Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 119 (Monday, August 1, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 119 (Monday, August 1, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5840-H5866]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 384, I call up
the bill (S. 365) to make a technical amendment to the Education
Sciences Reform Act of 2002, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution
384, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in House
Report 112-190 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

S. 365

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; 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; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Severability.

TITLE I--TEN-YEAR DISCRETIONARY CAPS WITH SEQUESTER

Sec. 101. Enforcing discretionary spending limits.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. Reports and orders.
Sec. 104. Expiration.
Sec. 105. Amendments to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974.
Sec. 106. Senate budget enforcement.

TITLE II--VOTE ON THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

Sec. 201. Vote on the balanced budget amendment.
Sec. 202. Consideration by the other House.

TITLE III--DEBT CEILING DISAPPROVAL PROCESS

Sec. 301. Debt ceiling disapproval process.
Sec. 302. Enforcement of budget goal.

TITLE IV--JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON DEFICIT REDUCTION

Sec. 401. Establishment of Joint Select Committee.
Sec. 402. Expedited consideration of joint committee recommendations.
Sec. 403. Funding.
Sec. 404. Rulemaking.

TITLE V--PELL GRANT AND STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM CHANGES

Sec. 501. Federal Pell grants.
Sec. 502. Termination of authority to make interest subsidized loans to
graduate and professional students.
Sec. 503. Termination of direct loan repayment incentives.
Sec. 504. Inapplicability of title IV negotiated rulemaking and master
calendar exception.

SEC. 2. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, or any application of such
provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be
unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act and the
application of this Act to any other person or circumstance
shall not be affected.

TITLE I--TEN-YEAR DISCRETIONARY CAPS WITH SEQUESTER

SEC. 101. ENFORCING DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

Section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 251. ENFORCING DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

``(a) Enforcement.--
``(1) Sequestration.--Within 15 calendar days after
Congress adjourns to end a session there shall be a
sequestration to eliminate a budget-year breach, if any,
within any category.
``(2) Eliminating a breach.--Each non-exempt account within
a category shall be reduced by a dollar amount calculated by
multiplying the enacted level of sequestrable budgetary
resources in that account at that time by the uniform
percentage necessary to eliminate a breach within that
category.
``(3) Military personnel.--If the President uses the
authority to exempt any personnel account from sequestration
under section 255(f), each account within subfunctional
category 051 (other than those military personnel accounts
for which the authority provided under section 255(f) 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 outlays are 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 for that account.
``(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 into account any prior
sequestration of amounts within that category), 15 days later
there shall be a sequestration to eliminate that breach
within that category following the procedures set forth in
paragraphs (2) through (4).
``(7) Estimates.--
``(A) 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 and outlays for the current year, if any, and the
budget year provided by that legislation.
``(B) OMB estimates and explanation of differences.--Not
later than 7 calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and
legal holidays) after the date of enactment of any
discretionary appropriation, OMB shall transmit a report to
the House of Representatives and to the Senate containing the
CBO estimate of that legislation, an OMB estimate of the
amount of discretionary new budget authority and outlays for
the current year, if any, and the budget year provided by
that legislation, and an explanation of any difference
between the 2 estimates. 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.
``(C) Assumptions and guidelines.--OMB estimates under this
paragraph shall be made using current economic and technical
assumptions. 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 Committees on the Budget of the House of Representatives
and the Senate, CBO, and OMB.
``(D) Annual appropriations.--For purposes of this
paragraph, amounts provided by annual appropriations shall
include any discretionary appropriations for the current
year, if any, and the budget year in accounts for which
funding is provided in that legislation that result from
previously enacted legislation.
``(b) Adjustments to Discretionary Spending Limits.--
``(1) Concepts and definitions.--When the President submits
the 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
outyear to reflect changes in concepts and definitions. Such
changes shall equal the baseline levels of new budget
authority and outlays using up-to-date concepts and
definitions,

[[Page H5841]]

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 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.
``(2) Sequestration reports.--When OMB submits a
sequestration report under section 254(e), (f), or (g) 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, as follows:
``(A) Emergency appropriations; overseas contingency
operations/global war on terrorism.--If, for any fiscal year,
appropriations for discretionary accounts are enacted that--
``(i) the Congress designates as emergency requirements in
statute on an account by account basis and the President
subsequently so designates, or
``(ii) the Congress designates for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism in statute on an account
by account basis and the President subsequently so
designates,

the adjustment shall be the total of such appropriations in
discretionary accounts designated as emergency requirements
or for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on
Terrorism, as applicable.
``(B) Continuing disability reviews and redeterminations.--
(i) If a bill or joint resolution making appropriations for a
fiscal year is enacted that specifies an amount for
continuing disability reviews under titles II and XVI of the
Social Security Act and for the cost associated with
conducting redeterminations of eligibility under title XVI of
the Social Security Act, then the adjustments for that fiscal
year shall be the additional new budget authority provided in
that Act for such expenses for that fiscal year, but shall
not exceed--
``(I) for fiscal year 2012, $623,000,000 in additional new
budget authority;
``(II) for fiscal year 2013, $751,000,000 in additional new
budget authority;
``(III) for fiscal year 2014, $924,000,000 in additional
new budget authority;
``(IV) for fiscal year 2015, $1,123,000,000 in additional
new budget authority;
``(V) for fiscal year 2016, $1,166,000,000 in additional
new budget authority;
``(VI) for fiscal year 2017, $1,309,000,000 in additional
new budget authority;
``(VII) for fiscal year 2018, $1,309,000,000 in additional
new budget authority;
``(VIII) for fiscal year 2019, $1,309,000,000 in additional
new budget authority;
``(IX) for fiscal year 2020, $1,309,000,000 in additional
new budget authority; and
``(X) for fiscal year 2021, $1,309,000,000 in additional
new budget authority.
``(ii) As used in this subparagraph--
``(I) the term `continuing disability reviews' means
continuing disability reviews under sections 221(i) and
1614(a)(4) of the Social Security Act;
``(II) the term `redetermination' means redetermination of
eligibility under sections 1611(c)(1) and 1614(a)(3)(H) of
the Social Security Act; and
``(III) the term `additional new budget authority' means
the amount provided for a fiscal year, in excess of
$273,000,000, in an appropriation Act and specified to pay
for the costs of continuing disability reviews and
redeterminations under the heading `Limitation on
Administrative Expenses' for the Social Security
Administration.
``(C) Health care fraud and abuse control.--(i) If a bill
or joint resolution making appropriations for a fiscal year
is enacted that specifies an amount for the health care fraud
abuse control program at the Department of Health and Human
Services (75-8393-0-7-571), then the adjustments for that
fiscal year shall be the amount of additional new budget
authority provided in that Act for such program for that
fiscal year, but shall not exceed--
``(I) for fiscal year 2012, $270,000,000 in additional new
budget authority;
``(II) for fiscal year 2013, $299,000,000 in additional new
budget authority;
``(III) for fiscal year 2014, $329,000,000 in additional
new budget authority;
``(IV) for fiscal year 2015, $361,000,000 in additional new
budget authority;
``(V) for fiscal year 2016, $395,000,000 in additional new
budget authority;
``(VI) for fiscal year 2017, $414,000,000 in additional new
budget authority;
``(VII) for fiscal year 2018, $434,000,000 in additional
new budget authority;
``(VIII) for fiscal year 2019, $454,000,000 in additional
new budget authority;
``(IX) for fiscal year 2020, $475,000,000 in additional new
budget authority; and
``(X) for fiscal year 2021, $496,000,000 in additional new
budget authority.
``(ii) As used in this subparagraph, the term `additional
new budget authority' means the amount provided for a fiscal
year, in excess of $311,000,000, in an appropriation Act and
specified to pay for the costs of the health care fraud and
abuse control program.
``(D) Disaster funding.--
``(i) If, for fiscal years 2012 through 2021,
appropriations for discretionary accounts are enacted that
Congress designates as being for disaster relief in statute,
the adjustment for a fiscal year shall be the total of such
appropriations for the fiscal year in discretionary accounts
designated as being for disaster relief, but not to exceed
the total of--

``(I) the average funding provided for disaster relief over
the previous 10 years, excluding the highest and lowest
years; and
``(II) the amount, 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 subclause (I) for that fiscal
year, that is the difference between the enacted amount and
the allowable adjustment as calculated in such subclause for
that fiscal year.

``(ii) OMB shall report to the Committees on Appropriations
and Budget in each House the average calculated pursuant to
clause (i)(II), not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of the Budget Control Act of 2011.
``(iii) For the purposes of this subparagraph, the term
`disaster relief' means activities carried out pursuant to a
determination under section 102(2) of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
5122(2)).
``(iv) Appropriations considered disaster relief under this
subparagraph in a fiscal year shall not be eligible for
adjustments under subparagraph (A) for the fiscal year.
``(c) Discretionary Spending Limit.--As used in this part,
the term `discretionary spending limit' means--
``(1) with respect to fiscal year 2012--
``(A) for the security category, $684,000,000,000 in new
budget authority; and
``(B) for the nonsecurity category, $359,000,000,000 in new
budget authority;
``(2) with respect to fiscal year 2013--
``(A) for the security category, $686,000,000,000 in new
budget authority; and
``(B) for the nonsecurity category, $361,000,000,000 in new
budget authority;
``(3) with respect to fiscal year 2014, for the
discretionary category, $1,066,000,000,000 in new budget
authority;
``(4) with respect to fiscal year 2015, for the
discretionary category, $1,086,000,000,000 in new budget
authority;
``(5) with respect to fiscal year 2016, for the
discretionary category, $1,107,000,000,000 in new budget
authority;
``(6) with respect to fiscal year 2017, for the
discretionary category, $1,131,000,000,000 in new budget
authority;
``(7) with respect to fiscal year 2018, for the
discretionary category, $1,156,000,000,000 in new budget
authority;
``(8) with respect to fiscal year 2019, for the
discretionary category, $1,182,000,000,000 in new budget
authority;
``(9) with respect to fiscal year 2020, for the
discretionary category, $1,208,000,000,000 in new budget
authority; and
``(10) with respect to fiscal year 2021, for the
discretionary category, $1,234,000,000,000 in new budget
authority;
as adjusted in strict conformance with subsection (b).''.

SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

Section 250(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 is amended as follows:
(1) Strike paragraph (4) and insert the following new
paragraph:
``(4)(A) The term `nonsecurity category' means all
discretionary appropriations not included in the security
category defined in subparagraph (B).
``(B) The term `security category' includes discretionary
appropriations associated with agency budgets for the
Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security,
the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Nuclear
Security Administration, the intelligence community
management account (95-0401-0-1-054), and all budget accounts
in budget function 150 (international affairs).
``(C) The term `discretionary category' includes all
discretionary appropriations.''.
(2) In paragraph (8)(C), strike ``the food stamp program''
and insert ``the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program''.
(3) Strike paragraph (14) and insert the following new
paragraph:
``(14) The term `outyear' means a fiscal year one or more
years after the budget year.''.
(4) At the end, add the following new paragraphs:
``(20) The term `emergency' means a situation that--
``(A) requires new budget authority and outlays (or new
budget authority and the outlays flowing therefrom) for the
prevention or mitigation of, or response to, loss of life or
property, or a threat to national security; and
``(B) is unanticipated.
``(21) The term `unanticipated' means that the underlying
situation is--
``(A) sudden, which means quickly coming into being or not
building up over time;
``(B) urgent, which means a pressing and compelling need
requiring immediate action;
``(C) unforeseen, which means not predicted or anticipated
as an emerging need; and
``(D) temporary, which means not of a permanent
duration.''.

SEC. 103. REPORTS AND ORDERS.

Section 254 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 is amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (c)(2), strike ``2002'' and insert
``2021''.
(2) At the end of subsection (e), insert ``This report
shall also contain a preview estimate of the adjustment for
disaster funding for the upcoming fiscal year.''.
(3) In subsection (f)(2)(A), strike ``2002'' and insert
``2021''; before the concluding period insert ``, including a
final estimate of the adjustment for disaster funding''.

SEC. 104. EXPIRATION.

(a) Repealer.--Section 275 of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is repealed.
(b) Conforming Change.--Sections 252(d)(1), 254(c),
254(f)(3), and 254(i) of the Balanced

[[Page H5842]]

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 shall not
apply to the Congressional Budget Office.

SEC. 105. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET AND
IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT OF 1974.

(a) Adjustments.--Section 314 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 is amended as follows:
(1) Strike subsection (a) and insert the following:
``(a) Adjustments.--After the reporting of a bill or joint
resolution or the offering of an amendment thereto or the
submission of a conference report thereon, the chairman of
the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives
or the Senate may make appropriate budgetary adjustments of
new budget authority and the outlays flowing therefrom in the
same amount as required by section 251(b) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.''.
(2) Strike subsections (b) and (e) and redesignate
subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (b) and (c),
respectively.
(3) At the end, add the following new subsections:
``(d) Emergencies in the House of Representatives.-- (1) In
the House of Representatives, if a reported bill or joint
resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report
thereon, contains a provision providing new budget authority
and outlays or reducing revenue, and a designation of such
provision as an emergency requirement pursuant to
251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, the chair of the Committee on the Budget
of the House of Representatives shall not count the budgetary
effects of such provision for purposes of title III and title
IV of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
``(2)(A) In the House of Representatives, if a reported
bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference
report thereon, contains a provision providing new budget
authority and outlays or reducing revenue, and a designation
of such provision as an emergency pursuant to paragraph (1),
the chair of the Committee on the Budget shall not count the
budgetary effects of such provision for purposes of this
title and title IV and the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
``(B) In the House of Representatives, a proposal to strike
a designation under subparagraph (A) shall be excluded from
an evaluation of budgetary effects for purposes of this title
and title IV and the Rules of the House of Representatives.
``(C) An amendment offered under subparagraph (B) that also
proposes to reduce each amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by the pending measure that is not required to be
appropriated or otherwise made available shall be in order at
any point in the reading of the pending measure.
``(e) Enforcement of Discretionary Spending Caps.--It shall
not be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate
to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or
conference report that would cause the discretionary spending
limits as set forth in section 251 of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act to be exceeded.''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 3 of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(11) The terms `emergency' and `unanticipated' have the
meanings given to such terms in section 250(c) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.''.
(c) Appeals for Discretionary Caps.--Section 904(c)(2) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by striking
``and 312(c)'' and inserting ``312(c), and 314(e)''.

SEC. 106. 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 for 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 for 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.--
(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) Subsections (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) Subsections (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 II--VOTE ON THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

SEC. 201. VOTE ON THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT.

After September 30, 2011, and not later than December 31,
2011, the House of Representatives and Senate, respectively,
shall vote on passage of a joint resolution, the title of
which is as follows: ``Joint resolution proposing a balanced
budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.''.

SEC. 202. CONSIDERATION BY THE OTHER HOUSE.

(a) House Consideration.--
(1) Referral.--If the House receives a joint resolution
described in section 201 from the Senate, such joint
resolution shall be referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary. If the committee fails to report the joint
resolution within five legislative days, it shall be in order
to move that the House discharge the committee from further
consideration of the joint resolution. Such a motion shall
not be in order after the House has disposed of a motion to
discharge the joint resolution. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption
without intervening motion except twenty minutes of debate
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent. If such a motion is adopted, the House shall
proceed immediately to consider the joint resolution in
accordance with paragraph (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 joint
resolution has been referred to the appropriate calendar or
the committee has been discharged (other than by motion) from
its consideration, it shall be in order to move to proceed to
consider the joint resolution in the House. Such a motion
shall not be in order after the House has disposed of a
motion to proceed with respect to the joint resolution. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

[[Page H5843]]

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 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 and one motion to limit debate on
the joint resolution. A motion to reconsider the vote on
passage of the joint resolution shall not be in order.
(b) Senate Consideration.--(1) If the Senate receives a
joint resolution described in section 201 from the House of
Representatives, such joint resolution shall be referred to
the appropriate committee of the Senate. If such committee
has not reported the joint resolution at the close of the
fifth session day after its receipt by the Senate, such
committee shall be automatically discharged from further
consideration of the joint resolution and it shall be placed
on the appropriate calendar.
(2) Consideration of the joint resolution and on all
debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith, shall
be limited to not more than 20 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.
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 resolution, including time used
for quorum calls and voting, shall be counted against the
total 20 hours of consideration.
(3) If the Senate has voted to proceed to a joint
resolution, the vote on passage of the joint resolution shall
be taken on or before the close of the seventh session day
after such joint resolution has been reported or discharged
or 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.

TITLE III--DEBT CEILING DISAPPROVAL PROCESS

SEC. 301. DEBT CEILING DISAPPROVAL PROCESS.

