[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12536-12556]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2693) to cut spending, maintain existing commitments, and 
for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2693

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Budget 
     Control Act of 2011''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.

          TITLE I--DISCRETIONARY SPENDING CAPS AND ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 101. Discretionary spending limits.
Sec. 102. Senate budget enforcement.

                     TITLE II--OTHER SPENDING CUTS

    Subtitle A--Federal Pell Grant and Student Loan Program Changes

Sec. 211. Federal Pell Grant and student loan program changes.

                       Subtitle B--Farm Programs

Sec. 221. Definition of payment acres.

         TITLE III--JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON DEFICIT REDUCTION

Sec. 301. Establishment of Joint Select Committee.
Sec. 302. Expedited consideration of joint committee recommendations.
Sec. 303. Funding.
Sec. 304. Rulemaking.

               TITLE IV--DEBT CEILING DISAPPROVAL PROCESS

Sec. 401. Debt ceiling disapproval process.

          TITLE I--DISCRETIONARY SPENDING CAPS AND ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 101. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the House 
     of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, 
     resolution, amendment, motion or conference report that 
     includes any provision that would cause the discretionary 
     spending limits as set forth in this section to be exceeded.
       (b) Limits.--
       (1) In general.--In this section, the term ``discretionary 
     spending limits'' has the following meaning subject to 
     adjustments in paragraph (2) and subsection (c):
       (A) For fiscal year 2012--
       (i) for the security category $606,000,000,000 in budget 
     authority; and
       (ii) for the nonsecurity category $439,000,000,000 in 
     budget authority.
       (B) For fiscal year 2013--
       (i) for the security category $607,000,000,000 in budget 
     authority; and
       (ii) for the nonsecurity category $440,000,000,000 in 
     budget authority.
       (C) For fiscal year 2014, for the discretionary category, 
     $1,068,000,000,000 in budget authority.
       (D) For fiscal year 2015, for the discretionary category, 
     $1,089,000,000,000 in budget authority.
       (E) For fiscal year 2016, for the discretionary category, 
     $1,111,000,000,000 in budget authority.
       (F) For fiscal year 2017, for the discretionary category, 
     $1,134,000,000,000 in budget authority.
       (G) For fiscal year 2018, for the discretionary category, 
     $1,156,000,000,000 in budget authority.
       (H) For fiscal year 2019, for the discretionary category, 
     $1,180,000,000,000 in budget authority.
       (I) For fiscal year 2020, for the discretionary category, 
     $1,203,000,000,000 in budget authority.
       (J) For fiscal year 2021, for the discretionary category, 
     $1,227,000,000,000 in budget authority.
       (2) Authorized adjustment to limits.--
       (A) Adjustments for budget submission.--When the President 
     submits a budget under section 1105 of title 31, United 
     States Code, OMB shall calculate and the budget shall include 
     adjustments to discretionary spending limits (and those 
     limits as cumulatively adjusted) for the budget year and each

[[Page 12537]]

     out year equal to the baseline levels of new budget authority 
     using up-to-date concepts and definitions minus those levels 
     using the concepts and definitions in effect before such 
     changes. Such changes may only be made after consultation 
     with the committees on Appropriations and the Budget of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate and that consultation 
     shall include written communication to such committees that 
     affords such committees the opportunity to comment before 
     official action is taken with respect to such changes.
       (B) Adjustments for congressional enforcement.--For the 
     purposes of Congressional enforcement of the limits in this 
     section, the Chairmen of the Committees on the Budget of the 
     Senate and House of Representatives may adjust the 
     discretionary spending limits in amounts equal to the 
     adjustments made pursuant to subparagraph (A) as contained in 
     the President's budget. Any adjustment made pursuant to this 
     subparagraph shall not constitute a repeal or change to the 
     limits contained in this section.
       (c) Estimates and Other Adjustments.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Limits and suballocations for congressional 
     enforcement.--After the reporting of a bill or joint 
     resolution relating to any matter described in paragraph (2), 
     (3), or (4), or the offering of an amendment thereto or the 
     submission of a conference report thereon--
       (i) for the purposes of enforcement of the discretionary 
     spending limits in the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     of that House may adjust the discretionary spending limits in 
     this section, the budgetary aggregates in the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget most recently adopted by the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives, and allocations pursuant to 
     section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, by 
     the amount of new budget authority in that measure for that 
     purpose; and
       (ii) following any adjustment under clause (i), the 
     Committee on Appropriations of that House may report 
     appropriately revised suballocations pursuant to section 
     302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to carry out 
     this subsection.
       (B) Other adjustments.--For the purposes of determining an 
     end of the year sequester pursuant to subsection (f), when 
     OMB submits a sequestration report under subsection (f)(7) 
     for a fiscal year, OMB shall calculate, and the sequestration 
     report and subsequent budgets submitted by the President 
     under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, shall 
     include, adjustments to discretionary spending limits (and 
     those limits as adjusted) for the fiscal year and each 
     succeeding year through 2021 upon the enactment of a bill or 
     resolution relating to any matter described in paragraphs 
     (2), (3), or (4).
       (C) Estimates.--
       (i) CBO estimates.--As soon as practicable after Congress 
     completes action on any discretionary appropriation, CBO, 
     after consultation with the Committees on the Budget of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate, shall provide OMB 
     with an estimate of the amount of discretionary new budget 
     authority for the current year (if any) and the budget year 
     provided by that legislation.
       (ii) OMB estimates and explanation of differences.--

       (I) In general.--Not later than 7 calendar days (excluding 
     Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) after the date of 
     enactment of any discretionary appropriation, OMB shall make 
     publicly available on the day it is issued and, on the 
     following day, shall be printed in the Federal Register a 
     report containing the CBO estimate of that legislation, an 
     OMB estimate of the amount of discretionary new budget 
     authority for the current year (if any) and the budget year 
     provided by that legislation, and an explanation of any 
     difference between the 2 estimates.
       (II) Differences.--If during the preparation of the report 
     OMB determines that there is a significant difference between 
     OMB and CBO, OMB shall consult with the Committees on the 
     Budget of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     regarding that difference and that consultation shall 
     include, to the extent practicable, written communication to 
     those committees that affords such committees the opportunity 
     to comment before the issuance of the report.

       (D) Assumptions and guidelines.--OMB estimates under 
     subparagraph (C) shall be made using current economic and 
     technical assumptions. In its final sequestration report, OMB 
     shall use the OMB estimates transmitted to the Congress under 
     this paragraph. OMB and CBO shall prepare estimates under 
     this paragraph in conformance with scorekeeping guidelines 
     determined after consultation among the House and Senate 
     Committees on the Budget, CBO, and OMB.
       (E) Annual appropriations.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     amounts provided by annual appropriations shall include any 
     new budget authority for the current year (if any) and the 
     advance appropriations that become available in the budget 
     year from previously enacted legislation.
       (2) Other adjustments.--Other adjustments referred to in 
     paragraph (1)(B) are as follows:
       (A) Continuing disability reviews and ssi 
     redeterminations.--
       (i) In general.--If a bill or joint resolution is reported 
     making appropriations in a fiscal year of the first amount 
     specified in subclauses (I) through (X) of clause (ii) for 
     that fiscal year for continuing disability reviews and 
     Supplemental Security Income redeterminations under the 
     heading ``Limitation on Administrative Expenses'' for the 
     Social Security Administration, and provides an additional 
     appropriation for continuing disability reviews and 
     Supplemental Security Income redeterminations for the Social 
     Security Administration, or one or more initiatives that the 
     Office of the Chief Actuary determines would be at least as 
     cost effective as a redetermination of eligibility under the 
     heading ``Limitation on Administrative Expenses'' for the 
     Social Security Administration of up to an amount further 
     specified in that subclause, then the discretionary spending 
     limits, allocation to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     each House, and aggregates for that fiscal year may be 
     adjusted by the amount in budget authority not to exceed the 
     additional appropriation provided in such legislation for 
     that purpose for that fiscal year.
       (ii) Amounts specified.--The amounts specified are--

       (I) for fiscal year 2012, an appropriation of $758,000,000, 
     and an additional appropriation of $237,000,000;
       (II) for fiscal year 2013, an appropriation of 
     $758,000,000, and an additional appropriation of 
     $390,000,000;
       (III) for fiscal year 2014, an appropriation of 
     $778,000,000, and an additional appropriation of 
     $559,000,000;
       (IV) for fiscal year 2015, an appropriation of 
     $799,000,000, and an additional appropriation of 
     $774,000,000;
       (V) for fiscal year 2016, an appropriation of $822,000,000, 
     and an additional appropriation of $778,000,000;
       (VI) for fiscal year 2017, an appropriation of 
     $849,000,000, and an additional appropriation of 
     $804,000,000;
       (VII) for fiscal year 2018, an appropriation of 
     $877,000,000, and an additional appropriation of 
     $831,000,000;
       (VIII) for fiscal year 2019, an appropriation of 
     $906,000,000, and an additional appropriation of 
     $860,000,000;
       (IX) for fiscal year 2020, an appropriation of 
     $935,000,000, and an additional appropriation of 
     $890,000,000; and
       (X) for fiscal year 2021, an appropriation of $963,000,000, 
     and an additional appropriation of $924,000,000.

       (iii) Definitions.--As used in this subparagraph, the terms 
     ``continuing disability reviews'' and ``Supplemental Security 
     Income redeterminations'' mean continuing disability reviews 
     under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act and 
     redeterminations of eligibility under title XVI of the Social 
     Security Act.
       (iv) Report.--The Commissioner of Social Security shall 
     provide annually to the Congress a report on continuing 
     disability reviews and Supplemental Security Income 
     redeterminations which includes--

       (I) the amount spent on continuing disability reviews and 
     Supplemental Security Income redeterminations in the fiscal 
     year covered by the report, and the number of reviews and 
     redeterminations conducted, by category of review or 
     redetermination;
       (II) the results of the continuing disability reviews and 
     Supplemental Security Income redeterminations in terms of 
     cessations of benefits or determinations of continuing 
     eligibility, by program; and
       (III) the estimated savings over they 
     short-, medium-, and long-term to the Old-age, Survivors, and 
     Disability Insurance, Supplemental Security Income, Medicare, 
     and Medicaid programs from continuing disability reviews and 
     Supplemental Security Income redeterminations which result in 
     cessations of benefits and the estimated present value of 
     such savings.

       (B) Internal revenue service tax enforcement.--
       (i) In general.--If a bill or joint resolution is reported 
     making appropriations in a fiscal year to the Internal 
     Revenue Service of not less than the first amount specified 
     in subclauses (I) through (X) of clause (ii) for tax 
     activities for that fiscal year, including tax compliance to 
     address the Federal tax gap (taxes owed but not paid), and 
     provides an additional appropriation for tax activities, 
     including tax compliance activities to address the Federal 
     tax gap, of up to an amount further specified in that 
     subclause, then the discretionary spending limits, allocation 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of each House, and 
     aggregates for that fiscal year may be adjusted by the amount 
     in budget authority not to exceed the amount of additional 
     appropriations for tax activities, including tax compliance 
     to address the Federal tax gap provided in such legislation 
     for that fiscal year.
       (ii) Amounts specified.--The amounts specified are--

       (I) for fiscal year 2012, an appropriation of 
     $7,979,000,000, and an additional appropriation of 
     $2,519,000,000 for tax activities, including tax compliance 
     to address the Federal tax gap;

[[Page 12538]]

       (II) for fiscal year 2013, an appropriation of 
     $7,979,000,000, and an additional appropriation of 
     $3,132,000,000 for tax activities, including tax compliance 
     to address the Federal tax gap;
       (III) for fiscal year 2014, an appropriation of 
     $8,204,000,000, and an additional appropriation of 
     $3,542,000,000 for tax activities, including tax compliance 
     to address the Federal tax gap;
       (IV) for fiscal year 2015, an appropriation of 
     $8,444,000,000, and an additional appropriation of 
     $3,975,000,000 for tax activities, including tax compliance 
     to address the Federal tax gap;
       (V) for fiscal year 2016, an appropriation of 
     $8,710,000,000, and an additional appropriation of 
     $4,486,000,000 for tax activities, including tax compliance 
     to address the Federal tax gap;
       (VI) for fiscal year 2017, an appropriation of 
     $9,012,000,000, and an additional appropriation of 
     $4,538,000,000 for tax activities, including tax compliance 
     to address the Federal tax gap;
       (VII) for fiscal year 2018, an appropriation of 
     $9,330,000,000, and an additional appropriation of 
     $4,585,000,000 for tax activities, including tax compliance 
     to address the Federal tax gap;
       (VIII) for fiscal year 2019, an appropriation of 
     $9,667,000,000, and an additional appropriation of 
     $4,626,000,000 for tax activities, including tax compliance 
     to address the Federal tax gap;
       (IX) for fiscal year 2020, an appropriation of 
     $9,989,000,000, and an additional appropriation of 
     $4,688,000,000 for tax activities, including tax compliance 
     to address the Federal tax gap; and
       (X) for fiscal year 2021, an appropriation of 
     $10,315,000,000, and an additional appropriation of 
     $4,754,000,000 for tax activities, including tax compliance 
     to address the Federal tax gap.

