[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 117 (Saturday, July 30, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5791-H5811]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2693) to cut spending, maintain existing commitments, and
for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 2693
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Budget
Control Act of 2011''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
TITLE I--DISCRETIONARY SPENDING CAPS AND ENFORCEMENT
Sec. 101. Discretionary spending limits.
Sec. 102. Senate budget enforcement.
TITLE II--OTHER SPENDING CUTS
Subtitle A--Federal Pell Grant and Student Loan Program Changes
Sec. 211. Federal Pell Grant and student loan program changes.
Subtitle B--Farm Programs
Sec. 221. Definition of payment acres.
TITLE III--JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON DEFICIT REDUCTION
Sec. 301. Establishment of Joint Select Committee.
Sec. 302. Expedited consideration of joint committee recommendations.
Sec. 303. Funding.
Sec. 304. Rulemaking.
TITLE IV--DEBT CEILING DISAPPROVAL PROCESS
Sec. 401. Debt ceiling disapproval process.
TITLE I--DISCRETIONARY SPENDING CAPS AND ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 101. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.
(a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House
of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill,
resolution, amendment, motion or conference report that
includes any provision that would cause the discretionary
spending limits as set forth in this section to be exceeded.
(b) Limits.--
(1) In general.--In this section, the term ``discretionary
spending limits'' has the following meaning subject to
adjustments in paragraph (2) and subsection (c):
(A) For fiscal year 2012--
(i) for the security category $606,000,000,000 in budget
authority; and
(ii) for the nonsecurity category $439,000,000,000 in
budget authority.
(B) For fiscal year 2013--
(i) for the security category $607,000,000,000 in budget
authority; and
(ii) for the nonsecurity category $440,000,000,000 in
budget authority.
(C) For fiscal year 2014, for the discretionary category,
$1,068,000,000,000 in budget authority.
(D) For fiscal year 2015, for the discretionary category,
$1,089,000,000,000 in budget authority.
(E) For fiscal year 2016, for the discretionary category,
$1,111,000,000,000 in budget authority.
(F) For fiscal year 2017, for the discretionary category,
$1,134,000,000,000 in budget authority.
(G) For fiscal year 2018, for the discretionary category,
$1,156,000,000,000 in budget authority.
(H) For fiscal year 2019, for the discretionary category,
$1,180,000,000,000 in budget authority.
(I) For fiscal year 2020, for the discretionary category,
$1,203,000,000,000 in budget authority.
(J) For fiscal year 2021, for the discretionary category,
$1,227,000,000,000 in budget authority.
(2) Authorized adjustment to limits.--
(A) Adjustments for budget submission.--When the President
submits a budget under section 1105 of title 31, United
States Code, OMB shall calculate and the budget shall include
adjustments to discretionary spending limits (and those
limits as cumulatively adjusted) for the budget year and each
out year equal to the baseline levels of new budget authority
using up-to-date concepts and definitions minus those levels
using the concepts and definitions in effect before such
changes. Such changes may only be made after consultation
with the committees on
[[Page H5792]]
Appropriations and the Budget of the House of Representatives
and the Senate and that consultation shall include written
communication to such committees that affords such committees
the opportunity to comment before official action is taken
with respect to such changes.
(B) Adjustments for congressional enforcement.--For the
purposes of Congressional enforcement of the limits in this
section, the Chairmen of the Committees on the Budget of the
Senate and House of Representatives may adjust the
discretionary spending limits in amounts equal to the
adjustments made pursuant to subparagraph (A) as contained in
the President's budget. Any adjustment made pursuant to this
subparagraph shall not constitute a repeal or change to the
limits contained in this section.
(c) Estimates and Other Adjustments.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Limits and suballocations for congressional
enforcement.--After the reporting of a bill or joint
resolution relating to any matter described in paragraph (2),
(3), or (4), or the offering of an amendment thereto or the
submission of a conference report thereon--
(i) for the purposes of enforcement of the discretionary
spending limits in the Senate and the House of
Representatives, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget
of that House may adjust the discretionary spending limits in
this section, the budgetary aggregates in the concurrent
resolution on the budget most recently adopted by the Senate
and the House of Representatives, and allocations pursuant to
section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, by
the amount of new budget authority in that measure for that
purpose; and
(ii) following any adjustment under clause (i), the
Committee on Appropriations of that House may report
appropriately revised suballocations pursuant to section
302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to carry out
this subsection.
(B) Other adjustments.--For the purposes of determining an
end of the year sequester pursuant to subsection (f), when
OMB submits a sequestration report under subsection (f)(7)
for a fiscal year, OMB shall calculate, and the sequestration
report and subsequent budgets submitted by the President
under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, shall
include, adjustments to discretionary spending limits (and
those limits as adjusted) for the fiscal year and each
succeeding year through 2021 upon the enactment of a bill or
resolution relating to any matter described in paragraphs
(2), (3), or (4).
(C) Estimates.--
(i) CBO estimates.--As soon as practicable after Congress
completes action on any discretionary appropriation, CBO,
after consultation with the Committees on the Budget of the
House of Representatives and the Senate, shall provide OMB
with an estimate of the amount of discretionary new budget
authority for the current year (if any) and the budget year
provided by that legislation.
(ii) OMB estimates and explanation of differences.--
(I) In general.--Not later than 7 calendar days (excluding
Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) after the date of
enactment of any discretionary appropriation, OMB shall make
publicly available on the day it is issued and, on the
following day, shall be printed in the Federal Register a
report containing the CBO estimate of that legislation, an
OMB estimate of the amount of discretionary new budget
authority for the current year (if any) and the budget year
provided by that legislation, and an explanation of any
difference between the 2 estimates.
(II) Differences.--If during the preparation of the report
OMB determines that there is a significant difference between
OMB and CBO, OMB shall consult with the Committees on the
Budget of the House of Representatives and the Senate
regarding that difference and that consultation shall
include, to the extent practicable, written communication to
those committees that affords such committees the opportunity
to comment before the issuance of the report.
(D) Assumptions and guidelines.--OMB estimates under
subparagraph (C) shall be made using current economic and
technical assumptions. In its final sequestration report, OMB
shall use the OMB estimates transmitted to the Congress under
this paragraph. OMB and CBO shall prepare estimates under
this paragraph in conformance with scorekeeping guidelines
determined after consultation among the House and Senate
Committees on the Budget, CBO, and OMB.
(E) Annual appropriations.--For purposes of this paragraph,
amounts provided by annual appropriations shall include any
new budget authority for the current year (if any) and the
advance appropriations that become available in the budget
year from previously enacted legislation.
(2) Other adjustments.--Other adjustments referred to in
paragraph (1)(B) are as follows:
(A) Continuing disability reviews and ssi
redeterminations.--
(i) In general.--If a bill or joint resolution is reported
making appropriations in a fiscal year of the first amount
specified in subclauses (I) through (X) of clause (ii) for
that fiscal year for continuing disability reviews and
Supplemental Security Income redeterminations under the
heading ``Limitation on Administrative Expenses'' for the
Social Security Administration, and provides an additional
appropriation for continuing disability reviews and
Supplemental Security Income redeterminations for the Social
Security Administration, or one or more initiatives that the
Office of the Chief Actuary determines would be at least as
cost effective as a redetermination of eligibility under the
heading ``Limitation on Administrative Expenses'' for the
Social Security Administration of up to an amount further
specified in that subclause, then the discretionary spending
limits, allocation to the Committees on Appropriations of
each House, and aggregates for that fiscal year may be
adjusted by the amount in budget authority not to exceed the
additional appropriation provided in such legislation for
that purpose for that fiscal year.
(ii) Amounts specified.--The amounts specified are--
(I) for fiscal year 2012, an appropriation of $758,000,000,
and an additional appropriation of $237,000,000;
(II) for fiscal year 2013, an appropriation of
$758,000,000, and an additional appropriation of
$390,000,000;
(III) for fiscal year 2014, an appropriation of
$778,000,000, and an additional appropriation of
$559,000,000;
(IV) for fiscal year 2015, an appropriation of
$799,000,000, and an additional appropriation of
$774,000,000;
(V) for fiscal year 2016, an appropriation of $822,000,000,
and an additional appropriation of $778,000,000;
(VI) for fiscal year 2017, an appropriation of
$849,000,000, and an additional appropriation of
$804,000,000;
(VII) for fiscal year 2018, an appropriation of
$877,000,000, and an additional appropriation of
$831,000,000;
(VIII) for fiscal year 2019, an appropriation of
$906,000,000, and an additional appropriation of
$860,000,000;
(IX) for fiscal year 2020, an appropriation of
$935,000,000, and an additional appropriation of
$890,000,000; and
(X) for fiscal year 2021, an appropriation of $963,000,000,
and an additional appropriation of $924,000,000.
(iii) Definitions.--As used in this subparagraph, the terms
``continuing disability reviews'' and ``Supplemental Security
Income redeterminations'' mean continuing disability reviews
under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act and
redeterminations of eligibility under title XVI of the Social
Security Act.
(iv) Report.--The Commissioner of Social Security shall
provide annually to the Congress a report on continuing
disability reviews and Supplemental Security Income
redeterminations which includes--
(I) the amount spent on continuing disability reviews and
Supplemental Security Income redeterminations in the fiscal
year covered by the report, and the number of reviews and
redeterminations conducted, by category of review or
redetermination;
(II) the results of the continuing disability reviews and
Supplemental Security Income redeterminations in terms of
cessations of benefits or determinations of continuing
eligibility, by program; and
(III) the estimated savings over they
short-, medium-, and long-term to the Old-age, Survivors, and
Disability Insurance, Supplemental Security Income, Medicare,
and Medicaid programs from continuing disability reviews and
Supplemental Security Income redeterminations which result in
cessations of benefits and the estimated present value of
such savings.
(B) Internal revenue service tax enforcement.--
(i) In general.--If a bill or joint resolution is reported
making appropriations in a fiscal year to the Internal
Revenue Service of not less than the first amount specified
in subclauses (I) through (X) of clause (ii) for tax
activities for that fiscal year, including tax compliance to
address the Federal tax gap (taxes owed but not paid), and
provides an additional appropriation for tax activities,
including tax compliance activities to address the Federal
tax gap, of up to an amount further specified in that
subclause, then the discretionary spending limits, allocation
to the Committees on Appropriations of each House, and
aggregates for that fiscal year may be adjusted by the amount
in budget authority not to exceed the amount of additional
appropriations for tax activities, including tax compliance
to address the Federal tax gap provided in such legislation
for that fiscal year.
(ii) Amounts specified.--The amounts specified are--
(I) for fiscal year 2012, an appropriation of
$7,979,000,000, and an additional appropriation of
$2,519,000,000 for tax activities, including tax compliance
to address the Federal tax gap;
(II) for fiscal year 2013, an appropriation of
$7,979,000,000, and an additional appropriation of
$3,132,000,000 for tax activities, including tax compliance
to address the Federal tax gap;
(III) for fiscal year 2014, an appropriation of
$8,204,000,000, and an additional appropriation of
$3,542,000,000 for tax activities, including tax compliance
to address the Federal tax gap;
(IV) for fiscal year 2015, an appropriation of
$8,444,000,000, and an additional appropriation of
$3,975,000,000 for tax activities, including tax compliance
to address the Federal tax gap;
[[Page H5793]]
(V) for fiscal year 2016, an appropriation of
$8,710,000,000, and an additional appropriation of
$4,486,000,000 for tax activities, including tax compliance
to address the Federal tax gap;
(VI) for fiscal year 2017, an appropriation of
$9,012,000,000, and an additional appropriation of
$4,538,000,000 for tax activities, including tax compliance
to address the Federal tax gap;
(VII) for fiscal year 2018, an appropriation of
$9,330,000,000, and an additional appropriation of
$4,585,000,000 for tax activities, including tax compliance
to address the Federal tax gap;
(VIII) for fiscal year 2019, an appropriation of
$9,667,000,000, and an additional appropriation of
$4,626,000,000 for tax activities, including tax compliance
to address the Federal tax gap;
(IX) for fiscal year 2020, an appropriation of
$9,989,000,000, and an additional appropriation of
$4,688,000,000 for tax activities, including tax compliance
to address the Federal tax gap; and
(X) for fiscal year 2021, an appropriation of
$10,315,000,000, and an additional appropriation of
$4,754,000,000 for tax activities, including tax compliance
to address the Federal tax gap.
(iii) Definition.--As used in this subparagraph, the term
``additional appropriation for tax activities, including tax
compliance to address the Federal tax gap'' means new and
continuing investments in expanding and improving the
effectiveness and efficiency of the overall tax enforcement
and compliance program of the Internal Revenue Service and
fully funding operational support activities at the Internal
Revenue Service. New and continuing investments include
additional resources for implementing new authorities and for
conducting additional examinations, audits, and enhanced
third party data matching.
(iv) Appropriation.--The first amount specified in
subclauses (I) through (X) of clause (ii) is the amount under
one or more headings in an appropriations Act for the
Internal Revenue Service that is specified to pay for the
costs of tax activities, including tax compliance to address
the Federal tax gap.
(v) Additional amount.--The amounts further specified in
subclauses (I) through (X) of clause (ii) are the amounts
under one or more headings in an appropriations Act for the
Internal Revenue Service for the amount of the additional
appropriation for tax activities, including tax compliance to
address the Federal tax gap, but such adjustment shall be 0
(zero) unless the appropriations Act under the heading
``Operations Support'' for the Internal Revenue Service
provides that such sums as are necessary shall be available,
under the ``Operations Support'' heading, to fully support
tax enforcement and compliance activities.
(C) Health care fraud and abuse control.--
(i) In general.--If a bill or joint resolution is reported
making appropriations in a fiscal year of the first amount
specified in subclauses (I) through (X) of clause (ii) for
program integrity or fraud and abuse activities under the
heading ``Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Account''
program for the Department of Health and Human Services for
that fiscal year, and provides an additional appropriation
for program integrity or fraud and abuse activities under the
heading ``Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Account''
program for the Department of Health and Human Services of up
to an amount further specified that subclause, then the
discretionary spending limits, allocation to the Committees
on Appropriations of each House, and aggregates for that year
may be adjusted in an amount not to exceed the amount in
budget authority provided in such legislation for that
purpose for that fiscal year.
(ii) Amounts specified.--The amounts specified are--
(I) for fiscal year 2012, an appropriation of $311,000,000,
and an additional appropriation of $270,000,000;
(II) for fiscal year 2013, an appropriation of
$311,000,000, and an additional appropriation of
$299,000,000;
(III) for fiscal year 2014, an appropriation of
$326,000,000, and an additional appropriation of
$314,000,000;
(IV) for fiscal year 2015, an appropriation of
$340,000,000, and an additional appropriation of
$332,000,000;
(V) for fiscal year 2016, an appropriation of $356,000,000,
and an additional appropriation of $350,000,000;
(VI) for fiscal year 2017, an appropriation of
$373,000,000, and an additional appropriation of
$352,000,000;
(VII) for fiscal year 2018, an appropriation of
$391,000,000, and an additional appropriation of
$354,000,000;
(VIII) for fiscal year 2019, an appropriation of
$411,000,000, and an additional appropriation of
$354,000,000;
(IX) for fiscal year 2020, an appropriation of
$430,000,000, and an additional appropriation of
$356,000,000; and
(X) for fiscal year 2021, an appropriation of $451,000,000,
and an additional appropriation of $356,000,000.
(iii) Definition.--As used in this subparagraph, the term
``program integrity or fraud and abuse activities'' means
those activities authorized by section 1817(k)(3) of the
Social Security Act and other related program integrity
activities, including administrative costs, in the Medicare
Advantage and the Medicare Prescription Drug Programs
authorized in title XVIII of the Social Security Act, in
section 1893 of the Social Security Act, in Medicaid
authorized in title XIX of the Social Security Act, and in
the Children's Health Insurance Program (``CHIP'') authorized
in title XXI of the Social Security Act.
(iv) Report.--The report required by section 1817(k)(5) of
the Social Security Act for each fiscal year shall include
measures of the operational efficiency and impact on fraud,
waste, and abuse in the Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs
for the funds provided by an adjustment under this
subparagraph.