(a) In General.--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) $900 billion.--
``(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 $900,000,000,000,
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 $400,000,000,000.
``(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
$500,000,000,000.
``(2) Additional amount.--
``(A) Certification.--If, after the debt limit is increased
by $900,000,000,000 under paragraph (1), the President
submits a written certification to Congress that the
President has determined that the debt subject to limit is
within $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, subject to
the enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval enacted
pursuant to this section, exercise authority to borrow an
additional amount equal to--
``(i) $1,200,000,000,000, unless clause (ii) or (iii)
applies;
``(ii) $1,500,000,000,000 if the Archivist of the United
States has submitted to the States for their ratification a
proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States
pursuant to a joint resolution entitled `Joint resolution
proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of
the United States'; or
``(iii) if a joint committee bill to achieve an amount
greater than $1,200,000,000,000 in deficit reduction as
provided in section 401(b)(3)(B)(i)(II) of the Budget Control
Act of 2011 is enacted, an amount equal to the amount of that
deficit reduction, but not greater than $1,500,000,000,000,
unless clause (ii) applies.
``(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 the amount
authorized under subparagraph (A).
``(b) Joint Resolution of Disapproval.--
``(1) In general.--Except for the $400,000,000,000 increase
in the debt limit provided by subsection (a)(1)(A), the debt
limit may not be raised under this section if, within 50
calendar days after the date on which Congress receives a
certification described in subsection (a)(1) or within 15
calendar days after 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 such
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 a joint
resolution described in subsection (a). If a committee fails
to report the 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.--
``(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,

[[Page H5844]]

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) 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 signs, allows to become law without
his signature, or vetoes and returns 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) 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 $400,000,000,000 increase in the limit
provided by subsection (a)(1)(A).
``(6) Sequestration.--(A) If within the 50-calendar day
period described in subsection (b)(1), the President signs
the joint resolution, the President allows the joint
resolution to become law without his signature, or Congress
overrides a veto of the joint resolution with respect to
authority exercised pursuant to paragraph (1) of subsection
(a), there shall be a sequestration to reduce spending by
$400,000,000,000. OMB shall implement the sequestration
forthwith.
``(B) OMB shall implement each half of such sequestration
in accordance with section 255, section 256, and subsections
(c), (d), (e), and (f) of section 253 of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and for the
purpose of such implementation the term `excess deficit'
means the amount specified in subparagraph (A).
``(g) Rules of House of Representatives and Senate.--This
subsection and subsections (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) (other
than paragraph (6)) 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.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 3101 the
following new item:

``3101A. Presidential modification of the debt ceiling.''.

SEC. 302. ENFORCEMENT OF BUDGET GOAL.

(a) In General.--The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 is amended by inserting after section 251
the following new section:

``SEC. 251A. ENFORCEMENT OF BUDGET GOAL.

``Unless a joint committee bill achieving an amount greater
than $1,200,000,000,000 in deficit reduction as provided in
section 401(b)(3)(B)(i)(II) of the Budget Control Act of 2011
is enacted by January 15, 2012, the discretionary spending
limits listed in section 251(c) shall be revised, and
discretionary appropriations and direct spending shall be
reduced, as follows:
``(1) Revised security category; revised nonsecurity
category.-- (A) The term `revised security category' means
discretionary appropriations in budget function 050.
``(B) The term `revised nonsecurity category' means
discretionary appropriations other than in budget function
050.
``(2) Revised discretionary spending limits.--The
discretionary spending limits for fiscal years 2013 through
2021 under section 251(c) shall be replaced with the
following:
``(A) For fiscal year 2013--
``(i) for the security category, $546,000,000,000 in budget
authority; and
``(ii) for the nonsecurity category, $501,000,000,000 in
budget authority.
``(B) For fiscal year 2014--
``(i) for the security category, $556,000,000,000 in budget
authority; and
``(ii) for the nonsecurity category, $510,000,000,000 in
budget authority.
``(C) For fiscal year 2015--
``(i) for the security category, $566,000,000,000 in budget
authority; and
``(ii) for the nonsecurity category, $520,000,000,000 in
budget authority.
``(D) For fiscal year 2016--
``(i) for the security category, $577,000,000,000 in budget
authority; and
``(ii) for the nonsecurity category, $530,000,000,000 in
budget authority.
``(E) For fiscal year 2017--
``(i) for the security category, $590,000,000,000 in budget
authority; and
``(ii) for the nonsecurity category, $541,000,000,000 in
budget authority.
``(F) For fiscal year 2018--
``(i) for the security category, $603,000,000,000 in budget
authority; and
``(ii) for the nonsecurity category, $553,000,000,000 in
budget authority.
``(G) For fiscal year 2019--
``(i) for the security category, $616,000,000,000 in budget
authority; and
``(ii) for the nonsecurity category, $566,000,000,000 in
budget authority.
``(H) For fiscal year 2020--
``(i) for the security category, $630,000,000,000 in budget
authority; and
``(ii) for the nonsecurity category, $578,000,000,000 in
budget authority.
``(I) For fiscal year 2021--
``(i) for the security category, $644,000,000,000 in budget
authority; and
``(ii) for the nonsecurity category, $590,000,000,000 in
budget authority.
``(3) Calculation of total deficit reduction.--OMB shall
calculate the amount of the deficit reduction required by
this section for each of fiscal years 2013 through 2021 by--
``(A) starting with $1,200,000,000,000;
``(B) subtracting the amount of deficit reduction achieved
by the enactment of a joint committee bill, as provided in
section 401(b)(3)(B)(i)(II) of the Budget Control Act of
2011;
``(C) reducing the difference by 18 percent to account for
debt service; and
``(D) dividing the result by 9.
``(4) Allocation to functions.--On January 2, 2013, for
fiscal year 2013, and in its sequestration preview report for
fiscal years 2014 through 2021 pursuant to section 254(c),
OMB shall allocate half of the total reduction calculated
pursuant to paragraph (3) for that year to discretionary
appropriations and direct spending accounts within function
050 (defense function) and half to accounts in all other
functions (nondefense functions).
``(5) Defense function reduction.--OMB shall calculate the
reductions to discretionary appropriations and direct
spending for each of fiscal years 2013 through 2021 for
defense function spending as follows:
``(A) Discretionary.--OMB shall calculate the reduction to
discretionary appropriations by--
``(i) taking the total reduction for the defense function
allocated for that year under paragraph (4);
``(ii) multiplying by the discretionary spending limit for
the revised security category for that year; and
``(iii) dividing by the sum of the discretionary spending
limit for the security category and OMB's baseline estimate
of nonexempt outlays for direct spending programs within the
defense function for that year.
``(B) Direct spending.--OMB shall calculate the reduction
to direct spending by taking the total reduction for the
defense function required for that year under paragraph (4)
and subtracting the discretionary reduction calculated
pursuant to subparagraph (A).
``(6) Nondefense function reduction.--OMB shall calculate
the reduction to discretionary appropriations and to direct
spending for each of fiscal years 2013 through 2021 for
programs in nondefense functions as follows:
``(A) Discretionary.--OMB shall calculate the reduction to
discretionary appropriations by--
``(i) taking the total reduction for nondefense functions
allocated for that year under paragraph (4);
``(ii) multiplying by the discretionary spending limit for
the revised nonsecurity category for that year; and
``(iii) dividing by the sum of the discretionary spending
limit for the revised nonsecurity category and OMB's baseline
estimate of nonexempt outlays for direct spending programs in
nondefense functions for that year.
``(B) Direct spending.--OMB shall calculate the reduction
to direct spending programs by taking the total reduction for
nondefense functions required for that year under paragraph
(4) and subtracting the discretionary reduction calculated
pursuant to subparagraph (A).
``(7) Implementing discretionary reductions.--
``(A) Fiscal year 2013.--On January 2, 2013, for fiscal
year 2013, OMB shall calculate and the President shall order
a sequestration, effective upon issuance and under the
procedures set forth in section 253(f), to reduce each
account within the security category or nonsecurity category
by a dollar amount calculated by multiplying the baseline
level of budgetary resources

[[Page H5845]]

in that account at that time by a uniform percentage
necessary to achieve--
``(i) for the revised security category, an amount equal to
the defense function discretionary reduction calculated
pursuant to paragraph (5); and
``(ii) for the revised nonsecurity category, an amount
equal to the nondefense function discretionary reduction
calculated pursuant to paragraph (6).
``(B) Fiscal years 2014-2021.--On the date of the
submission of its sequestration preview report for fiscal
years 2014 through 2021 pursuant to section 254(c) for each
of fiscal years 2014 through 2021, OMB shall reduce the
discretionary spending limit--
``(i) for the revised security category by the amount of
the defense function discretionary reduction calculated
pursuant to paragraph (5); and
``(ii) for the revised nonsecurity category by the amount
of the nondefense function discretionary reduction calculated
pursuant to paragraph (6).
``(8) Implementing direct spending reductions.--On the date
specified in paragraph (4) during each applicable year, OMB
shall prepare and the President shall order a sequestration,
effective upon issuance, of nonexempt direct spending to
achieve the direct spending reduction calculated pursuant to
paragraphs (5) and (6). When implementing the sequestration
of direct spending pursuant to this paragraph, OMB shall
follow the procedures specified in section 6 of the Statutory
Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, the exemptions specified in
section 255, and the special rules specified in section 256,
except that the percentage reduction for the Medicare
programs specified in section 256(d) shall not be more than 2
percent for a fiscal year.
``(9) Adjustment for medicare.--If the percentage reduction
for the Medicare programs would exceed 2 percent for a fiscal
year in the absence of paragraph (8), OMB shall increase the
reduction for all other discretionary appropriations and
direct spending under paragraph (6) by a uniform percentage
to a level sufficient to achieve the reduction required by
paragraph (6) in the non-defense function.
``(10) Implementation of reductions.--Any reductions
imposed under this section shall be implemented in accordance
with section 256(k).
``(11) Report.--On the dates specified in paragraph (4),
OMB shall submit a report to Congress containing information
about the calculations required under this section, the
adjusted discretionary spending limits, a listing of the
reductions required for each nonexempt direct spending
account, and any other data and explanations that enhance
public understanding of this title and actions taken under
it.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents set forth
in section 250(a) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 251 the following:

``Sec. 251A. Enforcement of budget goal.''.

TITLE IV--JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON DEFICIT REDUCTION

SEC. 401. ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE.

(a) Definitions.--In this title:
(1) Joint committee.--The term ``joint committee'' means
the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction established
under subsection (b)(1).
(2) Joint 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 402(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 by at least $1,500,000,000,000 over the
period of fiscal years 2012 to 2021.
(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.
(ii) Recommendations of committees.--Not later than October
14, 2011, each committee of the House of Representatives and
the Senate may transmit to the joint committee its
recommendations for changes in law to reduce the deficit
consistent with the goal 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 estimate of the Congressional Budget Office
required by paragraph (5)(D)(ii); and
(II) proposed legislative language to carry out such
recommendations as described in subclause (I), which shall
include a statement of the deficit reduction achieved by the
legislation over the period of fiscal years 2012 to 2021.

Any change to the Rules of the House of Representatives or
the Standing Rules of the Senate included in the report or
legislative language shall be considered to be merely
advisory.
(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 a majority of the 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 each House of Congress.
(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 Act.
(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 Act.
(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
designation was made. If a member of the joint committee
ceases to be a Member of the House of Representatives or the
Senate, as the case may be, 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 the
rules and regulations of the Senate.
(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
is authorized by section 11 of Public Law 7909304
(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.
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 Act, the joint committee shall
hold its first meeting.
(ii) Agenda.--The Co-Chairs of the joint committee 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
as the joint committee considers advisable.
(ii) Hearing procedures and responsibilities of co-
chairs.--

[[Page H5846]]

(I) Announcement.--The Co-Chairs of the joint committee
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 before the appearance of
the witness, unless the requirement is waived by the Co-
Chairs, following their determination that there is good
cause for failure to comply with such requirement.

(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 of the joint committee may
jointly appoint and fix the compensation of staff as they
deem necessary, within the guidelines for employees of the
Senate and following all applicable rules and employment
requirements of the Senate.
(2) Ethical standards.--Members on the joint committee who
serve in the House of Representatives shall be governed by
the ethics rules and requirements of the House. Members of
the Senate who serve on the joint committee and staff of the
joint committee shall comply with the ethics rules of the
Senate.
(d) Termination.--The joint committee shall terminate on
January 31, 2012.

SEC. 402. EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF JOINT COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATIONS.

(a) Introduction.--If approved by the majority required by
section 401(b)(3)(B)(ii), the proposed legislative language
submitted pursuant to section 401(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 or by a Member of the
House designated by the majority leader of the House.
(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 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 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 or after the House 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 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 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. Such a motion
shall not be in order after the House 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.
(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 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
401(b)(3)(B)(i) not later than November 23, 2011; or
(2) the joint committee bill does not pass both Houses not
later than December 23, 2011.

SEC. 403. 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
the rules and regulations of the Senate.

SEC. 404. 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 V--PELL GRANT AND STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM CHANGES

SEC. 501. 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 ``$13,183,000,000''; and

[[Page H5847]]

(2) in subclause (III), by striking ``$0'' and inserting
``$7,000,000,000''.

SEC. 502. 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 new paragraph:
``(3) Termination of authority to make interest subsidized
loans to graduate and professional students.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B) and
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 Federal Direct Stafford loan under this
part; and
``(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 Stafford loans the student
would have received in the absence of this subparagraph.
``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an
individual enrolled in course work specified in paragraph
(3)(B) or (4)(B) of section 484(b).''.

SEC. 503. TERMINATION OF DIRECT LOAN REPAYMENT INCENTIVES.

Section 455(b)(8) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1087e(b)(8)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by amending the header to read as follows: ``(A)
Incentives for loans disbursed before july 1, 2012.--''; and
(B) by inserting ``with respect to loans for which the
first disbursement of principal is made before July 1,
2012,'' after ``of this part'';
(2) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``with respect to
loans for which the first disbursement of principal is made
before July 1, 2012'' after ``repayment incentives''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) No repayment incentives for new loans disbursed on or
after july 1, 2012.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this part, the Secretary is prohibited from authorizing or
providing any repayment incentive not otherwise authorized
under this part to encourage on-time repayment of a loan
under this part for which the first disbursement of principal
is made on or after July 1, 2012, including any reduction in
the interest or origination fee rate paid by a borrower of
such a loan, except that the Secretary may provide for an
interest rate reduction for a borrower who agrees to have
payments on such a loan automatically electronically debited
from a bank account.''.

SEC. 504. 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 title, or to any regulations promulgated under
those amendments.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour, with
30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Rules, 15 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means, and 15 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
the Budget.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

General Leave

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
the measure before us.
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. Mr. Speaker, at this moment we are beginning debate on a
measure which I believe will finally send a signal to job creators in
this country and in the global marketplace that we are finally, finally
getting serious about getting our fiscal house in order.
We know that we are dealing with a very sad 9.2 percent unemployment
rate in this country. We know that there are people hurting.
We all have constituents who have lost their homes, people who have
lost their jobs, people who have lost their businesses, people are
hurting.
It is absolutely imperative that we do everything that we can to get
our economy back on track. We have just gotten the report, this
downward report of the GDP growth rate down to 1.3 percent. We need to
get back to robust, dynamic, strong, gross domestic product growth. We
need to get to 4, 5, 6 percent GDP growth.
And, Mr. Speaker, one of the main reasons that we have not done that
is we have seen this dramatic increase in spending. And over the past
half century, on 75 different occasions, 75 different occasions, we
have seen our debt ceiling increased without any effort whatsoever to
get at the root cause of why it is that we have had to increase the
debt ceiling.
I argue, Mr. Speaker, that we don't have a debt ceiling problem; we
have a debt problem.
That's why we're here today, and that's why I believe that after
months and months and months of partisan bickering, finger-pointing, we
have at this moment begun a debate that will allow us in a bipartisan
way to increase the debt ceiling, which we all know needs to be done.
It simply is meeting the obligation of paying for past spending. Many
of us have been opponents of much of that spending, but we recognize
that the bill has to be paid.
Speaker Boehner, when just days after we took the oath of office in
the 112th Congress, received the request from the President of the
United States, through his Treasury Secretary, Mr. Geithner, that we
increase the debt ceiling. The Speaker said then that he would agree
that it's essential for us to increase the debt ceiling but we were not
going to proceed with business as usual. We are not going to continue
increasing the debt without getting to the root cause of the problem.
Mr. Speaker, I have got to tell you that through all of the debate
that's taken place, we have gotten to the point where we have a
measure. It's a bipartisan compromise. It's a bipartisan agreement that
I believe will, as I have said, send a signal to those who are seeking
to create jobs for our fellow Americans that we now are going to have
the kind of fiscal restraint and responsibility from Washington, D.C.,
the likes of which we haven't seen in a long, long period of time.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that I strongly support this measure. As
everyone has said, it's far from perfect, but I strongly support it,
and I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, to join
together in support of it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, after a month-long standoff over raising
the debt ceiling, Congress is now forced to take action on a bill that
by all accounts is deeply flawed. I think everybody today has agreed
with that.
Why are we doing a flawed bill? Because we waited until the last
minute. Instead of reducing the Nation's debt by closing tax loopholes
for oil companies and private jet owners, today's bill instead creates
a supercommittee that will decide how to take over a trillion dollars
in cuts. And this supercommittee will serve as a mock Congress, leaving
523 Members of Congress sitting on the sidelines while a group of 12
decides the shape of the country for a decade to come.
Paying our debt should be a no brainer. Indeed the debt ceiling
itself is an antiquated solution to a problem we no longer face and
should be eliminated. It was originally created to pay for World War I,
to provide our country with economic stability while at war. Today we
are again in the midst of war, but instead of protecting the stability
of our economy, some in Congress have decided to question the necessity
of paying our bills. As we all know by now, they have taken our economy
hostage and demanded draconian cuts in exchange for not leading our
Nation into default.
The actions have caused real and significant damage. Roll Call
reports that because of the prolonged debt ceiling crisis, the interest
rate the United States Government must pay has already increased, which
means the interest rates for car loans and home mortgages are also
increasing.
The stock market has responded as expected. According to DealBook, as
of July 29, big banks and companies withdrew $37.5 billion from money
market funds that are described as a key artery for our economy. The
Dow Jones Industrial Average lost nearly 5 percent of its value last
week, which meant 401(k)s, pension plans, retirement plans of all
Americans were put at risk and much of it lost. Baby boomers across the
United States watched nervously as all those things were happening.
As I mentioned earlier, this type of crisis has become the new normal
in

[[Page H5848]]

this Congress. Under the Republican rule, the House of Representatives
has repeatedly led our country to the brink of unthinkable situations.
First, the majority led the country to the brink of a government
shutdown, threatening the jobs of hundreds of thousands of workers and
endangering vital government services relied on by Americans every day.
As we speak, the Federal Aviation Administration is shuttered, costing
the United States Government hundreds of millions of dollars in lost
revenue because the majority refuses to pass a clean legislation that
does not include measures that threaten rural communities and the
future of airline unions.