       (iii) Definition.--As used in this subparagraph, the term 
     ``additional appropriation for tax activities, including tax 
     compliance to address the Federal tax gap'' means new and 
     continuing investments in expanding and improving the 
     effectiveness and efficiency of the overall tax enforcement 
     and compliance program of the Internal Revenue Service and 
     fully funding operational support activities at the Internal 
     Revenue Service. New and continuing investments include 
     additional resources for implementing new authorities and for 
     conducting additional examinations, audits, and enhanced 
     third party data matching.
       (iv) Appropriation.--The first amount specified in 
     subclauses (I) through (X) of clause (ii) is the amount under 
     one or more headings in an appropriations Act for the 
     Internal Revenue Service that is specified to pay for the 
     costs of tax activities, including tax compliance to address 
     the Federal tax gap.
       (v) Additional amount.--The amounts further specified in 
     subclauses (I) through (X) of clause (ii) are the amounts 
     under one or more headings in an appropriations Act for the 
     Internal Revenue Service for the amount of the additional 
     appropriation for tax activities, including tax compliance to 
     address the Federal tax gap, but such adjustment shall be 0 
     (zero) unless the appropriations Act under the heading 
     ``Operations Support'' for the Internal Revenue Service 
     provides that such sums as are necessary shall be available, 
     under the ``Operations Support'' heading, to fully support 
     tax enforcement and compliance activities.
       (C) Health care fraud and abuse control.--
       (i) In general.--If a bill or joint resolution is reported 
     making appropriations in a fiscal year of the first amount 
     specified in subclauses (I) through (X) of clause (ii) for 
     program integrity or fraud and abuse activities under the 
     heading ``Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Account'' 
     program for the Department of Health and Human Services for 
     that fiscal year, and provides an additional appropriation 
     for program integrity or fraud and abuse activities under the 
     heading ``Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Account'' 
     program for the Department of Health and Human Services of up 
     to an amount further specified that subclause, then the 
     discretionary spending limits, allocation to the Committees 
     on Appropriations of each House, and aggregates for that year 
     may be adjusted in an amount not to exceed the amount in 
     budget authority provided in such legislation for that 
     purpose for that fiscal year.
       (ii) Amounts specified.--The amounts specified are--

       (I) for fiscal year 2012, an appropriation of $311,000,000, 
     and an additional appropriation of $270,000,000;
       (II) for fiscal year 2013, an appropriation of 
     $311,000,000, and an additional appropriation of 
     $299,000,000;
       (III) for fiscal year 2014, an appropriation of 
     $326,000,000, and an additional appropriation of 
     $314,000,000;
       (IV) for fiscal year 2015, an appropriation of 
     $340,000,000, and an additional appropriation of 
     $332,000,000;
       (V) for fiscal year 2016, an appropriation of $356,000,000, 
     and an additional appropriation of $350,000,000;
       (VI) for fiscal year 2017, an appropriation of 
     $373,000,000, and an additional appropriation of 
     $352,000,000;
       (VII) for fiscal year 2018, an appropriation of 
     $391,000,000, and an additional appropriation of 
     $354,000,000;
       (VIII) for fiscal year 2019, an appropriation of 
     $411,000,000, and an additional appropriation of 
     $354,000,000;
       (IX) for fiscal year 2020, an appropriation of 
     $430,000,000, and an additional appropriation of 
     $356,000,000; and
       (X) for fiscal year 2021, an appropriation of $451,000,000, 
     and an additional appropriation of $356,000,000.

       (iii) Definition.--As used in this subparagraph, the term 
     ``program integrity or fraud and abuse activities'' means 
     those activities authorized by section 1817(k)(3) of the 
     Social Security Act and other related program integrity 
     activities, including administrative costs, in the Medicare 
     Advantage and the Medicare Prescription Drug Programs 
     authorized in title XVIII of the Social Security Act, in 
     section 1893 of the Social Security Act, in Medicaid 
     authorized in title XIX of the Social Security Act, and in 
     the Children's Health Insurance Program (``CHIP'') authorized 
     in title XXI of the Social Security Act.
       (iv) Report.--The report required by section 1817(k)(5) of 
     the Social Security Act for each fiscal year shall include 
     measures of the operational efficiency and impact on fraud, 
     waste, and abuse in the Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs 
     for the funds provided by an adjustment under this 
     subparagraph.
       (D) Unemployment insurance improper payment reviews.--
       (i) In general.--If a bill or joint resolution is reported 
     making appropriations in a fiscal year of the first amount 
     specified in subclauses (I) through (X) of clause (ii) for 
     in-person reemployment and eligibility assessments and 
     unemployment insurance improper payment reviews under the 
     heading ``State Unemployment Insurance and Employment Service 
     Operations'' for the Department of Labor for that fiscal 
     year, and provides an additional appropriation for in-person 
     reemployment and eligibility assessments and unemployment 
     insurance improper payment reviews under the heading ``State 
     Unemployment Insurance and Employment Service Operations'' 
     for the Department of Labor of up to an amount further 
     specified in that subclause, then the discretionary spending 
     limits, allocation to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     each House, and aggregates for that year may be adjusted by 
     an amount in budget authority not to exceed the additional 
     appropriation provided in such legislation for that purpose 
     for that fiscal year.
       (ii) Amounts specified.--The amounts specified are--

       (I) for fiscal year 2012, an appropriation of $60,000,000, 
     and an additional appropriation of $10,000,000;
       (II) for fiscal year 2013, an appropriation of $60,000,000, 
     and an additional appropriation of $15,000,000;
       (III) for fiscal year 2014, an appropriation of 
     $61,000,000, and an additional appropriation of $19,000,000;
       (IV) for fiscal year 2015, an appropriation of $61,000,000, 
     and an additional appropriation of $24,000,000;
       (V) for fiscal year 2016, an appropriation of $62,000,000, 
     and an additional appropriation of $28,000,000;
       (VI) for fiscal year 2017, an appropriation of $63,000,000, 
     and an additional appropriation of $28,000,000;
       (VII) for fiscal year 2018, an appropriation of 
     $64,000,000, and an additional appropriation of $29,000,000;
       (VIII) for fiscal year 2019, an appropriation of 
     $64,000,000, and an additional appropriation of $30,000,000;
       (IX) for fiscal year 2020, an appropriation of $65,000,000, 
     and an additional appropriation of $31,000,000; and
       (X) for fiscal year 2021, an appropriation of $66,000,000, 
     and an additional appropriation of $31,000,000.

       (iii) Definitions.--As used in this subparagraph, the terms 
     ``in-person reemployment and eligibility assessments'' and 
     ``unemployment improper payment reviews'' mean reviews or 
     assessments conducted in local workforce offices to determine 
     the continued eligibility of an unemployment insurance 
     claimant under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, title III of 
     the Social Security Act, and applicable State laws, to ensure 
     they are meeting their obligation to search for work as a 
     condition of eligibility, and to speed their return to work.
       (iv) Additional appropriation.--The amounts further 
     specified in subclauses (I) through (X) of clause (ii) are 
     the amounts under the heading ``State Unemployment Insurance 
     and Employment Service Operations'' for the Department of 
     Labor for the amount of the additional appropriation for in-
     person reemployment and eligibility assessments and 
     unemployment insurance improper payment reviews, but such 
     adjustment shall be 0 (zero) unless the appropriations Act 
     providing such additional appropriation also provides the 
     full amount requested under the heading ``State Unemployment 
     Insurance and Employment Service Operations'' for the 
     Department of Labor for grants to States for the 
     administration of State unemployment insurance laws in the 
     budget submitted for that fiscal year under section 1105 of 
     title 31, United States Code.

[[Page 12539]]

       (3) Overseas deployments and related activities.--
       (A) Cap adjustment.--The discretionary spending limits, 
     allocation to the Committees on Appropriations of each House, 
     and aggregates for that year may be adjusted by an amount in 
     budget authority not to exceed the amount provided in such 
     legislation for that purpose for that fiscal year, but not to 
     exceed in aggregate the amounts specified in subparagraph (B) 
     for any--
       (i) bills reported by the Committees on Appropriations of 
     either House or in the Senate, passed by the House of 
     Representatives;
       (ii) joint resolutions or amendments reported by the 
     Committees on Appropriations of either House;
       (iii) amendments between the Houses, Senate amendments to 
     such amendments offered by the authority of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate, or House amendments to such 
     amendments offered by the authority of the Committee on 
     Appropriations in the House of Representatives; or
       (iv) conference reports;
     making appropriations for overseas deployments and related 
     activities.
       (B) Levels.--
       (i) Levels.--The initial levels for overseas deployments 
     and related activities specified in this subparagraph are as 
     follows:

       (I) For fiscal year 2012, $126,544,000,000 in budget 
     authority.
       (II) For the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2021, 
     $450,000,000,000 in budget authority.

       (ii) Levels for congressional enforcement.--For each fiscal 
     year after fiscal year 2012, Congress shall adopt in the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for that fiscal year an 
     adjustment for overseas deployments and related activities, 
     provided that Congress may not adopt an adjustment for any 
     fiscal year that would cause the total adjustments for fiscal 
     years 2013 through 2021 to exceed the amount authorized in 
     clause (i)(II).
       (iii) Accounting for overseas deployment and related 
     activities.--In any report issued under subsection (f)(7), 
     OMB shall state the total amount of spending on overseas 
     deployments and related activities for fiscal years 2013 
     through 2021 and the estimated amount of budget authority 
     adjustment remaining for that period.
       (C) Adjustment for offset overseas deployment costs.--The 
     levels set in subparagraph (B) may be further adjusted by the 
     amount of budget authority provided in legislation for 
     additional costs associated with overseas deployments and 
     related activities if the amount of budget authority above 
     those levels is offset.
       (4) Adjustments for disaster funding.--
       (A) In general.--If, for fiscal years 2011 through 2021, 
     appropriations for discretionary accounts are enacted that 
     Congress designates as being for disaster relief in statute, 
     the adjustment shall be the total of such appropriations in 
     discretionary accounts designated as being for disaster 
     relief, but not to exceed the total of--
       (i) the average funding provided for disasters over the 
     previous 10 years, excluding the highest and lowest years; 
     and
       (ii) for years when the enacted new discretionary budget 
     authority designated as being for disaster relief for the 
     preceding fiscal year was less than the average as calculated 
     in clause (i) for that fiscal year, the difference between 
     the enacted amount and the allowable adjustment as calculated 
     in clause (i) for that fiscal year.
       (B) OMB report.--OMB shall report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations in each House the adjustment for disaster 
     funding for fiscal year 2011, and a preview report of the 
     estimated level for fiscal year 2012, not later than 30 days 
     after enactment of this Act.
       (d) Limitations on Changes to This Section.--Unless 
     otherwise specifically provided in this section, it shall not 
     be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to 
     consider any bill, resolution (including a concurrent 
     resolution on the budget), amendment, motion, or conference 
     report that would repeal or otherwise change this section.
       (e) Waiver and Appeal.--
       (1) Waiver.--In the Senate, subsections (a) through (d) 
     shall be waived or suspended only--
       (A) by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, 
     duly chosen and sworn; or
       (B) if the provisions of section (f)(8) are in effect.
       (2) Appeal.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of 
     the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be 
     limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the measure. 
     An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the 
     Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain 
     an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order 
     raised under this section.
       (f) End-of-year Sequester for Exceeding Discretionary 
     Caps.--
       (1) Sequestration.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 14 calendar days after the 
     end of a session of Congress (excluding weekends and 
     holidays) and on the same day as a sequestration (if any) 
     under section 5 of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 
     there shall be a sequestration to eliminate a budget-year 
     breach, if any, within the discretionary categories as set by 
     subsection (b).
       (B) Overseas deployments.--Any amount of budget authority 
     for overseas deployments and related activities for fiscal 
     year 2012 in excess of the levels set in subsection 
     (c)(3)(B)(i), or for fiscal years 2013 through 2021 that 
     would cause the total adjustment for fiscal years 2013 
     through 2021 to exceed the amount authorized in section 
     (c)(3)(B)(II), that is not otherwise offset pursuant 
     subsection (c)(3)(C)(i), shall be counted in determining 
     whether a breach has occurred--
       (i) for fiscal years 2012 and 2013, in the security and 
     non-security categories by amounts in the same proportion as 
     the total amount designated in that fiscal year for overseas 
     deployments and related activities in security and non-
     security accounts, respectively; and
       (ii) for fiscal years 2014 through 2021, in the 
     discretionary category.
       (C) Emergency spending.--
       (i) Effect of designation in statute.--If, for any fiscal 
     year, appropriations for discretionary accounts are enacted 
     that Congress designates as emergency requirements in statute 
     pursuant to this subparagraph, the total of such budget 
     authority in discretionary accounts designated as emergency 
     requirements in all fiscal years from such appropriations 
     shall not be counted in determining whether a breach has 
     occurred, and shall not count for the purposes of 
     Congressional enforcement.
       (ii) Designation in the house of representatives.--If an 
     appropriations Act includes a provision expressly designated 
     as an emergency for the purposes of this section, the Chair 
     shall put the question of consideration with respect thereto.
       (iii) Point of order in the senate.--