(D) Unemployment insurance improper payment reviews.--
(i) In general.--If a bill or joint resolution is reported
making appropriations in a fiscal year of the first amount
specified in subclauses (I) through (X) of clause (ii) for
in-person reemployment and eligibility assessments and
unemployment insurance improper payment reviews under the
heading ``State Unemployment Insurance and Employment Service
Operations'' for the Department of Labor for that fiscal
year, and provides an additional appropriation for in-person
reemployment and eligibility assessments and unemployment
insurance improper payment reviews under the heading ``State
Unemployment Insurance and Employment Service Operations''
for the Department of Labor of up to an amount further
specified in that subclause, then the discretionary spending
limits, allocation to the Committees on Appropriations of
each House, and aggregates for that year may be adjusted by
an amount in budget authority not to exceed the additional
appropriation provided in such legislation for that purpose
for that fiscal year.
(ii) Amounts specified.--The amounts specified are--
(I) for fiscal year 2012, an appropriation of $60,000,000,
and an additional appropriation of $10,000,000;
(II) for fiscal year 2013, an appropriation of $60,000,000,
and an additional appropriation of $15,000,000;
(III) for fiscal year 2014, an appropriation of
$61,000,000, and an additional appropriation of $19,000,000;
(IV) for fiscal year 2015, an appropriation of $61,000,000,
and an additional appropriation of $24,000,000;
(V) for fiscal year 2016, an appropriation of $62,000,000,
and an additional appropriation of $28,000,000;
(VI) for fiscal year 2017, an appropriation of $63,000,000,
and an additional appropriation of $28,000,000;
(VII) for fiscal year 2018, an appropriation of
$64,000,000, and an additional appropriation of $29,000,000;
(VIII) for fiscal year 2019, an appropriation of
$64,000,000, and an additional appropriation of $30,000,000;
(IX) for fiscal year 2020, an appropriation of $65,000,000,
and an additional appropriation of $31,000,000; and
(X) for fiscal year 2021, an appropriation of $66,000,000,
and an additional appropriation of $31,000,000.
(iii) Definitions.--As used in this subparagraph, the terms
``in-person reemployment and eligibility assessments'' and
``unemployment improper payment reviews'' mean reviews or
assessments conducted in local workforce offices to determine
the continued eligibility of an unemployment insurance
claimant under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, title III of
the Social Security Act, and applicable State laws, to ensure
they are meeting their obligation to search for work as a
condition of eligibility, and to speed their return to work.
(iv) Additional appropriation.--The amounts further
specified in subclauses (I) through (X) of clause (ii) are
the amounts under the heading ``State Unemployment Insurance
and Employment Service Operations'' for the Department of
Labor for the amount of the additional appropriation for in-
person reemployment and eligibility assessments and
unemployment insurance improper payment reviews, but such
adjustment shall be 0 (zero) unless the appropriations Act
providing such additional appropriation also provides the
full amount requested under the heading ``State Unemployment
Insurance and Employment Service Operations'' for the
Department of Labor for grants to States for the
administration of State unemployment insurance laws in the
budget submitted for that fiscal year under section 1105 of
title 31, United States Code.
(3) Overseas deployments and related activities.--
(A) Cap adjustment.--The discretionary spending limits,
allocation to the Committees on Appropriations of each House,
and aggregates for that year may be adjusted by an amount in
budget authority not to exceed the amount provided in such
legislation for that purpose for that fiscal year, but not to
exceed in aggregate the amounts specified in subparagraph (B)
for any--
(i) bills reported by the Committees on Appropriations of
either House or in the Senate, passed by the House of
Representatives;
(ii) joint resolutions or amendments reported by the
Committees on Appropriations of either House;
(iii) amendments between the Houses, Senate amendments to
such amendments offered by the authority of the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate, or House amendments to such
amendments offered by the authority of the Committee on
Appropriations in the House of Representatives; or
(iv) conference reports;
[[Page H5794]]
making appropriations for overseas deployments and related
activities.
(B) Levels.--
(i) Levels.--The initial levels for overseas deployments
and related activities specified in this subparagraph are as
follows:
(I) For fiscal year 2012, $126,544,000,000 in budget
authority.
(II) For the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2021,
$450,000,000,000 in budget authority.
(ii) Levels for congressional enforcement.--For each fiscal
year after fiscal year 2012, Congress shall adopt in the
concurrent resolution on the budget for that fiscal year an
adjustment for overseas deployments and related activities,
provided that Congress may not adopt an adjustment for any
fiscal year that would cause the total adjustments for fiscal
years 2013 through 2021 to exceed the amount authorized in
clause (i)(II).
(iii) Accounting for overseas deployment and related
activities.--In any report issued under subsection (f)(7),
OMB shall state the total amount of spending on overseas
deployments and related activities for fiscal years 2013
through 2021 and the estimated amount of budget authority
adjustment remaining for that period.
(C) Adjustment for offset overseas deployment costs.--The
levels set in subparagraph (B) may be further adjusted by the
amount of budget authority provided in legislation for
additional costs associated with overseas deployments and
related activities if the amount of budget authority above
those levels is offset.
(4) Adjustments for disaster funding.--
(A) In general.--If, for fiscal years 2011 through 2021,
appropriations for discretionary accounts are enacted that
Congress designates as being for disaster relief in statute,
the adjustment shall be the total of such appropriations in
discretionary accounts designated as being for disaster
relief, but not to exceed the total of--
(i) the average funding provided for disasters over the
previous 10 years, excluding the highest and lowest years;
and
(ii) for years when the enacted new discretionary budget
authority designated as being for disaster relief for the
preceding fiscal year was less than the average as calculated
in clause (i) for that fiscal year, the difference between
the enacted amount and the allowable adjustment as calculated
in clause (i) for that fiscal year.
(B) OMB report.--OMB shall report to the Committees on
Appropriations in each House the adjustment for disaster
funding for fiscal year 2011, and a preview report of the
estimated level for fiscal year 2012, not later than 30 days
after enactment of this Act.
(d) Limitations on Changes to This Section.--Unless
otherwise specifically provided in this section, it shall not
be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to
consider any bill, resolution (including a concurrent
resolution on the budget), amendment, motion, or conference
report that would repeal or otherwise change this section.
(e) Waiver and Appeal.--
(1) Waiver.--In the Senate, subsections (a) through (d)
shall be waived or suspended only--
(A) by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members,
duly chosen and sworn; or
(B) if the provisions of section (f)(8) are in effect.
(2) Appeal.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of
the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be
limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and
controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the measure.
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 this section.
(f) End-of-year Sequester for Exceeding Discretionary
Caps.--
(1) Sequestration.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 14 calendar days after the
end of a session of Congress (excluding weekends and
holidays) and on the same day as a sequestration (if any)
under section 5 of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010,
there shall be a sequestration to eliminate a budget-year
breach, if any, within the discretionary categories as set by
subsection (b).
(B) Overseas deployments.--Any amount of budget authority
for overseas deployments and related activities for fiscal
year 2012 in excess of the levels set in subsection
(c)(3)(B)(i), or for fiscal years 2013 through 2021 that
would cause the total adjustment for fiscal years 2013
through 2021 to exceed the amount authorized in section
(c)(3)(B)(II), that is not otherwise offset pursuant
subsection (c)(3)(C)(i), shall be counted in determining
whether a breach has occurred--
(i) for fiscal years 2012 and 2013, in the security and
non-security categories by amounts in the same proportion as
the total amount designated in that fiscal year for overseas
deployments and related activities in security and non-
security accounts, respectively; and
(ii) for fiscal years 2014 through 2021, in the
discretionary category.
(C) Emergency spending.--
(i) Effect of designation in statute.--If, for any fiscal
year, appropriations for discretionary accounts are enacted
that Congress designates as emergency requirements in statute
pursuant to this subparagraph, the total of such budget
authority in discretionary accounts designated as emergency
requirements in all fiscal years from such appropriations
shall not be counted in determining whether a breach has
occurred, and shall not count for the purposes of
Congressional enforcement.
(ii) Designation in the house of representatives.--If an
appropriations Act includes a provision expressly designated
as an emergency for the purposes of this section, the Chair
shall put the question of consideration with respect thereto.
(iii) Point of order in the senate.--
(I) In general.--When the Senate is considering an
appropriations Act, if a point of order is made by a Senator
against an emergency designation in that measure, the
provision making such a designation shall be stricken from
the measure and may not be offered as an amendment from the
floor.
(II) Supermajority waiver and appeals.--
(aa) Waiver.--Subclause (I) may be waived or suspended in
the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(bb) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of
the Chair relating to any provision of this subparagraph
shall be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between,
and controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill
or joint resolution, as the case may be. 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 this
subparagraph.
(III) Definition of an emergency designation.--For purposes
of subclause (I), a provision shall be considered an
emergency designation if it designates any item as an
emergency requirement pursuant to this subparagraph.
(IV) Form of the point of order.--A point of order under
subclause (I) may be raised by a Senator as provided in
section 313(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(V) Conference reports.--When the Senate is considering a
conference report on, or an amendment between the Houses in
relation to, an appropriations Act, upon a point of order
being made by any Senator pursuant to this subparagraph, and
such point of order being sustained, such material contained
in such conference report shall be deemed stricken, and the
Senate shall proceed to consider the question of whether the
Senate shall recede from its amendment and concur with a
further amendment, or concur in the House amendment with a
further amendment, as the case may be, which further
amendment shall consist of only that portion of the
conference report or House amendment, as the case may be, not
so stricken. Any such motion in the Senate shall be debatable
under the same conditions as was the conference report. In
any case in which such point of order is sustained against a
conference report (or Senate amendment derived from such
conference report by operation of this subsection), no
further amendment shall be in order.
(2) Eliminating a breach.--Each non-exempt account within a
category shall be reduced by a dollar amount calculated by
multiplying the baseline level of sequesterable budgetary
resources in that account at that time by the uniform
percentage necessary to eliminate a breach within that
category.
(3) Military personnel.--
(A) In general.--The President may, with respect to any
military personnel account, exempt that account from
sequestration or provide for a lower uniform percentage
reduction than would otherwise apply, provided that the
President has notified Congress of the manner in which such
authority will be exercised pursuant to paragraph (7)(A)(ii).
(B) Reductions.--If the President uses the authority to
exempt any military personnel from sequestration under
paragraph (7)(A)(ii), each account within subfunctional
category 051 (other than those military personnel accounts
for which the authority provided under subparagraph (A) has
been exercised) shall be further reduced by a dollar amount
calculated by multiplying the enacted level of non-exempt
budgetary resources in that account at that time by the
uniform percentage necessary to offset the total dollar
amount by which budget authority is not reduced in military
personnel accounts by reason of the use of such authority.
(4) Part-year appropriations.--If, on the date specified in
paragraph (1), there is in effect an Act making or continuing
appropriations for part of a fiscal year for any budget
account, then the dollar sequestration calculated for that
account under paragraphs (2) and (3) shall be subtracted
from--
(A) the annualized amount otherwise available by law in
that account under that or a subsequent part-year
appropriation; and
(B) when a full-year appropriation for that account is
enacted, from the amount otherwise provided by the full-year
appropriation.
(5) Look-back.--If, after June 30, an appropriation for the
fiscal year in progress is enacted that causes a breach
within a category for that year (after taking into account
any sequestration of amounts within that category), the
discretionary spending limits for that category for the next
fiscal year shall be reduced by the amount or amounts of that
breach.
(6) Within-session sequestration.--If an appropriation for
a fiscal year in progress is enacted (after Congress adjourns
to end the session for that budget year and before July 1 of
that fiscal year) that causes a breach within a category for
that year (after taking
[[Page H5795]]
into account any prior sequestration of amounts within that
category), 15 days after such enactment there shall be a
sequestration to eliminate that breach within that category
following the procedures set forth in paragraphs (2) through
(4).
(7) Reports.--
(A) Sequestration preview report.--
(i) In general.--Not later than 5 days before the date of
the President's budget submission for CBO, and the date of
the President's budget submissions for OMB, OMB and CBO shall
issue a preview report regarding discretionary spending based
on laws enacted through those dates. The preview report shall
set forth estimates for the current year and each subsequent
year through 2021 of the applicable discretionary spending
limits for each category and an explanation of any
adjustments in such limits under this section.
(ii) Notification regarding military personnel.--On or
before the date of the sequestration preview report, the
President shall notify Congress of the manner in which the
President intends to exercise flexibility with respect to
military personnel accounts under paragraph (3).
(B) Sequestration update report.--Not later than August 15
for CBO, and August 20 for OMB, OMB and CBO shall issue a
sequestration update report, reflecting laws enacted through
those dates, containing all of the information required in
the sequestration preview reports. This report shall also
contain a preview estimate of the adjustment for disaster
funding for the upcoming fiscal year.
(C) Final sequestration report.--Not later than 10 days
after the end of session for CBO, and 14 days after the end
of session for OMB (excluding weekends and holidays), OMB and
CBO shall issue a final sequestration report, updated to
reflect laws enacted through those dates, with estimates for
each of the following:
(i) For the current year and each subsequent year through
2021 the applicable discretionary spending limits for each
category and an explanation of any adjustments in such limits
under this section, including a final estimate of the
disaster funding adjustment.
(ii) For the current year and the budget year the estimated
new budget authority for each category and the breach, if
any, in each category.
(iii) For each category for which a sequestration is
required, the sequestration percentages necessary to achieve
the required reduction.
(iv) For the budget year, for each account to be
sequestered, estimates of the baseline level of sequesterable
budgetary resources and the amount of budgetary resources to
be sequestered.
(D) Explanation of differences.--The OMB reports shall
explain the differences between OMB and CBO estimates for
each report required by this paragraph.
(8) Suspension in the event of low growth.--Section 254(i)
and subsections (a), (b)(1), and (c) of section 258 of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985
with respect to suspension of this section for low growth
only shall apply to this section, provided that those
sections are deemed not to apply to titles III and IV of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 1103 of title
31, United States Code.
(g) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Nonsecurity category.--The term ``nonsecurity
category'' means all discretionary appropriations, as that
term is defined in section 250(c)(7) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, not included in
the security category defined in this Act, but does not
include any appropriation designated for overseas deployments
and related activities pursuant to section (c)(3) or
appropriation designated as an emergency pursuant to this
Act.
(2) Security category.--The term ``security category''
includes discretionary appropriations, as that term is
defined in section 250(c)(7) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, in budget functions
050 and 700, but does not include any appropriation
designated for overseas deployments and related activities
pursuant to section (c)(3) or appropriation designated as an
emergency pursuant to this Act.
(3) Discretionary category.--The term ``discretionary
category'' includes all discretionary appropriations, as that
term is defined in section 250(c)(7) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, but does not
include any appropriation designated for overseas deployments
and related activities pursuant to section (c)(3) or
appropriation designated as an emergency pursuant to this
Act.
(4) Advance appropriation.--The term ``advance
appropriation'' means appropriations of new budget authority
that become available one or more fiscal years beyond the
fiscal year for which the appropriation act was passed.
(5) Discretionary spending limits.--The term
``discretionary spending limits'' means the amounts specified
in this section.
(6) Definitions.--To the extent they are not defined in
this section, the terms used in this section shall have the
same meaning as the terms defined in section 250(c) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
(h) Sequestration Rules.--
(1) In general.--Subsections (g) and (k) of section 256 of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985
shall apply to sequestration under this Act.
(2) Intergovernmental funds.--For purposes of sequestration
under this section, budgetary resources shall not include
activities financed by voluntary payments to the Government
for goods and services to be provided for such payments,
intragovernmental funds paid in from other Government
accounts, and unobligated balances of prior year
appropriations.
SEC. 102. SENATE BUDGET ENFORCEMENT.
(a) In General.--
(1) For the purpose of enforcing the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 through April 15, 2012, including section 300 of
that Act, and enforcing budgetary points of order in prior
concurrent resolutions on the budget, the allocations,
aggregates, and levels set in subsection (b)(1) shall apply
in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012 with
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 and 2013
through 2021.
(2) For the purpose of enforcing the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 after April 15, 2012, including section 300 of
that Act, and enforcing budgetary points of order in prior
concurrent resolutions on the budget, the allocations,
aggregates, and levels set in subsection (b)(2) shall apply
in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013 with
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2012 and 2014
through 2022.