{time} 1710

Now the majority has brought us to the edge of a cliff in order to
see how much they can get for not throwing the country into default. In
January, Speaker Boehner promised the American people the debt ceiling
debate would be an example of an ``adult moment'' in Washington. Is
this what he had in mind?
Just this morning, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier,
went on National Public Radio saying his party has ``not threatened to
torpedo the economy by defaulting.'' This statement defies reality.
We've been brought to this point precisely because the leadership in
his party has walked out of negotiations and demanded that they get
ideologically driven cuts before they will vote to protect the
stability of our economy.
Last, but certainly not least, the crisis of the last few months has
come at the expense of addressing the true crisis in our country--the
jobs crisis that is facing millions of our fellow citizens. Last month,
over 25 million Americans failed to find full-time work. Many have been
out of work for so long that their unemployment benefits have expired
as their skills erode and they are living on savings or charity from
loved ones and friends. In response, we have not introduced a single
bill in this House designed to invest significant government resources
into creating jobs.
Instead, we have repeatedly proposed cutting funding to investments
in green technology and transportation infrastructure, destroying the
promise of putting thousands of Americans back to work in the jobs that
can't be outsourced overseas. They have refused to extend unemployment
benefits for those who can't find jobs and are moving nowhere fast to
extend a payroll tax break that has helped create the small number of
jobs that we added in recent months.
Mr. Speaker, it is time that serious responsibilities are taken here,
the responsibilities of leadership, and in doing so, put an end to this
self-inflicted crisis and focus on getting Americans back to work.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation to
my colleague for her great spirit of bipartisanship.
With that, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend
from Staten Island, New York (Mr. Grimm).
Mr. GRIMM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise today to ensure that the voices of those that I represent in
Staten Island and Brooklyn are heard, and what they have to say is
actually quite simple. They expect of us to use common sense to bring
solutions to the problems that this Nation faces. And the problem that
we face is not a debt ceiling problem; it's a debt problem. And the
people in Staten Island and Brooklyn, every day, they go home and they
have to figure out how to manage their households. They go to work and
they have to figure out how to manage their small businesses, and to do
that with common sense. That's what they ask of us.
You cannot spend money you don't have. You cannot continue to rack up
debt with no plan to pay it off. Today, this debate is about moving
America forward, together, in a bipartisan way, because this is not a
Democratic debt or a Republican debt. It's an American debt, which
means that Americans must come together to solve the problems.
Today is about solving problems. So I proudly stand here and say that
I will support this bill, I will support Speaker Boehner, and I will
bring solutions to the problem, not just bickering.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Massachusetts will control the time of the gentlewoman from New York.
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, we have never cut our way out of an economic
recession. We have always grown our way out. But we have never grown
our way out by investing less than 15 percent of our GDP in our
people's potential. In fact, the last time we cut back in the way we
are about to do today was in 1937, and that sent us right back into an
economic depression. But this time, we're not going to have World War
II to rescue our economy.
It's interesting to note that the Federal investment in homeownership
and higher education for our returning GIs and the subsequent
infrastructure investments and interstate highway system and the like
created a permanent middle class after the war that lasted for two
generations. But the middle class has never been more threatened than
it is today, and this will condemn those struggling to make it into the
middle class to years of struggle without the help that we could, and
should be providing them.
And it's not because we're a poor country. Our largest corporations
are experiencing record profits. The top 25 hedge fund managers are
making more than a billion a year. Our corporations are sitting on more
than $2 trillion of cash.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 20 additional seconds.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, the point is I understand that this train is
leaving the station, but it's going in the wrong direction. We need to
be investing in this country, not taking away the resources that will
enable it to grow, it is through education, training, research and
development and infrastructure investment that has made our country
great but this agreement will make us smaller, weaker and far less able
to tap our most valuable resource, the potential of all the American
people.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute
to my very good friend from Ashland, Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I have had a chance to watch this floor
debate over the last week or so, and to say the least, I think we can
say tempers have flared and there's been a lot of rhetoric on both
sides. And as we come together today with a proposal that has been
negotiated with both sides--with Speaker Boehner, the President, and
Harry Reid--it's a deal that not everyone is pleased with. It's a deal
that doesn't have in everything that I want, and I'm sure that it
doesn't have everything in the deal that my friends across the aisle
would want. And that's why I think so many of us are hearing from our
constituents, a lot on the far right and a lot on the far left, saying,
We don't like it.
But the bottom line is I think this is one of the greatest moments of
the House where two sides come together and figure out how they are
going to find a solution that doesn't work for their parties; it's a
solution that works for the American people.
And at this point in our history we owe $14.5 trillion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15
seconds.
Mr. DUFFY. It's about time this Congress comes together and figures
out a way to live within our means. This bill is going to start that
process, though it doesn't go far enough.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
Mr. FATTAH. I rise in support of this proposal, but as with many of
our greatest capers in history, this is an inside job.
I want to offer just in evidence that we had in the words of the
Treasury Secretary for Reagan and for Bush an admittance that they were
running up deficits, and that that was one of the ways to starve the
government. And then we had the Republican Party at the height of its
power, the Presidency, the House, the Senate, saying, no, we weren't
going to have any tax increases. Even though we were running

[[Page H5849]]

up these high deficits, we are going to cut taxes. We're going to
hemorrhage trillions of dollars in revenue, and we're going to go into
two wars. We're going to put a $7 trillion prescription drug plan on
the financial pile of our debt.
Alan Greenspan testified before the Congress in the first weeks of
the Bush administration. He said Bush can leave office with our country
being entirely debt-free. What happened then was the reverse. He
doubled the debt and walked out with 8 million Americans losing their
jobs. But as Solomon, in his wisdom, said to those who wanted to cut
the baby in half, we choose not to default but to agree to this
proposal.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to, as I've
said, the next Governor of Indiana, my good friend from Columbus,
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this is a challenging time in the life of our country.
Our economy is struggling; millions are out of work; and now, with a
more than $14 trillion national debt, America is on the verge of having
its debts exceed our statutory borrowing limit.
Now, I recognize that if you owe debts, pay debts. Congress has an
obligation to defend the full faith and credit of the United States.
But this Congress also has an obligation to keep faith with this and
future generations of Americans by restoring fiscal responsibility and
discipline to our National Treasury.
The bipartisan Budget Control Act that we will consider today will
make it possible for the Nation's bills to be paid with no new taxes,
dollar-for-dollar cuts in spending for every increase in the debt
ceiling, and it will give the American people a fighting chance to
consider a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
Now, let me be clear. The Budget Control Act is not so much a good
deal as it is a good start. I really believe this bipartisan compromise
is a modest but meaningful step in the direction of fiscal discipline
and reform, and I welcome it.

{time} 1720

Now, while this bill doesn't go nearly far enough, it does move us in
the right direction. You know, leadership means knowing when to say yes
and knowing when to say no. I believe the time has come to get
something done so this Congress can move our national government back
in the direction of fiscal responsibility and reform, and begin to
advance policies that will put Americans back to work.
Last thought. There is a lot of credit taking on a day like today, a
lot of bipartisanship, back patting, as we say. But let me say from my
heart, this day, where we see the ship of state turning ever so
slightly toward that lode star of fiscal responsibility, this day does
not belong so much to any one political leader, to any one political
party, or to any one branch of government. This day belongs to the
American people who have stood, who have clamored, who have come to
town halls and who have demanded this government live within its means
and said: Enough is enough. This is your day.
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, of course, is a very important day, a momentous
decision, a difficult decision for all of us. I am going to vote for
this in the best interest of our country and putting us in the stature
where we need to be.
But I do want to point out one area of weakness that we're going to
have to look at carefully as we go forward, and that is in the
application of this 12-member committee, and especially as it relates
to the areas of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
My understanding is, and I think this is understanding that we
certainly need to make clear, that Social Security and Medicaid,
veterans, Pell Grants, are all protected fully under this bill. But
when it comes to Medicare, my understanding is that there will be an
opportunity in here where they will look at Medicare on the provider
side. The question becomes how can you basically separate benefits of
Medicare patients when you have the patient, the doctors, and the
hospital, and you can't adequately separate that. So I say, we must be
very mindful of the Medicare apparatus here.
Mr. DREIER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I did not come to Washington to dismantle the New Deal
or the Great Society, and I did not come to Washington to force more
people into poverty. I agree that we need to avoid default and confront
our long-term fiscal challenges. That is why on Saturday I voted in
support of the Reid proposal which would have reduced our debt by
hundreds of billions of dollars.
But the bill before us today is unfair in so many ways. It
disproportionately places the burden of dealing with our debt issue on
the backs of those who can least afford it, while it spares the
wealthiest from contributing anything.
There is something fundamentally wrong when a billionaire hedge fund
manager pays a lower tax rate than his secretary; when Big Oil can make
tens of billions in profits every quarter, but still get sweetheart
deals from the taxpayer; and when we are slashing funding for roads and
bridges, but allowing tax breaks for corporate jet owners to continue.
There are no new revenues in the bill before us today, only massive
cuts in what is called domestic discretionary spending. But what does
that actually mean? It means less investment in our transportation and
infrastructure. It means less investment in medical research and
education and food security.
To put it simply, it means less jobs and higher unemployment at a
time when millions of Americans are struggling to find work. And
despite the rhetoric of its supporters, the bill puts Social Security,
Medicare and Medicaid on the chopping block.
We all know how we got into this mess: two huge tax cuts, mostly for
the wealthy, that weren't paid for; two wars that weren't paid for; and
a massive prescription drug bill that wasn't paid for. Now, there are
certainly places to cut.
Right now we are borrowing $10 billion every single month--$10
billion every single month--for military operations in Afghanistan to
prop up a corrupt and incompetent Karzai regime. But according to the
Congressional Budget Office, the spending caps contained in this
legislation do not apply to ending that misguided war. That makes no
sense to me.
The truth is that the best way to deal with our long-term fiscal
situation is to grow our economy. That means creating jobs and putting
people back to work. This bill goes exactly in the wrong direction.
I have two children who I love more than anything, and I don't want
them to grow up in a country where the gap between the very rich and
poor grows wider and wider each year. We can do better, Mr. Speaker. We
must do better, and we can do so in a way that does not abandon the
principles of economic justice and fairness that have made our Nation
so great. I will vote ``no'' on this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say to my good
friend and Rules Committee colleague, time and time again he criticizes
the tax cuts that have been put into place. They really are the Bush-
Obama tax cuts because, as we all know, last December, President Obama
signed an extension of those. But I think it is important for us to
look at the 2003 revenue flow and look at what happened just a few
short years later in 2007.
In 2003, Mr. Speaker, we had $1.782 trillion in revenues to the
Federal Treasury. In 2007, after those tax cuts went into place, we had
$2.567 trillion in revenues. That was a $785 billion increase, a 44
percent increase in the take that the Federal Government had because of
the implementation of those cuts.
It is important to recognize that if we can grow the economy, we can
generate an increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the gentleman
from Bainbridge Township, Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, this moment in time on the floor reminds

[[Page H5850]]

me exactly of a period during the 1990s. You know, there is a lot of
publicity given to the new freshmen class, and we from the
revolutionary class of 1994 are feeling a little neglected these days,
but welfare reform was the discussion. We endured overheated rhetoric
on this floor about how our proposals were mean to pregnant women and
children and old people and young people and poor people until one day
the President of the United States, President Clinton, decided that he
wasn't going to be the protector of overheated rhetoric, he was going
to be the President of the United States, and he signed the welfare
reform bill.
I happened to walk on the floor, and you would have thought that my
friends who were here on the other side of the aisle at that time that
their dogs had all died because they looked so depressed. But the fact
of the matter is that President Clinton decided to lead.
Now, I don't know what's going on in all of the other offices, but
we've taken a lot of phone calls over the last 4 or 5 weeks. Some
people call in and tell me to hold the line; some people call in and
tell me I'm an idiot. But the overwhelming sentiment of the calls is:
You guys have got to work this out.
So to the President of the United States' credit, President Obama, he
had the Speaker, Mr. Boehner; the minority leader, Ms. Pelosi; the Vice
President; Senator Reid; Senator McConnell down to the White House, and
they worked this out.
I don't think I'm going to stand here and listen to this continued
harangue about how we are being mean to people because I don't think
anybody on that side of the aisle believes that President Barack Obama
would do the horrible things that the people are indicating he would
do. I just don't believe it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
I hear a lot about the Bush tax cuts, but if they are so great, where
are the jobs? I think it is simply wrong to have the middle class in
this country bear the burden of balancing the budget when the Donald
Trumps of the world get their tax cuts protected. There is something
inherently wrong about that.
I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very tough place to put America. Not Members
of Congress; we are paid to come here and do our job. But it is a very
tough place to put America.
So I have a simple state of facts to present today and listen to my
other colleagues, which I will, because it is a tough decision to in
actuality support legislation that seems to be driven by thoughts that
the only way to get something done is to hold a whole country hostage
and to hold Congress hostage.

{time} 1730

That is simply what we have.
On the brink of August 2, we are now throwing something on the floor
that is arguably supposed to be helpful. I am concerned that there are
nuances in this legislation that will hurt people we all care about,
but it's a tough decision not to say ``yes'' to having America pay her
bills. I hope, for once, that once we get past today that we will not
in any way yield again to the voices of 87 Members who care nothing
about America but who simply care about their way or the highway.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I am upset, and we should not do this
anymore.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my views on ``The Budget Control
Act of 2011,'' which, is a final hour compromise on raising our debt-
ceiling. This plan differs from the previous debt-ceiling bills
introduced by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Those
measures attempted to resolve our budget ceiling crisis on the backs of
seniors, children, and the working poor. Those measures demanded sharp
cuts to domestic programs that ask average Americans to make life-
altering sacrifices while not asking America's wealthiest individuals
and most profitable corporations to contribute their fair share.
Today's compromise has arrived just in time to prevent our country from
risking the financial collapse of our great nation. Yet, this bill is
not perfect
In less than 24 hours our nation's clock would have run out to raise
our debt limit. This final hour compromise will allow our nation to
continue to operate and prevent our country from failing to meet our
financial obligations. I have steadfastly stood before this body
demanding a raise to our debt limit. I have spoken on the behalf of the
average American by making it clear that we should not wait until the
last minute.
As a country, we have been held hostage by a small fringe group of
people, who were narrowly elected. In many ways this plan feels like we
have been given a ransom note and now at the last minute we have
limited choices, none of which are appetizing. I believe this election
was not a mandate to overthrow the American government. It was a
mandate to find real solutions and not temporary fixes. Waiting to the
final hour, waiting to the last minute, has placed our country in a
terrible dilemma. We have not been given the adequate amount of time to
review this plan. I will do what is right for my constituents. So that
we may live to fight another day and let there be no mistake, we will
fight another day.
I believe that it is time that we all have come together to find a
compromise; however, this bill does not have a perfect solution and
there are areas in which I have strong reservation. This is a two
phased plan. The first part of the plan includes approximately $1.2
trillion of deficit reduction through the establishment of ten-year
discretionary caps. In the first two years, there would be a firewall
separating security and non-security spending. Total discretionary
spending in Fiscal Year 2012 and 2013 will be limited to $1.o43
trillion and $1.047 trillion, respectively, about $7 billion and $3
billion below Fiscal Year 2011. The security savings would represent
roughly $5 billion of the total $10 billion in reductions over this two
year period.
The plan provides for debt ceiling increases in two stages. The
President may request a $900 billion increase now, of which $400
billion is immediately available. This $900 billion is subject to a
resolution of disapproval in both the House and Senate. The disapproval
measure would be subject to Presidential Veto. Once the debt comes
within $100 billion of the debt ceiling, the President may ask for at
least an additional $1.2 trillion, which could rise to $1.5 trillion if
a Balanced Budget Amendment is sent to the states or the Joint
Committee process described below enacts more than $1.5 trillion in
savings. This increase is also subject to a resolution of disapproval.
I must emphasize that I particularly have strong concerns about the
formation of a Joint Committee. As I believe we should not hand over
the power of these decisions of this magnitude to a handful of Members
of Congress. A Joint Committee that will be given the duty of finding
ways to achieve $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction. I hope there will
be structure and reason when these decisions are made, but again this
is just a hope.
We should have been able as a body to come to this decision, and
because we are at the last minute, this measure is a stop gap way to
find further consensus. This Committee will be a joint, bipartisan
committee, made up of 12 members, with 6 from each Chamber of Congress,
equally divided between Democrats and Republicans.
This Committee has been charged with finding major cuts in a short
time frame with little oversight. There is the challenge where will
they find $1.5 trillion in future deficit before we cut our turkeys on
Thanksgiving.
I will continue to sound the alarm if programs that impact the lives
and welfare of the poorest among us are cut by drastic amounts. If the
Committee is successful and achieves cuts of at least $1.5 trillion,
then the debt ceiling will be raised by $1.5 trillion. If the
committee's bill is enacted and produces between $1.2 trillion and $1.5
trillion, the debt ceiling limit will be raised dollar for dollar. This
plan at the very least attempting to do something that I have been
calling for from the very beginning, for now, protects Social Security
and Medicaid, but leaves Medicare and other programs that serve the
most in need amongst us.
Another portion of the agreement will provide additional time for
Congress to conduct its due diligence prior to considering an amendment
to the Constitution. As unlike other bills that have come before this
body this plan is not contingent upon the passage of the balanced
budget amendment. The amendment can now be properly considered and a
vote on the measure will occur by the end of the year, which will allot
about four months of additional review.
In the end, it appears that cooler heads have appeared and instead of
political rhetoric we have come together to protect our nation. We must
continue to work together to save the American people and do what's
right for our nation. Instead of injecting ideological spending cuts
into the traditionally non-political business of raising the debt
ceiling, we must work quickly to pass a bill that makes good on our
debt obligations and restores confidence in American credit.