       (I) In general.--When the Senate is considering an 
     appropriations Act, if a point of order is made by a Senator 
     against an emergency designation in that measure, the 
     provision making such a designation shall be stricken from 
     the measure and may not be offered as an amendment from the 
     floor.
       (II) Supermajority waiver and appeals.--

       (aa) Waiver.--Subclause (I) may be waived or suspended in 
     the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (bb) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of 
     the Chair relating to any provision of this subparagraph 
     shall be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, 
     and controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill 
     or joint resolution, as the case may be. An affirmative vote 
     of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and 
     sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling 
     of the Chair on a point of order raised under this 
     subparagraph.

       (III) Definition of an emergency designation.--For purposes 
     of subclause (I), a provision shall be considered an 
     emergency designation if it designates any item as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to this subparagraph.
       (IV) Form of the point of order.--A point of order under 
     subclause (I) may be raised by a Senator as provided in 
     section 313(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (V) Conference reports.--When the Senate is considering a 
     conference report on, or an amendment between the Houses in 
     relation to, an appropriations Act, upon a point of order 
     being made by any Senator pursuant to this subparagraph, and 
     such point of order being sustained, such material contained 
     in such conference report shall be deemed stricken, and the 
     Senate shall proceed to consider the question of whether the 
     Senate shall recede from its amendment and concur with a 
     further amendment, or concur in the House amendment with a 
     further amendment, as the case may be, which further 
     amendment shall consist of only that portion of the 
     conference report or House amendment, as the case may be, not 
     so stricken. Any such motion in the Senate shall be debatable 
     under the same conditions as was the conference report. In 
     any case in which such point of order is sustained against a 
     conference report (or Senate amendment derived from such 
     conference report by operation of this subsection), no 
     further amendment shall be in order.

       (2) Eliminating a breach.--Each non-exempt account within a 
     category shall be reduced by a dollar amount calculated by 
     multiplying the baseline level of sequesterable budgetary 
     resources in that account at that time by the uniform 
     percentage necessary to eliminate a breach within that 
     category.
       (3) Military personnel.--
       (A) In general.--The President may, with respect to any 
     military personnel account, exempt that account from 
     sequestration or provide for a lower uniform percentage 
     reduction than would otherwise apply, provided that the 
     President has notified Congress of the manner in which such 
     authority will be exercised pursuant to paragraph (7)(A)(ii).
       (B) Reductions.--If the President uses the authority to 
     exempt any military personnel from sequestration under 
     paragraph (7)(A)(ii), each account within subfunctional 
     category 051 (other than those military personnel accounts 
     for which the authority provided under subparagraph (A) has 
     been exercised) shall be further reduced by a dollar

[[Page 12540]]

     amount calculated by multiplying the enacted level of non-
     exempt budgetary resources in that account at that time by 
     the uniform percentage necessary to offset the total dollar 
     amount by which budget authority is not reduced in military 
     personnel accounts by reason of the use of such authority.
       (4) Part-year appropriations.--If, on the date specified in 
     paragraph (1), there is in effect an Act making or continuing 
     appropriations for part of a fiscal year for any budget 
     account, then the dollar sequestration calculated for that 
     account under paragraphs (2) and (3) shall be subtracted 
     from--
       (A) the annualized amount otherwise available by law in 
     that account under that or a subsequent part-year 
     appropriation; and
       (B) when a full-year appropriation for that account is 
     enacted, from the amount otherwise provided by the full-year 
     appropriation.
       (5) Look-back.--If, after June 30, an appropriation for the 
     fiscal year in progress is enacted that causes a breach 
     within a category for that year (after taking into account 
     any sequestration of amounts within that category), the 
     discretionary spending limits for that category for the next 
     fiscal year shall be reduced by the amount or amounts of that 
     breach.
       (6) Within-session sequestration.--If an appropriation for 
     a fiscal year in progress is enacted (after Congress adjourns 
     to end the session for that budget year and before July 1 of 
     that fiscal year) that causes a breach within a category for 
     that year (after taking into account any prior sequestration 
     of amounts within that category), 15 days after such 
     enactment there shall be a sequestration to eliminate that 
     breach within that category following the procedures set 
     forth in paragraphs (2) through (4).
       (7) Reports.--
       (A) Sequestration preview report.--
       (i) In general.--Not later than 5 days before the date of 
     the President's budget submission for CBO, and the date of 
     the President's budget submissions for OMB, OMB and CBO shall 
     issue a preview report regarding discretionary spending based 
     on laws enacted through those dates. The preview report shall 
     set forth estimates for the current year and each subsequent 
     year through 2021 of the applicable discretionary spending 
     limits for each category and an explanation of any 
     adjustments in such limits under this section.
       (ii) Notification regarding military personnel.--On or 
     before the date of the sequestration preview report, the 
     President shall notify Congress of the manner in which the 
     President intends to exercise flexibility with respect to 
     military personnel accounts under paragraph (3).
       (B) Sequestration update report.--Not later than August 15 
     for CBO, and August 20 for OMB, OMB and CBO shall issue a 
     sequestration update report, reflecting laws enacted through 
     those dates, containing all of the information required in 
     the sequestration preview reports. This report shall also 
     contain a preview estimate of the adjustment for disaster 
     funding for the upcoming fiscal year.
       (C) Final sequestration report.--Not later than 10 days 
     after the end of session for CBO, and 14 days after the end 
     of session for OMB (excluding weekends and holidays), OMB and 
     CBO shall issue a final sequestration report, updated to 
     reflect laws enacted through those dates, with estimates for 
     each of the following:
       (i) For the current year and each subsequent year through 
     2021 the applicable discretionary spending limits for each 
     category and an explanation of any adjustments in such limits 
     under this section, including a final estimate of the 
     disaster funding adjustment.
       (ii) For the current year and the budget year the estimated 
     new budget authority for each category and the breach, if 
     any, in each category.
       (iii) For each category for which a sequestration is 
     required, the sequestration percentages necessary to achieve 
     the required reduction.
       (iv) For the budget year, for each account to be 
     sequestered, estimates of the baseline level of sequesterable 
     budgetary resources and the amount of budgetary resources to 
     be sequestered.
       (D) Explanation of differences.--The OMB reports shall 
     explain the differences between OMB and CBO estimates for 
     each report required by this paragraph.
       (8) Suspension in the event of low growth.--Section 254(i) 
     and subsections (a), (b)(1), and (c) of section 258 of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     with respect to suspension of this section for low growth 
     only shall apply to this section, provided that those 
     sections are deemed not to apply to titles III and IV of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 1103 of title 
     31, United States Code.
       (g) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Nonsecurity category.--The term ``nonsecurity 
     category'' means all discretionary appropriations, as that 
     term is defined in section 250(c)(7) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, not included in 
     the security category defined in this Act, but does not 
     include any appropriation designated for overseas deployments 
     and related activities pursuant to section (c)(3) or 
     appropriation designated as an emergency pursuant to this 
     Act.
       (2) Security category.--The term ``security category'' 
     includes discretionary appropriations, as that term is 
     defined in section 250(c)(7) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, in budget functions 
     050 and 700, but does not include any appropriation 
     designated for overseas deployments and related activities 
     pursuant to section (c)(3) or appropriation designated as an 
     emergency pursuant to this Act.
       (3) Discretionary category.--The term ``discretionary 
     category'' includes all discretionary appropriations, as that 
     term is defined in section 250(c)(7) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, but does not 
     include any appropriation designated for overseas deployments 
     and related activities pursuant to section (c)(3) or 
     appropriation designated as an emergency pursuant to this 
     Act.
       (4) Advance appropriation.--The term ``advance 
     appropriation'' means appropriations of new budget authority 
     that become available one or more fiscal years beyond the 
     fiscal year for which the appropriation act was passed.
       (5) Discretionary spending limits.--The term 
     ``discretionary spending limits'' means the amounts specified 
     in this section.
       (6) Definitions.--To the extent they are not defined in 
     this section, the terms used in this section shall have the 
     same meaning as the terms defined in section 250(c) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (h) Sequestration Rules.--
       (1) In general.--Subsections (g) and (k) of section 256 of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     shall apply to sequestration under this Act.
       (2) Intergovernmental funds.--For purposes of sequestration 
     under this section, budgetary resources shall not include 
     activities financed by voluntary payments to the Government 
     for goods and services to be provided for such payments, 
     intragovernmental funds paid in from other Government 
     accounts, and unobligated balances of prior year 
     appropriations.