(b) Committee Allocations, Aggregates and Levels.--
(1) As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of
this section, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget
shall file--
(A) for the Committee on Appropriations, committee
allocations for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 consistent with
the discretionary spending limits set forth in this Act for
the purpose of enforcing section 302 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974;
(B) for all committees other than the Committee on
Appropriations, committee allocations for fiscal years 2011,
2012, 2012 through 2016, and 2012 through 2021 consistent
with the Congressional Budget Office's March 2011 baseline
adjusted to account for the budgetary effects of this Act and
legislation enacted prior to this Act but not included in the
Congressional Budget Office's March 2011 baseline, for the
purpose of enforcing section 302 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974;
(C) aggregate spending levels for fiscal years 2011 and
2012 and aggregate revenue levels fiscal years 2011, 2012,
2012 through 2016, 2012 through 2021 consistent with the
Congressional Budget Office's March 2011 baseline adjusted to
account for the budgetary effects of this Act and legislation
enacted prior to this Act but not included in the
Congressional Budget Office's March 2011 baseline, and the
discretionary spending limits set forth in this Act for the
purpose of enforcing section 311 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974; and
(D) levels of Social Security revenues and outlays for
fiscal years 2011, 2012, 2012 through 2016, and 2012 through
2021 consistent with the Congressional Budget Office's March
2011 baseline adjusted to account for the budgetary effects
of this Act and legislation enacted prior to this Act but not
included in the Congressional Budget Office's March 2011
baseline, for the purpose of enforcing sections 302 and 311
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(2) Not later than April 15, 2012, the Chairman of the
Committee on the Budget shall file--
(A) for the Committee on Appropriations, committee
allocations for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 consistent with
the discretionary spending limits set forth in this Act for
the purpose of enforcing section 302 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974;
(B) for all committees other than the Committee on
Appropriations, committee allocations for fiscal years 2012,
2013, 2013 through 2017, and 2013 through 2022 consistent
with the Congressional Budget Office's March 2012 baseline
for the purpose of enforcing section 302 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974;
(C) aggregate spending levels for fiscal years 2012 and
2013 and aggregate revenue levels fiscal years 2012, 2013,
2013-2017, and 2013-2022 consistent with the Congressional
Budget Office's March 2012 baseline and the discretionary
spending limits set forth in this Act for the purpose of
enforcing section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974; and
(D) levels of Social Security revenues and outlays for
fiscal years 2012 and 2013, 2013-2017, and 2013-2022
consistent with the Congressional Budget Office's March 2012
baseline budget for the purpose of enforcing sections 302 and
311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(c) Senate Pay-as-you-go Scorecard.--
(1) Effective on the date of enactment of this section, for
the purpose of enforcing section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21
(110th Congress), the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the
Budget shall reduce any balances of direct spending and
revenues for any fiscal year to 0 (zero).
(2) Not later than April 15, 2012, for the purpose of
enforcing section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress),
the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget shall
reduce any balances of direct spending and revenues for any
fiscal year to 0 (zero).
(3) Upon resetting the Senate paygo scorecard pursuant to
paragraph (2), the Chairman shall publish a notification of
such action in the Congressional Record.
(d) Further Adjustments.--
[[Page H5796]]
(1) The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the
Senate may revise any allocations, aggregates, or levels set
pursuant to this section to account for any subsequent
adjustments to discretionary spending limits made pursuant to
this Act.
(2) With respect to any allocations, aggregates, or levels
set or adjustments made pursuant to this section, sections
412 through 414 of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress) shall
remain in effect.
(e) Expiration.--
(1) Subections (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1) shall expire if a
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012 is
agreed to by the Senate and House of Representatives pursuant
to section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(2) Subections (a)(2), (b)(2), and (c)(2) shall expire if a
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013 is
agreed to by the Senate and House of Representatives pursuant
to section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
TITLE J--OTHER SPENDING CUTS
Subtitle A--Federal Pell Grant and Student Loan Program Changes
SEC. 211. FEDERAL PELL GRANT AND STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM
CHANGES.
(a) Federal Pell Grants.--Section 401(b)(7)(A)(iv) of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a(b)(7)(A)(iv))
is amended--
(1) in subclause (II), by striking ``$3,183,000,000'' and
inserting ``$13,683,000,000''; and
(2) in subclause (III), by striking ``$0'' and inserting
``$7,500,000,000''.
(b) Termination of Authority to Make Interest Subsidized
Loans to Graduate and Professional Students.--Section 455(a)
of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Termination of authority to make interest subsidized
loans to graduate and professional students.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any provision of this
part or part B, for any period of instruction beginning on or
after July 1, 2012--
``(i) a graduate or professional student shall not be
eligible to receive a subsidized Federal Direct Stafford Loan
under this part;
``(ii) the maximum annual amount of Federal Direct
Unsubsidized Stafford Loans such a student may borrow in any
academic year (as defined in section 481(a)(2)) or its
equivalent shall be the maximum annual amount for such
student determined under section 428H, plus an amount equal
to the amount of Federal Direct Subsidized Loans the student
would have received in the absence of this subparagraph; and
``(iii) the maximum aggregate amount of Federal Direct
Unsubsidized Stafford Loans such a student may borrow shall
be the maximum aggregate amount for such student determined
under section 428H, adjusted to reflect the increased annual
limits described in clause (ii), as prescribed by the
Secretary by regulation.
``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an
individual enrolled in coursework specified in paragraph
(3)(B) or (4)(B) of section 484(b).''.
(c) Inapplicability of Title IV Negotiated Rulemaking and
Master Calendar Exception.--Sections 482(c) and 492 of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1089(c), 1098a) shall
not apply to the amendments made by this section, or to any
regulations promulgated under those amendments.
Subtitle B--Farm Programs
SEC. 221. DEFINITION OF PAYMENT ACRES.
(a) In General.--Section 1001(11) of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8702(11)) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by striking ``subparagraph (B)'' and inserting
``subparagraphs (B) and (C)''; and
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) in the case of direct payments for the 2012 crop
year, 59 percent of the base acres for the covered commodity
on a farm on which direct payments are made.''.
(b) Payment Acres for Peanuts.--Section 1301(5) of the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8751(5))
is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by striking ``subparagraph (B)'' and inserting
``subparagraphs (B) and (C)''; and
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) in the case of direct payments for the 2012 crop
year, 59 percent of the base acres for peanuts on a farm on
which direct payments are made.''.
TITLE K--JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON DEFICIT REDUCTION
SEC. 301. ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE.
(a) Definitions.--In this title:
(1) Joint select committee.--The term ``joint committee''
means the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction
established under subsection (b)(1).
(2) Joint select committee bill.--The term ``joint
committee bill'' means a bill consisting of the proposed
legislative language of the joint committee recommended under
subsection (b)(3)(B) and introduced under section 302(a).
(b) Establishment of Joint Select Committee.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established a joint select
committee of Congress to be known as the ``Joint Select
Committee on Deficit Reduction''.
(2) Goal.--The goal of the joint committee shall be to
reduce the deficit to 3 percent or less of GDP.
(3) Duties.--
(A) In general.--
(i) Improving the short-term and long-term fiscal
imbalance.--The joint committee shall provide recommendations
and legislative language that will significantly improve the
short-term and long-term fiscal imbalance of the Federal
Government and may include recommendations and legislative
language on tax reform.
(ii) Consideration of other bipartisan plans.--As a part of
developing the joint committee's recommendations and
legislation, the joint committee shall consider existing
bipartisan plans to reduce the deficit, including plans
developed jointly by Senators or Members of the House of
Representatives.
(iii) Recommendations of house of representatives and
senate committees.--Not later than October 14, 2011, each
committee of the House of Representatives and Senate may
transmit to the joint committee its recommendations for
changes in law to reduce the deficit consistent with the
goals described in paragraph (2) for the joint committee's
consideration.
(B) Report, recommendations, and legislative language.--
(i) In general.--Not later than November 23, 2011, the
joint committee shall vote on--
(I) a report that contains a detailed statement of the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the joint
committee and the CBO estimate required by paragraph
(5)(D)(ii); and
(II) proposed legislative language to carry out such
recommendations as described in subclause (I).
No amendment to the Rules of the House of Representatives or
the Standing Rules of the Senate shall be in order in the
legislative language required in subclause (II).
(ii) Approval of report and legislative language.--The
report of the joint committee and the proposed legislative
language described in clause (i) shall require the approval
of not fewer than 7 of the 12 members of the joint committee.
(iii) Additional views.--A member of the joint committee
who gives notice of an intention to file supplemental,
minority, or additional views at the time of final joint
committee vote on the approval of the report and legislative
language under clause (ii), shall be entitled to 3 calendar
days in which to file such views in writing with the staff
director of the joint committee. Such views shall then be
included in the joint committee report and printed in the
same volume, or part thereof, and their inclusion shall be
noted on the cover of the report. In the absence of timely
notice, the joint committee report may be printed and
transmitted immediately without such views.
(iv) Transmission of report and legislative language.--If
the report and legislative language are approved by the joint
committee pursuant to clause (ii), then not later than
December 2, 2011, the joint committee shall submit the joint
committee report and legislative language described in clause
(i) to the President, the Vice President, the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, and the Majority and Minority
Leaders of both Houses.
(v) Report and legislative language to be made public.--
Upon the approval or disapproval of the joint committee
report and legislative language pursuant to clause (ii), the
joint committee shall promptly make the full report and
legislative language, and a record of the vote, available to
the public.
(4) Membership.--
(A) In general.--The joint committee shall be composed of
12 members appointed pursuant to subparagraph (B).
(B) Appointment.--Members of the joint committee shall be
appointed as follows:
(i) The majority leader of the Senate shall appoint 3
members from among Members of the Senate.
(ii) The minority leader of the Senate shall appoint 3
members from among Members of the Senate.
(iii) The Speaker of the House of Representatives shall
appoint 3 members from among Members of the House of
Representatives.
(iv) The minority leader of the House of Representatives
shall appoint 3 members from among Members of the House of
Representatives.
(C) Co-chairs.--
(i) In general.--There shall be 2 Co-Chairs of the joint
committee. The majority leader of the Senate shall appoint
one Co-Chair from among the members of the joint committee.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives shall appoint the
second Co-Chair from among the members of the joint
committee. The Co-Chairs shall be appointed not later than 14
calendar days after the date of enactment of this section.
(ii) Staff director.--The Co-Chairs, acting jointly, shall
hire the staff director of the joint committee.
(D) Date.--Members of the joint committee shall be
appointed not later than 14 calendar days after the date of
enactment of this section.
[[Page H5797]]
(E) Period of appointment.--Members shall be appointed for
the life of the joint committee. Any vacancy in the joint
committee shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled
not later than 14 calendar days after the date on which the
vacancy occurs in the same manner as the original
appointment. If a member of the committee leaves Congress,
the member is no longer a member of the joint committee and a
vacancy shall exist.
(5) Administration.--
(A) In general.--To enable the joint committee to exercise
its powers, functions, and duties, there are authorized to be
disbursed by the Senate the actual and necessary expenses of
the joint committee approved by the Co-Chairs, subject to
Senate rules and regulations.
(B) Expenses.--In carrying out its functions, the joint
committee is authorized to incur expenses in the same manner
and under the same conditions as the Joint Economic Committee
as authorized by section 11 of Public Law 79-304 (15 U.S.C.
1024(d)).
(C) Quorum.--Seven members of the joint committee shall
constitute a quorum for purposes of voting, meeting, and
holding hearings.
(D) Voting.--
(i) Proxy voting.--No proxy voting shall be allowed on
behalf of the members of the joint committee.
(ii) Congressional budget office estimates.--The
Congressional Budget Office shall provide estimates of the
legislation (as described in paragraph (3)(B)) in accordance
with sections 308(a) and 201(f) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 639(a) and 601(f)) (including estimates
of the effect of interest payment on the debt). In addition,
the Congressional Budget Office shall provide information on
the budgetary effect of the legislation beyond the year 2021
and the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on
Taxation may provide information on the budgetary effect of
the legislation relative to alternative fiscal scenarios. The
joint committee may not vote on any version of the report,
recommendations, or legislative language unless such
estimates are available for consideration by all members of
the joint committee at least 48 hours prior to the vote as
certified by the Co-Chairs.
(E) Meetings.--
(i) Initial meeting.--Not later than 45 calendar days after
the date of enactment of this section, the joint committee
shall hold its first meeting.
(ii) Agenda.--The Co-Chairs shall provide an agenda to the
joint committee members not less than 48 hours in advance of
any meeting.
(F) Hearings.--
(i) In general.--The joint committee may, for the purpose
of carrying out this section, hold such hearings, sit and act
at such times and places, require attendance of witnesses and
production of books, papers, and documents, take such
testimony, receive such evidence, and administer such oaths
the joint committee considers advisable.
(ii) Hearing procedures and responsibilities of co-
chairs.--
(I) Announcement.--The Co-Chairs shall make a public
announcement of the date, place, time, and subject matter of
any hearing to be conducted not less than 7 days in advance
of such hearing, unless the Co-Chairs determine that there is
good cause to begin such hearing at an earlier date.
(II) Written statement.--A witness appearing before the
joint committee shall file a written statement of proposed
testimony at least 2 calendar days prior to appearance,
unless the requirement is waived by the Co-Chairs, following
their determination that there is good cause for failure of
compliance.
(G) Technical assistance.--Upon written request of the Co-
Chairs, a Federal agency shall provide technical assistance
to the joint committee in order for the joint committee to
carry out its duties.
(c) Staff of Joint Committee.--
(1) In general.--The Co-Chairs may jointly appoint and fix
the compensation of staff as they deem necessary, within the
guidelines for Senate employees and following all applicable
Senate rules and employment requirements.
(2) Ethical standards.--Members on the joint committee who
serve in the House of Representatives shall be governed by
the House ethics rules and requirements. Members of the
Senate who serve on the joint committee and staff of the
joint committee shall comply with Senate ethics rules.
(d) Termination.--The joint committee shall terminate on
January 13, 2012.
SEC. 302. EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF JOINT COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATIONS.
(a) Introduction.--If approved by the majority required by
section 301(b)(3)(B)(ii), the proposed legislative language
submitted pursuant to section 301(b)(3)(B)(iv) shall be
introduced in the Senate (by request) on the next day on
which the Senate is in session by the majority leader of the
Senate or by a Member of the Senate designated by the
majority leader of the Senate and shall be introduced in the
House of Representatives (by request) on the next legislative
day by the majority leader of the House of Representatives or
by a Member of the House of Representatives designated by the
majority leader of the House of Representatives.
(b) Consideration in the House of Representatives.--
(1) Referral and reporting.--Any committee of the House of
Representatives to which the joint committee bill is referred
shall report it to the House of Representatives without
amendment not later than December 9, 2011. If a committee
fails to report the joint committee bill within that period,
it shall be in order to move that the House of
Representatives discharge the committee from further
consideration of the bill. Such a motion shall not be in
order after the last committee authorized to consider the
bill reports it to the House of Representatives or after the
House of Representatives has disposed of a motion to
discharge the bill. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening
motion except 20 minutes of debate equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent. If such a motion
is adopted, the House of Representatives shall proceed
immediately to consider the joint committee bill in
accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3). A motion to
reconsider the vote by which the motion is disposed of shall
not be in order.
(2) Proceeding to consideration.--After the last committee
authorized to consider a joint committee bill reports it to
the House of Representatives or has been discharged (other
than by motion) from its consideration, it shall be in order
to move to proceed to consider the joint committee bill in
the House of Representatives. Such a motion shall not be in
order after the House of Representatives has disposed of a
motion to proceed with respect to the joint committee bill.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
motion to its adoption without intervening motion. A motion
to reconsider the vote by which the motion is disposed of
shall not be in order.
(3) Consideration.--The joint committee bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against the joint
committee bill and against its consideration are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint
committee bill to its passage without intervening motion
except 2 hours of debate equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent and one motion to limit debate
on the joint committee bill. A motion to reconsider the vote
on passage of the joint committee bill shall not be in order.
(4) Vote on passage.--The vote on passage of the joint
committee bill shall occur not later than December 23, 2011.
(c) Expedited Procedure in the Senate.--
(1) Committee consideration.--A joint committee bill
introduced in the Senate under subsection (a) shall be
jointly referred to the committee or committees of
jurisdiction, which committees shall report the bill without
any revision and with a favorable recommendation, an
unfavorable recommendation, or without recommendation, not
later than December 9, 2011. If any committee fails to report
the bill within that period, that committee shall be
automatically discharged from consideration of the bill, and
the bill shall be placed on the appropriate calendar.