Before us is an example of acting in unison to resolve our conflicts.
This is the reason the American people placed us in these positions

[[Page H5851]]

to ensure that we act in their best interest. They have been calling
for a resolution and what is before us today represents a long and at
times lively debate on how best to serve the citizens of this fine
country. Today, we are working under one flag and one nation; we are
working in unison to ensure that every American can benefit from this
debt-limit increase.
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 continue to work under one flag and one Nation to protect our
economy and to our people.
We should not have waited until the final hour to come to this
conclusion. I along with many colleagues demanded that we protect the
interest of our Nation. Namely, reading the President to utilize his
rights under the Constitution to raise the debt limit through executive
order if Congress remained grid locked.
We need to change the tone here in Congress. Federal Reserve Chairman
Ben Bernanke said it best when he stated 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 plan before the House today
offers the compromise that the American people want, demand and need.
I will continue to fight to for 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. Finally, we
arrive at a conclusion that will not result in the poorest among us
bearing the majority of the costs.
I support this bill and future efforts to increase the debt limit and
to resolve our differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues.
I will only support bills that increase jobs for average Americans. We
must work together to ensure 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.
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. I have fought wholeheartedly to safeguard
Pell grants and I will continue this fight. Some groups have estimated
there will be a shortfall of more than $1 billion in fiscal year 2012,
but again with the last minute nature of this bill, this remains
unclear. There is yet another attack on students by eliminating Direct
Loan Repayment incentives on all loans disbursed on or after July 1,
2012. The elimination of both of these provisions will increase the
cost of loan repayment and thus the cost of college attendance. The in-
school interest exemption for neither graduate nor professional
students and the prohibition of financial incentives to students who
repay their loans on a timely basis. We should not increase the cost of
education for students.
The founders of our Nation understood the importance of advancing our
Nation. For decades, we have provided free education to all minor
residence of the United States from kindergarten through high school.
After, having provided free education to all students until the 12th
grade I recognize that financial disparities prevent many aspiring
students from attaining a higher education.
I believe that the plan is a temporary solution to a long term
problem. It removes, for the moment, the entire burden of resolving our
debt crisis off the backs of seniors, the middle class and our Nation's
most vulnerable citizens. The bill will not immediately result in
dramatic reductions in safety net programs for vulnerable Americans,
such as food stamps and unemployment and disability insurance. Any
major cuts to these programs would be and should be unacceptable, and
each is avoidable if corporations and the wealthy are required to
shoulder their fair share of this burden.
There has been a theme this Congress of focusing on cutting both
programs that benefit the public good and programs that provide
assistance to those who are most in need, while ignoring the need to
focus on job creation and economic recovery. This bill places us
between a rock and a hard place as we fight to get back on the right
track. We should be focused on paying our Nation's bills and resolving
our differences.
I represent the 18th Congressional District in Houston, Texas. In my
District, more than 190,000 people live below the poverty line. We
cannot make draconian cuts to vital social services at a time when the
Census Bureau places the number of Americans living in poverty at the
highest rate in over 50 years.
Finally, we must come to a place where as a body we recognize that
cuts to social programs do not reflect that we are still in the wake of
the 2008 financial crisis. There continues to be persistent
unemployment. When any measure comes before this body, the first
questions that must be asked is who will it help and who will it hurt.
A raise in the debt-ceiling must include assistance to small
businesses which are the true job creators in our country. It must
include Pell Grants that will aid students who will join the workforce
of the future, by receiving an advanced education today. Just 6 months
ago there were members of the Republican Party who would not sit down
with us to discuss these matters and now here we are in the final hour.
I have worked diligently to ensure that something was done to protect
our Nation.
I ask my colleagues to look at the facts and consider what will
happen to the hard-working Americans who rely on these benefits. Think
of programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Access Program, SNAP, that
fed 3.9 million residents of Texas in April 2011, or the Women,
Infants, and Children, WIC, Program that provides nutritious food to
more than 990,000 mothers and children in my home state.
These programs are needed across our nation. 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. In 2009, there were 43.6 million Americans living in poverty
nationwide. 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 percent of America's youth. Further, 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
percent of households in the state struggle with food insecurity.
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.
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.
Programs like Women, Infants and Children, WIC, are targeted to help
low-income pregnant women, new mothers, infants, and young children to
eat well and stay healthy. These programs ensure that poverty will not
be a reason that a baby does not receive adequate nutrition. 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.

[[Page H5852]]

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Currently, one in four residents within the state of Texas is
uninsured and would be in financial stress in case of a major medical
emergency. The percentage of uninsured is extremely high and has become
one of the greatest challenges faced by the Texas Department of
Insurance and Department of Health.
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 tirelessly with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to gain bipartisan support for successful passage of an 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.
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.
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 would ever 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 long term necessity of increasing out
debt ceiling, I have heard the 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 100 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 dollars. 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.
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.
If we allow the United States to default 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 in the 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.
If the United States defaults on its obligations on August 3, the
stock market will react

[[Page H5853]]

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 the minds of
citizens.
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 chose to use
this as an opportunity to hold the American people hostage to their
extreme agenda.
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
United States Constitution, Section Four, which states ``the validity
of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be
questioned.'' The argument must be made that if Congress will not
resolve our nation's pending default then the President to protect the
interests of our nation must act. We should act, however, so the
vulnerable are protected.
The President would have to consider his powers under the Fourteenth
Amendment which may grant him the authority to raise the debt ceiling,
through executive order if Congress fails to act by the August 2, 2011
deadline. If the President has to use his presidential authority, he
should to avoid a collapse--but Republicans should cease the hostage-
taking--and adults have to stand up for America and vote to pay
America's bills.
For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to consider the constituents
in their home districts who need the protection of an America that pays
the bills. I urge my Republican 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''.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will advise all Members to respect
the gavel.
The gentlewoman from Texas was out of order.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my
good friend from Hopkinsville, Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise in support of this legislation, and I think
that President Obama and the leaders in the House and the Senate should
be given a warm congratulations on being able to come to some agreement
to prevent America from defaulting on its debt.
We all know that this is not a perfect piece of legislation, but one
of the real positives of this legislation is the joint commission
that's going to be established by six Members from the House and six
Members from the Senate who will come up with recommendations to reduce
Federal spending. We do know that exempt from that is Social Security,
veterans' benefits as well as Medicaid, for those who really need
health care the most.
Yet I've heard a lot of discussion today about ``this is not about
jobs''; so I would just point out that getting our financial house in
order is very important. If you've read any newspaper recently, you
will find out that, in this administration, the excess of regulations
coming out, particularly from the EPA, have been a real hindrance to
job creation in America as well as the uncertainty of the health care
bill that was adopted last year.
So this is an important first step in getting our financial house in
order. Next, we need to start working on removing uncertainty on the
regulatory side of the government. So I would urge everyone to support
this legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California has 2\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic
whip.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
We have missed, in my opinion, a wonderful opportunity, an
opportunity to make a grand bargain, as the Speaker wanted to do, as
Leader Pelosi wanted to do, as Leader Reid wanted to do, as the
President wanted to do, and as the Vice President wanted to do.
For months now, the world has looked to America and has asked whether
we are still a Nation that pays its bills or whether, thanks to the
ideological intransigents of a few, we would do the unthinkable and
default on our obligations. We are a more responsible and honorable
Nation than that. We are only at this point because the far right wing,
for the first time in American history, has chosen to hold our economy
hostage in order to enact a radical ideological agenda far out of step
for the majority of Americans. If nothing else, these months have shown
the American people who puts our country's welfare first and who would
rather have ideological purity at all costs.
I am voting for this bill, not because I like this bill, although it
does do some things that I think need to be done, but because we need
to bring down the deficit; we need to address the debt; we need to
return to fiscal responsibility. Default for the United States of
America is not an option. This would affect all of the people I
represent and all of the people of this country if we defaulted.
At the very least, this bill averts this outcome by paying our bills
through 2013, which will bring certainty to a struggling economy that
badly needs it. This bill cuts spending by $1.2 trillion, and also
establishes a process to arrive at additional spending cuts.
The second set of deficit reductions will be entrusted to a
bipartisan committee. Hopefully, that committee will accurately reflect
the priorities of this Nation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. HOYER. We are here because we missed, as I said, a great
opportunity, a chance to pass now a truly balanced agreement that
relies on both spending cuts and revenue. We're not there, but I have
said many times during the course of this debate that to govern is

[[Page H5854]]

to compromise, not to sell out. Some people think on this floor that
voting for a compromise is somehow a sellout. We cannot run America on
that theory, and that is not what democracy is all about.
I urge my colleagues to ensure that America, in fact, pays its bills.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield? I will yield my friend
additional time if he would like.
Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
I would just like to compliment him on pointing to compromise. I
don't know if he heard, but I closed the rule debate in my closing
remarks by talking about the Connecticut compromise, which established
a bicameral legislature on July 16, 1787. It was called the Great
Compromise. My friend is absolutely right. We're at that point today in
dealing with an issue, not of that magnitude, but clearly of a very
important one.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts
has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield an additional 45 seconds to my friend
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen, I have said numerous times during
the course of this debate about whether America was going to pay its
bills and that we need to vote, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as
Americans: Americans concerned about the fiscal posture of their
country, concerned about the confidence that people around the world
have in the American dollar, which is, after all, the standard of the
world. That is what I think this vote is about.
It should not be about partisan politics, and very frankly, it should
not be about ideological extremes. It ought to be about responsibility.
It ought to be about understanding that our oath of office is to
preserve and protect the United States of America.
This bill does that. Vote ``yes.''
Mr. DREIER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
I feel very honored to follow my good friend and classmate, the
distinguished Democratic whip, as we talk about this compromise and
where we are.
Now, Mr. Speaker, saving Social Security and Medicare is a priority
that I believe both political parties share. Contrary to much of what
has been put out there, this is something that is addressed in this
measure. We are going to be able to save Social Security and Medicare--
again, working together in a bipartisan way.
Creating jobs, Democrats and Republicans alike talk about that. How
is it that we're going to be able to do that? Getting our fiscal house
in order is a very, very important step in our quest to ensure that the
people who are hurting and looking for jobs will have an opportunity to
get them.
We are sending a positive signal to the global market that we are the
world's economic, military and geopolitical leader. By increasing the
debt ceiling, we are sending a positive signal that we are going to
continue meeting our obligations and our responsibility but, at the
same time, dramatically reducing spending.
The problem that has gotten us to this point is what we're doing for
the first time ever. After 75 times of increasing the debt ceiling, we
are finally getting to the root cause. The problem, as has been said
over and over again, is our debt, and we're going to turn the corner on
that in a thoughtful and balanced way.

I want to compliment the President of the United States. I want to
compliment the two leaders of the United States Senate, Harry Reid and
Mitch McConnell. I want to congratulate Speaker John Boehner, who has
done an absolutely phenomenal job in ensuring that we wouldn't continue
business as usual. I also want to congratulate Minority Leader Pelosi
for her effort that she has put in to getting us to the point where we
are today.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair now recognizes Members from the
Committee on Ways and Means: the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp),
chairman; and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), ranking minority
member.

{time} 1740

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if the Congress does not act--and act now--America will
default. That would wreak havoc on our economy and make it harder for
Americans to find and keep a job in an already weak economy. Default
cannot be an option, and I am pleased that the bill before us ensures
that will not occur.
Just as a default would threaten the economic health of this country,
so would increasing taxes. Raising taxes on families and job creators
would hinder investment, increase the cost of doing business, and
result in even less hiring and fewer jobs. That is the wrong direction
when we are struggling with an unemployment rate of 9.2 percent and 14
million Americans looking for work. The good news is that the
legislation before us recognizes these basic facts. It avoids a
default, it makes sure the government pays our bills, and it does not
increase taxes.
And though some have argued that the new Joint Select Committee on
Deficit Reduction could pave the way for tax increases, that is not
going to happen. The committee's structure, the baseline it will work
off of, and the fact that Republicans are in the majority in the House
virtually guarantees that tax rates will not go up.
Furthermore, this legislation finally forces Washington to make
serious changes to the way it spends taxpayer dollars. There are real
budget reforms, there is a path to a balanced budget amendment, and
there are automatic spending cuts if Congress does not rein in spending
on its own.
I applaud the efforts of all of those who helped craft this
agreement, especially Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor.
I urge my colleagues to recognize this opportunity to fix what is
broken in Washington and use this occasion to significantly cut runaway
spending.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, a most
distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee for a long time,
Mr. Charles Rangel of New York.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, while I stand on this floor as an American
and a person that loves this Congress so much, I'm embarrassed also as
a Member that a President of the United States would have his domestic
and foreign policy actually held hostage, because with him and only him
and no other President have we decided that we would almost put in
jeopardy the faith and the fiscal responsibility of this country paying
its debts.
You know, a lot of people have said that we got to a $14.4 trillion
debt because we got drunk and spent money like a drunken sailor. If
that is so, the people having the hangover certainly aren't the wealthy
people in this country. And this decision was decided without any
consideration of the people that are longing for jobs in our great
country. If the Republicans had to hold the President hostage, I wish
that they would have held him hostage on the questions that my
constituents wake up in the morning and ask, not whether or not the
debt ceiling has risen, but how can I get a job? How can I really get
back my dignity? How can I put food on the table? These are issues that
you certainly don't resolve by cutting spending, causing people to lose
their jobs and to lose their hope.
So, indeed, I'm glad that we are not going to default, but in the
days ahead we ought to be spending some time talking about what most
Americans want, and that is a fair tax system--while the wealthy have
gained so much during this spree that we've had--and not allow a
hangover to be with the people that are jobless.
We still have time to close this responsibility that we have, to
close the debt that we have, not by laying off people, not by just
cutting programs during a recession, but by thinking about how we can
train people, how we can research, and how we can get our people back
to work.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).
Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, $14.4 trillion; $1.6 trillion every year added
onto that national debt.

[[Page H5855]]

The people in November, 2010, spoke loudly. We are listening. It is
time that we in this Chamber accept the fact that D.C. has to and will
change because the American people have spoken loudly. They want us to
get our fiscal house in order. They want us to bring certainty to the
American market so that we can invest in this great country again and
put people back to work, not only for this generation, but for
generations to come.
I rise in support of this legislation. It is not the cure-all, it is
not the one battle that will win this war on our national debt, but it
opens us up on a path to where we need to be firmly dedicated and
disciplined to carry on this battle and the battles to come.
So I ask all my colleagues, let us govern responsibly, let us avoid
default, but continue on this battle--and continue on we will, as a new
class, as a freshman Member of this great Chamber.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another
distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this agreement, but this
is a lousy way to run our great country or to rebuild a world-class
economy. I support it because the alternative is unacceptable,
defaulting on our Nation's obligations for the first time in our
Nation's history. Doing so would be the greatest unforced error ever
committed in the history of our country. And it's all political.
The performance of this Congress the last couple of months has a lot
to be desired. And if King Solomon were alive today, I think his
metaphorical solution to all this would be to kill both women and spare
the child. But if we are to achieve true fiscal solvency for our
country, there are three things I think that need to happen:
We need to invest in our future, grow the economy. You do that by
investing in education and job training and scientific research. And
the infrastructure upgrade our Nation needs in broadband expansion,
that's not happening right now, and it won't, I fear, under this
agreement.
We need to also look for smart savings in the budget, starting with
changing the way we pay for health care in this country so it's based
on the value and no longer the volume of care that's given. By getting
rid of outdated weapons programs the Pentagon keeps telling Congress to
stop appropriating money for, because they're not asking for it, and
they don't need it. It's ending taxpayer subsidies going to large
agribusiness with mailing addresses in New York, Chicago, and San
Francisco, not even to working families.
And finally, we need tax reform, to simplify a code that has acted
like an anchor on economic growth and job creation, but that is fair,
asking the most wealthy to contribute their fair share as well.
I support the agreement, and I encourage my colleagues to do so as
well.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I have voted twice to raise the debt ceiling.
In May, I voted with about 90 other people for a clear debt ceiling
raise. I voted this past weekend for Leader Reid's program, which had
cuts.
But I can't vote for this program because the first series of cuts we
know, the second series of cuts we don't know. I fear it's a Trojan
horse. And if you look inside that Trojan horse it's Scylla and
Charybdis inside, the whirlpools and the shoals. And that's an odyssey
and journey that this country should not have to traverse.
This country has been taken to this point by a group of ideologues
that don't like government, want to reduce it, are reducing it, want to
hurt employment figures to hurt the President of the United States, Mr.
Speaker, and I don't want to hurt him.
Justice Louis Brandeis said, ``The greatest dangers to liberty lurk
in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without
understanding.'' Justice Brandeis is with us today.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it's important we know, as we try to
change this government, that we're actually making changes in the
direction it's going.
Without the Budget Control Act, our government will be over 23
percent of the size of our economy by the end of this decade. The
Budget Control Act changes that. By the end of the decade, it will be
about 21.5 percent of the size of our economy. It is comparable, coming
close to the shrinkage of the economy under President Reagan in his 8
years in the White House.
The truth of the matter is this doesn't go far enough for
conservatives. You can't cut far enough or soon enough for Members of
Congress like myself because we just believe this country is so deep,
so dangerously deep in debt.

