in 1985, we passed gramm-rudman-hollings which set forth specific deficit targets and required compromise if those targets were not met. the framework for today's legislation is based on that model. as one of the authors of the gramm-rudman-hollings act put it, senator gramm, -- quote -- "it was never the objective of gramm-rudman to trigger this sequester. the objective of gramm-rudman was to have the threat of the sequester force compromise and action." close quote. and it did. for example, in 1990, when facing the possibility of unacceptable cuts in defense and other important programs, president bush and bipartisan leaders in congress adopted a balanced deficit reduction plan that included significant new revenues. the damocles sword of the gramm-rudman-hollings deficit reduction act was the reason for that outcome. i believe that any plan from the bipartisan committee that fails the test of balance will have no chance of passage in the united states senate. that means that members of the committee must truly be willing to lead, to put aside partisanship and rigid ideology if we are t

gramm rudman hollings was tagged onto a debt limit increase under ronald reagan.. it was $2 billion. now we just raised it $2 trillion. but once in a very, very blue moon, only one other time in history that i saw has the debt limit been used. even then nobody was threatening to renege, to default on the full faith and credit of the united states. i think this is a recipe for mischief. it will continue to work until it doesn't, in other words until finally somebody pushes us into default and that's going to tax every single american and be catastrophic. >> i've been very public about saying anybody who want to default this nation is making a big mistake, they're wrong to think we can do that and it won't have terrible consequences. it will. but people are also wrong to think we should just keep raising the debt limit and keep on spending. that's why we keep on having to raise a debt limit. so if a limit is going to actually have any meaning and be a limit, you have to take it seriously. you don't just keep raising it every time it comes up. that's what's gotten us

in 1985, we passed gramm-rudman-hollings which set forth specific deficit targets and required compromise if those targets were not met. the framework for today's legislation is based on that model. as one of the authors of the gramm-rudman-hollings act put it, senator gramm, -- quote -- "it was never the objective of gramm-rudman to trigger this sequester. the objective of gramm-rudman was to have the threat of the sequester force compromise and action." close quote. and it did. for example, in 1990, when facing the possibility of unacceptable cuts in defense and other important programs, president bush and bipartisan leaders in congress adopted a balanced deficit reduction plan that included significant new revenues. the damocles sword of the gramm-rudman-hollings deficit reduction act was the reason for that outcome. i believe that any plan from the bipartisan committee that fails the test of balance will have no chance of passage in the united states senate. that means that members of the committee must truly be willing to lead, to put aside partisanship and rigid ideology if we are t

the graham-rudman-hollings -- the gramm-rudman-hollings budget law of 1985 had ferocious automatic cuts, which congress turned out not to like." you are on the air. we're waiting for your thoughts. what do you think? caller: i wish you would rephrase that because i was not really paying attention. host: should the super committee hold public meetings? caller: i believe they should, but first of all, we should not have a super committee. our country is not a democracy, it is a republic. we should not have the super committee to begin with, in my opinion. host: ok, you think all lawmakers should be involved? caller: yes, our founding fathers founded it this way for a reason, for balance of powers. of course, i believe there is too much power given over to -- our executive branch is trying to take too much of the power and not even relying on congress. host: alice, from quincy, florida. you're on the air. you have to turn the television now. i will put you on hold. fred, independent, austin, texas. caller: i agree with the previous caller. i think we should run the country to the founding