(2) Motion to proceed.--Notwithstanding rule XXII of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, it is in order, not later than
2 days of session after the date on which a joint committee
bill is reported or discharged from all committees to which
it was referred, for the majority leader of the Senate or the
majority leader's designee to move to proceed to the
consideration of the joint committee bill. It shall also be
in order for any Member of the Senate to move to proceed to
the consideration of the joint committee bill at any time
after the conclusion of such 2-day period. A motion to
proceed is in order even though a previous motion to the same
effect has been disagreed to. All points of order against the
motion to proceed to the joint committee bill are waived. The
motion to proceed is not debatable. The motion is not subject
to a motion to postpone. A motion to reconsider the vote by
which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in
order. If a motion to proceed to the consideration of the
joint committee bill is agreed to, the joint committee bill
shall remain the unfinished business until disposed of.
(3) Consideration.--All points of order against the joint
committee bill and against consideration of the joint
committee bill are waived. Consideration of the joint
committee bill and of all debatable motions and appeals in
connection therewith shall not exceed a total of 30 hours
which shall be divided equally between the Majority and
Minority Leaders or their designees. A motion further to
limit debate on the joint committee bill is in order, shall
require an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members
duly chosen and sworn, and is not debatable. Any debatable
motion or appeal is debatable for not to exceed 1 hour, to be
divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the
motion or appeal. All time used for consideration of the
joint committee bill, including time used for quorum calls
and voting, shall be counted against the total 30 hours of
consideration.
(4) No amendments.--An amendment to the joint committee
bill, or a motion to postpone, or a motion to proceed to the
consideration of other business, or a motion to recommit the
joint committee bill, is not in order.
(5) Vote on passage.--If the Senate has voted to proceed to
the joint committee bill, the vote on passage of the joint
committee bill shall occur immediately following the
conclusion of the debate on a joint committee bill, and a
single quorum call at the conclusion of the debate if
requested. The vote on passage of the joint committee bill
shall occur not later than December 23, 2011.
[[Page H5798]]
(6) Rulings of the chair on procedure.--Appeals from the
decisions of the Chair relating to the application of the
rules of the Senate, as the case may be, to the procedure
relating to a joint committee bill shall be decided without
debate.
(d) Amendment.--The joint committee bill shall not be
subject to amendment in either the House of Representatives
or the Senate.
(e) Consideration by the Other House.--
(1) In general.--If, before passing the joint committee
bill, one House receives from the other a joint committee
bill--
(A) the joint committee bill of the other House shall not
be referred to a committee; and
(B) the procedure in the receiving House shall be the same
as if no joint committee bill had been received from the
other House until the vote on passage, when the joint
committee bill received from the other House shall supplant
the joint committee bill of the receiving House.
(2) Revenue measure.--This subsection shall not apply to
the House of Representatives if the joint committee bill
received from the Senate is a revenue measure.
(f) Rules to Coordinate Action With Other House.--
(1) Treatment of joint committee bill of other house.--If
the Senate fails to introduce or consider a joint committee
bill under this section, the joint committee bill of the
House of Representatives shall be entitled to expedited floor
procedures under this section.
(2) Treatment of companion measures in the senate.--If
following passage of the joint committee bill in the Senate,
the Senate then receives the joint committee bill from the
House of Representatives, the House-passed joint committee
bill shall not be debatable. The vote on passage of the joint
committee bill in the Senate shall be considered to be the
vote on passage of the joint committee bill received from the
House of Representatives.
(3) Vetoes.--If the President vetoes the joint committee
bill, debate on a veto message in the Senate under this
section shall be 1 hour equally divided between the majority
and minority leaders or their designees.
(g) Loss of Privilege.--The provisions of this section
shall cease to apply to the joint committee bill if--
(1) the joint committee fails to vote on the report or
proposed legislative language required under section
301(b)(3)(B)(i) by November 23, 2011; or
(2) the joint committee bill does not pass both Houses by
December 23, 2011.
SEC. 303. FUNDING.
Funding for the joint committee shall be derived in equal
portions from--
(1) the applicable accounts of the House of
Representatives; and
(2) the contingent fund of the Senate from the
appropriations account ``Miscellaneous Items'', subject to
Senate rules and regulations.
SEC. 304. RULEMAKING.
The provisions of this title are enacted by Congress--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such
they shall be considered as part of the rules of each House,
respectively, or of that House to which they specifically
apply, and such rules shall supersede other rules only to the
extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either House to change such rules (so far as relating to such
House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same
extent as in the case of any other rule of such House.
TITLE L--DEBT CEILING DISAPPROVAL PROCESS
SEC. 401. DEBT CEILING DISAPPROVAL PROCESS.
Subchapter I of chapter 31 of subtitle III of title 31,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 3101(b), by striking ``or otherwise'' and
inserting ``or as provided by section 3101A or otherwise'';
and
(2) by inserting after section 3101, the following:
``Sec. 3101A. Presidential modification of the debt ceiling
``(a) In General.--
``(1) $1.2 trillion.--
``(A) Certification.--If, not later than December 31, 2011,
the President submits a written certification to Congress
that the President has determined that the debt subject to
limit is within $100,000,000,000 of the limit in section
3101(b) and that further borrowing is required to meet
existing commitments, the Secretary of the Treasury may
exercise authority to borrow an additional $1,200,000,000,000
subject to the enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval
enacted pursuant to this section. Upon submission of such
certification, the limit on debt provided in section 3101(b)
(referred to in this section as the `debt limit') is
increased by $416,000,000,000.
``(B) Resolution of disapproval.--Congress may consider a
joint resolution of disapproval of the authority under
subparagraph (A) as provided in subsections (b) through (f).
The joint resolution of disapproval considered under this
section shall contain only the language provided in
subsection (b)(2). If the time for disapproval has lapsed
without enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval under
this section, the debt limit is increased by an additional
$784,000,000,000.
``(2) Additional amount.--
``(A) Certification.--If, after the debt limit is increased
by $1,200,000,000,000 under paragraph (1), the President
submits a written certification to Congress that the
President has determined that the debt subject to limit is
within $150,000,000,000 of the limit in section 3101(b) and
that further borrowing is required to meet existing
commitments, the Secretary of the Treasury may exercise
authority to borrow an additional amount equal to
$1,200,000,000,000 subject to the enactment of a joint
resolution of disapproval enacted pursuant to this section.
``(B) Resolution of disapproval.--Congress may consider a
joint resolution of disapproval of the authority under
subparagraph (A) as provided in subsections (b) through (f).
The joint resolution of disapproval considered under this
section shall contain only the language provided in
subsection (b)(2). After the time for disapproval has lapsed
without enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval under
this section, the debt limit is increased by the amount
authorized under subparagraph (A).
``(b) Joint Resolution of Disapproval.--
``(1) In general.--Except for the $416,000,000,000 increase
in the debt limit provided by subsection (a)(1)(A), the debt
limit may not be raised under this section if, within 55
calendar days after the date on which Congress receives a
certification described in subsection (a)(1) or within 15
calendar days after the Congress receives the certification
described in subsection (a)(2) (regardless of whether
Congress is in session), there is enacted into law a joint
resolution disapproving the President's exercise of authority
with respect to such additional amount.
``(2) Contents of joint resolution.--For the purpose of
this section, the term `joint resolution' means only a joint
resolution--
``(A)(i) for the certification described in subsection
(a)(1), that is introduced on September 6, 7, 8 or 9, 2011
(or, if the Senate was not in session, the next calendar day
on which the Senate is in session); and
``(ii) for the certification described in subsection
(a)(2), that is introduced between the date the certification
is received and 3 calendar days after that date;
``(B) which does not have a preamble;
``(C) the title of which is only as follows: `Joint
resolution relating to the disapproval of the President's
exercise of authority to increase the debt limit, as
submitted under section 3101A of title 31, United States Code
on ____________' (with the blank containing the date of
submission); and
``(D) the matter after the resolving clause of which is
only as follows: `That Congress disapproves of the
President's exercise of authority to increase the debt limit,
as exercised pursuant to the certification under section
3101A(a) of title 31, United States Code.'.
``(c) Expedited Consideration in House of
Representatives.--
``(1) Reconvening.--Upon receipt of a certification
described in subsection (a)(2), the Speaker, if the House
would otherwise be adjourned, shall notify the Members of the
House that, pursuant to this section, the House shall convene
not later than the second calendar day after receipt of such
certification.
``(2) Reporting and discharge.--Any committee of the House
of Representatives to which a joint resolution is referred
shall report it to the House without amendment not later than
5 calendar days after the date of introduction of the joint
resolution described in subsection (a). If a committee fails
to report a joint resolution within that period, the
committee shall be discharged from further consideration of
the joint resolution and the joint resolution shall be
referred to the appropriate calendar.
``(3) Proceeding to consideration.--After each committee
authorized to consider a joint resolution reports it to the
House or has been discharged from its consideration, it shall
be in order, not later than the sixth day after introduction
of a joint resolution under subsection (a), to move to
proceed to consider the joint resolution in the House. All
points of order against the motion are waived. Such a motion
shall not be in order after the House has disposed of a
motion to proceed on a joint resolution addressing a
particular submission. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without
intervening motion. The motion shall not be debatable. A
motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion is disposed
of shall not be in order.
``(4) Consideration.--The joint resolution shall be
considered as read. All points of order against the joint
resolution and against its consideration are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint
resolution to its passage without intervening motion except
two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent. A motion to reconsider the vote on
passage of the joint resolution shall not be in order.
``(d) Expedited Procedure in Senate.--
``(1) Reconvening.--Upon receipt of a certification under
subsection (a)(2), if the Senate has adjourned or recessed
for more than 2 days, the majority leader of the Senate,
after consultation with the minority leader of the Senate,
shall notify the Members of the Senate that, pursuant to this
section, the Senate shall convene not later than the second
calendar day after receipt of such message.
``(2) Placement on calendar.--Upon introduction in the
Senate, the joint resolution shall be immediately placed on
the calendar.
``(3) Floor consideration.--
[[Page H5799]]
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding Rule XXII of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, it is in order at any time
during the period beginning on the day after the date on
which Congress receives a certification under subsection (a)
and for the certification described in subsection (a)(1),
ending on September 14, 2011 and for the certification
described in subsection (a)(2) on the 6th day after the date
on which Congress receives a certification under subsection
(a) (even though a previous motion to the same effect has
been disagreed to) to move to proceed to the consideration of
the joint resolution, and all points of order against the
joint resolution (and against consideration of the joint
resolution) are waived. The motion to proceed is not
debatable. The motion is not subject to a motion to postpone.
A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed
to or disagreed to shall not be in order. If a motion to
proceed to the consideration of the resolution is agreed to,
the joint resolution shall remain the unfinished business
until disposed of.
``(B) Consideration.--Consideration of the joint
resolution, and on all debatable motions and appeals in
connection therewith, shall be limited to not more than 10
hours, which shall be divided equally between the majority
and minority leaders or their designees. A motion further to
limit debate is in order and not debatable. An amendment to,
or a motion to postpone, or a motion to proceed to the
consideration of other business, or a motion to recommit the
joint resolution is not in order.
``(C) Vote on passage.--If the Senate has voted to proceed
to a joint resolution, the vote on passage of the joint
resolution shall occur immediately following the conclusion
of consideration of the joint resolution, and a single quorum
call at the conclusion of the debate if requested in
accordance with the rules of the Senate.
``(D) Rulings of the chair on procedure.--Appeals from the
decisions of the Chair relating to the application of the
rules of the Senate, as the case may be, to the procedure
relating to a joint resolution shall be decided without
debate.
``(e) Amendment Not in Order.--A joint resolution of
disapproval considered pursuant to this section shall not be
subject to amendment in either the House of Representatives
or the Senate.
``(f) Coordination With Action by Other House.--
``(1) In general.--If, before passing the joint resolution,
one House receives from the other a joint resolution--
``(A) the joint resolution of the other House shall not be
referred to a committee; and
``(B) the procedure in the receiving House shall be the
same as if no joint resolution had been received from the
other House until the vote on passage, when the joint
resolution received from the other House shall supplant the
joint resolution of the receiving House.
``(2) Treatment of joint resolution of other house.--If the
Senate fails to introduce or consider a joint resolution
under this section, the joint resolution of the House shall
be entitled to expedited floor procedures under this section.
``(3) Treatment of companion measures.--If, following
passage of the joint resolution in the Senate, the Senate
then receives the companion measure from the House of
Representatives, the companion measure shall not be
debatable.
``(4) Consideration after passage.--
``(A) In general.--If Congress passes a joint resolution,
the period beginning on the date the President is presented
with the joint resolution and ending on the date the
President takes action with respect to the joint resolution
(but excluding days when either House is not in session)
shall be disregarded in computing the appropriate calendar
day period described in subsection (b)(1).
``(B) Vetoes.--If the President vetoes the joint
resolution--
``(i) the period beginning on the date the President vetoes
the joint resolution and ending on the day on which the
Congress receives the veto message with respect to the joint
resolution (regardless of whether Congress is in session)
shall be disregarded in computing the appropriate calendar
day period described in subsection (b)(1); and
``(ii) debate on a veto message in the Senate under this
section shall be 1 hour equally divided between the majority
and minority leaders or their designees.
``(5) Veto override.--If within the appropriate calendar
day period described in subsection (b)(1), Congress overrides
a veto of the joint resolution with respect to authority
exercised pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a),
the limit on debt provided in section 3101(b) shall not be
raised, except for the $416,000,000,000 increase in the limit
provided by subsection (a)(1)(A)(i).
``(6) Sequester.--
``(A) In general.--If within the 55 calendar days of
receiving the certification described in subsection (a)(1),
Congress overrides a veto of the joint resolution with
respect to authority exercised pursuant to paragraph (1) of
subsection (a), OMB shall, immediately, sequester pro rata
amounts from all discretionary and direct spending accounts
as defined in section 250(c) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900(c)) (as
in effect September 30, 2006) equal to $416,000,000,000. No
reduction of payments for net interest (all of major
functional category 900) shall be made under any order issued
under this paragraph.
``(B) Application.--Section 255 of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 shall not apply to this
section, except that payments for military personnel accounts
(within subfunctional category 051), TRICARE for Life,
Medicare (functional category 570), military retirement,
Social Security (functional category 650), veterans
(functional category 700), and net interest (functional
category 900) shall be exempt.
``(g) Rules of House of Representatives and Senate.--This
subsection and subsections (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) are
enacted by Congress--
``(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such it is
deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but
applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed
in that House in the case of a joint resolution, and it
supersedes other rules only to the extent that it is
inconsistent with such rules; and
``(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the
procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and
to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that
House.''.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. McGOVERN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will state
his inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, is it true that a bill considered under
suspension of the rules denies the minority party the right to offer
any amendments or even a motion to recommit?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A motion to suspend is not liable to
amendment from the floor.
Mr. McGOVERN. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. Is it true that a bill considered under suspension of
the rules requires a two-thirds supermajority vote in order for a bill
to pass?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule XV, a motion to suspend the rules
may be adopted by two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum being
present.
Mr. McGOVERN. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. Is it also true, Mr. Speaker, that a bill considered
under suspension of the rules does not pass if it receives a simple
majority vote but not two-thirds of the vote?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. McGOVERN. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. Does this mean that Speaker Boehner's bill to raise the
debt limit and destroy Medicare would have failed if it were considered
under suspension of the rules yesterday?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary
inquiry.
Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) each will control 20
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
General Leave
Mr. DREIER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this
measure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. I think this is the first time that I have offered a Reid
proposal in the House of Representatives.
One might ask why it is we are here doing this. It's very apparent to
me why it is that we are here doing this, and that is we want to ensure
that next Tuesday we see an increase in the debt ceiling so the Social
Security checks go out, we bring about spending reductions, and we
maintain the credit rating of the United States of America and do all
the other things that I believe both Democrats and Republicans, alike,
want to have take place.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have passed from this House two measures
[[Page H5800]]
within the last 2 weeks, the Cut, Cap, and Balance measure, and just
last night, the Boehner proposal, which, as we all know, stemmed from a
bipartisan meeting that he had exactly 1 week ago this afternoon in his
meeting with Senator Reid right down along the hall. Unfortunately, Mr.
Reid no longer supports the proposal that we passed last night, and
Senator Reid has said on several occasions that his plan is the only
plan that can pass both Houses of Congress.
Now, 5 minutes ago, Senator McConnell once again asked Senator Reid
to bring up this plan that Senator Reid said was the only one that
could pass both Houses of Congress, and Senator Reid said no.