{time} 1750

But with this vote today, tonight we cut out the same amount of
spending the President put in this government in that ill-fated failed
stimulus bill. And later this year, we get a chance to vote another cut
in this government equivalent to the size of ObamaCare. So we start
with two strong cuts reversing and shrinking the size of government.
In this bill, we achieve two-thirds of the discretionary cuts
included in the Ryan Budget, in the Path to Prosperity that the
Republican House Members believe in. Now, a few months ago, if someone
said the Senate passed a budget and they've agreed to two-thirds of
your cuts in discretionary spending, we would have celebrated. We're
not celebrating today because we know there's so much more work to be
done.
But we know also that this cuts spending today. It puts controls on
future Congresses in the way they spend. That's important. And it holds
Congress and the White House both accountable for getting the size of
this government back in control without increasing taxes on families
like you, on our job creators back home along Main Street, and it does
so today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. I support this bill as a first step, anxious to
get to more spending and savings and getting this wasteful, bloated
government down to size. And I know, too, any vote, my principle is tax
cuts and spending cuts. If I can change the direction of this country
with bigger spending cuts, my vote will be a ``yes.''
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. The Republicans in this House have taken this Nation to a
dangerous and unnecessary brink. I definitely do not want our Nation to
default on its full faith and credit, but I also don't want our Nation
to default on our solemn obligations as a Nation, as a community to all
of our citizens. That's why we need a balanced approach to keep us on
an even keel as we move ahead. This means savings and revenues.
So as I vote today as the ranking member on the Ways and Means
Committee, I will keep in mind how we must not let down our citizens
who need programs.
One example is unemployment insurance. It's set to expire at the end
of this year as millions desperately look for work. And I just now have
received a report that this year's extension and the next year's
extension would cost $45 billion. We need to get those resources. If
we're not on a balanced path, we will not be able to address critical
needs of our fellow and sister citizens such as unemployment insurance.
We need balance to be true to ourselves.
I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member of the
Budget Committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the National Commission on
Fiscal Responsibility, or Debt Commission, we received testimony from
experts in economic policy research; and they said that when debt loads
of a country reach above or at 90 percent of their

[[Page H5856]]

economy or GDP, that results in the reduction in economic growth in
that country by about 1 percentage point. And using the
administration's economic model, that 1 percentage point increase in
our GDP or decrease in our GDP costs about a million jobs. That's why
this debate is so important. It is so important to get us on a path to
fiscal responsibility, to begin to bring down our national debt.
The plan before us today does that. It does that with spending
reductions. It does it with the sort of structural reforms in terms of
spending caps that are there. But it also does it with an automatic
reduction in spending if, for some reason, this select committee set up
in this bill fails to come to some sort of agreement on how to reduce
spending. That automatic reduction, I think, is an important backstop
so the select committee will take its work seriously and do everything
to come to a bipartisan solution.
Also, there is a path forward on a balanced budget amendment in this
legislation that is absolutely critical I think for not just today,
because we know it is impossible to bind future Congresses, but to put
in place a structure and a mechanism well into the future so that we
don't find ourselves continuing to deal with the fundamentals of this
problem. We begin to deal with the problem; we make progress on the
problem; and that progress will mean job creation, and that's something
we're all looking forward to.
I thank the Speaker and urge a ``yes'' vote on the legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair now recognizes members from the
Committee on the Budget: the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan),
chairman; and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), ranking
minority member.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is
remaining on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 7\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Maryland has 8\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to
yield 3\1/2\ minutes to a member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
Mr. LANKFORD. I tell you, I would love for people to be able to come
to Oklahoma City anytime they have the opportunity to do that.
But to be able to talk to the great folks in my district, I can tell
you the one thing that comes up again and again is they are really
frustrated and they are looking for things to really be able to change
here in Washington. They see how broken our system is. They see the way
that we interact. They are really legitimately frustrated, and I can
tell you they have lost trust in what we're doing and how we're doing
it.
We, quite frankly, as the Federal Government, are trying to do too
many things, and we can't afford all of the things that we're doing.
So in some very simple way, this whole process has united the Nation
to be able to look simply at $14.3 trillion in debt and to say, as a
Nation, we have a problem. That is a good first step.
Now, the conversation that's been happening around Congress over the
past several months now is now dealing with how do we resolve the
problem and what is the core of the problem. Is the problem the debt
ceiling vote? Is the problem tomorrow? Or is the problem $14 trillion
in debt?
And I feel like sometimes we have been trying to either figure out
how to get past tomorrow or how to get past solving this issue of $14.3
trillion in debt. That has created 7 months of debate and 7 months of
conversation that I fear has made an unrealistic expectation of how
much we can really do in one piece of legislation.
Quite frankly, no piece of legislation can solve $14.3 trillion in
debt all in one moment. No piece of legislation can be a perfect
solution. There is no perfect ideal piece of legislation that's going
to solve it all. Are there major issues that I think that are in every
piece of legislation? I'm sure there are in every one of them. But in
this one, I would look at it and say it is not perfect, but it takes us
down that first step to start getting out of this.
If there is a perception that we can solve it all in one piece, I
think everyone has underestimated the size and the scope of what it
really means to deal with this large of a debt and this large of a
deficit. It is a single step on a very long journey.
Does it solve all of the problems? No. Does it cure cancer? No. Does
it get us out of all of the wars? No. Does it locate Amelia Earhart's
body? No. Does it find us the Ark of the Covenant? No.
It doesn't solve everything we would like to do with it, but it does
begin to put a framework around the Federal Government for the next 10
years to set spending caps in place to say we're going to stop the
growth of government. We've grown very quickly very fast. We've got to
first stop that growth of government and put some boundaries around it.
That's a good first step on that.

{time} 1800

It puts a square focus on the balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution, which 80 percent of the American people say they want
some version of the balanced budget amendment. Quite frankly, this
creates a moment for Republicans and Democrats to be able to have an
honest conversation about what should that text be for a balanced
budget amendment? How can we work together? The Constitution is not
owned by one party but is owned by the people of the United States of
America, so that is both parties coming together to have a very frank
conversation about if we're going to have a balanced budget amendment
to the Constitution, how do we get that done? What is the text of that?
And how do we do what is best for our Nation?
But the key thing of this piece of legislation today is focused on
not just getting us past tomorrow but starting us down a process, that
single first step of starting us down a process that in the days ahead
our children will not live in the shadow of this kind of debt, of this
kind of deficit, and we as a Nation can get back to doing the things we
love to do rather than worrying about what creditor we're going to pay
and which one we're not.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we should never have gotten to the point where our
troops in Afghanistan had to ask whether they were going to be paid.
That's a scandal. And it's scandalous that our Republican colleagues
would threaten for the first time in American history to torpedo
America's creditworthiness and American jobs unless they succeeded in
enacting a budget plan to end the Medicare guarantee, slash Medicaid,
and slash critical investments in education and our future.
That was the plan. They wanted to do that now, and they wanted to
have this whole debate again 6 months from now. Why? Not to reduce the
deficit. If the goal was to reduce the deficit, why refuse to end
taxpayer subsidies for the oil companies? If reducing the deficit was
the purpose, why refuse to end special breaks for corporate jets and
the folks at the very high end of the income scale? That wasn't the
plan. The plan was to use this moment to threaten the economy, to try
and slash the social safety net and those critical investments in
education and innovation in our future.
And guess what: They failed. They failed to do that. They failed to
end the Medicare guarantee. They failed to slash Medicaid. They failed
to slash education. In this measure, we succeeded in protecting
Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries. We succeeded in protecting
seniors in nursing homes, individuals with disabilities and poor kids
who depend on Medicaid for their health care. And we succeeded in
providing room for critical investments in education and America's
future.
Don't get me wrong, Mr. Speaker, there's much in this plan I don't
like. We did not succeed in shutting down special interest tax
loopholes that add hundreds of billions of dollars to our deficits. Our
Republican colleagues refused to cut those subsidies for big oil
companies. They refused to cut the others. And now we're going to have
a great debate. We're going to have a great debate about how to grow
the economy and reduce our long-term deficit. It will be a debate about
our national priorities. I hope we will support the balanced approach
that the President has called for, one that refuses to

[[Page H5857]]

put greater burdens on Medicare beneficiaries in order to provide
greater tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans.
In the coming months, our Republican colleagues will be given the
following test: Will they choose to protect special interest tax breaks
over investments necessary to keep our Nation strong and secure? Will
they finally demonstrate a willingness to pay for our national defense
rather than put it on the credit card? Mr. Speaker, let's get on with
that big national debate, and let's finally focus on jobs and getting
the economy going as we reduce our long-term deficit.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Wisconsin, a
member of the Budget Committee, Ms. Moore.
Ms. MOORE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
So many of my colleagues have said that it was necessary to storm the
White House and take the country hostage in the name of their
grandchildren, so I wanted to go on record talking about what I want
for my grandchildren.
I want Head Start for my grandchildren. I want WIC programs and early
childhood education programs for my grandchildren. I want my kids to go
to a school where they can participate in the science fair. I want
immunizations for them. I want research done for food safety to make
sure that the chicken nuggets are safe. I want clean air and clean
water for them. I want jobs where they invent things, like new energy
sources. And, yes, I want them to be contributing citizens and pay
taxes. And I want a safety net for them in case they are disabled, and
when they become elderly, and if they get cold in the cold winters of
Wisconsin, that they'll have some energy assistance.
I want my grandchildren to have the American Dream.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding and also
for his very bold and effective leadership.
I rise in strong opposition to this unbalanced debt ceiling bill.
This is an unbalanced approach. We all know that. We've heard that.
Furthermore, this debt ceiling bill should have never been an option in
terms of having to come to this floor to debate this and to do this.
Like we have done for Democratic and Republican Presidents in the past,
we should have lifted the debt ceiling.
Rightfully so, many of us are concerned about these discretionary
cuts. What are these cuts going to do as it relates to our senior
citizens, low income individuals and the poor? This debt ceiling bill
does nothing to address the real crises in our country, the lack of
jobs and economic growth. At a time when investments are needed to
jump-start our economy and put people back to work, this deal and its
cuts-only approach, which it is, it's the wrong approach. It's an
outrage that as we stand here today that we could not raise the debt
ceiling by voting for that.
I intend to vote ``no'' on the bill.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey,
who's been a fighter in this battle, Mr. Andrews.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, what brings us together is a need to create
jobs for the American people, and I think people would agree there's
three things we have to do to create jobs:
The first is not fall off a cliff and have a default on our national
obligations. This bill accomplishes that.
The second thing is to make sure we have an interest rate environment
so that our businesses and entrepreneurs can create jobs, so they have
some predictability. By making a 25 to 30 percent down payment on
reducing our deficit in a fair and equitable way, this bill does that.
Finally, I think most of us agree that we need investments in our
education, research and development, infrastructure, other activities
to create jobs in our private sector for our people. By making sure
that at least in the first 2 years of this agreement that the
reductions in those areas are either nonexistent or moderate, I think
that we give ourselves the freedom so our appropriators can put
valuable investments forward in that way. This is a well-reasoned
bipartisan agreement to create jobs for the American people. I urge a
``yes'' vote.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 2 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, we should never have reached
this point in our country. We should never have reached the point when
our troops wondered whether they were going to get paid or individuals
on Social Security wondered whether they were going to see their earned
benefits. That should never have happened.
This is the first time in history, the first time in history, that
we've seen Members of this Congress threaten to close down the American
economy unless they got their particular budget plan through, one that
ends the Medicare guarantee, slashes Medicaid and would deeply cut our
investments in education and innovation. We protected those investments
in this bill. The plan did not work. It didn't work now, and the plan
to do it again 6 months from now didn't work.

{time} 1810

So now we will have that great debate over our priorities. We are
looking forward to it. Let's get on to talking about jobs and the
economy.
With that, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished Democratic
leader, who has been a fighter for America's priorities, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And
every chance I get, I want to salute him for his tremendous leadership
as the top Democrat on the Budget Committee, for the work he did with
Mr. Clyburn in the bipartisan talks, as they strove to have what the
American people want: a balanced, bipartisan, fair agreement to lift
the debt ceiling and take America forward.
Unfortunately, that did not happen. What did happen, and it brings to
mind the existential question, why are we here? And I would divide, as
we say in legislation, I would divide that question into why are we
here, and why are we here today? We are here because all of us in this
body care about our country, have decided that public service is a
noble pursuit, and that we have come here to make the future better for
future generations. That is what our Founding Fathers visualized for
America, that every generation would take responsibility to make the
future better for the next.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, our Founders, in addition to writing our
founding documents, the Declaration, the great Declaration, which
embodies fairness in it and equality, then the Constitution, they
declared independence, they fought the greatest naval power in the
world, they won, they wrote the Constitution, the Bill of Rights,
making us the freest, greatest Nation in the world, founded on a
principle of respect that all people are created equal. That had never
been done in the history of the world.
And when they did that, as I have told you before, because I love it
so much, they also created the Great Seal of the United States. And
that Great Seal of the United States has on it ``Novus Ordo Seclorum,''
a new order for the centuries, for the ages, forever.
So confident were our Founders in their idea about generational
responsibility, one to the next, that they were confident that our
country, that what they were putting forth, would exist for the ages.
For the ages. That was the challenge they gave us. That is the
responsibility that we have. And for a couple of hundred years or more,
that has always been the case.
Every generation has always believed that it would make the future
better

[[Page H5858]]

for the next, for their children and for their grandchildren. We are
here today because we believe that, and we believe that the public
policy that we put forth, the legislation we put forth, should result
in public policy that makes the future better for our children and our
grandchildren. That we are committed to their education, the economic
security of our families, the dignified retirement of our seniors,
including my being a senior, and also safety and security of our
neighborhoods and of our country, and that we would do it in a fiscally
sound way that did not give our kids any bills, public or personal.
So if we believe all of that, and that's why we are here in Congress,
it's hard to believe that we are putting our best foot forward with the
legislation that comes before us today. I am not happy with it, but I
am proud of some of the accomplishments contained in it. And that's why
I am voting for it.
That takes me to the second question: Why are we here today? Why are
we here today, within 24 hours of our Nation going into default, after
months of conversation about how we would address the debt ceiling? Not
to have future spending, but to pay our past obligations. And I won't
go into it again, how we got here. But I will say that time is one of
the most important commodities any of us have, the most precious, the
most finite. And during that period of time, when our country could
have been more productive, more optimistic, more confident in the
tradition of our Founders, instead, a cloud of doubt was placed on
it because of the delay, the delay, the delay in lifting the debt
ceiling.

As my distinguished colleague Mr. Van Hollen said, this has never
happened before. We have never, never tied the hands of a President of
the United States. We never placed any doubt in the public markets as
to whether this would happen. We never had people around the boardroom
tables all wondering if we even knew the consequences of our inaction.
But I am concerned about the boardroom table. I am more concerned also
about the kitchen table.
Because this delay and uncertainty has a tremendous impact on
America's families as they sit around the table and talk about how
they're going to make ends meet, how they're going to pay their bills.
Is Social Security going to be intact for them? Will their checks
arrive this week or next week, whenever they're due? Is Medicare and
Medicaid something that they can count on?
Well, after months and months and months to reach an agreement that
could have been reached a long time ago--it is not so great it took so
long to achieve; it could have been accomplished months ago, and at
least had the merit of instilling confidence earlier, sooner, rather
than at the latest possible moment. So we must make sure that we are,
as we say why are we here today, that we are not here some other day to
go through these motions.
That's another reason why I am supporting this bill, because the
President was successful in impressing upon the Congress that we needed
the full time, the 18 months so that we can have Americans' kitchen
table--people sitting around that table and sitting around the
boardroom table would all know that you can rely on the United States
of America to meet its obligations. Okay?
Another reason to support this bill, even though there are plenty of
reasons not to, is that it stops cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and
Medicaid. This is the most important assignment given to the Democratic
leadership going to the table: Make sure there are no cuts in benefits
in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That was achieved.
Another issue of importance to us is that as we protect and defend
our country, we also measure our strength in the health, education, and
well-being of the American people. And so we have a 50-50 split between
our expenditures for defense and our expenditures for strength defined
in other ways for our country.
So these are some reasons. While those who may have the luxury of not
wanting to vote for the bill, I feel a responsibility to do so. We
cannot, because of certain objections in the bill--and one of the main
ones is that there is not one red cent coming from America's wealthiest
families, the most successful people, and God bless them for their
success, and I know that they are willing to do more, but not one red
cent coming to help reduce the deficit while we are willing to cut
Title I education for the poorest children in America. And that's too
bad for those children. It's terrible for our country.
So, again, you can make a list of things in the bill that we do not
like and things that are not in the bill, like revenue, but I urge my
colleagues to think about our seniors and to think about the 18 months
and what that means in terms of confidence in our society and what it
means also to have the 50-50 in terms of defining the strength of
America.
We cannot, despite our reluctance to vote for this bill for some of
us, allow America's seniors and veterans, who are depending on
receiving their check from the government or their security over time--
we cannot allow our seniors and veterans to be caught in the collateral
damage of the assault on the middle class that is being waged in this
Congress.