     SEC. 102. SENATE BUDGET ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) For the purpose of enforcing the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 through April 15, 2012, including section 300 of 
     that Act, and enforcing budgetary points of order in prior 
     concurrent resolutions on the budget, the allocations, 
     aggregates, and levels set in subsection (b)(1) shall apply 
     in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012 with 
     appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 and 2013 
     through 2021.
       (2) For the purpose of enforcing the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 after April 15, 2012, including section 300 of 
     that Act, and enforcing budgetary points of order in prior 
     concurrent resolutions on the budget, the allocations, 
     aggregates, and levels set in subsection (b)(2) shall apply 
     in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013 with 
     appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2012 and 2014 
     through 2022.
       (b) Committee Allocations, Aggregates and Levels.--
       (1) As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of 
     this section, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     shall file--
       (A) for the Committee on Appropriations, committee 
     allocations for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 consistent with 
     the discretionary spending limits set forth in this Act for 
     the purpose of enforcing section 302 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974;
       (B) for all committees other than the Committee on 
     Appropriations, committee allocations for fiscal years 2011, 
     2012, 2012 through 2016, and 2012 through 2021 consistent 
     with the Congressional Budget Office's March 2011 baseline 
     adjusted to account for the budgetary effects of this Act and 
     legislation enacted prior to this Act but not included in the 
     Congressional Budget Office's March 2011 baseline, for the 
     purpose of enforcing section 302 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974;
       (C) aggregate spending levels for fiscal years 2011 and 
     2012 and aggregate revenue levels fiscal years 2011, 2012, 
     2012 through 2016, 2012 through 2021 consistent with the 
     Congressional Budget Office's March 2011 baseline adjusted to 
     account for the budgetary effects of this Act and legislation 
     enacted prior to this Act but not included in the 
     Congressional Budget Office's March 2011 baseline, and the 
     discretionary spending limits set forth in this Act for the 
     purpose of enforcing section 311 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974; and
       (D) levels of Social Security revenues and outlays for 
     fiscal years 2011, 2012, 2012 through 2016, and 2012 through 
     2021 consistent with the Congressional Budget Office's March 
     2011 baseline adjusted to account for the budgetary effects 
     of this Act and legislation enacted prior to this Act but not 
     included in the Congressional Budget Office's March 2011 
     baseline, for the purpose of enforcing sections 302 and 311 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (2) Not later than April 15, 2012, the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget shall file--
       (A) for the Committee on Appropriations, committee 
     allocations for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 consistent with 
     the discretionary spending limits set forth in this Act for 
     the

[[Page 12541]]

     purpose of enforcing section 302 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974;
       (B) for all committees other than the Committee on 
     Appropriations, committee allocations for fiscal years 2012, 
     2013, 2013 through 2017, and 2013 through 2022 consistent 
     with the Congressional Budget Office's March 2012 baseline 
     for the purpose of enforcing section 302 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974;
       (C) aggregate spending levels for fiscal years 2012 and 
     2013 and aggregate revenue levels fiscal years 2012, 2013, 
     2013-2017, and 2013-2022 consistent with the Congressional 
     Budget Office's March 2012 baseline and the discretionary 
     spending limits set forth in this Act for the purpose of 
     enforcing section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974; and
       (D) levels of Social Security revenues and outlays for 
     fiscal years 2012 and 2013, 2013-2017, and 2013-2022 
     consistent with the Congressional Budget Office's March 2012 
     baseline budget for the purpose of enforcing sections 302 and 
     311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (c) Senate Pay-as-you-go Scorecard.--
       (1) Effective on the date of enactment of this section, for 
     the purpose of enforcing section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21 
     (110th Congress), the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the 
     Budget shall reduce any balances of direct spending and 
     revenues for any fiscal year to 0 (zero).
       (2) Not later than April 15, 2012, for the purpose of 
     enforcing section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress), 
     the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget shall 
     reduce any balances of direct spending and revenues for any 
     fiscal year to 0 (zero).
       (3) Upon resetting the Senate paygo scorecard pursuant to 
     paragraph (2), the Chairman shall publish a notification of 
     such action in the Congressional Record.
       (d) Further Adjustments.--
       (1) The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the 
     Senate may revise any allocations, aggregates, or levels set 
     pursuant to this section to account for any subsequent 
     adjustments to discretionary spending limits made pursuant to 
     this Act.
       (2) With respect to any allocations, aggregates, or levels 
     set or adjustments made pursuant to this section, sections 
     412 through 414 of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress) shall 
     remain in effect.
       (e) Expiration.--
       (1) Subections (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1) shall expire if a 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012 is 
     agreed to by the Senate and House of Representatives pursuant 
     to section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (2) Subections (a)(2), (b)(2), and (c)(2) shall expire if a 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013 is 
     agreed to by the Senate and House of Representatives pursuant 
     to section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                      TITLE J--OTHER SPENDING CUTS

    Subtitle A--Federal Pell Grant and Student Loan Program Changes

     SEC. 211. FEDERAL PELL GRANT AND STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM 
                   CHANGES.

       (a) Federal Pell Grants.--Section 401(b)(7)(A)(iv) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a(b)(7)(A)(iv)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subclause (II), by striking ``$3,183,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$13,683,000,000''; and
       (2) in subclause (III), by striking ``$0'' and inserting 
     ``$7,500,000,000''.
       (b) Termination of Authority to Make Interest Subsidized 
     Loans to Graduate and Professional Students.--Section 455(a) 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(a)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Termination of authority to make interest subsidized 
     loans to graduate and professional students.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any provision of this 
     part or part B, for any period of instruction beginning on or 
     after July 1, 2012--
       ``(i) a graduate or professional student shall not be 
     eligible to receive a subsidized Federal Direct Stafford Loan 
     under this part;
       ``(ii) the maximum annual amount of Federal Direct 
     Unsubsidized Stafford Loans such a student may borrow in any 
     academic year (as defined in section 481(a)(2)) or its 
     equivalent shall be the maximum annual amount for such 
     student determined under section 428H, plus an amount equal 
     to the amount of Federal Direct Subsidized Loans the student 
     would have received in the absence of this subparagraph; and
       ``(iii) the maximum aggregate amount of Federal Direct 
     Unsubsidized Stafford Loans such a student may borrow shall 
     be the maximum aggregate amount for such student determined 
     under section 428H, adjusted to reflect the increased annual 
     limits described in clause (ii), as prescribed by the 
     Secretary by regulation.
       ``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an 
     individual enrolled in coursework specified in paragraph 
     (3)(B) or (4)(B) of section 484(b).''.
       (c) Inapplicability of Title IV Negotiated Rulemaking and 
     Master Calendar Exception.--Sections 482(c) and 492 of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1089(c), 1098a) shall 
     not apply to the amendments made by this section, or to any 
     regulations promulgated under those amendments.

                       Subtitle B--Farm Programs

     SEC. 221. DEFINITION OF PAYMENT ACRES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1001(11) of the Food, 
     Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8702(11)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by striking ``subparagraph (B)'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraphs (B) and (C)''; and
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) in the case of direct payments for the 2012 crop 
     year, 59 percent of the base acres for the covered commodity 
     on a farm on which direct payments are made.''.
       (b) Payment Acres for Peanuts.--Section 1301(5) of the 
     Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 8751(5)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by striking ``subparagraph (B)'' and inserting 
     ``subparagraphs (B) and (C)''; and
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) in the case of direct payments for the 2012 crop 
     year, 59 percent of the base acres for peanuts on a farm on 
     which direct payments are made.''.

          TITLE K--JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON DEFICIT REDUCTION

     SEC. 301. ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE.

       (a) Definitions.--In this title:
       (1) Joint select committee.--The term ``joint committee'' 
     means the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction 
     established under subsection (b)(1).
       (2) Joint select committee bill.--The term ``joint 
     committee bill'' means a bill consisting of the proposed 
     legislative language of the joint committee recommended under 
     subsection (b)(3)(B) and introduced under section 302(a).
       (b) Establishment of Joint Select Committee.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established a joint select 
     committee of Congress to be known as the ``Joint Select 
     Committee on Deficit Reduction''.
       (2) Goal.--The goal of the joint committee shall be to 
     reduce the deficit to 3 percent or less of GDP.
       (3) Duties.--
       (A) In general.--
       (i) Improving the short-term and long-term fiscal 
     imbalance.--The joint committee shall provide recommendations 
     and legislative language that will significantly improve the 
     short-term and long-term fiscal imbalance of the Federal 
     Government and may include recommendations and legislative 
     language on tax reform.
       (ii) Consideration of other bipartisan plans.--As a part of 
     developing the joint committee's recommendations and 
     legislation, the joint committee shall consider existing 
     bipartisan plans to reduce the deficit, including plans 
     developed jointly by Senators or Members of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (iii) Recommendations of house of representatives and 
     senate committees.--Not later than October 14, 2011, each 
     committee of the House of Representatives and Senate may 
     transmit to the joint committee its recommendations for 
     changes in law to reduce the deficit consistent with the 
     goals described in paragraph (2) for the joint committee's 
     consideration.
       (B) Report, recommendations, and legislative language.--
       (i) In general.--Not later than November 23, 2011, the 
     joint committee shall vote on--

       (I) a report that contains a detailed statement of the 
     findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the joint 
     committee and the CBO estimate required by paragraph 
     (5)(D)(ii); and
       (II) proposed legislative language to carry out such 
     recommendations as described in subclause (I).

     No amendment to the Rules of the House of Representatives or 
     the Standing Rules of the Senate shall be in order in the 
     legislative language required in subclause (II).
       (ii) Approval of report and legislative language.--The 
     report of the joint committee and the proposed legislative 
     language described in clause (i) shall require the approval 
     of not fewer than 7 of the 12 members of the joint committee.
       (iii) Additional views.--A member of the joint committee 
     who gives notice of an intention to file supplemental, 
     minority, or additional views at the time of final joint 
     committee vote on the approval of the report and legislative 
     language under clause (ii), shall be entitled to 3 calendar 
     days in which to file such views in writing with the staff 
     director of the joint committee. Such views shall then be 
     included in the joint committee report and printed in the 
     same volume, or part thereof, and their inclusion shall be 
     noted on the cover of the report. In the absence of timely 
     notice, the joint committee report may be printed and 
     transmitted immediately without such views.
       (iv) Transmission of report and legislative language.--If 
     the report and legislative language are approved by the joint 
     committee pursuant to clause (ii), then not later

[[Page 12542]]

     than December 2, 2011, the joint committee shall submit the 
     joint committee report and legislative language described in 
     clause (i) to the President, the Vice President, the Speaker 
     of the House of Representatives, and the Majority and 
     Minority Leaders of both Houses.
       (v) Report and legislative language to be made public.--
     Upon the approval or disapproval of the joint committee 
     report and legislative language pursuant to clause (ii), the 
     joint committee shall promptly make the full report and 
     legislative language, and a record of the vote, available to 
     the public.
       (4) Membership.--
       (A) In general.--The joint committee shall be composed of 
     12 members appointed pursuant to subparagraph (B).
       (B) Appointment.--Members of the joint committee shall be 
     appointed as follows:
       (i) The majority leader of the Senate shall appoint 3 
     members from among Members of the Senate.
       (ii) The minority leader of the Senate shall appoint 3 
     members from among Members of the Senate.
       (iii) The Speaker of the House of Representatives shall 
     appoint 3 members from among Members of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (iv) The minority leader of the House of Representatives 
     shall appoint 3 members from among Members of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (C) Co-chairs.--
       (i) In general.--There shall be 2 Co-Chairs of the joint 
     committee. The majority leader of the Senate shall appoint 
     one Co-Chair from among the members of the joint committee. 
     The Speaker of the House of Representatives shall appoint the 
     second Co-Chair from among the members of the joint 
     committee. The Co-Chairs shall be appointed not later than 14 
     calendar days after the date of enactment of this section.
       (ii) Staff director.--The Co-Chairs, acting jointly, shall 
     hire the staff director of the joint committee.
       (D) Date.--Members of the joint committee shall be 
     appointed not later than 14 calendar days after the date of 
     enactment of this section.
       (E) Period of appointment.--Members shall be appointed for 
     the life of the joint committee. Any vacancy in the joint 
     committee shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled 
     not later than 14 calendar days after the date on which the 
     vacancy occurs in the same manner as the original 
     appointment. If a member of the committee leaves Congress, 
     the member is no longer a member of the joint committee and a 
     vacancy shall exist.
       (5) Administration.--
       (A) In general.--To enable the joint committee to exercise 
     its powers, functions, and duties, there are authorized to be 
     disbursed by the Senate the actual and necessary expenses of 
     the joint committee approved by the Co-Chairs, subject to 
     Senate rules and regulations.
       (B) Expenses.--In carrying out its functions, the joint 
     committee is authorized to incur expenses in the same manner 
     and under the same conditions as the Joint Economic Committee 
     as authorized by section 11 of Public Law 79-304 (15 U.S.C. 
     1024(d)).
       (C) Quorum.--Seven members of the joint committee shall 
     constitute a quorum for purposes of voting, meeting, and 
     holding hearings.
       (D) Voting.--
       (i) Proxy voting.--No proxy voting shall be allowed on 
     behalf of the members of the joint committee.
       (ii) Congressional budget office estimates.--The 
     Congressional Budget Office shall provide estimates of the 
     legislation (as described in paragraph (3)(B)) in accordance 
     with sections 308(a) and 201(f) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 639(a) and 601(f)) (including estimates 
     of the effect of interest payment on the debt). In addition, 
     the Congressional Budget Office shall provide information on 
     the budgetary effect of the legislation beyond the year 2021 
     and the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on 
     Taxation may provide information on the budgetary effect of 
     the legislation relative to alternative fiscal scenarios. The 
     joint committee may not vote on any version of the report, 
     recommendations, or legislative language unless such 
     estimates are available for consideration by all members of 
     the joint committee at least 48 hours prior to the vote as 
     certified by the Co-Chairs.
       (E) Meetings.--
       (i) Initial meeting.--Not later than 45 calendar days after 
     the date of enactment of this section, the joint committee 
     shall hold its first meeting.
       (ii) Agenda.--The Co-Chairs shall provide an agenda to the 
     joint committee members not less than 48 hours in advance of 
     any meeting.
       (F) Hearings.--
       (i) In general.--The joint committee may, for the purpose 
     of carrying out this section, hold such hearings, sit and act 
     at such times and places, require attendance of witnesses and 
     production of books, papers, and documents, take such 
     testimony, receive such evidence, and administer such oaths 
     the joint committee considers advisable.
       (ii) Hearing procedures and responsibilities of co-
     chairs.--

       (I) Announcement.--The Co-Chairs shall make a public 
     announcement of the date, place, time, and subject matter of 
     any hearing to be conducted not less than 7 days in advance 
     of such hearing, unless the Co-Chairs determine that there is 
     good cause to begin such hearing at an earlier date.
       (II) Written statement.--A witness appearing before the 
     joint committee shall file a written statement of proposed 
     testimony at least 2 calendar days prior to appearance, 
     unless the requirement is waived by the Co-Chairs, following 
     their determination that there is good cause for failure of 
     compliance.