Thursday night, I introduced this measure of Senator Reid's and was
asked, in the Rules Committee yesterday, by Mr. McGovern, whether or
not we would bring it up and I said we didn't plan to. But the fact is
Senator McConnell, having made the request now at least twice in the
other body to have it brought up, asked us to raise this measure here,
and that's exactly what we are doing.
Now, if we look at where it is that we are headed, we all want to
have a bipartisan compromise that will ensure that on Tuesday we see
that increase in the debt ceiling take place and do these other things.
That's what the Speaker of the House and the Democratic leader of the
United States Senate, along with Leader McConnell and Leader Pelosi,
discussed a week ago today.
And as Speaker Boehner said from the well last night, this was an
agreement which was supported by Senator Reid, but things have changed.
Things have changed; we know that. But there is one thing that has not
changed, and that is we have to act as quickly as possible. We need to
come up with a compromise.
And you know what? Since Senator Reid happens to believe that his
measure is the only one that can pass both Houses of Congress, we are
going to let him know, when we defeat it here in the House of
Representatives, that it is not the plan that can gain broad support in
the House and the Senate. And so for that reason, Mr. Speaker, we are
bringing this up.
We, I believe, should have an opportunity for every Member of this
House to go on record on this issue, and I am going to urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this proposal so that we can come together
with an important, bipartisan compromise to achieve the goal that we
all say that we share.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this process has become a joke. It is a disgrace. It's
an insult to the American people.
I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, now is the
time to act like grown-ups. This is the time to put our country before
your political party. This is time to put our country before the Tea
Party. This is the time to do what's right.
Today, you are bringing up the latest version of the Reid plan under
not only a closed rule, but under the most restrictive process we have
in the House, usually reserved for noncontroversial bills. There is a
$2.5 trillion bill being brought up under the same process that you
bring up bills naming post offices--20 minutes of debate, no amendments
allowed. We are not even allowed to offer a motion to recommit. To win,
you need a two-thirds supermajority. Under this process, your own bill
would have failed. That's right, if your bill were brought up under
this procedure, your bill would have lost last night.
Mr. Speaker, the only bill we should consider on the House floor is
one that has been agreed to by the House and Senate leaders and the
President of the United States.
So why are we doing this today? Let's be honest. You are doing it to
score some cheap political points.
I would like to remind the Speaker of the House that he is the
Speaker of not just the Republican Party, but that he is the Speaker of
the whole House. Now is the time to bring us together, not tear us
apart.
{time} 1350
Maybe the Reid bill is the one that can unite us because it achieves
tremendous savings without decimating Medicare, Medicaid, or Social
Security. But Mr. Speaker, to bring it up under this process is
cynical, and it demeans the House of Representatives.
I would say to the Republican leadership: Enough political stunts.
Our country is facing a terrible economic crisis, a crisis that you
created and one that you can avoid, but we've run out of time. Now is
the time for leadership, not bad political theater. Now is the time to
behave like legislators. Please rise to the occasion.
The Reid bill is not the bill I would have written. It's not the
truly balanced approach that I would have hope for. There are no
revenues in this bill. But I think it's the best approach that is on
the table right now, and I'm willing to compromise. So I will vote
``yes'' on this bill. I'm willing to put my country first.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind the Members that
remarks in debate must be addressed to the Chair and not to other
Members in the second person.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may
consume to the distinguished former chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, my friend from Redlands, California (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, if it were not for the remarks
of my colleague from California as well as his colleague from the Rules
Committee, I wouldn't be making these remarks. I will begin with a
quote:
``The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt
limit is a sign of leadership failure. Increasing America's debt
weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that `the
buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad
choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America
has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve
better.''--Senator Barack H. Obama, March, 2006.
By 2009, Senator Obama had become President Obama. In the 2 years
since he became President, Federal spending has increased by over $500
billion a year. In the past 2 years, he has added nearly $4 trillion to
our national debt. Now President Obama is in favor of increasing the
national debt limit. When, oh when, will the real Barack Obama stand
up?
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, our neighbors, our friends
sent us here to be responsible and to come to the aid of our country at
a time of crisis. Our country is at such a time now.
Our people confront uncertainty and fear, and they're looking to us
for the courage to compromise and act to prevent default and to prevent
gridlock and irresponsibility.
Yesterday, we learned that investors in American stocks lost more
than $400 billion when just a few days ago Speaker Boehner said he
could not compromise with President Obama. Not withstanding the remarks
of my friend from California, the chairman of the Rules Committee, who
talks about a bipartisan compromise, I tell my friend, you have not
moved a single centimeter towards compromise with our side of the
aisle, not a single centimeter.
And what do we see in the United States Senate, my friends? We see a
majority leader of the United States Senate who has a President with
him. So, yes, you control one-third, and you control over 40 percent so
you can stop things from happening in the Senate, but the people aren't
looking to us for what we can stop; they're looking to us for what we
can do, for what we can do to make our country healed at this point in
time.
So what has Senator Reid done with this bill that you introduced--
guaranteed to fail. This is the second time you have put a bill on the
floor to extend the debt limit guaranteed to fail. It is a pattern,
frankly, I say to you, my friends, and it's a pattern that the American
public ought not to countenance.
What Senator Reid has done is he has taken the view of Speaker
Boehner
[[Page H5801]]
and Leader Cantor and said we need a long-term solution. And then he
has compromised, not notwithstanding the fact that all of us on this
side believe that the wealthiest among us should help take us out of
this crisis and not rely on the most vulnerable among us. And so there
is no revenue in Senator Reid's bill, notwithstanding that an
overwhelming number of us on this side of the aisle believe that's good
policy, and I know that some of you on your side of the aisle believe
that as well.
Senator Reid has set up a process so that we can continue to look at
what we know we need to look at, bringing our deficit and debt down,
for which we are all responsible, my friends.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. HOYER. And so we confront this moment of responsibility. I
believe my side of the aisle will overwhelmingly say yes, not because
they like this bill, but because they believe it is a compromise that
can work because it takes so much of the demands that you have made on
your side of the aisle. But if you came to Congress expecting
perfection, if you came to Congress expecting only that you do it your
way and no other way, you will be disappointed, as all of us are
disappointed, because it cannot happen that way. Our Founding Fathers
brought us from many places with many perspectives to try to heal our
country and provide for the general welfare.
Let us avoid default. Let us set ourselves on a path of compromise.
My friends on the Republican side of the aisle, we are going to vote,
for the most part, for this bill. We do not believe it's perfect, but
we believe it's possible. America expects us to do that.
The summer soldiers and the sunshine patriots will retreat at this
time of crisis. Do not do that.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. I would like to yield my friend an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I will say that I was prepared to engage in
a colloquy with my good friend from Maryland and explain to him that if
Senator Reid believes that this is a great compromise, why will he not
respond to Senator McConnell's repeated requests to bring it up in the
United States Senate?
With that, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to our
Presidential candidate, our good friend from Stillwater, Minnesota
(Mrs. Bachmann).
Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, throughout this debate over guaranteeing
insane, never before seen in the history of this country levels of
spending, President Obama has coolly stood on the sidelines, his armed
crossed, very simply castigating Republicans for not giving him a $2.4
trillion blank check. Meanwhile, the only plan that the President has
put forward is his February budget, which in itself contained yet one
more $1.5 trillion deficit.
The President has no plan. Only the Republicans have offered plans.
Now is the time for the President to show leadership, and the only
leadership that he is showing is one that's saying tsk, tsk, tsk,
trying to bring us to the brink when in fact we're trying to be
responsible and bring this to a successful conclusion.
We call on the President of the United States to finally engage in
the process.
{time} 1400
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just remind the gentlelady that no
one on the Democratic side ever walked out of a meeting.
At this point, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. I have been here almost 29 years. This is a disgraceful
moment. This country wants compromise. What you're doing with this bill
is to undermine the chances of compromise. That's what you're doing.
You're trying to throw a monkey wrench in the Reid bill before it can
even leave the station. That's what you're doing. You're trying to make
sure that the Senate cannot work its will.
Why isn't this bill being brought up? Because Senator Reid wants to
sit down with Senate Republicans and work out a compromise, and you're
bringing up this bill to make sure that this will never happen. This is
a disgraceful moment, Mr. Dreier. It is a disgraceful moment.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEVIN. No.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I yield time to my friend from
Michigan? Am I allowed to yield time to my friend from Michigan?
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Dreier, you have already spoken. What you are doing
here is----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 15 seconds.
Mr. LEVIN. Look, Mr. Dreier, it is very clear what you are doing
here. Mr. Reid wants to sit down and work with Mr. McConnell. What you
are trying to do is to make sure that a signal is sent to the Senate,
don't bother.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
Let me say that the action that we are about to take here today is
going to help with the process of seeing Senator McConnell and Senator
Reid work together.
Mr. LEVIN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Dreier, that is pernicious
nonsense.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The Chair will remind the
Members that remarks in debate must be addressed to the Chair and not
to other Members in the second person.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I will not only address you, I won't point
my finger at you as I address you.
Let me say, Madam Speaker, that Senator McConnell has just minutes
ago asked Senator Reid to bring the Reid proposal to the floor of the
United States Senate. And a decision has been made by Senator Reid not
to bring the measure up.
On at least two occasions, Senator McConnell has asked, since Senator
Reid has said that his proposal is the only one that can pass both
Houses of Congress, Senator McConnell has asked us to show what we all
know, and that is that there is not going to be a majority of support
in the House of Representatives for his proposal.
And then when that happens, we look forward to the discussions that
will take place with Speaker Boehner, Senator Reid, Leader McConnell,
and Leader Pelosi.
With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Young), a hardworking new Member of Congress.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Madam Speaker, we need to cut spending now. We
need to control spending in the future. But the American people
understand that our foremost constitutional duty here in Congress is to
make sure that America is safe.
Former Secretary Gates said that further cuts to our military will
mean that there are certain things our military won't be able to do and
places they won't be able to go.
This proposal, the Reid-Obama plan, proposes cutting defense spending
by $859 billion over 10 years compared to the President's fiscal year
2011 budget. Yet the President and Senator Reid have not told us what
places we won't be going and what missions we won't be doing. This is
irresponsible. I can't support this proposal.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. DOGGETT. This Republican ploy is too clever by half. At the very
same time Republican Senators are filibustering against bringing up
this proposal in the Senate, the House Republicans are insisting on
bringing it up here so they can vote it down. While it is imperfect and
imbalanced, this Reid proposal protects educational opportunities for
college students, it protects retirement security through Medicare and
Social Security, and it provides
[[Page H5802]]
more important resources for public services than the reactionary House
Republican budget.
With House Republicans still at fault for refusing to seek any type
of middle ground, the Reid bill is the least worst alternative to avoid
default.
As desperate as they were last night to cobble together a handful of
votes to pass a partisan Boehner bill, they are even more desperate to
defeat this reasonable middle ground because they insist it must have
two-thirds of the votes of this body.
Let us join Democrats in unity to approve this proposal.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to remind my
friend from Texas that the measure that we voted on last night stemmed
from the bipartisan agreement that was put together one week ago this
afternoon right down the hall.
With that, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my good friend, the
gentleman from Jefferson, Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
If you look at the Reid bill, it doesn't even start to address the
problem. With all of its budget gimmicks and shell games, I think most
people recognize that if you had an honest conversation, you would know
it doesn't even start to tackle the spending problem.
Now, hardworking American families back home know the problem in
America is not that we have corporate jet owners and millionaires and
billionaires; the problem is that Washington spends too much money. You
don't solve that problem by sending more money up to Washington to
spend even more. And so when the President talks about a balanced
approach, what he really means is more job-killing tax hikes.
Families back home know what we really need is a balanced budget
amendment to put accountability back in place in Washington to control
this rampant, out-of-control spending in Washington and to finally
attack the real problem, and that's Washington spending. I oppose the
bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, this agreement offers the calm,
reasonable compromise the country wants. Most Americans don't want to
let the debt ceiling expire. This bill solves that problem.
Most Americans say, You know what? You probably can cut about 5
percent in most government programs. Not everybody believes that, but
that's what this bill does.
Most Americans say that there ought to be some other way to look at
difficult entitlement programs and other issues. The bill sets up a
process to do that.
What the bill does is recognize the difference between the two
parties and puts that difference aside. The majority party wants to
make radical changes in Medicare and Social Security; we do not.
We believe that the wealthiest Americans should pay their fair share
to solve this problem. The majority party does not. The bill leaves
that disagreement aside and focuses on the areas of agreement.
You know, American troops on patrol are not asking under what
conditions they should do their duty this afternoon. They're
understanding their duty, and they're doing it--and so should we. Pass
this bill.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 30
seconds to my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), a
hardworking new Member of the class of 87 people who came in here to
change this place.
Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Dreier.
When we hear our colleague from Texas say ``this is the least worst
alternative,'' and that's our best choice? I think the American people
demand and deserve better. It is time that we put people before
politics and partisanship aside so that we can have progress for the
American people.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson Lee) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. As an American, I stand here united with
America voting ``yes'' on this bill to save Medicare, Medicaid, and
Social Security.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Bipartisan Budget
Control Act of 2011,'' the Reid Bill, which is a legitimate attempt to
resolve our debt-ceiling crisis unlike the previous debt-ceiling bills
introduced by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, which has
attempted to resolve our budget ceiling crisis by demanding sharp cuts
to domestic programs that ask average Americans to make life-changing
sacrifices while not asking America's wealthiest individuals and most
profitable corporations to contribute their fair share.
We must work together to save the American people and do what's
right. We are working under one flag and one nation; there are times in
which we are 50 states, and times when we exist as a single, united,
nation. One single state did not defend the nation after the attacks on
Pearl Harbor. One state, on its own, did not end segregation and
establish Civil Rights. There are times when the stakes are too high,
when we simply must unite as states and act as one. We must today work
under one flag and one nation to protect our economy and our people.
We need to change the tone here in Congress. Federal Reserve Chairman
Ben Bernanke said it best when he stated recently before the House
Committee on Financial Services, ``We really don't want to just cut,
cut, cut.'' Chairman Bernanke further stated ``You need to be a little
bit cautious about sharp cuts in the very near term because of the
potential impact on the recovery. That doesn't at all preclude--in
fact, I believe it's entirely consistent with--a longer-term program
that will bring our budget into a sustainable position.'' The Reid plan
offers the compromise that the American people want, demand and need. I
stand here with so many of my colleagues calling for the protection of
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other programs that protect
the interests of the American people.
In my lifetime, I have never seen such a concerted effort to ransom
the American economy in order to extort the American public. I support
this bill and efforts to increase the debt limit and to resolve our
differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues. I will not
support any bill that unduly robs average Americans of their economic
security and ability to provide for their families while constraining
the ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic,
fiscal, and job creation troubles.
This plan will result in a $1.2 trillion increase in the debt limit,
$416 billion of which would automatically occur when the President
submits a written certification to Congress that the debt ceiling needs
to be increased. The remaining $784 billion in borrowing authority
would be subject to a congressional resolution of disapproval, and
Congress would have 55 days to act to reject the increase. Under this
bill, after that initial increase, the President would be authorized to
seek another $1.2 trillion increase once the debt limit is within $150
billion of the debt ceiling, with the entire $1.2 trillion subject to a
congressional resolution of disapproval within 15 calendar days.
The plan I support today establishes statutory caps on discretionary
spending that would apply for ten years. These caps would operate
similarly to caps established with bipartisan support in the 1990s. If
Congress exceeds the caps, across-the-board cuts would enforce the
limits. Further additional savings in FY 2012 by security spending
would be capped at $606 billion, or $3 billion below this year's level.
Security spending would be $19 billion below the Republican budget.
This plan finds even more savings by limiting funding for ongoing wars
(the so-called ``Overseas Contingent Operations'') that could be
provided outside the discretionary spending caps.
Some of my Republican colleagues have been critical of the Reid
bill's proposed savings on war funding. However, winding down the wars,
which this year will cost about $160 billion, will produce very real
savings, as both the Office of Management and Budget and the
Congressional Budget Office acknowledge. In fact, the Republicans
endorsed this approach when they voted for the House GOP budget earlier
this year.
My home state of Texas ranks 43rd in education, and last (50th) in
the nation in people over 25 who only have a high school education.
This bill will protect the hopes and dreams of people who are striving
to improve those numbers. It safeguards Pell Grants and maintains the
current maximum grant at $5,550. Our country has such a firm belief in
education, so much so that we as a people have provided free education
to all students until the 12th grade, but after that moment with high
school diploma in hand a higher education should not become a battle
between the haves and the have nots in our society.