{time} 1820

This is one manifestation of making it harder for the future, for the
great middle class which is, and those who aspire to it, which is the
backbone of our democracy. So if we are going to honor the vows of our
Founders and carry on the great legacy and tradition of their optimism,
their determination, their hope for the future that we would last for
ages, we would last for ages as a democracy, not an ever broadening
disparity of income and equity in our country that undermines that
democracy.
So, please, my colleagues, if you are on the fence about this--I
certainly am and have been, even though I worked very hard to support
the President in preserving what I said about no cuts in Medicare,
Medicaid, Social Security, about the 18 months and about the 50/50
split--please think of what could happen if we defaulted. Please,
please, please come down in favor of, again, preventing the collateral
damage from reaching our seniors and our veterans.
I urge you to consider voting ``yes,'' but I completely respect the
hesitation that Members have about this.
Again, I want to commend our distinguished colleagues, Mr. Van
Hollen, Mr. Clyburn, the President of the United States, and, really,
those who tried to work in a bipartisan way to try to accomplish
something.
Now, I hear that our Republican colleagues have said they got 98
percent of what they want in the bill. I hope that their votes will
reflect that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Maryland has
expired. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman
of the House Republican Conference, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, the American people want more jobs and
they want less debt. The American people are telling Washington, you
have got to quit spending money you don't have. You have got to quit
borrowing 42 cents on the dollar, much of it from the Chinese, and then
send the bill to our children and our grandchildren.
Our crisis today is not the debt ceiling, it is our debt, and it is a
spending-driven debt. That is why we are here today, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to say that this bill solves our problem. It doesn't.
It's a solid first step. Nobody, nobody on our side of the aisle wants
to increase this debt ceiling. It's not in our DNA.
But we do believe that ultimately you ought to stay current on your
bills, and you have got to quit spending money you don't have. And in
this bill, although the sums are very, very small, when we pass this
bill, if the President signs it into law, it will be the first time in
my lifetime, the first time in my lifetime that for 2 years in a row we
have actually cut discretionary spending in Washington, D.C., and made
a very slight directional change in the right direction.
The numbers are small, the directional change is huge, but more
importantly, Mr. Speaker, the seeds of the ultimate solution are
planted in this bill, and that is the balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution. The American people aren't looking for a

[[Page H5859]]

balanced approach; they are looking for a balanced budget. To have it
work, it needs to be enshrined in our Constitution.
This bill will assure, for the first time in 15 years, both the House
and the Senate vote on a balanced budget. Those are the seeds of the
solution to save this country for the next generation.
I urge adoption of this bill.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Let me just start by saying this, Mr. Speaker, from this debate it's
very clear that we have a difference of opinions. We have different
philosophies on how to address these issues, but we are coming up to a
deadline that we all must recognize: default.
So what this has done is it has brought our two parties together. So
I would just like to take a second to reflect for a moment that we have
a bipartisan compromise here. That doesn't happen all that often around
here; so I think that's worth noting. That's a good thing.
First off, as my colleague from Texas has just said, this is a down
payment on the problem. It's a good step in the right direction, and it
is a huge cultural change to this institution.
Both parties got us in this mess. Both parties are going to have to
work together to get us out of this mess, and the real problem, I would
add, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that we spend way more money than we take
in. We have to address that.
To my friends on the left, I think they would like to take comfort in
the fact the way these spending cuts are designed and the way the
sequester is designed.
To my friends on the right, we are cutting spending. We have been
trying to get discretionary caps in law for years. I have been here 13
years trying for it every year, this is the first time.
When we ran Congress the last time we were in the majority we
couldn't even get it with the Republican Congress. Now we are getting
discretionary caps. That's a big achievement.
Number two, we used to just rubber stamp these debt limit increases.
We used to sneak these debt limit increases in budget resolutions. Now
it's out here in plain sight.
And what are we doing? We are actually cutting spending while we do
this. That's cultural. That's significant. That's a big step in the
right direction. We are getting two-thirds of the cuts we wanted in our
budget, and, as far as I am concerned, 66 percent in the right
direction is a whole lot better than going in the wrong direction.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we should never have
reached this point. Under Democratic and Republican presidents alike,
Congress has always fulfilled its responsibility to pay our nation's
bills when they come due. We have disagreed vehemently about matters of
fiscal policy, but we have always recognized that the full faith and
credit of the United States should remain above the partisan fray.
Until now, that is. Make no mistake, this is a manufactured crisis.
For the last several weeks, Republicans have held our nation's economy
hostage to their narrow and extreme ideological agenda, demanding a
ransom of devastating cuts to critical domestic programs while
protecting tax breaks for oil companies and other special interests. No
matter that Social Security benefits, military pay, and the credit
rating of our country have all been hanging in the balance--apparently,
economic calamity is a small price to pay for ideological purity.
I voted months ago for a clean debt ceiling increase. I voted days
ago for an alternative, bipartisan Senate plan to increase the debt
ceiling and cut spending in carefully targeted ways. That the House and
Senate are just now considering legislation to stave off default is a
tremendous failure by House Republicans, who could not bring the most
extreme elements of their caucus to a more balanced legislative
solution.
The result is an agreement which could have been worse but is still
not good enough. From the beginning, I have said that any serious
approach to deficit reduction must do two things: protect the fragile
recovery, because the best cure for a budget deficit is a growing
economy, and take a balanced approach to finding savings by putting all
types of spending and revenues on the table. This agreement meets
neither of these tests.
The President deserves credit for negotiating a package that rejects
some of the worst Republican demands. It immediately moves us past this
artificially created crisis by extending the debt limit through 2013,
and it protects Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid against cuts
from Republicans who have signaled a willingness to savage these middle
class benefits as a part of deficit reduction. I am also encouraged
that defense spending has finally been subjected to the same pressures
as the rest of the budget.
However, these positive aspects offer limited consolation. Instead of
charting a responsible path to deficit reduction while continuing to
invest in economic recovery, the bill imposes severe spending caps that
will become even more severe if the deficit commission created by the
bill fails to achieve consensus. Instead of taking a balanced approach
that includes new sources of revenue, such as an end to special-
interest tax breaks, the bill asks the elderly and working-class
Americans to bear the brunt of the sacrifice. Why are we not asking the
wealthiest Americans to make the same sacrifices other Americans have
already been asked to make?
Finally, I also vote no because I refuse to legitimize the demands of
ideologues who have recklessly held the national economy hostage to
their extreme agenda. Governance by brinksmanship is not worthy of
being called governance. The American people deserve better than a
House of Representatives that forces the entire country to lurch from
one artificially created crisis to the next. We are United States
Congress, not the Tea Party's Congress, and it's time we started acting
like it.''
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, the Budget Control Act Agreement (S. 365)
is a terrible bill that I strongly oppose. This legislation is the
product of the most disturbing political process I have witnessed
during my time in Congress. For the first time ever, one of America's
political parties showed themselves willing to throw the nation into
default on our debt obligations for the sake of politics. By holding an
increase in the debt ceiling hostage as a negotiating strategy, the Tea
Party Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives
imperiled millions of jobs, businesses, and the economic well-being of
every American. A nonpartisan publication, the National Journal,
declared that America has ``entered a new era of government at
gunpoint.''
I find myself agreeing with Wall Street Journal editors who
criticized the House majority's conduct during this process by saying,
``Republicans are not looking like adults to whom voters can entrust
the government.''
The legislation that House Republicans are forcing on the country
will slash trillions of dollars of investments at exactly the moment
when more investment is needed to prevent our economy from sliding back
into recession. Education, infrastructure, health research, public
safety, clean energy and every other middle class priority will see
cuts as a result of this bill.
An editorial in today's New York Times argues this deal will ``hinder
an economic recovery.'' At a time when 14 million Americans are
unemployed and economic growth has slowed to a crawl, why is Congress
passing legislation that will ``hinder an economic recovery?'' Tying
massive cuts to a debt ceiling increase is completely unnecessary,
totally counterproductive, and it will make America's job crisis even
worse. And, with this bill, the Republicans are tossing the heavy
burden of deficit reduction onto America's middle class without asking
even one penny from the nation's wealthiest individuals and
corporations.
While I cannot support this agreement, President Obama and Democratic
leaders deserve tremendous credit for their perseverance and
determination in solving this manufactured debt crisis. Their efforts
succeeded in protecting the economy from the unthinkable consequences
of default and shielded Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid from
Republican cuts.
President Obama was forced to negotiate this agreement with radical
Republicans who proved all to willing to send the economy into default.
He was in a nearly impossible position. One would expect irrational,
dangerous, and irresponsible negotiating tactics from North Korea's Kim
Jong-il, but not from the Republican congressional leaders. President
Obama did what the nation required in order to avert economic disaster.
Still, I cannot support this legislation. This is a bad bill on many
levels, most of all because it forces a broken bargain that avoids
economic collapse at the cost of an even slower and more painful
economic recovery. It may even return the nation to recession.
This is bill is bad for America and I strongly oppose it.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the
following:

``Big Deal'' Is Foundation for ``Long-Term Austerity''

why i voted ``no'' on the budget deal

(Statement By Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.)

As a result of the ``Big Deal'' that House Speaker John
Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate
Minority

[[Page H5860]]

Leader Mitch McConnell negotiated--and approved by the House
and Senate--welcome to ``Austere America.'' The era of
austerity has begun!
Democrats were faced with two draconian choices: (1) vote
``against'' the package and the result would be a job killing
default according to House Speaker Boehner; or (2) vote
``for'' the package and, from my perspective, the result will
be a job killing austerity.
The budget negotiators absolutely concluded a ``Big Deal.''
It's a ``game changer.'' The United States is about to become
the austere Japan of the 1990s and the austere Great Britain
of 2011. Budget deficits and debt will go up--not down.
Unemployment will go up--not down. Suffering by the American
people will go up--not down. Economic growth will remain
stagnant or slow at best and will not address the need for
jobs for the unemployed. In short, I predict the result of
this agreement will be the opposite of the current spin.
While all Democrats agree that reducing the deficits and
taming the debt is something that must be dealt with in the
future, the immediate issue is not ``deficit reductions'' but
``job reductions'' (i.e., creating enough jobs for 17 million
unemployed Americans). Reducing federal spending in a weak
economy is the exact opposite of what is needed now.
Republicans and conservative Democrats preposterously argue
``tax and budget cuts will equal more jobs and more tax
revenues''--the ``Laugher'' Curve. The biggest tax cuts in
history in 2001 and 2003 resulted in the loss of 600,000
private jobs over eight years. To stimulate the economy, the
Congress passed and the President signed a $757 billion
stimulus package that kept us out of another Great
Depression, but it was unable to rescue unemployed workers
from the current Great Recession. The Republican argument
reminds me of the man whose house caught on fire and when he
couldn't put it out with a garden hose he concluded, ``Water
doesn't put out fire.'' Water does put out fire, but you have
to have enough of it to fit the size of the fire, and you
have to put it in the right place.
Some argue--because of the possibility of default--the
President and Democrats had no alternative. I disagree.
First, even the threat of using Section 4 of the 14th
Amendment by the President (which he took off the table)
would have strengthened his negotiating hand. Second, he
could have fought for an alternative strategy of invest, grow
and build which would have put Democrats on our turf and on
the offense instead of on the Republicans turf and on the
defense--and such a plan would create jobs, reduce deficits
and debt.
The most vulnerable Americans will again suffer the most
under this agreement. This is a very bad and sad day for
America.
____

Treat President Obama Like All Other Presidents!

Raise The Debt Ceiling Without Conditions

(Statement by Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. (D-IL-2))

According to the Congressional Research Service, since
March of 1962 a ``clean'' debt ceiling bill has been passed
by Congress 74 times--including 18 times under President
Ronald Reagan and 7 times under President George W. Bush; and
raising the debt ceiling has never been used by a political
party to ``stickup,'' ``shake-down'' or ``hold hostage'' the
President of the United States, the American people and the
world economy for narrow domestic political gain.
President Obama should be treated like all other
Presidents! Republicans didn't like President Bill Clinton
either--because of his political ideology--but they never
hijacked the economy over passing a clean debt ceiling bill.
So don't change anything just because Barack Obama is the
President and Republicans don't like his ideology! Raise the
debt ceiling without conditions! Pass a ``clean'' debt
ceiling bill! Treating President Obama differently than all
past Presidents reflects an ``institutional bias'' against
the Southside of Chicago!
Rep. Joe Wilson reflected the same institutional bias when,
in an unprecedented manner, he called President Obama a
``liar'' in the middle of his State of the Union address.
Speaker John Boehner reflected a similar institutional bias
when he said he and the President had the same
responsibility--equating his job as Speaker of the House (a
legislative function) with the job of the President of the
United States (an executive function). Doubting the
birthplace of Barack Obama, doubting his Christian faith and
experience, calling him a Muslim and a socialist reflects
this same institutional bias. The Republican's proposed
Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) reflects a similar
institutional bias--the only other place where there's a BBA
is in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America.
With a BBA, the Southside of Chicago can never be made equal
to the Northside of Chicago.
What are the alternatives for President Obama? First, he
can either sign or veto whatever bill Congress passes and
sends up to him--assuming Congress is able to pass something.
Or, second, since no other President has been treated like he
is being treated, he may have to use something no other
President has had to use--i.e., Section 4 of the 14th
Amendment. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment was included
because the Union did not want to pay the past war debt of
the seceded Confederate states. Therefore it is appropriate
that in the year of the sesquicentennial start of the Civil
War that he use a tool given to him at the conclusion of the
Civil War (1868) to save Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,
the U.S. and the world economy.
The previous administration started two wars. We have men
and women who are presently fighting on foreign battlefields
and we should not abandon them. This government has an
obligation to them and their families to pay them for risking
their lives and protecting the country. This President should
exercise the 14th Amendment's extraordinary authority in
defense of these men and woman at war.
Use of the 14th Amendment is appropriate and justified when
the current advocates of states' rights are again asserting
themselves. As Section 4 of the 14th Amendment was being
debated, Sen. Benjamin Wade (R-OH) argued that ``it puts the
debt incurred in the Civil War on our part under the
guardianship of the Constitution of the United States, so
that a Congress cannot repudiate it. I believe that to do
this will give great confidence to capitalists and will be of
incalculable pecuniary benefit to the United States, for I
have no doubt that every man who has property in the public
funds will feel safer when he sees that the national debt is
withdrawn from the power of a Congress to repudiate it and
placed under the guardianship of the Constitution than he
would feel if it were left at loose ends and subject to the
varying majorities which may arise in Congress.'' President
Obama should not allow the ``current majority'' in the House
and the filibuster prone minority of Republicans in the
Senate to hold the economy hostage.
So in the spirit of Senator Benjamin Wade (R-OH),
Representative Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) and Senator Charles
Sumner (R-MA), President Barack Obama should use Section 4 of
the 14th Amendment to protect the full faith and credit of
the United States and avoid an economic catastrophe that will
damage the United States and the world economy.

Mr. Speaker, I have given several Special Order speeches about my
view of the Constitution, making the argument for why I think it should
be amended to include certain basic rights that the American people
currently lack. These include the right to a high-quality education,
the right to health care, and equal rights for women. This afternoon,
my special order time will be used to discuss the Continuing Resolution
for FY 2011, the Republican Proposed FY 2012 Budget, and the Balanced
Budget Amendment or what I've taken to calling the ``ImBalanced Budget
Amendment''.
Not too long ago, the House passed H.R. 1, a continuing resolution
that would have forced middle and working class Americans to carry the
heavy burden or spending cuts. My colleagues across the aisle
simplified the impacts of this measure by describing it as ``tightening
our belts''. They seem to be oblivious to the fact that these cuts went
deep for those Americans who could least afford them.
H.R. 1 ``tightened our belts'', slashing programs like Community
Health Centers, specifically designed to provide access to basic health
and dental services to underserved communities that may not otherwise
be able to get the care they need.
HR. 1 ``tightened our belts'' through cuts to the National Institutes
of Health, setting back development of cancer treatments and cures for
other diseases, the impact of which we will feel for years to come, as
medical professionals are forced to shut down promising research
projects.
HR. 1 ``tightened our belts'' by hacking away at training for Health
Professions, reducing this funding by more than 23%. Cuts to Title VII
and VIII programs that help to train primary health professionals for
underserved areas, would limit the access of low income individuals to
quality doctors, nurses and physicians assistants in their areas.
H.R. 1 ``tightened our belts'' by severing Title X family planning
programs. In doing so, we stepped back in time, preventing life saving
care from being offered to our nation's women, specifically women who
wouldn't otherwise have access to this kind of care.
The programs I've listed so far provide health services to our
nation, and especially our most underprivileged populations. H.R. 1
also 2 tightened our belts with cuts to job training programs, Head
Start and after-school programs, Pell Grants, Hope VI Housing programs,
and high speed rail.
These programs were systematically sent to the guillotine. The people
that they serve are not the millionaires, to whom we generously
extended tax cuts. They are not the corporations who eagerly navigate
tax loopholes, every year, costing our nation billions in revenue. They
are the everyday, hard working, middle class, public school educated,
check book balancing, minimum wage earning, mothers and fathers and
grandparents that elected each of us, hoping we'd find a way to
decrease unemployment, and bring America back from the brink.
Mr. Speaker, thankfully, our colleagues across the Capitol thought we
went a few notches too tight in our belt with H.R. 1. As the Senate
refused to take up these cuts,

