[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 14 (Thursday, January 31, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Page 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--Continued


                            Amendment No. 7

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 7 offered by the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Portman.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, this amendment is a commonsense 
amendment that would end government shutdowns as well as keep us from 
facing these last-minute budget deals. For all regular programs or 
activities for which an appropriation bill has not been approved, the 
End Government Shutdowns Act would automatically continue funding--no 
significant disruption, no crisis for citizens, no furloughed 
employees, and no rush to approve a budget agreement that folks simply 
haven't read.
  It doesn't take pressure off lawmakers altogether, however, because 
it forces us to complete our work by saying that after 120 days, 
spending would be reduced by one percentage point and then every 90 
days by one more percentage point. It would force the administration, 
Congress, and Members of both parties to come together to make sure we 
have regular order and we have a process by which we have to get 
appropriations bills done, which we haven't been doing around here.
  Instead of bouncing from crisis to crisis worrying about government 
shutdowns and having to vote on rush bills that Members haven't read 
and staff haven't had time to review, this is a more sensible and 
logical way to proceed. The American people expect us to do it and I 
hope we get support from both sides of the aisle on this bipartisan 
approach.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I oppose the amendment. It would 
trigger an automatic CR if Congress doesn't pass appropriations bills 
or a CR.
  I understand the Senator's goal, but I oppose the amendment for three 
reasons: One, the amendment is really about cutting; it is not about 
keeping the government open. It includes an automatic CR with a 1-
percent cut every 90 days, which means it would be compounded--these 
would be compounded cuts by compounded interest--if the Congress does 
not pass an appropriations bill. So a cut every 90 days would be a 1-
percent cut, and then the following 90 days another 1 percent.
  The amendment gives up Congress's constitutional responsibility. If 
we go on auto pilot, it gives the major power of the purse, which is 
mandated in the Constitution, to OMB and Cabinet officers--essentially 
nonelected political appointees. I don't think the Congress or the 
American people want to give the power of the purse to nonelected 
political appointees. Also, I agree we need to get back to regular 
order.
  Madam President, because I disagree with this amendment, 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.
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.

                          ____________________