[[Page H5803]]
This plan would end graduate and professional students' eligibility for
subsidized Stafford loans, as proposed in the President's FY 2012
budget.
Graduate and professional students would be able to receive
unsubsidized federal student loans, and would continue to be eligible
to apply for deferment, forbearance, or other loan repayment
assistance. The $18 billion in savings are used to address projected
shortfalls in the Pell Grant through FY 2013.
Madam Speaker, the bill will reduce waste, fraud and abuse by
promoting efforts to improve enforcement in several areas. The anti-
fraud efforts promoted by the Reid bill include: continuing Disability
Reviews and SSI redeterminations; Internal Revenue Service tax
enforcement; health care fraud and abuse control; and Unemployment
Insurance improper payment reviews. According to CBO, these steps would
save $11 billion over 10 years.
The Boehner proposal plan and all the plans proposed by my Republican
colleagues they have all just cut, cut, cut without taking into full
consideration the serious cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and
Medicaid. Their bills have essentially been a rehashed version of the
same bills that President Obama promised to veto and the Senate vowed
to reject. It asks cuts from domestic spending while demanding nothing
in revenue from the nation's wealthiest. The proposals offered by my
Republican colleagues has been nothing more than a ransom note,
irresponsibly raising the debt ceiling for only a few months so that in
just a short period of time, the American public will be hit again for
$1.6 trillion in cuts from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and
veterans benefits. Anyone who believes that those plans will not result
in a serious cut to Social Security should consider this . . . Social
Security represents 20 percent of all federal spending, making it
unrealistic to think such large cuts in mandatory spending will not
affect Social Security benefits. The Reid plan, before us today
protects Social Security.
I believe that the plan before us is an example of shared sacrifice.
It removes the entire burden off the backs of seniors, the middle class
and our nation's most vulnerable citizens. The Reid plan will not
result in dramatic reductions in safety net programs for vulnerable
Americans, such as food stamps and unemployment and disability
insurance. This would be and should be unacceptable, and each is
avoidable if corporations and the wealthy are required to shoulder a
fair share of this burden.
There has been a theme this Congress of focusing on cutting programs
that benefit the public good and for the most at need, while ignoring
the need to focus on job creation and economic recovery. This bill
places us back on the right track. We should be focused on paying our
nation's bills and resolving our differences.
In my district, the Texas 18th, more than 190,000 people live below
the poverty line. We must not, we cannot, at a time when the Census
Bureau places the number of Americans living in poverty at the highest
rate in over 50 years, cut vital social services. Not in the wake of
the 2008 financial crisis and persistent unemployment, when so many
rely on federal benefits to survive, like the Supplemental Nutrition
Access Program (SNAP) that fed 3.9 million residents of Texas in April
2011, or the Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) Program that provides
nutritious food to more than 990,000 mothers and children in my home
state.
In 2009, there were 43.6 million Americans living in poverty
nationwide. According to the 2010 Federal poverty threshold, determined
by the U.S. Census, a family of four is considered impoverished if they
are living on less than $22,314 per year.
Children represent a disproportionate amount of the United States
poor population. In 2008, there were 15.45 million impoverished
children in the nation, 20.7% of America's youth. The Kaiser Family
Foundation estimates that there are currently 5.6 million Texans living
in poverty, 2.2 million of them children, and that 17.4% of households
in the state struggle with food insecurity.
Protecting Medicare represents the basic values of fairness and
respect for our seniors, including the 2.9 million Texans who received
Medicare in 2010.
Any cuts to Medicaid would be just as damaging. Harris County has one
of the highest Medicaid enrollment records in Texas. Limits and cuts to
Medicaid funds would significantly hurt the citizens of Texas's 18th
District. Harris County averages between 500,000 and 600,000 Medicaid
recipients monthly, thousands of people who may not have access to
healthcare should Congress sacrifice Medicaid to cut spending.
Childhood hunger continues to be a real and persistent problem in the
Houston/Harris County area. The number of people participating in the
Food Stamp Program in Texas has increased by 82 percent since 2000.
However, only 60 percent of those eligible for food stamps in Texas
participate in the program.
In Harris County, only 75 percent of children approved to receive
free lunch participated, and only 39 percent of children approved to
receive free breakfast took advantage of the benefit. Participation
numbers are similarly low for those students approved to receive
reduced-price lunch and breakfast. During summer months, participation
in these federal nutrition programs drops significantly. In Texas the
summer participation rate was only 8.1 percent of low income children.
In 2008, when the recession first hit, 22.9 percent of Texas children
were living in poverty, the fifth worst rate in the nation. As a result
of the economic downturn that began in late 2008 in Texas, and parents
losing their jobs, the child poverty rate increased to 24.4 percent in
2009. That is 163,000 more children falling into poverty, or 1.6
million Texas children overall.
Many people assume that Texas was not hit as hard by the recession as
other states because our unemployment rate is still below the national
average. While our unemployment rate is low compared to the U.S. (8.2
versus 9.8 percent, respectively, in November 2010), it is still nearly
double where it stood in November 2007 (4.4 percent). In fact, Texas'
unemployment rate has been around 8 percent for the last 16 months,
which is extremely high given Texas' recent history.
Nearly one in three Texas children has no parent with a full-time,
year-round job, making them particularly vulnerable.
When a household falls into poverty, children are exposed to
increased parental distress, inadequate childcare arrangements, and
poor nutrition. In past recessions, it took many years for employment
and incomes to rebound, and low-income families rebound more slowly
than others.
72 percent of Texas' working families in poverty have at least one
parent without health insurance.
Public benefits such as health care or nutrition assistance help
families bridge the gaps in difficult economic times and are critical
in reducing the effects of a recession. Cutting these supports will
hurt child and family well-being and damage the Texas economy by taking
money out of the private economy for critical local businesses such as
grocery stores and medical providers.
The supplemental nutrition program, WIC, helps low-income pregnant
women, new mothers, infants, and young children eat well and stay
healthy. WIC provides nutrition education, nutritious foods, referrals
to health and human services, breastfeeding support, and immunizations
(at some clinics).
More than 802,000 Texas children ages 0-4 (40 percent) received
support through WIC. When you look at infants alone, 67 percent
received WIC supplements, compared to only 35 percent of children aged
1-4.
The program has grown by more than 176,000 kids between 2000 and
2009, with an increase of 66,000 children from 2007 to 2009 alone.
During the recession, more families needed greater assistance with
basic expenses. SNAP (formerly Food Stamps) provided benefits to over 3
million Texans, more than half of which are children (ages 0-17).
In January 2011, more than 2 million Texas children received
assistance from SNAP, an increase of nearly 700,000 kids since January
2008. Furthermore, because of added funds from the ARRA, monthly
benefits rose 13.6 percent, giving added assistance to families at a
time when they needed it most.
The dramatic rise in applications for SNAP initially overwhelmed the
already beleaguered state workers who enroll families in these federal
benefits. In November of 2009, 43 percent of SNAP applications were not
being processed within the federally mandated 30-day time period,
leaving hundreds of thousands of families each month waiting for food
assistance.
More than 2.8 million Texas children participate in the school lunch
program, and close to half of them also receive breakfast. More than
$1.3 billion of federal funding is used to support these programs
during the school year. Many counties in Texas also run summer
nutrition programs so that kids who depend on school lunches have
access to good nutrition when school is closed for the summer.
Perhaps my friends on the other side of the aisle are content to
conclude that life simply is not fair, equality is not accessible to
everyone, and the less advantaged among us are condemned to remain as
they are, but I do not accept that. That kind of complacency is not
fitting for America.
Yes, we must take steps to balance the budget and reduce the national
debt, but not at the expense of vital social programs. It is
unconscionable that in our nation of vast resources, my Republican
colleagues even consider fighting to pass a budget that cuts funding
for essential social programs. Poverty impacts far too many Americans
and social safety nets provide these individuals with vital assistance
As we continue to discuss the necessity of increasing our debt
ceiling, I have heard the
[[Page H5804]]
concerns of many of my constituents and the American people regarding
the size of our national debt and the care with which taxpayer money is
spent. I, too, am concerned about these issues; for to burden future
generations of Americans with tremendous amounts of debt should not be
a way to avoid our fiscal responsibilities to the American people.
However, the task of resolving our debt ceiling crisis must take
precedence over other concerns, including political ideology. The game
is up, and the American people understand that increasing the debt
ceiling has nothing to do with any new spending and everything to do
with paying off the obligations that we have already agreed to and
promised to pay.
Prior to the existence of the debt ceiling, Congress had to approve
borrowing each time the federal government wished to borrow money in
order to carry out its functions. With the onset of World War I, more
flexibility was needed to expand the government's capability to borrow
money expeditiously in order to meet the rapidly changing requirements
of funding a major war in the modern era.
To address this need, the first debt ceiling was established in 1917,
allowing the federal government to borrow money to meet its obligations
without prior congressional approval, so long as in the aggregate, the
amount borrowed did not eclipse a specified limit.
Since the debt limit was first put in place, Congress has increased
it over l00 times; in fact, it was raised 10 times within the past
decade. Congress last came together and raised the debt ceiling in
February 2010. Today, the debt ceiling currently stands at $14.3
trillion. In reality, that limit has already been eclipsed, but due to
accounting procedures by Treasury Secretary Geithner, the debt limit
can be artificially avoided until August 2.
Congress must act now in order to avert a crisis. Never in the
history of America has the United States defaulted on its debt
obligations.
We must be clear on what this issue means for our country. America
has earned a reputation as the world's most trusted borrower. United
States Treasury bonds have traditionally been one of the safest
investments another country or investor could make. For investors
around the world, purchasing a U.S. Treasury bond meant that they held
something virtually as safe as cash, backed by the full faith and
credit of the United States government.
In turn, with the proceeds from the bonds, the federal government of
the world's largest economy is able to finance its operations. If the
United States defaults on its debt obligations, the financial crisis
that began in 2008 would pale in comparison, according to economic
experts. The ensuing economic catastrophe would not only place the U.S.
economy in a tailspin, but the world economy as well.
The fact that Congress, a body that typically has its fair share of
political battles, has never played political chicken when it came to
raising the debt ceiling should give us all pause, and is a testament
to the seriousness with which we must approach this issue. However,
this time around, my Republican colleagues have created an impasse
based upon an ideological commitment to spending cuts. While I
understand and share the concern of my Republican colleagues with
respect to deficit spending, and will continue to work with them in
order to find reductions, now is not the time to put ideology over
pragmatism. The reality is that, on August 3, the United States will
begin to default on its debt obligations if the debt ceiling is not
raised.
This unnecessarily places the American public and the economy between
a rock and a hard place. Either Congress sides completely with the
radical agenda of the Tea Party, which irresponsibly pulls the chair
out from under the average American while polishing the throne of the
wealthiest.
This detour into a spending debate is as unnecessary as it is
perilous, as increasing the debt ceiling does not obligate the
undertaking of any new spending by the federal government. Rather,
raising the debt limit simply allows the government to pay existing
legal obligations promised to debt holders that were already agreed to
by Presidents and Congresses, both past and present.
Moreover, the impending crisis would have already occurred were it
not for the extraordinary measures taken by Treasury Secretary Timothy
Geithner, including the suspension of the investment in securities to
finance the Civil Service retirement and Disability Fund, as well as
the redemption of a portion of those securities already held by that
fund.
If the United States defaults on its obligations on August 3, the
stock market will react violently to the news that for the first time
in history, America is unable to keep its promises to pay. Not once in
American history has the country's full faith and credit been called
into question.
Once America defaults, investors who purchase U.S. bonds and finance
our government will be less likely to lend to America in the future.
Just as a person who defaults on a loan will find it harder to convince
banks to lend them money in the future, a country that defaults on its
debt obligations will find it harder to convince investors to lend
money to a government that did not pay.
Showing the world that the United States does not pay its debts makes
the purchasing of that debt less desirable because it requires the
assumption of more risk on the part of the investors. The opponents of
this bill are putting the country at serious risk of losing its status
as the world's economic superpower. Our allies will lose faith in our
ability to manage global economic affairs. Our status in the world will
be diminished, which will undermine our leverage on the world stage
that allows us to command the respect and compliance of other nations
when it comes to decision-making. This bill will allow America to
compete with a surging China.
Furthermore, any investors that do continue to purchase U.S. Treasury
bonds will demand much higher interest rates in order to cover the
increased risk. Once a default occurs, investors figure that the chance
of the United States defaulting again is much greater, and will require
the government to pay higher rates of interest in order to make the
loan worth the risk for investors to take on.
Imagine the impact on our stock market if we do not pay our debts. As
we have seen throughout the recent financial crisis, a bad stock market
hurts not only big businesses and large investors on Wall Street, but
small businesses and small investors as well. Families with investments
tied to the stock market, such as 401(k)s, pension plans, and savings,
will once again see the value of their investments drop. The American
people are tired of the uncertainty of the value of their retirement
accounts. We must not allow another wild fluctuation to occur due to
default and add to the uncertainty still lingering in the minds of
citizens.
The markets have made it clear that a short-term extension and Reid's
plan is a long term solution which averts serious consequences.
As if another stock market crisis were not enough, the housing market
would take another hit if America defaulted. Higher mortgage rates in a
housing market already weakened by default and foreclosures would cause
a further depression of home values, destroying whatever equity
families might have left in their homes after the housing crisis.
Moreover, the long-term effects would reduce spending and investment in
the housing market.
Increasing the debt ceiling is the responsible thing to do. Congress
has already debated and approved the debt that an increased ceiling
makes room for. However, my Republican colleagues have chosen to use
this as an opportunity to hold the American people hostage to their
extreme agenda.
Even prominent Republicans like Senator John McCain and Christine
Todd Whitman have criticized the radical elements of their party who
insist upon holding up the entire political process in order to flaunt
their extreme, irrational, and unrealistic ideology. Senator McCain has
called the Tea Party's stance and the way they have conducted
themselves during this manufactured crisis ``bizarre,'' and I am
inclined to agree. Their agenda for this country is even too radical
for Speaker Boehner, with the Tea Party vowing to reject their leader's
own bill.
Texas has the unfortunate distinction of leading the nation as the
highest percentage of residents uninsured. More than 5.8 million
Texans--including 1.5 million children--lack health insurance. Texas'
uninsured rates, 1.5 to 2 times the national average, create
significant problems in the financing and delivery of health care to
all Texans. One in every four Texans lacks health insurance coverage,
and that number is one in every three in large cities like Houston and
Dallas. According to the Gallup poll, an average of 26.8 percent of
Texas residents was uninsured.
With only 75% of the residents being insured, this means that one in
four residents within the state is unprotected and could be in
financial stress in case of a medical emergency. This extremely high
percentage of residents lacking health insurance coverage is one of the
biggest challenges the Texas Department of Insurance and Department of
Health face.
Here's an idea that wouldn't cost Texas a dime but would save
millions of dollars every year: Remove all barriers restraining nurses
from practicing to the full extent of their education and training. No
state needs primary care providers more than Texas, which has a severe
shortage. Texas ranks last in access to health care and in the
percentage of residents without health insurance. Of Texas' 254
counties, 188 are designated by the federal government as having acute
shortages of primary care physicians. Of that number, 16 counties have
one and 23 have zero. If every nurse practitioner and family doctor
were deployed, we still couldn't meet the need. Texans are desperate
for health care.
I have worked effortlessly with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to gain bipartisan support for successful passage of an
[[Page H5805]]
amendment to the landmark healthcare reform bill that made sure no
hospital is forced to shut its doors or turn away Medicare or Medicaid
patients. Existing physician-owned hospitals employ approximately
51,700 individuals, have over 27,000 physicians on staff, pay
approximately $2,421,579,312 in payroll taxes and $512,889,516 in other
federal taxes, and have approximately $1.9 billion in trade payables.
With approximately 50 physician-owned hospitals, Texas leads the nation
in the number of physician-owned hospitals. The Texas economy could
lose more than $2.3 billion and more than 22,000 jobs without these
important hospitals.
American families spend almost twice as much on health care--through
premiums, paycheck deductions and out-of-pocket expenses--as families
in any other country. In exchange, we receive quality specialty care in
many areas. Yet on the whole, Americans do not get much better care
than countries that spend far less. Americans do not live as long as
people in Canada, Japan, and most of Western Europe. This should
clearly indicate that health care reform was needed. The landmark bill
signed by President Obama will provide coverage to millions of people
who currently lack it.