[[Page H5861]]

much of our future long term budget discussions to reduce our deficit
and get America back on track remain in limbo.
Recently this discussion had reached a fever pitch.
After multiple short term extensions of the FY 2011 Appropriations
legislation, the negotiations between Speaker Boehner, Leader Reid and
the President had broken down many times throughout the week.
We were faced with the threat of the first government shutdown since
1996. Agencies were planning which workers to furlough, National Parks
and Museums were prepared to shut their doors for the weekend, and the
brave women and men in the active-duty of our Armed forces were
prepared to continue to work without pay.
Then, at the eleventh hour, there was a breakthrough. The five and a
half month Continuing Resolution, agreed to by the leadership of House
and Senate, included a total of $39 billion worth of cuts.
But these cuts that were agreed to late into Friday, have real
consequences. There are significant cuts to programs like WIC, the
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women Infants and Children,
Community Health Centers, the Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance
Program, international disaster assistance and Head Start.
After the President and Congressional leadership agreed to giving
$800 billion in tax cuts to America's top wage earners last December,
we turned around and cut programs that working families and seniors
depend on. It just doesn't make sense, Mr. Speaker.
Again, while I was relieved that the federal government did not shut
down, I am deeply disappointed in the process that has brought us to
this ``compromise'', if you can even call it that.
Like the negotiations that held up tax cuts for the middle class at
the end of last year to hold out for tax cuts for the wealthy, our
leadership has again demonstrated that they are willing to hold up
programs that provide for the most vulnerable Americans. And this
Congress is only just beginning.
As for the next fiscal year's budget, there are a variety of
solutions that have been presented, some with potential to succeed,
others destined to fail. Among the proposals lie Budget Committee
Chairman Paul Ryan's recent offering. Looking at the facts, his
proposal will reduce our nation's deficit, but leaves us asking the
question, at what cost?
First and foremost, Mr. Ryan intends to place the burden of ending
our nation's debt on the citizens least capable of caring for
themselves, those most reliant on the help of others: our seniors.
The Budget Committee's proposal would end the Medicare our senior
citizens have come to know and rely on, replacing it with what can only
be described as a coupon--a voucher that, according to the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office, would leave our eldest Americans
shouldering 68% of their healthcare costs in the next 20 years.
Who else pays the cost of balancing our budget within the Ryan
proposal? The burden falls next to working American families. The Ryan
proposal will lower the tax rates for individuals with the highest
income as well as corporations, relying on raising taxes for the
average American to pay for it.
If it sounds familiar, it's because this is the same standby, trickle
down, failure that we have placed our faith in for the past decade.
Despite what Majority Leader Cantor says, during an economic
downturn, decreasing the deficit does not create jobs. Also, cutting
taxes does not create jobs. Both Presidents Bush and Obama have cut
taxes so much that if Eric Cantor's theory were correct, we should have
zero unemployment, which we DO NOT HAVE. This is what the Ryan plan
aims to do.
For ten years our economy has stagnated. The gap between the median
wage and average wage is growing, because the highest earners are the
only ones receiving wage increases.
Unfortunately, balancing our nation's budget on the backs of the
middle class does NOT end there.
Where else will the burden of balancing the budget fall under the
Ryan plan? Education. Cuts to K-12 education are just the starting
point in disadvantaging the future of America. The proposal also makes
significant cuts to Pell Grants. These cuts will prevent the educated
generation of young Americans our country needs to compete in a global
economy.
The proposed cuts to Pell Grants would return the maximum award
allowable to pre-stimulus levels, impacting millions of young Americans
depending on financial assistance to attend college.
This will stretch the time it will take for them to earn their
degrees and enter the workforce.
Finally, Ryan's budget continues to provide tax loopholes to big oil
companies, and cuts all federal support for clean energy, short
sighting our economic investments in the future of energy.
Mr. Speaker, I am not promoting constant federal debt. I am not
advocating against hoping or trying for a balanced budget. But when you
look through the history of our nation, we see that when Americans were
in the most need, during war or recession, during the Great Depression,
we focused on solving those problems, not just reducing our debt.
Mr. Speaker, we are currently engaged in two wars and fighting our
way out of the worst recession of the modern era. The Ryan budget is a
new attempt at an age old ploy to mandate a balanced budget for the
Federal Government.
Ending our Nation's deficit and returning our country to prosperity,
should of course be the goal. But we must also ask the question, at
what cost? Where do our priorities lie?
The Ryan proposal, like the myriad constitutional amendments before
it, attempts to balance our budget on the backs of those Americans who
can least bear the burden.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in heavy-hearted support of S. 365,
an imperfect, bipartisan compromise to raise the debt ceiling and rein
in federal spending. House and Senate leaders have been bickering for
months over this issue, and we have waited until the 59th minute of the
11th hour to reach an agreement. If we do not raise the debt ceiling by
tomorrow, our economy will be deeply shaken, resulting not only in
massive losses to Wall Street, but also in increased costs and interest
rates for American families. With the severe threat of default upon us,
it is time to come together for our Nation's best interests.
This is not the bill I would have written, and I do not know a single
Member of Congress who believes this bill is perfect. I agreed with
President Obama's sentiments today when he said that ``as with any
compromise, the outcome is far from satisfying.'' However, as a Member
of Congress, there are times when you must hold your nose and vote for
a compromise that, while imperfect, is necessary. I believe this is one
of those times. The grave threat of default is far too near and too
serious not to vote for this agreement.
I am happy to see that this compromise provides long-term economic
certainty, raising the debt ceiling until 2013. This will give our
markets, investors, and economic partners abroad confidence in the U.S.
economy and our ability to pay our bills. It also takes a bold step
toward fiscal responsibility, resulting in over $2.1 trillion in
deficit reduction, as recently scored by the Congressional Budget
Office. I believe it is important to seriously address our national
debt so as not to burden future generations.
The bill will immediately enact strict ten-year spending caps on both
defense and non-defense programs, resulting in $917 billion in savings.
It also creates a bipartisan congressional committee which will
identify an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction by November
23, 2011, including from entitlement and tax reform. Both the House and
Senate will hold an up or down vote on the committee's proposal.
I believe this compromise cuts too far into many important government
programs and that these spending reductions will not be easy to
swallow. Discretionary spending will be brought to its lowest levels
since the Eisenhower Administration. I am reassured, however, that cuts
will not be made to Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance,
programs for low-income families, Pell Grants for low-income college
students, or civilian and military retirement programs.
I am greatly disappointed that this compromise does not immediately
include revenue increases for the wealthiest Americans, and I believe
it places the brunt of the burden of deficit reduction on low-income
and middle-class families. I am optimistic, however, that the future
plan set forth by the bipartisan congressional committee on deficit
reduction will include such revenue increases. Instead of protecting
tax breaks for Big Oil, corporations that ship jobs overseas, and the
very richest among us, these groups should share in the sacrifice.
We could each sit here refusing to support a bill that does not
mirror our individual priorities, allowing the U.S. to default on its
loans and permitting an economic catastrophe. Or we could come together
and support a compromise that, while imperfect, gets the job done. We
were elected to be mature civic leaders who could put public interests
before self interests. I urge my colleagues to serve that purpose by
supporting this bill.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, the default debate is, at its heart, a debate
between two visions for America. One side envisions rebuilding our
country, investing in jobs and education and infrastructure, and rising
from the Great Recession as a stronger and more resilient Nation. The
other side accepts a pessimistic vision of a weakened America with a
shrunken government--a Nation hampered by deep cuts to the safety net
and hobbled by a refusal to invest in our future.
I have no doubt that, in a fair debate, a hopeful vision for America
would win out. But the default debate has not been held on fair terms.
The Tea Party and their enablers have held America hostage. They have
insisted

[[Page H5862]]

that, unless Congress enacted their radical, ideological agenda, they
would force an unprecedented default on America's obligations and thus
trigger an economic collapse.
From the beginning of this debate, I rejected the notion that
America's creditworthiness should be used as a bargaining chip. Yet I
was willing to support a balanced, fair deal if that was what was
required to prevent a default. Unfortunately, today's deal is not
balanced. It is not fair. Most of all, it is not right.
The House has voted for vast cuts in government services that
ordinary Americans depend on: student loans, unemployment insurance,
food safety inspections, highway safety programs, and more. These cuts
will force layoffs among teachers, public safety officers, construction
workers, and more. These laid-off workers will, in turn, be forced to
pare back their spending at their local grocery stores, drug stores,
and small businesses, forcing still more layoffs--a vicious circle that
threatens to destabilize our fragile economy. We saw in last week's
economic reports that job growth has been choked back by cuts in state
and local governments. This deal does not help the situation. It hurts
the economy.
The deal lays the groundwork for another $1.5 trillion in cuts to
come, to be negotiated behind closed doors by an unelected super-
committee. Given that the first round of cuts will have decimated
discretionary programs, these later cuts will very likely focus on
Social Security and Medicare. The citizens who will be hurt most are
those who have the least voice in our democracy. After all, when a
handful of politicians gather in the proverbial smoke-filled room, the
interests of ordinary Americans are nearly always left out.
Yet although most Americans will sacrifice greatly, the most
privileged among us will be immune. Favored corporate interests,
millionaires, and billionaires will continue to receive special tax
breaks as far as the eye can see. That is not the sort of fair,
balanced deal that Americans asked for and expected.
As poor as this deal is on its merits, I am even more troubled by the
precedent it sets. The Tea Party and their enablers have, by taking the
American economy hostage, transformed a routine budgetary authorization
into the most dramatic reshaping of government in decades. Today's deal
establishes that government by hostage negotiation is a legitimate,
effective way to achieve one's political ends. I am frightened by what
this means for the future of our democracy.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bipartisan,
bicameral Budget Control Act.
While imperfect, this is an historic agreement. With this compromise,
we are taking another step in the long and difficult, yet vital,
process of forcing our government to live within its means.
Total government spending at all levels has risen to 37% of gross
domestic product today from 27% in 1960--and is set to reach 50% by
2038.
To sustain the operations of the government, we borrow over 42-cents
of every federal dollar we spend. As a result, our national debt has
now increased to 100% of the size of our economy today, up from just
42% in 1980.
The implications for future generations of Americans of this
dangerous spending spree are obvious. Enough is enough!
While far from perfect, this realistic approach finally begins to
turn back the tide of federal red ink in several important ways: (1) it
cuts spending by $917 billion and does not raise taxes that would fuel
additional spending; (2) it creates a process that keeps our underlying
fiscal policy problems front-and-center for the foreseeable future.
The bill we have before us today would extend the debt limit in two
phases and avoid a default on the obligations of the United States. The
first phase would provide for $917 billion in discretionary spending
cuts and an immediate increase of up to $900 billion in the debt limit.
The legislation would allow for a subsequent debt limit increase of
up to $1.5 trillion only if a bipartisan, bicameral committee provides,
and the full Congress approves by an ``up or down'' vote, additional
spending cuts in excess of the requested debt limit increase, or a
Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution is passed by Congress and
sent to the states for ratification by the end of the year.
Is this bill perfect. Absolutely not.
Granted, some well-meaning Americans have opposed the Budget Control
Act because they think it does not cut enough. I would remind my
Colleagues that the Committee on Appropriations has already started
making tough decisions on spending. In this year's appropriations
bills, we have sheared billions of dollars and imposed strict spending
reductions and will complete our work and pass responsible,
sustainable, and timely funding legislation.
I completely agree that the Budget Control Act is far from sufficient
to solve our underlying budget problems. In that respect, it is a step
in the right direction, nothing more.
I, too, wanted deeper spending cuts and greater deficit and debt
reduction. However, given the stubborn insistence of the President and
his Congressional allies on new taxes and still more spending, I cannot
see how we achieve greater savings at this time.
I also fear that we may come to regret proposed cuts to our national
security infrastructure. Our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines are
already stressed and strained by ten years of multiple deployments.
Future reductions in end strength and operations and maintenance will
undoubtedly lead to the ``hollow force'' that our experienced military
leaders have warned us to avoid.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to put progress before partisanship
and support this measure.
My constituents in New Jersey want our government to live within its
means. But they also continue to ask ``where are the jobs?'' So, they
want Congress to make economic growth and private-sector job creation
its top priority.
This is about our country, our way of life and restoring confidence
in the American Dream. Let's get on with it.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this so-called debt
limit compromise, S. 365. A compromise is when the two sides each make
concessions. This bill fails to meet that definition because all
concessions come from Democrats. This debt ceiling legislation protects
special interests at the expense of America's working families,
children, senior citizens, people who've lost their jobs, and people
with disabilities.
It punts the difficult decisions to a ``super committee'' of twelve
Members of Congress who will be tasked with finding another $1.5
trillion in savings. Those twelve people will have the power to cut
Social Security benefits, turn Medicare into a voucher, and gut the
Medicaid program into oblivion. The rest of Congress will have only the
right to vote yes or no on the entire proposal. Unlike the vast
majority of legislation, no amendments will be allowed.
If the super committee fails, there will be automatic cuts to
Medicare and additional draconian cuts on top of the draconian cuts
that will be made when this bill is signed into law.
Default is a dangerous proposition. But there is only one reason that
our country has been pushed to the brink of default: the Republican Tea
Party fringe. We are in the midst of a completely manufactured crisis
that was orchestrated by this extreme faction of the Republican Party.
They are a minority in Congress and in our nation, yet they are holding
our nation's economy hostage because Republican leadership continues to
pander to them at the detriment of our country and its future.
Democrats and Republicans alike have lifted the debt ceiling some 75
times in our history. Paying our bills is a necessary part of
responsible governing.
This year, I've voted twice to raise the debt limit ceiling. I first
did so on May 31, 2011 when Republicans brought a clean debt ceiling
bill to the floor. Because of uniform Republican opposition, that vote
failed.
I next voted this past Saturday to raise the debt ceiling in
conjunction with significant spending cuts when the House considered
Senator Reid's compromise package. It was far from perfect, but it was
much more balanced than the package before us today.
Today, the radical wing of the Republican Party has forced a no-win
situation. Vote yes on today's ``debt-limit compromise,'' and we limit
our ability to grow our economy, create jobs, and protect the most
vulnerable members of our society. Vote no and we risk an unprecedented
default that would further deteriorate our sputtering economy.
We should never have gotten to this point and it is up to those who
got us into this mess to get the votes to end this crisis. However I
will not allow my vehement opposition to this deal to put our country
into default. If my vote is needed to prevent default, I will hold my
nose and change my vote to yes. I will do that because governing
requires tough choices. If Tea Party Republicans refuse to govern, it
is up to the rest of us to do so for them.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, although I have voted seven times
in the past under President Bush to raise the debt ceiling, all of
those votes in the past were clean debt ceiling bills, unlike the bill
before the House today, which imposes $1 trillion in spending cuts on
the working people and the poor, and decimates our social safety net.
In this round of debt ceiling discussions, the Tea Party Republicans
have tied the President's hands to couple a raise in the debt ceiling
with billions of billions of dollars in cuts to our nation's safety net
programs, bringing cuts across the board to WIC (Women, Infant and
Children), programs to protect our nation's senior citizens, Pell
Grants, education programs, community health care, and numerous other
federal programs that assist middle and working class Americans. It is
also important to take note of what isn't in this agreement:

[[Page H5863]]