       (G) Technical assistance.--Upon written request of the Co-
     Chairs, a Federal agency shall provide technical assistance 
     to the joint committee in order for the joint committee to 
     carry out its duties.
       (c) Staff of Joint Committee.--
       (1) In general.--The Co-Chairs may jointly appoint and fix 
     the compensation of staff as they deem necessary, within the 
     guidelines for Senate employees and following all applicable 
     Senate rules and employment requirements.
       (2) Ethical standards.--Members on the joint committee who 
     serve in the House of Representatives shall be governed by 
     the House ethics rules and requirements. Members of the 
     Senate who serve on the joint committee and staff of the 
     joint committee shall comply with Senate ethics rules.
       (d) Termination.--The joint committee shall terminate on 
     January 13, 2012.

     SEC. 302. EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF JOINT COMMITTEE 
                   RECOMMENDATIONS.

       (a) Introduction.--If approved by the majority required by 
     section 301(b)(3)(B)(ii), the proposed legislative language 
     submitted pursuant to section 301(b)(3)(B)(iv) shall be 
     introduced in the Senate (by request) on the next day on 
     which the Senate is in session by the majority leader of the 
     Senate or by a Member of the Senate designated by the 
     majority leader of the Senate and shall be introduced in the 
     House of Representatives (by request) on the next legislative 
     day by the majority leader of the House of Representatives or 
     by a Member of the House of Representatives designated by the 
     majority leader of the House of Representatives.
       (b) Consideration in the House of Representatives.--
       (1) Referral and reporting.--Any committee of the House of 
     Representatives to which the joint committee bill is referred 
     shall report it to the House of Representatives without 
     amendment not later than December 9, 2011. If a committee 
     fails to report the joint committee bill within that period, 
     it shall be in order to move that the House of 
     Representatives discharge the committee from further 
     consideration of the bill. Such a motion shall not be in 
     order after the last committee authorized to consider the 
     bill reports it to the House of Representatives or after the 
     House of Representatives has disposed of a motion to 
     discharge the bill. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening 
     motion except 20 minutes of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent. If such a motion 
     is adopted, the House of Representatives shall proceed 
     immediately to consider the joint committee bill in 
     accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3). A motion to 
     reconsider the vote by which the motion is disposed of shall 
     not be in order.
       (2) Proceeding to consideration.--After the last committee 
     authorized to consider a joint committee bill reports it to 
     the House of Representatives or has been discharged (other 
     than by motion) from its consideration, it shall be in order 
     to move to proceed to consider the joint committee bill in 
     the House of Representatives. Such a motion shall not be in 
     order after the House of Representatives has disposed of a 
     motion to proceed with respect to the joint committee bill. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to its adoption without intervening motion. A motion 
     to reconsider the vote by which the motion is disposed of 
     shall not be in order.
       (3) Consideration.--The joint committee bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the joint 
     committee bill and against its consideration are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     committee bill to its passage without intervening motion 
     except 2 hours of debate equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent and one motion to limit debate 
     on the joint committee bill. A motion to reconsider the vote 
     on passage of the joint committee bill shall not be in order.
       (4) Vote on passage.--The vote on passage of the joint 
     committee bill shall occur not later than December 23, 2011.
       (c) Expedited Procedure in the Senate.--
       (1) Committee consideration.--A joint committee bill 
     introduced in the Senate under subsection (a) shall be 
     jointly referred to the committee or committees of 
     jurisdiction, which committees shall report the bill without 
     any revision and with a favorable recommendation, an 
     unfavorable recommendation, or without recommendation, not 
     later than December 9, 2011. If any committee fails to report 
     the bill within that period, that committee shall be 
     automatically discharged from consideration of the bill, and 
     the bill shall be placed on the appropriate calendar.

[[Page 12543]]

       (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 of Representatives shall be entitled to expedited floor 
     procedures under this section.
       (2) Treatment of companion measures in the senate.--If 
     following passage of the joint committee bill in the Senate, 
     the Senate then receives the joint committee bill from the 
     House of Representatives, the House-passed joint committee 
     bill shall not be debatable. The vote on passage of the joint 
     committee bill in the Senate shall be considered to be the 
     vote on passage of the joint committee bill received from the 
     House of Representatives.
       (3) Vetoes.--If the President vetoes the joint committee 
     bill, debate on a veto message in the Senate under this 
     section shall be 1 hour equally divided between the majority 
     and minority leaders or their designees.
       (g) Loss of Privilege.--The provisions of this section 
     shall cease to apply to the joint committee bill if--
       (1) the joint committee fails to vote on the report or 
     proposed legislative language required under section 
     301(b)(3)(B)(i) by November 23, 2011; or
       (2) the joint committee bill does not pass both Houses by 
     December 23, 2011.

     SEC. 303. FUNDING.

       Funding for the joint committee shall be derived in equal 
     portions from--
       (1) the applicable accounts of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (2) the contingent fund of the Senate from the 
     appropriations account ``Miscellaneous Items'', subject to 
     Senate rules and regulations.

     SEC. 304. RULEMAKING.

       The provisions of this title are enacted by Congress--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such 
     they shall be considered as part of the rules of each House, 
     respectively, or of that House to which they specifically 
     apply, and such rules shall supersede other rules only to the 
     extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change such rules (so far as relating to such 
     House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same 
     extent as in the case of any other rule of such House.

               TITLE L--DEBT CEILING DISAPPROVAL PROCESS

     SEC. 401. DEBT CEILING DISAPPROVAL PROCESS.

       Subchapter I of chapter 31 of subtitle III of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in section 3101(b), by striking ``or otherwise'' and 
     inserting ``or as provided by section 3101A or otherwise''; 
     and
       (2) by inserting after section 3101, the following:

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

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) $1.2 trillion.--
       ``(A) Certification.--If, not later than December 31, 2011, 
     the President submits a written certification to Congress 
     that the President has determined that the debt subject to 
     limit is within $100,000,000,000 of the limit in section 
     3101(b) and that further borrowing is required to meet 
     existing commitments, the Secretary of the Treasury may 
     exercise authority to borrow an additional $1,200,000,000,000 
     subject to the enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval 
     enacted pursuant to this section. Upon submission of such 
     certification, the limit on debt provided in section 3101(b) 
     (referred to in this section as the `debt limit') is 
     increased by $416,000,000,000.
       ``(B) Resolution of disapproval.--Congress may consider a 
     joint resolution of disapproval of the authority under 
     subparagraph (A) as provided in subsections (b) through (f). 
     The joint resolution of disapproval considered under this 
     section shall contain only the language provided in 
     subsection (b)(2). If the time for disapproval has lapsed 
     without enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval under 
     this section, the debt limit is increased by an additional 
     $784,000,000,000.
       ``(2) Additional amount.--
       ``(A) Certification.--If, after the debt limit is increased 
     by $1,200,000,000,000 under paragraph (1), the President 
     submits a written certification to Congress that the 
     President has determined that the debt subject to limit is 
     within $150,000,000,000 of the limit in section 3101(b) and 
     that further borrowing is required to meet existing 
     commitments, the Secretary of the Treasury may exercise 
     authority to borrow an additional amount equal to 
     $1,200,000,000,000 subject to the enactment of a joint 
     resolution of disapproval enacted pursuant to this section.
       ``(B) Resolution of disapproval.--Congress may consider a 
     joint resolution of disapproval of the authority under 
     subparagraph (A) as provided in subsections (b) through (f). 
     The joint resolution of disapproval considered under this 
     section shall contain only the language provided in 
     subsection (b)(2). After the time for disapproval has lapsed 
     without enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval under 
     this section, the debt limit is increased by the amount 
     authorized under subparagraph (A).
       ``(b) Joint Resolution of Disapproval.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except for the $416,000,000,000 increase 
     in the debt limit provided by subsection (a)(1)(A), the debt 
     limit may not be raised under this section if, within 55 
     calendar days after the date on which Congress receives a 
     certification described in subsection (a)(1) or within 15 
     calendar days after the Congress receives the certification 
     described in subsection (a)(2) (regardless of whether 
     Congress is in session), there is enacted into law a joint 
     resolution disapproving the President's exercise of authority 
     with respect to such additional amount.
       ``(2) Contents of joint resolution.--For the purpose of 
     this section, the term `joint resolution' means only a joint 
     resolution--
       ``(A)(i) for the certification described in subsection 
     (a)(1), that is introduced on September 6, 7, 8 or 9, 2011 
     (or, if the Senate was not in session, the next calendar day 
     on which the Senate is in session); and
       ``(ii) for the certification described in subsection 
     (a)(2), that is introduced between the date the certification 
     is received and 3 calendar days after that date;
       ``(B) which does not have a preamble;
       ``(C) the title of which is only as follows: `Joint 
     resolution relating to the disapproval of the President's 
     exercise of authority to increase the debt limit, as 
     submitted under section 3101A of title 31, United States Code 
     on ____________' (with the blank containing the date of 
     submission); and
       ``(D) the matter after the resolving clause of which is 
     only as follows: `That Congress