They live in a world that is not the world that the American people
live in. In their world, they believe that taxes are always too high,
even on people making over a billion a year in a struggling economy;
that any increase in revenue is fundamentally wrong, even if it comes
from large corporations who use tax loopholes at the expense of our
job-creating small businesses; that investing anything in our economic
future above tax revenues is impermissible, even in the midst of an
economic downturn; and that tax cuts for the wealthy are always the
nation's top priority, even at the expense of people that depend on
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans benefits to survive.
These beliefs place them on the fringe of American society, and yet
due to the nature our political process, they have held up the entire
government and placed our economy on the precipice of a turbulent
second recession.
If Congress cannot find a resolution then Congress will open the
possibility that the President may invoke the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution, Section four, which states ``the
validity of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be
questioned.'' The argument can be made that if Congress will not
resolve our nation's pending default then the President to protect the
interest of our nation must act. The President would then have to
consider his powers under the Fourteenth Amendment which may grant him
the authority to raise the debt ceiling, on his own, through executive
order and if Congress fails to raise the debt limit by the August 2,
2011 deadline. As a body we should not place the President or our
country in this position.
For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to consider the constituents
in their home districts who would be helped by this bill. I urge my
colleagues to return to the world in which the vast majority of
Americans live in; a world in which our shared destiny is determined by
reasonable minds and good faith efforts to compromise. Federal Reserve
Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that defaulting could ``throw the
financial system into chaos,'' and ``destroy the trust and confidence
that global investors have in Treasury securities as being the safest
liquid assets in the world.''
Instead of injecting ideological spending cuts into the traditionally
non-political business of raising the debt ceiling, we must work
quickly to pass a this bill that makes good on our debt obligations and
restores confidence in American credit.
There is in these difficult times no tea party, no Democratic Party,
no Republican Party. There is only one party--there is only one party--
the party that is the embodiment of one nation--America and we should
stand for Americans and one America--I vote ``yes'' to save America
from default and to honor the full, faith and credit.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Scott).
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Ladies and gentlemen of the House of
Representatives, this is not a Nation of Tea Party people. It is not a
Nation of Democrats or Republicans. It is a Nation of all of us.
And what the Reid plan presents, it represents the Tea Party, the
Republicans and the Democrats and the President of the United States.
This is what the American people expect us to do. That is what has made
this country great. At critical times, we've come together and we have
compromised. We're protecting Medicare. We're protecting Social
Security. We're protecting Medicaid, as the people of this country
want.
And yet, as the Republicans and the Tea Party want, there are no tax
increases in this. And as the President of the United States has asked
us, there will be a second task in the year 2013.
{time} 1410
Ladies and gentlemen of this House, the time is present. It is time
for us to do the American thing: Stand up for the American people and
let us compromise in the best interests of all of us so this Nation
will not go into default.
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself 15 seconds.
Madam Speaker, I think it's very important to note that yesterday and
today we are continuing to hear that under the Boehner proposal cuts in
Medicare and Social Security would take place, when in fact both the
Boehner and Reid proposals have virtually identical plans to put into
place a joint select committee that would in fact report back to this
institution.
With that, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my very good friend, a
member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Houston,
Texas (Mr. Culberson).
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Speaker, I think it's important for everyone to
know the reason the House is considering this bill today is to put up
another guardrail to show what the House cannot do. It's important in
any compromise to understand what can and cannot be done.
The new constitutional conservative majority in the House will not
pass the Reid bill because of its devastating cuts to our U.S.
military. The House is going to find a way to compromise with the
Senate, but it is not going to include massive cuts to the military. As
we've established, it's not going to include tax increases. It looks
like it's going to include some select committee that's going to make
recommendations to the Congress.
We're going to find a way to make sure that American companies do not
hit the brick wall of running out of the ability to borrow. But this is
one of the most important debates, one of the most important votes
we'll have in our brief time here in Congress is to make sure that
we're protecting our kids and grandchildren from a crushing
unaffordable level of debt. So we're working hard to find what the
limits are of what the House and the Senate will do.
We've got to have this vote today to show what the House will not do.
And we're not going to cut the military, as the Reid bill would.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 15 seconds.
Madam Speaker, make no mistake about it. From day one, this
Republican majority has put Medicare on the chopping block. And the
Boehner proposal would decimate Medicare and Medicaid and Social
Security as we know it.
At this point, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would point out to my good friend from
Texas, Madam Speaker, as a constitutional conservative, he should
recognize that the Constitution, itself, was a series of compromises.
Our Nation and economy is being pushed closer and closer to default.
Hardliners on the right--extremists by any other name--have refused to
compromise. We are putting in jeopardy the payment of the Social
Security obligations and paying the members of our military. The
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff yesterday couldn't even answer in
the affirmative that he was confident that those payments could be made
if we default. We're putting in jeopardy the full faith and credit of
our Nation.
Yesterday, seniors in my district called my office in tears,
wondering whether we would default and what those consequences would
mean for them. These are real people who live on Social Security to
survive.
We have many strongly held views on both sides of the aisle. I don't
like everything in the Reid proposal before us, but compromise is
critical. I recognize that I can't have everything 100 percent my way.
Democrats have been at the compromise table for months with an empty
chair on the other side of the table. It is time for Republicans to
warm that seat across from us.
Mr. Dreier claims that Republicans have brought the Reid proposal to
the floor to show that it doesn't represent
[[Page H5806]]
a bill that can pass the House, yet the process is a sham. The bill has
been brought up under a rule that requires a two-thirds vote of this
House for passage, which they know cannot happen.
What are Republicans afraid of? They're afraid that a fair process
might show just how much support there is for this proposal.
Where are the cooler heads in the Republican Caucus? Where are they?
They appear not to exist. Your caucus seems to be held hostage by
extremists and have driven the moderates from the room and from the
discussion. Allowing extremists to take over is doing harm to our
country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you.
President Obama and House and Senate Democrats have said we are
willing to support cuts even to programs we would normally fight to
preserve. Republicans in response have doubled down in a Groundhog Day
move that has pushed dead-on-arrival proposals that jeopardize our
economy by bringing us closer to the brink of chaos.
At the end of the day, the stewardship of our economy is our
responsibility.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to our good
friend, a hardworking new Member of this institution, the gentlewoman
from Camas, Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Madam Speaker, the reason we came here, this
caucus is here, the new freshmen are here, is because the American
people said, Enough. They said, You're spending too much of our money.
And that's what this conversation is about today.
The President stood on the floor across the Rotunda a couple of years
ago and said, It's a failure of leadership to raise the debt ceiling.
Well, guess what? I came here never expecting to raise the debt
ceiling, but I've now compromised. I've twice voted to raise the debt
ceiling to cover spending from a failed stimulus, from a health care
bill that ends Medicare as we know it. I voted twice for solutions. And
that's compromise for me.
When I ran for this seat, I told the people that I serve, I'm not
extreme; I am mad. I'm mad that Washington, D.C., thinks you are their
piggy bank.
That's what this debate is about. We end it today.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 10 seconds, Madam Speaker, just to
remind the gentlelady that she has voted time and time and time again
to decimate Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and we're not
going to stand by and let them do that.
At this point I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, the
ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I think the American people just heard a new
definition of compromise: Paying your bills is a compromise. The
American family can't wake up one morning and say, Boy, it's a
compromise to pay for what I've already incurred. It's a compromise to
pay my mortgage. That's a new one for the American people. And it's
part of a reckless pattern that we've seen emerging here.
First our Republican colleagues walked out of the Biden talks. Twice
they walked out of talks with the President of the United States. Then,
when the Republican leader in the Senate put forward a proposal, they
ridiculed it. Then, Thursday night, in this very House, they said
``no'' to the proposal by the Republican Speaker of this House until he
amended--the same Speaker who said we need to have an adult moment.
Here's the concluding paragraph of today's Wall Street Journal:
Republicans are not looking like adults to whom we can entrust the
government.
The American people are looking for that adult moment. If you're not
willing to compromise on critical things for the country, you are not
fit to govern. And that is why Senator Reid put forward a compromise
proposal. He doesn't like his own proposal. He would be the first to
tell you that. But you know what it did? It met the criteria our
Republican colleagues put forward--$2.4 trillion in cuts. And even if
you take out the war savings, more guaranteed cuts, according to CBO,
than the Boehner proposal the other night. It also incorporates
McConnell's proposal.
Here's what it doesn't do. It doesn't end the Medicare guarantee. It
doesn't cut Social Security. And it doesn't protect tax breaks for
special interest corporations.
What we're seeing here is people are holding the American economy
hostage. You have to stop playing kamikaze pilot with the future of the
American people in order to extract a hundred percent of demands for
budgets your way. Compromise is necessary. And that is what Senator
Reid put forward, a compromise proposal.
Let's show we can govern together.
{time} 1420
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself 5 seconds to again say to my colleagues
that the measure we voted on last night stemmed from a bipartisan
compromise that was put together in this very Capitol one week ago
today.
With that, Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my good
friend from Urbana, Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Let's just cut to the numbers and what this bill does. We've got a
$14 trillion debt. This is going to raise the debt ceiling $2.4
trillion. It's going to achieve a savings of $18 billion in the first
year.
So just think of it the way the American people would see things.
You've got a kid who has maxed out the credit card at $14,000. The kid
goes to the bank, and the bank says, Okay. Here's what we're going to
do. We're going to give you 2,400 more dollars on the credit card, but
you have to promise us, over the next year, you're going to spend $18
less than you planned on spending.
That's what this bill does. This bill doesn't even come close to
starting to solve the problem. That's why we're against it, and that's
why it should be defeated.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 5 seconds.
My colleague from California keeps on saying that the Boehner bill
was bipartisan. I'll remind him that not one single Democrat voted for
that bill because Democrats do not want to decimate Social Security,
Medicare and Medicaid.
At this time, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
Mr. FATTAH. I assume that some think that the American people are
gullible, but this is not a coincidence or happenstance. We've got a
Republican majority that took us from trillions in surplus to trillions
in deficit, added a $7 trillion prescription drug plan, unfunded wars,
and then refused any additional revenue. In choking off our country's
ability to pay its debt, now they want to walk us towards default. This
is a special place in the shadows of the history books for a group of
people who in order to gain power are willing to sacrifice America's
leadership in this world.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to any of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who will tell me where in the
Boehner bill it says that we want to cut Medicare, Social Security or
any of the other items that they continue to attack. I would be happy
to yield to anyone who can point me to where in the Boehner bill it
says that. I am happy to yield to anyone.
Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DREIER. I yield to my friend from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. In the balanced budget amendment that you have and in
the Ryan proposal, you have all of it going after Medicare and Social
Security.
Mr. DREIER. With that, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to my good
friend from Aurora, Colorado (Mr. Coffman).
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Madam Speaker, the President of the United
States, Barack Obama, has said to the Congress that we need to put
America first and get this debt limit done. I agree with that. I agree
that we need to put America first and put politics aside.
Last weekend, a bipartisan proposal emerged with Speaker Boehner and
Majority Leader Reid, Senator Reid, coming to an agreement, but the
President of the United States got ahold of Senator Reid and said,
Absolutely not.
[[Page H5807]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds, Madam
Speaker.
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. The reason he rejected the agreement was
because it didn't have enough money to get him through the election of
November 2012. The President's campaign consideration is not putting
America first. We need to put America first and vote down the Reid
proposal.
Mr. McGOVERN. May I inquire of the time remaining on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 6\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Maybe the gentleman from California might want to yield
to Mr. Van Hollen; but at this point, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I did ask a few minutes ago and expended
time by asking anyone to yield. We have a lot of Members here who want
to be heard. Mr. McGovern has time if he would like to yield it.
I yield 15 seconds to my friend from Maryland, and maybe Mr. McGovern
will yield him 15 seconds. Then we can hear what Mr. Van Hollen has to
say.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the chairman for yielding.
If you look at the Boehner proposal, it says we've got to cut $1.8
trillion. The Speaker of the House has already said that you can't have
any revenue as part of that, that you can't close one corporate
loophole. In fact, he said that the majority would override any
proposal, so the only other way to get it mathematically is to start
slashing Medicare and to start going after Social Security.
Mr. DREIER. In reclaiming my time, my point has been made very
eloquently by the gentleman, and I very much appreciate it. I thank my
friend for his contribution.
Madam Speaker, at this point, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my good
friend from Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).
Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the chairman for yielding.
As we used to say in the courtroom, the facts are that there are no
facts. The truth of the matter is that the only people who are cutting
$500 billion from Medicare are the Democrats in their proposal, but
that's not my point.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MEEHAN. No, the gentleman will not yield. Let me make my point,
and then I'll be off.
The issue here is really one of compromise. I come here as a
freshman, as somebody who is looking at this for the first time. When
we came in and worked on the bill, the Boehner proposal, the
frustration for me was knowing going in that evening that I'd already
been made aware that this leadership, the leadership of the party on
the other side, had whipped their members so not a single member was
ready on the other side to sit and talk to anyone on this aisle. The
whip was there: You will not vote. You will not talk.
We were not able.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Just to be very clear, what we did was eliminate the
overpayments to some of the Medicare Advantage plans. Listen, we used
much of those savings to close the prescription drug doughnut hole. In
your budget, you took the whole $500 billion, but you reopened the
prescription drug doughnut hole at the same time you were eliminating
the Medicare guarantee. That's the difference.
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself 5 seconds to say that I thank the
gentleman for, once again, pointing out the fact that there is nothing
in the Boehner proposal that does anything to cut Social Security or
Medicare.
Madam Speaker, with that, I am happy to yield 15 seconds to a new
Member from Zeeland, Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I appreciate my colleague from California
for yielding.
Earlier, we heard from a colleague from Florida, on the other side of
the aisle, who was talking about the Constitution and about the intent
of it. Ladies and gentlemen, this is about controlling our spending and
accountability with the American people. It might not be in this bill,
and it might not be in other bills, but eventually, we have to realize
we need to put institutional brakes on our spending because we cannot
control our spending in this institution.
Mr. McGOVERN. This is about protecting Social Security and Medicare
and Medicaid.
I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina,
our assistant leader, Mr. Clyburn.
{time} 1430
Mr. CLYBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, the clock is ticking, the American people are
anxiously waiting for responsible leadership, and the Republicans here
in Congress are continuing to play political games.
Last night the United States Senate rightly defeated the Boehner bill
on a bipartisan vote. That partisan bill was the product of the
Republicans' ``my way or the highway'' approach that held all Americans
hostage to exact a ransom payment for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social
Security beneficiaries.
Now we must find a commonsense compromise. That's why I will vote for
the Reid bill today. The Reid bill saves America's economy from the
devastation that would result from defaulting on our fiduciary
obligations.
Throughout the deliberations on this self-inflicted debt crisis, my
bottom line has been to protect Social Security, Medicare, and
Medicaid. This plan contains real spending cuts and deficit reduction
to begin putting our Nation's fiscal house in order. It meets the
Speaker's requirement that spending be cut by an amount at least as
large as the debt ceiling increase. And it does so while protecting
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid beneficiaries. It also
safeguards Pell Grants that provide low-income young people the
opportunity to go to college and to work to achieve the American Dream.
We must take responsible action now to avert this crisis and move to
significant measures to create jobs and generate economic growth.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Tupelo, Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).
Mr. NUNNELEE. Thank you, Mr. Dreier.
We've heard from our friends on the other side ``we want
compromise.'' The American people expect solutions.
This Harry Reid plan offers no real solutions to the out-of-control
spending problem. This Harry Reid plan offers no solutions to the
broken Washington mess that got us here. So I will vote ``no.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire about the time on both
sides, please.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1\3/4\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California has 4\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute
to my good friend from Wantage, New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor, as the previous
speaker has said, to say this side of the aisle is committed to
reaching a solution and not just a deal to this problem. We are
committed to reaching out across the aisle and across the other side of
this House to reach a compromise.
We have already compromised on the level of cuts going even further.
We have already compromised on the level of the caps, raising the caps
to make it even easier in that regard as well. We have also already
compromised from where we started with regard to a balanced budget
amendment, holding true to the idea that we should, as all Americans
also agree, eventually pass a change to the Constitution and require a
balanced budget amendment.
