
religious zealot? I find it absurd that that would be in Israel's best
interests. Somehow, the argument is made that, oh, this will lead to
stability in Egypt. Well, giving F-16s is somehow going to stabilize
unrest in Egypt? It makes no sense whatsoever.
I would say that when we look at this and we hear arguments such as
this will cost money, do you know whose money it was that bought these
F-16? It was our money to begin with. We send the money to Egypt and
then they buy the weapons from us.
If we are worried about a place to store the F-16s, why don't we give
them to our military? Everybody seems to be saying it is a problem,
this sequester, and there is not enough money for our military. Why
don't we give the 20 F-16s to our military? Why don't we give the tanks
to our military? Apparently, these are more tanks that are being given
to Egypt than often different contingents of our Marines have at any
one given point in time.
I would say keep the money and keep the weapons in our country. Mark
my words, it is a mistake to send these weapons to Egypt. It is not in
Israel's best interest.
For people to come down and argue it is in Israel's best interest to
send weapons to a country that professes hate, professes a disbelief in
the Holocaust, that professes they are in favor of destroying Israel--
that is whom we are supposed to send these weapons to? It makes no
sense at all.
Our foreign policy often makes no sense at all. I do think we need to
reassess. We made this deal with Mubarak. We didn't make this deal with
Mursi. Currently, Egypt is unraveling. I think it is a terrible mistake
to send these weapons to Egypt, and I hope my colleagues will consider
that.
I yield back the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 6
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote on amendment No. 6,
offered by the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Portman.
The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, we had a debate earlier on this. This
is the Dollar-for-Dollar Deficit Reduction Act. It makes all the sense
in the world.
Here we have a $16 trillion national debt, now exceeding $130,000 per
household in America. We are told by the Congressional Budget Office
that there is $9 trillion more coming over the next decade.
We have to make this difference here on this bill. We have to take
this opportunity to ensure that we are, in fact, beginning to reduce
spending, getting this under control, as we once again are asked to
extend the debt limit.
This would not apply to this particular short-term debt limit, by the
way; it would set up the discipline for the next debt limit, which is
anywhere from 3 to 6 months from now.
Now is the time for us to come together as Republicans and Democrats
and determine how we indeed reform the entitlement programs, put tax
reform in place, go through regular order in the Finance Committee, as
the chairman and others have called for, to ensure that we can get this
under control.
It is a commonsense proposal. We did it 2 years ago. Most Democrats
and most Republicans here on the floor supported it in the past. About
95 Democrats in the House have also supported it. It is a dollar-for-
dollar reduction over 10 years as we raise the debt limit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, on January 23, something marvelous
happened. What was that? The House, on a strong bipartisan basis,
passed a bill which would raise the debt limit, which would extend the
debt limit to May 18. It was bipartisan. Speaker Boehner is to be
commended.
This town is criticized for its lack of working together because it
is just too partisan. Speaker Boehner found a solution to help us
relieve the pressure so we can get our job done and get the deficit
spending under control.
The method suggested by the Senator from Ohio is a step backward. We
have tried that. We tried that a couple of years ago, and it didn't
work. We all remember August 11, when the markets basically collapsed
when the credit agencies began to downgrade our debt.
[[Page S426]]
So I say let's follow the lead of the bipartisan Speaker, who found a
way through great leadership to pass a provision. We should pass the
same provision because if we don't, then we will be back to chaos.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. BAUCUS. Amending the provision means it has to go back to the
House. If you think the markets are in disarray today, just think of
the lack of confidence that would prevail if this amendment were to
succeed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I move to table the Portman amendment
and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kerry) and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 44, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 6 Leg.]
YEAS--54
Baldwin
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Nelson
Paul
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--44
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--2
Kerry
Murray
The motion was agreed to.
____________________