[[Page 12544]]

     disapproves of the President's exercise of authority to 
     increase the debt limit, as exercised pursuant to the 
     certification under section 3101A(a) of title 31, United 
     States Code.'.
       ``(c) Expedited Consideration in House of 
     Representatives.--
       ``(1) Reconvening.--Upon receipt of a certification 
     described in subsection (a)(2), the Speaker, if the House 
     would otherwise be adjourned, shall notify the Members of the 
     House that, pursuant to this section, the House shall convene 
     not later than the second calendar day after receipt of such 
     certification.
       ``(2) Reporting and discharge.--Any committee of the House 
     of Representatives to which a joint resolution is referred 
     shall report it to the House without amendment not later than 
     5 calendar days after the date of introduction of the joint 
     resolution described in subsection (a). If a committee fails 
     to report a joint resolution within that period, the 
     committee shall be discharged from further consideration of 
     the joint resolution and the joint resolution shall be 
     referred to the appropriate calendar.
       ``(3) Proceeding to consideration.--After each committee 
     authorized to consider a joint resolution reports it to the 
     House or has been discharged from its consideration, it shall 
     be in order, not later than the sixth day after introduction 
     of a joint resolution under subsection (a), to move to 
     proceed to consider the joint resolution in the House. All 
     points of order against the motion are waived. Such a motion 
     shall not be in order after the House has disposed of a 
     motion to proceed on a joint resolution addressing a 
     particular submission. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without 
     intervening motion. The motion shall not be debatable. A 
     motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion is disposed 
     of shall not be in order.
       ``(4) Consideration.--The joint resolution shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the joint 
     resolution and against its consideration are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution to its passage without intervening motion except 
     two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent. A motion to reconsider the vote on 
     passage of the joint resolution shall not be in order.
       ``(d) Expedited Procedure in Senate.--
       ``(1) Reconvening.--Upon receipt of a certification under 
     subsection (a)(2), if the Senate has adjourned or recessed 
     for more than 2 days, the majority leader of the Senate, 
     after consultation with the minority leader of the Senate, 
     shall notify the Members of the Senate that, pursuant to this 
     section, the Senate shall convene not later than the second 
     calendar day after receipt of such message.
       ``(2) Placement on calendar.--Upon introduction in the 
     Senate, the joint resolution shall be immediately placed on 
     the calendar.
       ``(3) Floor consideration.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding Rule XXII of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate, it is in order at any time 
     during the period beginning on the day after the date on 
     which Congress receives a certification under subsection (a) 
     and for the certification described in subsection (a)(1), 
     ending on September 14, 2011 and for the certification 
     described in subsection (a)(2) on the 6th day after the date 
     on which Congress receives a certification under subsection 
     (a) (even though a previous motion to the same effect has 
     been disagreed to) to move to proceed to the consideration of 
     the joint resolution, and all points of order against the 
     joint resolution (and against consideration of the joint 
     resolution) are waived. The motion to proceed is not 
     debatable. The motion is not subject to a motion to postpone. 
     A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion is agreed 
     to or disagreed to shall not be in order. If a motion to 
     proceed to the consideration of the resolution is agreed to, 
     the joint resolution shall remain the unfinished business 
     until disposed of.
       ``(B) Consideration.--Consideration of the joint 
     resolution, and on all debatable motions and appeals in 
     connection therewith, shall be limited to not more than 10 
     hours, which shall be divided equally between the majority 
     and minority leaders or their designees. A motion further to 
     limit debate is in order and not debatable. An amendment to, 
     or a motion to postpone, or a motion to proceed to the 
     consideration of other business, or a motion to recommit the 
     joint resolution is not in order.
       ``(C) Vote on passage.--If the Senate has voted to proceed 
     to a joint resolution, the vote on passage of the joint 
     resolution shall occur immediately following the conclusion 
     of consideration of the joint resolution, and a single quorum 
     call at the conclusion of the debate if requested in 
     accordance with the rules of the Senate.
       ``(D) Rulings of the chair on procedure.--Appeals from the 
     decisions of the Chair relating to the application of the 
     rules of the Senate, as the case may be, to the procedure 
     relating to a joint resolution shall be decided without 
     debate.
       ``(e) Amendment Not in Order.--A joint resolution of 
     disapproval considered pursuant to this section shall not be 
     subject to amendment in either the House of Representatives 
     or the Senate.
       ``(f) Coordination With Action by Other House.--
       ``(1) In general.--If, before passing the joint resolution, 
     one House receives from the other a joint resolution--
       ``(A) the joint resolution of the other House shall not be 
     referred to a committee; and
       ``(B) the procedure in the receiving House shall be the 
     same as if no joint resolution had been received from the 
     other House until the vote on passage, when the joint 
     resolution received from the other House shall supplant the 
     joint resolution of the receiving House.
       ``(2) Treatment of joint resolution of other house.--If the 
     Senate fails to introduce or consider a joint resolution 
     under this section, the joint resolution of the House shall 
     be entitled to expedited floor procedures under this section.
       ``(3) Treatment of companion measures.--If, following 
     passage of the joint resolution in the Senate, the Senate 
     then receives the companion measure from the House of 
     Representatives, the companion measure shall not be 
     debatable.
       ``(4) Consideration after passage.--
       ``(A) In general.--If Congress passes a joint resolution, 
     the period beginning on the date the President is presented 
     with the joint resolution and ending on the date the 
     President takes action with respect to the joint resolution 
     (but excluding days when either House is not in session) 
     shall be disregarded in computing the appropriate calendar 
     day period described in subsection (b)(1).
       ``(B) Vetoes.--If the President vetoes the joint 
     resolution--
       ``(i) the period beginning on the date the President vetoes 
     the joint resolution and ending on the day on which the 
     Congress receives the veto message with respect to the joint 
     resolution (regardless of whether Congress is in session) 
     shall be disregarded in computing the appropriate calendar 
     day period described in subsection (b)(1); and
       ``(ii) debate on a veto message in the Senate under this 
     section shall be 1 hour equally divided between the majority 
     and minority leaders or their designees.
       ``(5) Veto override.--If within the appropriate calendar 
     day period described in subsection (b)(1), Congress overrides 
     a veto of the joint resolution with respect to authority 
     exercised pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a), 
     the limit on debt provided in section 3101(b) shall not be 
     raised, except for the $416,000,000,000 increase in the limit 
     provided by subsection (a)(1)(A)(i).
       ``(6) Sequester.--
       ``(A) In general.--If within the 55 calendar days of 
     receiving the certification described in subsection (a)(1), 
     Congress overrides a veto of the joint resolution with 
     respect to authority exercised pursuant to paragraph (1) of 
     subsection (a), OMB shall, immediately, sequester pro rata 
     amounts from all discretionary and direct spending accounts 
     as defined in section 250(c) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900(c)) (as 
     in effect September 30, 2006) equal to $416,000,000,000. No 
     reduction of payments for net interest (all of major 
     functional category 900) shall be made under any order issued 
     under this paragraph.
       ``(B) Application.--Section 255 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 shall not apply to this 
     section, except that payments for military personnel accounts 
     (within subfunctional category 051), TRICARE for Life, 
     Medicare (functional category 570), military retirement, 
     Social Security (functional category 650), veterans 
     (functional category 700), and net interest (functional 
     category 900) shall be exempt.
       ``(g) Rules of House of Representatives and Senate.--This 
     subsection and subsections (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) are 
     enacted by Congress--
       ``(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such it is 
     deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but 
     applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed 
     in that House in the case of a joint resolution, and it 
     supersedes other rules only to the extent that it is 
     inconsistent with such rules; and
       ``(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the 
     procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and 
     to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that 
     House.''.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. McGOVERN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will state 
his inquiry.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, is it true that a bill considered under 
suspension of the rules denies the minority party the right to offer 
any amendments or even a motion to recommit?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. A motion to suspend is not liable to 
amendment from the floor.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.

[[Page 12545]]


  Mr. McGOVERN. Is it true that a bill considered under suspension of 
the rules requires a two-thirds supermajority vote in order for a bill 
to pass?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule XV, a motion to suspend the rules 
may be adopted by two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum being 
present.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Is it also true, Mr. Speaker, that a bill considered 
under suspension of the rules does not pass if it receives a simple 
majority vote but not two-thirds of the vote?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Does this mean that Speaker Boehner's bill to raise the 
debt limit and destroy Medicare would have failed if it were considered 
under suspension of the rules yesterday?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) each will control 20 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DREIER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this 
measure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think this is the first time that I have offered a Reid proposal in 
the House of Representatives.
  One might ask why it is we are here doing this. It's very apparent to 
me why it is that we are here doing this, and that is we want to ensure 
that next Tuesday we see an increase in the debt ceiling so the Social 
Security checks go out, we bring about spending reductions, and we 
maintain the credit rating of the United States of America and do all 
the other things that I believe both Democrats and Republicans, alike, 
want to have take place.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have passed from this House two measures 
within the last 2 weeks, the Cut, Cap, and Balance measure, and just 
last night, the Boehner proposal, which, as we all know, stemmed from a 
bipartisan meeting that he had exactly 1 week ago this afternoon in his 
meeting with Senator Reid right down along the hall. Unfortunately, Mr. 
Reid no longer supports the proposal that we passed last night, and 
Senator Reid has said on several occasions that his plan is the only 
plan that can pass both Houses of Congress.
  Now, 5 minutes ago, Senator McConnell once again asked Senator Reid 
to bring up this plan that Senator Reid said was the only one that 
could pass both Houses of Congress, and Senator Reid said no.
  Thursday night, I introduced this measure of Senator Reid's and was 
asked, in the Rules Committee yesterday, by Mr. McGovern, whether or 
not we would bring it up and I said we didn't plan to. But the fact is 
Senator McConnell, having made the request now at least twice in the 
other body to have it brought up, asked us to raise this measure here, 
and that's exactly what we are doing.
  Now, if we look at where it is that we are headed, we all want to 
have a bipartisan compromise that will ensure that on Tuesday we see 
that increase in the debt ceiling take place and do these other things. 
That's what the Speaker of the House and the Democratic leader of the 
United States Senate, along with Leader McConnell and Leader Pelosi, 
discussed a week ago today.
  And as Speaker Boehner said from the well last night, this was an 
agreement which was supported by Senator Reid, but things have changed. 
Things have changed; we know that. But there is one thing that has not 
changed, and that is we have to act as quickly as possible. We need to 
come up with a compromise.
  And you know what? Since Senator Reid happens to believe that his 
measure is the only one that can pass both Houses of Congress, we are 
going to let him know, when we defeat it here in the House of 
Representatives, that it is not the plan that can gain broad support in 
the House and the Senate. And so for that reason, Mr. Speaker, we are 
bringing this up.
  We, I believe, should have an opportunity for every Member of this 
House to go on record on this issue, and I am going to urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this proposal so that we can come together 
with an important, bipartisan compromise to achieve the goal that we 
all say that we share.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this process has become a joke. It is a disgrace. It's 
an insult to the American people.
  I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, now is the 
time to act like grown-ups. This is the time to put our country before 
your political party. This is time to put our country before the Tea 
Party. This is the time to do what's right.
  Today, you are bringing up the latest version of the Reid plan under 
not only a closed rule, but under the most restrictive process we have 
in the House, usually reserved for noncontroversial bills. There is a 
$2.5 trillion bill being brought up under the same process that you 
bring up bills naming post offices--20 minutes of debate, no amendments 
allowed. We are not even allowed to offer a motion to recommit. To win, 
you need a two-thirds supermajority. Under this process, your own bill 
would have failed. That's right, if your bill were brought up under 
this procedure, your bill would have lost last night.
  Mr. Speaker, the only bill we should consider on the House floor is 
one that has been agreed to by the House and Senate leaders and the 
President of the United States.
  So why are we doing this today? Let's be honest. You are doing it to 
score some cheap political points.
  I would like to remind the Speaker of the House that he is the 
Speaker of not just the Republican Party, but that he is the Speaker of 
the whole House. Now is the time to bring us together, not tear us 
apart.