But at the end of the day, although we will compromise on cuts and we
will compromise on caps and we will compromise on moving forward on a
balanced budget amendment, let it be clear, as God is my witness, we
will not compromise on our principles; our principles of defending the
Constitution and defending Americans and making sure that our posterity
does not have this excessive debt on it.
[[Page H5808]]
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Here we're on the brink of economic disaster and we're
wasting time with symbolic political theater at its worst.
We want compromise and solutions and to protect Medicare on the
Democratic side. Why don't you try working with Democrats? The American
people want us to meet in the middle. They don't want this nonsense.
The debate now focuses only on spending cuts, without closing tax
loopholes, and that still isn't enough for some. No wonder The Wall
Street Journal said the Republicans don't look like adults to whom
voters can entrust the government.
The Democrats want to compromise in the middle, and if the President
needs to pull the 14th Amendment, I think he should do that because the
Republicans have shown they don't want compromise at all.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Newburgh, Indiana (Mr. Bucshon).
Mr. BUCSHON. Madam Speaker, here we are on the verge of a financial
meltdown, and my friends on the other side of the aisle are worried
about politics. They are here today worried about protecting the
President from having to do his job: lead.
The Republicans in the House are leading. We have passed two bills
that would end this crisis, and the Senate hasn't voted on them;
they've tabled them.
We're here to lead. We need leadership and we are providing it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. At this time I'm happy to yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Ashland, Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
Mr. DUFFY. Madam Speaker, the American people are sick of these kinds
of conversations.
My friends across the aisle voted to rob $500 billion out of Medicare
for ObamaCare. They instituted the IPAB Board that's going to ration
care for our seniors.
We brought a proposal to this House that was going to root out all
loopholes in nooks and crannies where businesses hide their money, and
they all voted ``no.''
The American people are looking for real solutions. And you know
what? This Harry Reid bill is full of budget gimmicks that don't get
the job done.
Mr. McGOVERN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 30
seconds to the gentleman from Biloxi, Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).
Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Speaker, the American people entrusted each Member
of Congress with extraordinary power. That's the power to cast votes as
their voice in Congress and provide solutions to America's problems.
Most of all, they expect us to lead during times of crisis.
House Republicans have led. House Republicans have provided plans and
solutions to America's debt crisis. House Republicans have used their
voice as Representatives of their district to end the debt limit crisis
and begin balancing the budget. We've done our job; it's time the
Senate does theirs.
Leader Reid and President Obama are all that stand between the
American people and a responsible resolution to this debt crisis. I say
to our colleagues in the Senate, we were sent here not to punt on
difficult decisions.
Vote ``no'' on the Reid plan.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record an
article that appeared in The Wall Street Journal today entitled ``The
Debt-Limit Hobbits.''
[From the Wall Street Journal, July 30, 2011]
The Debt-Limit Hobbits
Political logic and perhaps even common sense seem to be
prevailing within the House GOP after Thursday's debt-ceiling
vote was postponed--at least among most of the caucus. The
shame is that the debt-limit absolutists have weakened
Speaker John Boehner's hand in negotiating a final bill with
Senate Democrats.
At the most practical level, Mr. Boehner's plan is better
than the one Harry Reid supports in the Senate. This remains
true of the revisions Mr. Boehner released yesterday, though
the irony is that it is less credible and weaker politically
than the previous version. The concession the holdouts
demanded, and got--a balanced budget amendment--ensures that
it cannot pass the Senate. The best but unlikely scenario is
that the bill otherwise remains intact.
In the years for which claims of spending restraint are
most credible--fiscal 2012 and 2013--the Boehner bill would
cut $25 billion and $47 billion from the outlays that the
Congressional Budget Office projected in March. Off the same
baseline, the plan would cut $756 billion through 2021 in
return for an initial $900 billion in new borrowing. The
topline figure of $1.2 trillion in cuts that everyone cites
comes by comparing the Boehner plan to CBO's ``budgetary
authority'' estimate from January, which is far less
realistic but is also the platform used in the negotiations
led by Joe Biden.
Some will deride $72 billion in cuts over the next two
years as nickels and dimes, and it's true it is nowhere near
commensurate to the scale of the spending problem. But it's
also incremental progress, which is how the American
political system usually changes, and a larger real reduction
in government than any time since 1995.
For comparison's sake, Paul Ryan's budget blueprint that
the House passed in April would cut $74 billion in outlays
over 2012-2013 and $746 billion in total over the next 10
years. Accomplishing roughly the same thing via the Boehner
plan, with no new tax increases, while controlling only one-
half of one branch of government, would be a major GOP
achievement.
The plan also includes domestic spending caps, enforced
with an automatic sequester for 10 years. Such caps could be
overridden by a future Congress, but they make it harder and
help to create a culture of fiscal discipline.
Another benefit is that the Boehner bill would require a
second debt-limit increase of $1.6 trillion next year, with
conditions. Curbing the size and growth of government is a
constant struggle, and the Boehner plan creates another
opening for further progress.
By contrast, the Reid plan raises the debt ceiling by $2.7
trillion now, which effectively closes off debate until after
the 2012 election. All told, it cuts spending by $2.2
trillion compared to the March CBO budgetary authority
baseline--though with multiple gimmicks that include $1.044
trillion in ``savings'' from winding down the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan that will happen anyway.
Amid this ``baseline'' confusion, we wish House Republicans
had used this debate to reform Washington's fiscal hall of
mirrors. Baseline budgeting is a rigged game, with spending
increasing automatically each year above the rate of
inflation. Anything below that inflated baseline is then
called a ``cut.'' Even Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo took
on these automatic spending formulas when he set out to tame
the New York budget.
Instead of such a useful reform, a GOP faction is fixated
on a balanced budget amendment. After Thursday's stall, the
new Boehner plan will only authorize the second tranche of
debt if two-thirds of both chambers pass such an amendment
and send it to the states for ratification. This will not
happen.
These columns drew much notice after John McCain quoted our
July 27 ``tea party hobbits'' line on the Senate floor.
Senator (sic) Sharron Angle responded that ``it is the
hobbits who are the heroes and save the land.'' Well, okay,
but our point was that there's no such thing as a hobbit.
Passing a balanced budget amendment this year is a similar
fantasy. Yet outfits like the Club for Growth used the
amendment as an excuse to flip from opposing the Boehner plan
to supporting it. Maybe it should be the Club for Futile
Fiscal Gestures.
The main result of this pointless crusade has been to
damage Mr. Boehner's leverage and push the final debt-limit
increase in Mr. Reid's direction. The Speaker may now have to
seek the tender mercies of Nancy Pelosi to get a final bill
through the House, and who knows what her price will be.
The debt-limit hobbits should also realize that at this
point the Washington fracas they are prolonging isn't helping
their cause. Republicans are not looking like adults to whom
voters can entrust the government.
I would advise the gentleman from California that our leader is
prepared to close for us. I will take 15 seconds and then introduce our
leader.
Mr. DREIER. Then I will reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1440
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I implore rational Republicans to join
Democrats in passing the Reid bill. I appeal to your sense of
responsibility, to your sense of duty, to your country. Have the
courage of your convictions to do what's right. Don't be paralyzed by
the threats and intimidating tactics of the Tea Party or other extreme
groups. Stand up to protect Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California,
the Democratic leader, and a defender of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social
Security, Nancy Pelosi.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I applaud him for his
superb leadership of this bill today. I recognize the great leadership
of Mr. Van
[[Page H5809]]
Hollen as the ranking member on the Budget Committee and he and Mr.
Clyburn representing the values of the American people at the
negotiating table for this.
I rise in support of the Reid legislation and urge my colleagues to
support it because it protects Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare,
because it is fair.
But I want to use my time in the following way.
I listened very carefully and very attentively to our Speaker
yesterday when he spoke, and he used the term the bill is not perfect,
but we did ``our level best.'' ``Our level best.'' One might infer from
that that this process is on the level.
How can it be on the level if we're bringing a $2\1/2\ trillion bill
to the floor under suspension the same way we might bring the naming of
a post office? It's $2\1/2\ trillion, 20 minutes on each side.
Members have said, on both sides of the aisle, this is a very
important debate. Well, if it is, why is it brought under suspension,
which requires a two-thirds vote, guaranteeing that it will not
prevail? Not on the level.
The word ``level,'' of course, enters into is this a level playing
field? Is it on the level for America's seniors to pay more for
Medicare for fewer benefits while we give tax subsidies to Big Oil? Is
it on the level for us to throw people out of nursing homes by reducing
Medicaid so we can give tax breaks to corporations sending jobs
overseas? Is it on the level for us to make young people and their
families pay more for their college education so we can give tax breaks
to the high end? Is it on the level to bring a Boehner bill to the
floor that makes all of those cuts, undermines Social Security,
eliminates Medicare, and that does not charge one red cent to people
who have benefited so much from the greatness of our country?
Is it our best? Is it our best to drag this out for all this time to
keep in suspense as to whether we would honor our constitutional
responsibility to pay our debts? The Constitution says the national
debt has to be recognized.
And recognize we did, President after President, 32 times in recent
memory--including when President Bush was President; at that time, even
though many of us did not agree with the war in Iraq, did not agree to
the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our country to the tune of
hundreds of billions of dollars, did not agree to the giveaway to the
pharmaceutical industry. We didn't agree with that policy. That's how
we got into debt, turning around from the surplus direction we were
going in with President Clinton whose last four budgets were in balance
or in surplus. We didn't agree how President Bush took us into debt,
but we never, never stood in the way of honoring the full faith and
credit of the United States.
Why, then, would we, this one time with this President, decide that
we would put up barriers so extreme like changing the Constitution in
order to lift the debt limit as a mathematical requirement?
Of course, we must all reduce the deficit. But is it our best to say
we're going to use the debate to reduce the deficit to destroy to the
public space?
Look at the appropriations bills they're bringing before us.
Destroying the public space of clean air, clean water, food safety, the
education of our children, the financial security of our seniors
through Medicare and Medicaid. That's what they are doing.
If we are just reducing the deficit here, we have come to those
conclusions. We have to do it. We know how to do it.
But if they want to take it to the next step of destroying the public
sector, we cannot go to that place when it affects the air our children
breathe, the water they drink, the food they eat, the education they
receive, the safety of the neighborhoods in which they live.
The Speaker also said that the bill was not perfect. Well, no bill is
perfect. But I think I disagree in one respect. I think this bill is
perfect in its absurdity. His bill was perfectly absurd. It's perfectly
absurd, again, to say to our President, after 32 times lifting the debt
ceiling: We're going to change the game for you, Mr. President.
It's perfectly absurd for them to say that the bill they brought to
the floor, the Boehner bill that they brought to the floor, was in
agreement of the four leaders of the House and Senate, Democrats and
Republicans. Either you don't know what you're talking about or it's a
perfect absurdity.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I will not yield to you.
It is very, very important that we all take a deep breath. We have
important work to do, an important decision to make. Senator Reid has
given us a direction to go. No cuts in benefits for Medicare, Medicaid,
and Social Security beneficiaries.
I wish that we had revenues in there so that those who had benefited
from the greatness of the last 50 years of bipartisan progress for the
American people would be able to make their contribution, but there is
not one red cent of revenue while we're saying kids should pay more for
their student loans.
So it's time to end this theater of the absurd. It's time for us to
get real. It's time for us to get real and listen to the wisdom of the
American people. They have said to us that they support, in
overwhelming numbers, a bipartisan, balanced approach, in overwhelming
numbers that we should all pay our fair share. And they all agree that
we should get this over with so we can get back to work putting the
American people back to work by creating jobs.
The Speaker chose, when he didn't have the votes, instead of reaching
out in a bipartisan way to see how we could work together, he chose to
go to the dark side. I repeat, he chose to go to the dark side by
putting forth a bill that he, himself, told his members would sink in
the Senate, and I add, lead to default.
We cannot default. We're the greatest country that ever existed in
the history of the world. We're the United States of America.
So let's go from the dark side to the bright side of the American
people. Vote ``yes'' on the Reid bill.
{time} 1450
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself the balance of the time.
Madam Speaker, I believe in civil discourse, and I want to say that
on several occasions in the past 45 minutes, members of my staff have
urged me to have the words taken down that have been offered by Members
on the other side of the aisle, and I chose not to. In the name of
civility, I chose not to because we have a very serious issue that
needs to be addressed, and it's before us, and we need to make sure
that in the next several hours, we effectively address it.
Since 1962, on 75 different occasions, we have seen the United States
Congress increase the debt ceiling. We keep hearing about the urgency
that exists today. Well, I'll tell you what's urgent: If we don't
change the course that we've been on the last 4 years, with an 82
percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending, we are not
going to have resources for any of the things that my colleagues have
talked about. What we need to do and the message that has been sent is
that for the first time ever, we are going to change business as usual.
Now I'm going to say something that I probably shouldn't at the very
end here. There are some good things in Senator Reid's proposal. I
believe that the idea of establishing a joint select committee of our
colleagues who will come together and make recommendations and force an
up-or-down vote in both Houses of Congress is a positive thing. But I
will say this: I don't believe that continuing down the road towards
increasing the debt ceiling without the kinds of checks that are
necessary is the right thing for us to do. Last night's agreement that
we voted on here was, in fact. It stemmed from the bipartisan talks
that took place right down this hall.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. Vote ``no'' on the Reid proposal.
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Bipartisan Budget
Control Act, H.R. 2693. Unlike Speaker Boehner's bill, which has
already been defeated in the Senate, this is the compromise bill that
is needed to avert a default and protect our fragile economy.
Congress needs to step up and start governing. Yet, the Republican
majority appears uninterested in anything that has not been vetted by
the radical wing of their party or designed to embarrass the President.
Today is
[[Page H5810]]
no exception. Rather than holding a real vote on this bill, it is being
brought up under suspension of the rules in order to guarantee failure.
This is a procedure we use to name post offices and congratulate sports
teams. It is not how we handle serious issues and it is shameful that
Republicans are holding a non-serious vote when our nation is three
days away from a default.
Make no mistake, this is not the legislation I would have written. It
relies on cuts to domestic spending that will hurt the poor and the
middle class. It includes no revenues, not even ending the egregious
tax subsidies for big oil companies and corporate jet owners. However,
the legislation does not cut Medicare and Social Security and protects
both from automatic cuts in the future. It also saves $1 trillion by
winding down the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which have been major
drivers of our debt. Finally, unlike the failed Boehner bill, this
legislation provides certainty and stability by extending the debt
ceiling through next year and ensuring that we will not be on the brink
of default once again in a few months.
The long-term fiscal health of our country can only be improved if we
make the investments necessary to create jobs and if we put revenues on
the table. Unfortunately, House Republicans refused to consider the
balanced approach that the American people wanted. Instead, they have
driven us to the edge of default and the economic calamity that would
result. Now is the time to act to end this crisis. This is not a
perfect bill, but it is a responsible solution to the current crisis
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today, the House of Representatives
considered and rejected the proposal placed by Senate Majority Leader
Reid before the Senate. While this is not remotely the solution we
need, I voted in favor because this is the best the Republicans in the
Senate will allow. It is imperative that Congress keep the hope alive
that we will avert default on our nation's obligations. This bill is
likely the last and best proposal we will see.
Speaker Boehner stated on the House Floor that he was ``sticking his
neck out a mile,'' as he negotiated with the President on this issue.
If he truly was sincere about this, Congress easily could have found a
bipartisan solution to avoid the debt-ceiling crisis and start down a
path of fiscal sustainability. I must point out that this crisis is
wholly artificial and manufactured, and that the Speaker easily could
have avoided it, had he chose to.
While I voted yes today, at some point there are worse outcomes. This
action, and Congress's failure to find a longer-term compromise, is a
looming cloud over our finances. Repeatedly facing similar self-
manufactured crises will further damage the economy and family savings.
The sad fact is we did not have to take this path in the first place.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 2693, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on suspending the rules and passing H.R. 2693 will be
followed by a 5-minute vote on suspending the rules and passing H.R.
2062, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173,
noes 246, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 682]
AYES--173
Altmire
Andrews
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--246
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Wu
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--13
Ackerman
Baca
Bishop (UT)
Brooks
Chu
Clay
Gallegly
Giffords
Hinchey
Lofgren, Zoe
Maloney
Reed
Speier
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1513
Messrs. NUNES, McKINLEY, TIPTON, and GRIFFITH of Virginia changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. DAVIS of Illinois, JACKSON of Illinois, FILNER, and MURPHY of
Connecticut changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So (two-thirds not being in the affirmative) the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 682, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
[[Page H5811]]
____________________