funding directed towards job creation. Indisputably, job production is
essential to lifting our nation out of the economic downturn since
consumer spending is the key driver of our economy.
Just last December, the Republicans forced a vote on extending the
Bush Tax Cuts for millionaires and billionaires, adding $70 billion to
our nation's deficit. And this suicidal economic plan came right after
eight years of horribly reckless spending and excessive tax cuts for
the rich under President Bush and the Republican Congress, who left
America trillions of dollars in debt. What was particularly troubling
about this situation is that President Clinton had left the White House
not only with a balanced budget but with a surplus!
Yet the Republican Party has remained steadfast in implementing
Reverse Robin Hood economic policies: cutting programs and services for
the working and middle class, while maintaining tax cuts for the
millionaires, billionaires and the Big Oil companies like EXXON Mobil,
who just reported last week that their second quarter profits rose 41%!
Indeed, the Republican Party has shown they will stop at nothing to
pursue deficit reduction exclusively through deep spending cuts to
critical social services, while taking our nation to the brink of
economic default. And again, while cutting this safety net, they have
successfully fought to preserve tax breaks for Big Oil (even though the
big five oil companies earned nearly $1 trillion in profits during the
last decade), corporations that ship American jobs overseas, and tax
breaks for the wealthiest .5% of Americans, while leaving what's left
over in available resources to be divided among the rest of us.
Beyond a doubt, job production is essential to lifting our nation out
of the dire economic situation we're in, and one way to create jobs is
through transportation and infrastructure investment: in fact, for
every $1 billion in transportation funding, approximately 34,000 jobs
are created. Yet the Republican leadership remains inflexible,
unwilling to compromise on even reauthorizing the FAA. And what has
this led to?
Four thousand Americans throughout the nation who are paid out of the
FAA trust fund that will not be paid, and nearly 90,000 others are
affected by the cancellation of airport construction projects: and for
my state of Florida, this includes over 3,000 airport construction jobs
lost, and 27 FAA employee jobs, 19 of them at Orlando International
Airport, 3 in Miami, 4 in Melbourne and 1 in Hilliard.
Just like the Republican Party's lack of leadership over the debt
ceiling debate, they absolutely refuse to compromise to extend funding
for the FAA. So yes, this is yet another example of the Republican
Party being entirely ill prepared and completely irresponsible in their
attempt to act as House leaders.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, this vote is a close call.
Like the vast majority of our colleagues, I do not want to see the
federal government fail to meet its obligations. And if the government
cannot borrow, the fact that President Obama would decide which bills
to pay with the money that is available is not reassuring. He could
well refuse to pay Social Security benefits in order to build the
maximum amount of political pressure for his agenda.
But I am equally disturbed by the prospect of continuing to spend and
borrow as usual. The United States simply cannot continue down this
path of fiscal irresponsibility and meet our duty to our children and
to future generations. We must cut some spending now, and we must
change the system that allows or even encourages such fiscal
recklessness.
This bill cuts some spending, although not nearly as much as I would
like. The spending it cuts directly is discretionary spending, which is
the easiest to cut because it is subject to the annual appropriations
process. The bill does not touch mandatory spending, which is well over
half of the budget. That is a lost opportunity.
The special congressional committee could recommend changes in
mandatory spending and hopefully an overhaul of our tax code, which is
a drag on our economy and a burden to all taxpayers. The
recommendations of that committee will receive a vote in the House and
Senate before the end of the year. That is a potential opportunity.
Significantly, the bill does cut a dollar of spending for every
dollar of additional borrowing authority. No more money can be added to
the debt without an equivalent or greater cut in spending. That is an
important first for our country and an important precedent to set.
The bill also requires a vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment to the
Constitution. It will be the first such vote in the Senate in 15 years.
There is, of course, no guarantee that it will pass, but there is a
real opportunity for the American people to let their Senators and
Representatives know how they feel. If the polls are correct that over
70% of the people support a Balanced Budget Amendment and if they let
Congress know of their support, it should pass.
I am concerned about the way this measure treats defense. The
Department of Defense, like any large organization, can be more
efficient. Our national security would be devastated, however, if the
sequestration cuts were allowed to occur. Every member of the House and
Senate, as well as the President, must ensure that they do not.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is always the question that must be asked
when making a difficult decision on how to vote on a bill: If this bill
does not pass, what happens then? There is much about this bill with
which I am not satisfied, but I have absolutely no doubt that if this
bill is rejected, the next one will be worse. The next bill may come
after Social Security checks are not received or after the markets
plummet, but there would be another bill, and it will not have the cuts
or reforms that are in this one. And it would most likely make even
greater cuts to defense.
The bottom line is that this bill is one step in the right direction.
I would rather take two, or three, or five steps, but I cannot reject a
bill that cuts spending as much as it increases borrowing and that
provides the opportunity for greater cuts as well as for real reforms
in budgeting and spending. There is much more work ahead, and I will
keep pushing for more steps in the direction of fiscal responsibility
in the weeks and months to come.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, the House passed unprecedented legislation
tonight.
We passed a bill that put unprecedented limits on our President to
act to protect our nation, to invest in our futures and to safeguard
our poor and our vulnerable.
I opposed this bill because it fails to take a balanced approach to
how we set our nation's priorities.
This bill totally fails to address the urgent and most pressing
crisis in the country: the lack of jobs and economic growth. At a time
when investments are needed to jump start our economy and put people
back to work, I believe this deal and its cuts-only approach is the
wrong approach.
Should we, as Members of Congress, closely guard our nation's tax
dollars and work hard to cut waste and to make sure that every program
that we fund is necessary and helps the most Americans possible?
Of course we should and I believe that we all work hard to do so.
But, let me be clear, what we have is a revenue problem.
We would not have needed to raise the debt ceiling if Republican's
did not ram the Bush tax cuts down the throats of the American People.
Let me be very clear.
Tax cuts do not pay for themselves and they do not create jobs.
The Bush tax cuts created the deficits that my Republican colleagues
decry and there were no new private industry jobs created during the
entire Bush Administration.
Let me be crystal clear.
The Democratic Clinton Administration had higher tax rates and
created millions more jobs than the Bush Republicans and we had a
robust and growing economy. The Democratic Clinton Administration left
George Bush a revenue surplus, which he promptly squandered and drove
the economy into a ditch, twice.
We have a revenue problem.
When we do not ask the super rich and the corporations who make
billions of dollars in profits off of the engine of the American
economy, we will not have the funds to keep that engine running.
We must have the revenue to invest in our schools and high tech
industries; we must have the funds to rebuild our nation's
manufacturing base that Republicans shipped overseas, we must have the
revenues to take care of our seniors and provide world class healthcare
for every American, we must have the critical revenue to keep the
United States the strongest, smartest and most democratic nation on
earth.
We have a money problem, but it is not about how this body budgets
for our nation.
The money problem is the one that plagues our politics. There is too
much influence of the rich on our politics.
Despite the catastrophic failures of Republican financial policies,
we are still the strongest and wealthiest nation in the world and our
Treasury's debt is still the world's safest investment and continues to
sell at historically low rates.
But this bill that tied our budget to the passing of debt ceiling is
a huge step in the wrong direction for our nation.
Is it critical for us to prevent an unprecedented default? Of course
it is.
Is it just as critical to make sure that we can meet our nation's
obligations to our seniors, our children and our poor? Of course it is.
But this back room deal-making on preventing a national default is
not a way forward for our nation.
We must not be making critical decisions about who and what we are as
a nation while

[[Page H5864]]

we are held hostage to the debt ceiling and the extortionist threats of
the extreme Tea Party wing of the Republican party.
This should not be the process by which we decide how we budget and
set our nation's priorities into the future.
The debt ceiling plan is deeply flawed. The only thing it succeeds in
doing is enacting a short-term reprieve from a catastrophic default on
our debts.
It fails in almost every other way.
It fails because it is not a balanced approach that insures that we
have the resources necessary to protect our most vulnerable seniors,
children, the disabled and the poor.
It fails because it opens the door to deep cuts to Social Security,
Medicare and Medicaid.
If fails because it does not make sure that we actually reduce the
deficit.
Making cuts in federal spending during the middle of the worst
economic downturn in a generation will only make the economy worse and
will reduce future revenue and end up increasing long-term deficits.
This is not a sound way to reduce our deficits or our debt. The only
way to reduce our deficits long-term is to invest in a strong and
growing economy that creates millions of new jobs just like we did
during the Clinton Administration.
The only sound long-term deficit plan is a strong jobs plan that puts
Americans back to work in jobs that pay a livable wages and provide
American benefits.
Finally, it fails because it undermines that proper functioning of
the American democracy and restricts our ability to react to future
crises and economic downturns.
Tying the hands of future Congresses is not the way to strengthen the
United States. This bill will severely limit what we can do as a
nation.
The Tea Party Republican's vision of America is one with a powerless
government that cannot stand up to the big banks, big oil and
multinational corporations that want to keep shipping U.S. jobs
overseas. The Republican's vision of America is one where you are
completely on your own, without access to health care, Social Security,
or unemployment protections. The Republican's vision of America is one
without any safeguards for clean air, clean water or access to safe and
clean food and drugs.
I don't believe that this is a vision that the American people
believe in.
I believe in a strong America with a functioning democracy that is
able invest in the future of our nation and create jobs to grow our
economy.
That is why I join my colleagues here today--because the
Congressional Black Caucus is focused on helping the American people
get jobs by hitting the streets during August. Across the country, from
Cleveland, Miami, Atlanta, Detroit and L.A., the Congressional Black
Caucus is doing both town halls and job fairs.
The Congressional Black Caucus knows that people need jobs and so the
CBC is bringing employers that have jobs together with people that need
jobs.
Also, the CBC is bringing in experts to run job training sessions
including how to write a resume, how to interview, and how to network
to improve your chances on getting a job.
We will be working hard in Washington to create jobs for the people,
but we must do more which is why we have put together these events.
The town hall will give Members of the CBC a chance to interact
directly with those people struggling to get a job, so that we can
bring their words, their frustrations, and their worries to Washington
to share with our colleagues and be the voice of our nation's most
vulnerable population here in the halls of Congress.
Our nation's average unemployment rate is 9.2 percent, but for
African Americans it is 16.2 percent and for Latinos it is 11.6
percent.
Worse than this drastic gap between the national average and the
unemployment rate between people of color, a recent Pew Research Center
study shows the drastic impact that the economic downturn has had on
minority communities, pushing the wealth gap to record high numbers.
Unfortunately, the daunting statistics speak for themselves--the
median wealth of white households is 20 times that of Black households
and 18 times that of Hispanic households.
When I was a Member of the Financial Services Committee, my
colleagues and I warned about the dangers that deregulating financial
services would pose on minority communities.
I am sad to say that our fears were well founded. Unscrupulous banks
and completely unregulated mortgage brokers targeted vulnerable
minority communities with predatory loans and often engaged in outright
fraud.
We must commit to strengthening the safeguards in place that protect
consumers from unfair and predatory practices that strip our
communities of what little wealth they have.
It is clear that this `recession' has been nothing short of a
depression for communities of color with disproportionate loss of
wealth, housing, increased unemployment and poverty rates that are on
the rise.
It is time we begin to allow our economy to grow and invest in the
needs of our nation's most vulnerable communities. We do this by
creating jobs for the people.
The House Republicans have been in charge for well over 200 days now
and have yet to bring a single jobs bill to the Floor for a vote.
I have urged Speaker Boehner for months to bring H.R. 589 The
Emergency Unemployment Compensation Expansion Act to the Floor for a
vote.
This bill is important because those people who have been unemployed
for over 99 weeks can no longer receive unemployment benefits--how are
they surviving?
H.R. 589 would give 14 more weeks of benefits to those who have
reached the end of their rope and are still struggling to find work.
This will stimulate our economy--they will immediately spend this
money to buy the necessities of life that you and I take for granted,
like food, water, shelter, and maybe some form of medical attention.
But these 99ers are not the only people facing hardship across the
country. Americans want to work and Americans need to work, and
Congress needs to create jobs, and since Congress is moving slow, the
Congressional Black Caucus is hitting the streets in cities across the
nation, bringing employers that have jobs together with people who need
jobs.
I am pleased to be a part of the Congressional Black Caucus For the
People Jobs Initiative, and I applaud the hard work of the CBC Members
and staff, including staff across the country, who are making these
events happen.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S. 365, the
Budget Control Act of 2011. It defers decisions we should make today
until tomorrow. It is abjectly inadequate. It eliminates dollars from
our economic infrastructure at a time when our economy is again
faltering. It provides continued funding for two wars leaving the
defense industrial complex untouched. It is unjust to the next
generation by not taking action now to ensure the long term continued
solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
When President Bill Clinton left office in January 2001, the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that we would
pay off our national debt by Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 and that by 2011,
the Federal Government would have a $2.3 trillion surplus. Today, we
have a projected FY 2011 deficit of nearly $1.5 trillion and a massive
$14.3 trillion national debt. Something happened and our nation has not
faced a national debt of this magnitude since 1950.
Unmistakably, the economic recession played a role in leading us to
our current predicament but I want to emphasize that this unprecedented
and vast expansion in our debt has largely been the result of a series
of decisions made by this body. A study conducted by the Pew Charitable
Trusts, an independent, non-profit organization, concluded that new
legislation enacted since January 2001 has been responsible for over
two-thirds of the growth in our debt. The majority of the contributing
legislation was enacted by President Bush, including his tax cuts of
2001 and 2003 and the war in Iraq, measures which I vehemently opposed.
As many are well aware, our debt has now grown so large that we must
raise the current $14.3 trillion debt limit by tomorrow, in order to
avoid defaulting on our loans. Failure to do so would be irresponsible,
calling into question the full faith and credit of the United States
government unduly harming every American. Should the limit not be
raised, the government would have to stop, limit, or delay payments on
a broad range of legal obligations, including Social Security and
Medicare benefits, military salaries, interest on the national debt,
and many other commitments. Further, financial firms estimate that
default could cause interest rates on Treasury bonds to rise .006-.01%
causing the cost of owning a home, filling a gas tank, sending children
to college and buying a car to become even more expensive, squeezing
already tight family budgets.
The need to address this crisis also brings with it an opportunity
to make serious, long-lasting policy changes, providing a comprehensive
solution that will put our country on the road to a strong, fiscally-
sustainable economic future. However, there is no simple or painless
solution to our current predicament. For example, if we eliminated the
entire federal government this fiscal year--no federal courts or
prisons, no border security, no care for veterans, no White House, no
Congress, nothing--and only kept the Department of Defense, entitlement
programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the
national debt, and did not touch taxes, our deficit for FY 2011 would
still be $817 billion.
We must make substantive and balanced decisions taking our cue from
recent history.

[[Page H5865]]

When our budget was balanced in 1969 and for four years from 1998 to
2001, tax revenues and federal spending represented around 20 percent
of our gross domestic product (GDP), the overall size of the economy.
Today, revenues are around 14.8 percent and spending is nearly 24.7 of
GDP. These two extremes cannot continue if we are to balance the budget
and provide for a sound economy for future generations.
That is why any serious proposal to reduce the deficit must be
comprehensive, and address all spending programs, including domestic
discretionary spending, defense spending, as well as entitlement
spending, such as Social Security and Medicare, and the other half of
the equation, taxes and the inequalities in the tax code.
We have already begun to take steps to reduce domestic discretionary
spending. For example, as Ranking Member of the Energy and Water
Subcommittee, I worked long and hard with my Chairman, Rodney
Frelinghuysen, to reduce spending in the FY 2012 Energy and Water
Appropriations Act by $2.826 billion below the FY 2010 funding level.
Our subcommittee looked at each program and made a myriad of decisions,
some to increase spending and some to reduce it, given the purpose and
value of each program. Previously, I supported the Department of
Defense and Full Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011, which
reduced spending by $38 billion below the previous year's budget.
Our fiscal crisis, however, cannot be solved by only addressing the
discretionary spending. We must also make thoughtful decisions about
our entitlement programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, not
only to rein in their growth but also to preserve their solvency for
future generations.
There are many options that would extend the long term solvency of
the Social Security program past 2036, its current estimated solvency
date. For example, raising the so-called ``tax cap'' on employees would
extend the solvency of the program past 2057. For 2011, Social Security
taxable earnings are limited to $106,800. I do not believe that the
Social Security tax rate should be raised. However, as a wage tax, I
believe the Social Security tax should be paid on all wages. This would
create a more equitable system without changing any benefits. If the
tax is good enough for every dollar earned by someone waiting tables at
a local diner or working in the mill then it is good enough for every
dollar earned by someone working on Wall Street.
Similar changes can be made to Medicare to ensure its long-term
solvency and its existence for future generations. For example, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services is prohibited by law from
negotiating drug prices on behalf of Medicare Part D beneficiaries. I
believe that this law should be repealed, as it would save the federal
government an estimated $156 billion over ten years and lower drug
costs for seniors.
Which brings me to the most contentious side of the equation, taxes.
Let me first remind my colleagues that currently, tax revenues are
around 14.8 percent of GDP, the lowest it has been since 1950. But what
makes our current tax code so abhorrent is not the fact that it is
unsustainable, but the fact that it is disparately unequal. For
example, from 2008 to 2010, 12 corporations, including Wells Fargo and
General Electric, made a combined $171 billion in profits, but paid no
federal corporate tax as a result of a convoluted tax code, while my
constituents were paying their income taxes. Further, last year the top
25 hedge fund managers alone had combined incomes of $22 billion yet
they paid a lower tax rate than a fire fighter from Crown Point,
Indiana. Where is the outrage that over a tax code that allows Wall
Street to pay a lower tax rate than a person risking his or her life
for our safety?
At a time when our country faces its biggest financial crisis in
decades, it is reprehensible that our tax code allows companies,
including some of the most profitable in the nation, are able to
exploit loopholes and credits in the tax code to eliminate their tax
liabilities. Currently, the U.S. tax code contains over 200 tax
loopholes or credits amounting to approximately $1.2 trillion in
forgone revenue each year. These loopholes have the same effect on the
federal budget as spending programs without being subject to the same
public debate and annual evaluation as part of the appropriations
process. If we are to address our growing national debt, this spending
through the tax code must be reined in. All Americans and American
companies should make a contribution to our shared society.
We owe it to the next generation to solve this crisis, and swiftly.
As our nation remains consumed by the ongoing deficit discussion, this
body continues to avoid taking action on its most basic duties. For
example, funding for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) expired
in 2007. Since then, this body has temporarily extended the
Administration's authorization 20 times. Earlier this year, both the
House and the Senate finally passed separate FAA reauthorization
legislation. Over 100 days have passed and we have yet to take action
to resolve differences between the two versions and last week, funding
for the FAA expired, causing 4,000 employees to be sent home without
pay, 219 construction projects to be halted and $200 million to be lost
in tax revenue. I fear that this measure, which even if enacted today
will mandate votes down the road and prolong our single-minded focus on
the debt ceiling. I urge my colleagues to work together to compromise
budget options so that we can continue the work we were sent here to
do.
The key to confronting our fiscal challenge must be balancing cuts
in spending and raising revenue while making the necessary investments
in our nation's infrastructure and future. The road to fiscal solvency
will be difficult, and tough decisions will need to be made. These
decisions are not made in this bill and I am opposed to it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 384, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third
time.

CALL OF THE HOUSE

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The previous question being ordered, the
Chair notes the absence of a quorum in accord with clause 7(c) of rule
XX and chooses to entertain the motion for a call of the House pursuant
to clause 7(b) of rule XX.
A call of the House was ordered.
The call was taken by electronic device, and the following Members
responded to their names:

[Roll No. 689]

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Andrews
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers

[[Page H5866]]

McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

{time} 1851

The SPEAKER pro tempore. On this rollcall, 419 Members have recorded
their presence.
A quorum is present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 269,
noes 161, not voting 3, as follows:

[Roll No. 690]

AYES--269

Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Cicilline
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Eshoo
Farenthold
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Giffords
Goodlatte
Gosar
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Huizenga (MI)
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Noem
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Polis
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Speier
Stivers
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Webster
West
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--161

Ackerman
Akin
Amash
Bachmann
Baldwin
Becerra
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buerkle
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Capuano
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Chaffetz
Chu
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Cohen
Conyers
Cravaack
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DesJarlais
Doyle
Duncan (SC)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Farr
Filner
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Fudge
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Green, Al
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Hahn
Hall
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Holt
Honda
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (IL)
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
King (IA)
Kingston
Kissell
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lujan
Mack
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olver
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (NC)
Quayle
Rangel
Rehberg
Reyes
Richardson
Roby
Rokita
Ross (FL)
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Serrano
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stark
Stearns
Stutzman
Sutton
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Yoder

NOT VOTING--3

Baca
Hinchey
Moore

{time} 1909

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Ms MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 690, had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on rollcall 690 due to
the fact that I had reconstructive ankle surgery this morning. I needed
to be put under general anesthesia for the procedure. Had I been able
to attend today's floor proceedings, I would have voted ``yes'' on S.
365, the Budget Control Act of 2011.

____________________