                              {time}  1350

  Maybe the Reid bill is the one that can unite us because it achieves 
tremendous savings without decimating Medicare, Medicaid, or Social 
Security. But Mr. Speaker, to bring it up under this process is 
cynical, and it demeans the House of Representatives.
  I would say to the Republican leadership: Enough political stunts. 
Our country is facing a terrible economic crisis, a crisis that you 
created and one that you can avoid, but we've run out of time. Now is 
the time for leadership, not bad political theater. Now is the time to 
behave like legislators. Please rise to the occasion.
  The Reid bill is not the bill I would have written. It's not the 
truly balanced approach that I would have hope for. There are no 
revenues in this bill. But I think it's the best approach that is on 
the table right now, and I'm willing to compromise. So I will vote 
``yes'' on this bill. I'm willing to put my country first.
  I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind the Members that 
remarks in debate must be addressed to the Chair and not to other 
Members in the second person.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as he may 
consume to the distinguished former chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, my friend from Redlands, California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, if it were not for the remarks 
of my colleague from California as well as his colleague from the Rules 
Committee, I wouldn't be making these remarks. I will begin with a 
quote:

[[Page 12546]]

  ``The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt 
limit is a sign of leadership failure. Increasing America's debt 
weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that `the 
buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad 
choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America 
has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve 
better.''--Senator Barack H. Obama, March, 2006.
  By 2009, Senator Obama had become President Obama. In the 2 years 
since he became President, Federal spending has increased by over $500 
billion a year. In the past 2 years, he has added nearly $4 trillion to 
our national debt. Now President Obama is in favor of increasing the 
national debt limit. When, oh when, will the real Barack Obama stand 
up?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, our neighbors, our friends 
sent us here to be responsible and to come to the aid of our country at 
a time of crisis. Our country is at such a time now.
  Our people confront uncertainty and fear, and they're looking to us 
for the courage to compromise and act to prevent default and to prevent 
gridlock and irresponsibility.
  Yesterday, we learned that investors in American stocks lost more 
than $400 billion when just a few days ago Speaker Boehner said he 
could not compromise with President Obama. Not withstanding the remarks 
of my friend from California, the chairman of the Rules Committee, who 
talks about a bipartisan compromise, I tell my friend, you have not 
moved a single centimeter towards compromise with our side of the 
aisle, not a single centimeter.
  And what do we see in the United States Senate, my friends? We see a 
majority leader of the United States Senate who has a President with 
him. So, yes, you control one-third, and you control over 40 percent so 
you can stop things from happening in the Senate, but the people aren't 
looking to us for what we can stop; they're looking to us for what we 
can do, for what we can do to make our country healed at this point in 
time.
  So what has Senator Reid done with this bill that you introduced--
guaranteed to fail. This is the second time you have put a bill on the 
floor to extend the debt limit guaranteed to fail. It is a pattern, 
frankly, I say to you, my friends, and it's a pattern that the American 
public ought not to countenance.
  What Senator Reid has done is he has taken the view of Speaker 
Boehner and Leader Cantor and said we need a long-term solution. And 
then he has compromised, not notwithstanding the fact that all of us on 
this side believe that the wealthiest among us should help take us out 
of this crisis and not rely on the most vulnerable among us. And so 
there is no revenue in Senator Reid's bill, notwithstanding that an 
overwhelming number of us on this side of the aisle believe that's good 
policy, and I know that some of you on your side of the aisle believe 
that as well.
  Senator Reid has set up a process so that we can continue to look at 
what we know we need to look at, bringing our deficit and debt down, 
for which we are all responsible, my friends.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. HOYER. And so we confront this moment of responsibility. I 
believe my side of the aisle will overwhelmingly say yes, not because 
they like this bill, but because they believe it is a compromise that 
can work because it takes so much of the demands that you have made on 
your side of the aisle. But if you came to Congress expecting 
perfection, if you came to Congress expecting only that you do it your 
way and no other way, you will be disappointed, as all of us are 
disappointed, because it cannot happen that way. Our Founding Fathers 
brought us from many places with many perspectives to try to heal our 
country and provide for the general welfare.
  Let us avoid default. Let us set ourselves on a path of compromise. 
My friends on the Republican side of the aisle, we are going to vote, 
for the most part, for this bill. We do not believe it's perfect, but 
we believe it's possible. America expects us to do that.
  The summer soldiers and the sunshine patriots will retreat at this 
time of crisis. Do not do that.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. I would like to yield my friend an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I will say that I was prepared to engage in 
a colloquy with my good friend from Maryland and explain to him that if 
Senator Reid believes that this is a great compromise, why will he not 
respond to Senator McConnell's repeated requests to bring it up in the 
United States Senate?
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to our 
Presidential candidate, our good friend from Stillwater, Minnesota 
(Mrs. Bachmann).
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, throughout this debate over guaranteeing 
insane, never before seen in the history of this country levels of 
spending, President Obama has coolly stood on the sidelines, his armed 
crossed, very simply castigating Republicans for not giving him a $2.4 
trillion blank check. Meanwhile, the only plan that the President has 
put forward is his February budget, which in itself contained yet one 
more $1.5 trillion deficit.
  The President has no plan. Only the Republicans have offered plans. 
Now is the time for the President to show leadership, and the only 
leadership that he is showing is one that's saying tsk, tsk, tsk, 
trying to bring us to the brink when in fact we're trying to be 
responsible and bring this to a successful conclusion.
  We call on the President of the United States to finally engage in 
the process.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just remind the gentlelady that no 
one on the Democratic side ever walked out of a meeting.
  At this point, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. LEVIN. I have been here almost 29 years. This is a disgraceful 
moment. This country wants compromise. What you're doing with this bill 
is to undermine the chances of compromise. That's what you're doing. 
You're trying to throw a monkey wrench in the Reid bill before it can 
even leave the station. That's what you're doing. You're trying to make 
sure that the Senate cannot work its will.
  Why isn't this bill being brought up? Because Senator Reid wants to 
sit down with Senate Republicans and work out a compromise, and you're 
bringing up this bill to make sure that this will never happen. This is 
a disgraceful moment, Mr. Dreier. It is a disgraceful moment.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. No.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I yield time to my friend from 
Michigan? Am I allowed to yield time to my friend from Michigan?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Dreier, you have already spoken. What you are doing 
here is----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 15 seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. Look, Mr. Dreier, it is very clear what you are doing 
here. Mr. Reid wants to sit down and work with Mr. McConnell. What you 
are trying to do is to make sure that a signal is sent to the Senate, 
don't bother.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.

[[Page 12547]]


  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Let me say that the action that we are about to take here today is 
going to help with the process of seeing Senator McConnell and Senator 
Reid work together.
  Mr. LEVIN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Dreier, that is pernicious 
nonsense.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind the Members that 
remarks in debate must be addressed to the Chair and not to other 
Members in the second person.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I will not only address you, I won't point 
my finger at you as I address you.
  Let me say, Madam Speaker, that Senator McConnell has just minutes 
ago asked Senator Reid to bring the Reid proposal to the floor of the 
United States Senate. And a decision has been made by Senator Reid not 
to bring the measure up.
  On at least two occasions, Senator McConnell has asked, since Senator 
Reid has said that his proposal is the only one that can pass both 
Houses of Congress, Senator McConnell has asked us to show what we all 
know, and that is that there is not going to be a majority of support 
in the House of Representatives for his proposal.
  And then when that happens, we look forward to the discussions that 
will take place with Speaker Boehner, Senator Reid, Leader McConnell, 
and Leader Pelosi.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Young), a hardworking new Member of Congress.
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Madam Speaker, we need to cut spending now. We 
need to control spending in the future. But the American people 
understand that our foremost constitutional duty here in Congress is to 
make sure that America is safe.
  Former Secretary Gates said that further cuts to our military will 
mean that there are certain things our military won't be able to do and 
places they won't be able to go.
  This proposal, the Reid-Obama plan, proposes cutting defense spending 
by $859 billion over 10 years compared to the President's fiscal year 
2011 budget. Yet the President and Senator Reid have not told us what 
places we won't be going and what missions we won't be doing. This is 
irresponsible. I can't support this proposal.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. DOGGETT. This Republican ploy is too clever by half. At the very 
same time Republican Senators are filibustering against bringing up 
this proposal in the Senate, the House Republicans are insisting on 
bringing it up here so they can vote it down. While it is imperfect and 
imbalanced, this Reid proposal protects educational opportunities for 
college students, it protects retirement security through Medicare and 
Social Security, and it provides more important resources for public 
services than the reactionary House Republican budget.
  With House Republicans still at fault for refusing to seek any type 
of middle ground, the Reid bill is the least worst alternative to avoid 
default.
  As desperate as they were last night to cobble together a handful of 
votes to pass a partisan Boehner bill, they are even more desperate to 
defeat this reasonable middle ground because they insist it must have 
two-thirds of the votes of this body.
  Let us join Democrats in unity to approve this proposal.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to remind my 
friend from Texas that the measure that we voted on last night stemmed 
from the bipartisan agreement that was put together one week ago this 
afternoon right down the hall.
  With that, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Jefferson, Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  If you look at the Reid bill, it doesn't even start to address the 
problem. With all of its budget gimmicks and shell games, I think most 
people recognize that if you had an honest conversation, you would know 
it doesn't even start to tackle the spending problem.
  Now, hardworking American families back home know the problem in 
America is not that we have corporate jet owners and millionaires and 
billionaires; the problem is that Washington spends too much money. You 
don't solve that problem by sending more money up to Washington to 
spend even more. And so when the President talks about a balanced 
approach, what he really means is more job-killing tax hikes.
  Families back home know what we really need is a balanced budget 
amendment to put accountability back in place in Washington to control 
this rampant, out-of-control spending in Washington and to finally 
attack the real problem, and that's Washington spending. I oppose the 
bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, this agreement offers the calm, 
reasonable compromise the country wants. Most Americans don't want to 
let the debt ceiling expire. This bill solves that problem.
  Most Americans say, You know what? You probably can cut about 5 
percent in most government programs. Not everybody believes that, but 
that's what this bill does.
  Most Americans say that there ought to be some other way to look at 
difficult entitlement programs and other issues. The bill sets up a 
process to do that.
  What the bill does is recognize the difference between the two 
parties and puts that difference aside. The majority party wants to 
make radical changes in Medicare and Social Security; we do not.
  We believe that the wealthiest Americans should pay their fair share 
to solve this problem. The majority party does not. The bill leaves 
that disagreement aside and focuses on the areas of agreement.
  You know, American troops on patrol are not asking under what 
conditions they should do their duty this afternoon. They're 
understanding their duty, and they're doing it--and so should we. Pass 
this bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 30 
seconds to my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), a 
hardworking new Member of the class of 87 people who came in here to 
change this place.
  Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Dreier.
  When we hear our colleague from Texas say ``this is the least worst 
alternative,'' and that's our best choice? I think the American people 
demand and deserve better. It is time that we put people before 
politics and partisanship aside so that we can have progress for the 
American people.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson Lee) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. As an American, I stand here united with 
America voting ``yes'' on this bill to save Medicare, Medicaid, and 
Social Security.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Bipartisan Budget 
Control Act of 2011,'' the Reid Bill, which is a legitimate attempt to 
resolve our debt-ceiling crisis unlike the previous debt-ceiling bills 
introduced by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, which has 
attempted to resolve our budget ceiling crisis by demanding sharp cuts 
to domestic programs that ask average Americans to make life-changing 
sacrifices while not asking America's wealthiest individuals and most 
profitable corporations to contribute their fair share.
  We must work together to save the American people and do what's 
right. We are working under one flag and one nation; there are times in 
which we are 50 states, and times when we exist as a single, united, 
nation. One single state did not defend the nation after the attacks on 
Pearl Harbor. One state, on its own, did not end segregation and 
establish Civil Rights. There are times when the stakes are too high, 
when we simply must unite as states and act as one. We must today work 
under one flag and one nation to protect our economy and our people.
  We need to change the tone here in Congress. Federal Reserve Chairman 
Ben

[[Page 12548]]

Bernanke said it best when he stated recently before the House 
Committee on Financial Services, ``We really don't want to just cut, 
cut, cut.'' Chairman Bernanke further stated ``You need to be a little 
bit cautious about sharp cuts in the very near term because of the 
potential impact on the recovery. That doesn't at all preclude--in 
fact, I believe it's entirely consistent with--a longer-term program 
that will bring our budget into a sustainable position.'' The Reid plan 
offers the compromise that the American people want, demand and need. I 
stand here with so many of my colleagues calling for the protection of 
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other programs that protect 
the interests of the American people.
  In my lifetime, I have never seen such a concerted effort to ransom 
the American economy in order to extort the American public. I support 
this bill and efforts to increase the debt limit and to resolve our 
differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues. I will not 
support any bill that unduly robs average Americans of their economic 
security and ability to provide for their families while constraining 
the ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, 
fiscal, and job creation troubles.
  This plan will result in a $1.2 trillion increase in the debt limit, 
$416 billion of which would automatically occur when the President 
submits a written certification to Congress that the debt ceiling needs 
to be increased. The remaining $784 billion in borrowing authority 
would be subject to a congressional resolution of disapproval, and 
Congress would have 55 days to act to reject the increase. Under this 
bill, after that initial increase, the President would be authorized to 
seek another $1.2 trillion increase once the debt limit is within $150 
billion of the debt ceiling, with the entire $1.2 trillion subject to a 
congressional resolution of disapproval within 15 calendar days.
  The plan I support today establishes statutory caps on discretionary 
spending that would apply for ten years. These caps would operate 
similarly to caps established with bipartisan support in the 1990s. If 
Congress exceeds the caps, across-the-board cuts would enforce the 
limits. Further additional savings in FY 2012 by security spending 
would be capped at $606 billion, or $3 billion below this year's level. 
Security spending would be $19 billion below the Republican budget. 
This plan finds even more savings by limiting funding for ongoing wars 
(the so-called ``Overseas Contingent Operations'') that could be 
provided outside the discretionary spending caps.
  Some of my Republican colleagues have been critical of the Reid 
bill's proposed savings on war funding. However, winding down the wars, 
which this year will cost about $160 billion, will produce very real 
savings, as both the Office of Management and Budget and the 
Congressional Budget Office acknowledge. In fact, the Republicans 
endorsed this approach when they voted for the House GOP budget earlier 
this year.
  My home state of Texas ranks 43rd in education, and last (50th) in 
the nation in people over 25 who only have a high school education. 
This bill will protect the hopes and dreams of people who are striving 
to improve those numbers. It safeguards Pell Grants and maintains the 
current maximum grant at $5,550. Our country has such a firm belief in 
education, so much so that we as a people have provided free education 
to all students until the 12th grade, but after that moment with high 
school diploma in hand a higher education should not become a battle 
between the haves and the have nots in our society. This plan would end 
graduate and professional students' eligibility for subsidized Stafford 
loans, as proposed in the President's FY 2012 budget.
  Graduate and professional students would be able to receive 
unsubsidized federal student loans, and would continue to be eligible 
to apply for deferment, forbearance, or other loan repayment 
assistance. The $18 billion in savings are used to address projected 
shortfalls in the Pell Grant through FY 2013.
  Madam Speaker, the bill will reduce waste, fraud and abuse by 
promoting efforts to improve enforcement in several areas. The anti-
fraud efforts promoted by the Reid bill include: continuing Disability 
Reviews and SSI redeterminations; Internal Revenue Service tax 
enforcement; health care fraud and abuse control; and Unemployment 
Insurance improper payment reviews. According to CBO, these steps would 
save $11 billion over 10 years.
  The Boehner proposal plan and all the plans proposed by my Republican 
colleagues they have all just cut, cut, cut without taking into full 
consideration the serious cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and 
Medicaid. Their bills have essentially been a rehashed version of the 
same bills that President Obama promised to veto and the Senate vowed 
to reject. It asks cuts from domestic spending while demanding nothing 
in revenue from the nation's wealthiest. The proposals offered by my 
Republican colleagues has been nothing more than a ransom note, 
irresponsibly raising the debt ceiling for only a few months so that in 
just a short period of time, the American public will be hit again for 
$1.6 trillion in cuts from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and 
veterans benefits. Anyone who believes that those plans will not result 
in a serious cut to Social Security should consider this . . . Social 
Security represents 20 percent of all federal spending, making it 
unrealistic to think such large cuts in mandatory spending will not 
affect Social Security benefits. The Reid plan, before us today 
protects Social Security.
  I believe that the plan before us is an example of shared sacrifice. 
It removes the entire burden off the backs of seniors, the middle class 
and our nation's most vulnerable citizens. The Reid plan will not 
result in dramatic reductions in safety net programs for vulnerable 
Americans, such as food stamps and unemployment and disability 
insurance. This would be and should be unacceptable, and each is 
avoidable if corporations and the wealthy are required to shoulder a 
fair share of this burden.
  There has been a theme this Congress of focusing on cutting programs 
that benefit the public good and for the most at need, while ignoring 
the need to focus on job creation and economic recovery. This bill 
places us back on the right track. We should be focused on paying our 
nation's bills and resolving our differences.
  In my district, the Texas 18th, more than 190,000 people live below 
the poverty line. We must not, we cannot, at a time when the Census 
Bureau places the number of Americans living in poverty at the highest 
rate in over 50 years, cut vital social services. Not in the wake of 
the 2008 financial crisis and persistent unemployment, when so many 
rely on federal benefits to survive, like the Supplemental Nutrition 
Access Program (SNAP) that fed 3.9 million residents of Texas in April 
2011, or the Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) Program that provides 
nutritious food to more than 990,000 mothers and children in my home 
state.
  In 2009, there were 43.6 million Americans living in poverty 
nationwide. According to the 2010 Federal poverty threshold, determined 
by the U.S. Census, a family of four is considered impoverished if they 
are living on less than $22,314 per year.
  Children represent a disproportionate amount of the United States 
poor population. In 2008, there were 15.45 million impoverished 
children in the nation, 20.7% of America's youth. The Kaiser Family 
Foundation estimates that there are currently 5.6 million Texans living 
in poverty, 2.2 million of them children, and that 17.4% of households 
in the state struggle with food insecurity.
  Protecting Medicare represents the basic values of fairness and 
respect for our seniors, including the 2.9 million Texans who received 
Medicare in 2010.
  Any cuts to Medicaid would be just as damaging. Harris County has one 
of the highest Medicaid enrollment records in Texas. Limits and cuts to 
Medicaid funds would significantly hurt the citizens of Texas's 18th 
District. Harris County averages between 500,000 and 600,000 Medicaid 
recipients monthly, thousands of people who may not have access to 
healthcare should Congress sacrifice Medicaid to cut spending.
  Childhood hunger continues to be a real and persistent problem in the 
Houston/Harris County area. The number of people participating in the 
Food Stamp Program in Texas has increased by 82 percent since 2000. 
However, only 60 percent of those eligible for food stamps in Texas 
participate in the program.
  In Harris County, only 75 percent of children approved to receive 
free lunch participated, and only 39 percent of children approved to 
receive free breakfast took advantage of the benefit. Participation 
numbers are similarly low for those students approved to receive 
reduced-price lunch and breakfast. During summer months, participation 
in these federal nutrition programs drops significantly. In Texas the 
summer participation rate was only 8.1 percent of low income children.
  In 2008, when the recession first hit, 22.9 percent of Texas children 
were living in poverty, the fifth worst rate in the nation. As a result 
of the economic downturn that began in late 2008 in Texas, and parents 
losing their jobs, the child poverty rate increased to 24.4 percent in 
2009. That is 163,000 more children falling into poverty, or 1.6 
million Texas children overall.
  Many people assume that Texas was not hit as hard by the recession as 
other states because our unemployment rate is still below the national 
average. While our unemployment rate is low compared to the U.S. (8.2 
versus 9.8 percent, respectively, in November 2010),

[[Page 12549]]

it is still nearly double where it stood in November 2007 (4.4 
percent). In fact, Texas' unemployment rate has been around 8 percent 
for the last 16 months, which is extremely high given Texas' recent 
history.
  Nearly one in three Texas children has no parent with a full-time, 
year-round job, making them particularly vulnerable.
  When a household falls into poverty, children are exposed to 
increased parental distress, inadequate childcare arrangements, and 
poor nutrition. In past recessions, it took many years for employment 
and incomes to rebound, and low-income families rebound more slowly 
than others.
  72 percent of Texas' working families in poverty have at least one 
parent without health insurance.
  Public benefits such as health care or nutrition assistance help 
families bridge the gaps in difficult economic times and are critical 
in reducing the effects of a recession. Cutting these supports will 
hurt child and family well-being and damage the Texas economy by taking 
money out of the private economy for critical local businesses such as 
grocery stores and medical providers.
  The supplemental nutrition program, WIC, helps low-income pregnant 
women, new mothers, infants, and young children eat well and stay 
healthy. WIC provides nutrition education, nutritious foods, referrals 
to health and human services, breastfeeding support, and immunizations 
(at some clinics).
  More than 802,000 Texas children ages 0-4 (40 percent) received 
support through WIC. When you look at infants alone, 67 percent 
received WIC supplements, compared to only 35 percent of children aged 
1-4.
  The program has grown by more than 176,000 kids between 2000 and 
2009, with an increase of 66,000 children from 2007 to 2009 alone.
  During the recession, more families needed greater assistance with 
basic expenses. SNAP (formerly Food Stamps) provided benefits to over 3 
million Texans, more than half of which are children (ages 0-17).
  In January 2011, more than 2 million Texas children received 
assistance from SNAP, an increase of nearly 700,000 kids since January 
2008. Furthermore, because of added funds from the ARRA, monthly 
benefits rose 13.6 percent, giving added assistance to families at a 
time when they needed it most.
  The dramatic rise in applications for SNAP initially overwhelmed the 
already beleaguered state workers who enroll families in these federal 
benefits. In November of 2009, 43 percent of SNAP applications were not 
being processed within the federally mandated 30-day time period, 
leaving hundreds of thousands of families each month waiting for food 
assistance.
  More than 2.8 million Texas children participate in the school lunch 
program, and close to half of them also receive breakfast. More than 
$1.3 billion of federal funding is used to support these programs 
during the school year. Many counties in Texas also run summer 
nutrition programs so that kids who depend on school lunches have 
access to good nutrition when school is closed for the summer.
  Perhaps my friends on the other side of the aisle are content to 
conclude that life simply is not fair, equality is not accessible to 
everyone, and the less advantaged among us are condemned to remain as 
they are, but I do not accept that. That kind of complacency is not 
fitting for America.
  Yes, we must take steps to balance the budget and reduce the national 
debt, but not at the expense of vital social programs. It is 
unconscionable that in our nation of vast resources, my Republican 
colleagues even consider fighting to pass a budget that cuts funding 
for essential social programs. Poverty impacts far too many Americans 
and social safety nets provide these individuals with vital assistance
  As we continue to discuss the necessity of increasing our debt 
ceiling, I have heard the concerns of many of my constituents and the 
American people regarding the size of our national debt and the care 
with which taxpayer money is spent. I, too, am concerned about these 
issues; for to burden future generations of Americans with tremendous 
amounts of debt should not be a way to avoid our fiscal 
responsibilities to the American people. However, the task of resolving 
our debt ceiling crisis must take precedence over other concerns, 
including political ideology. The game is up, and the American people 
understand that increasing the debt ceiling has nothing to do with any 
new spending and everything to do with paying off the obligations that 
we have already agreed to and promised to pay.
  Prior to the existence of the debt ceiling, Congress had to approve 
borrowing each time the federal government wished to borrow money in 
order to carry out its functions. With the onset of World War I, more 
flexibility was needed to expand the government's capability to borrow 
money expeditiously in order to meet the rapidly changing requirements 
of funding a major war in the modern era.
  To address this need, the first debt ceiling was established in 1917, 
allowing the federal government to borrow money to meet its obligations 
without prior congressional approval, so long as in the aggregate, the 
amount borrowed did not eclipse a specified limit.
  Since the debt limit was first put in place, Congress has increased 
it over l00 times; in fact, it was raised 10 times within the past 
decade. Congress last came together and raised the debt ceiling in 
February 2010. Today, the debt ceiling currently stands at $14.3 
trillion. In reality, that limit has already been eclipsed, but due to 
accounting procedures by Treasury Secretary Geithner, the debt limit 
can be artificially avoided until August 2.
  Congress must act now in order to avert a crisis. Never in the 
history of America has the United States defaulted on its debt 
obligations.
  We must be clear on what this issue means for our country. America 
has earned a reputation as the world's most trusted borrower. United 
States Treasury bonds have traditionally been one of the safest 
investments another country or investor could make. For investors 
around the world, purchasing a U.S. Treasury bond meant that they held 
something virtually as safe as cash, backed by the full faith and 
credit of the United States government.
  In turn, with the proceeds from the bonds, the federal government of 
the world's largest economy is able to finance its operations. If the 
United States defaults on its debt obligations, the financial crisis 
that began in 2008 would pale in comparison, according to economic 
experts. The ensuing economic catastrophe would not only place the U.S. 
economy in a tailspin, but the world economy as well.
  The fact that Congress, a body that typically has its fair share of 
political battles, has never played political chicken when it came to 
raising the debt ceiling should give us all pause, and is a testament 
to the seriousness with which we must approach this issue. However, 
this time around, my Republican colleagues have created an impasse 
based upon an ideological commitment to spending cuts. While I 
understand and share the concern of my Republican colleagues with 
respect to deficit spending, and will continue to work with them in 
order to find reductions, now is not the time to put ideology over 
pragmatism. The reality is that, on August 3, the United States will 
begin to default on its debt obligations if the debt ceiling is not 
raised.
  This unnecessarily places the American public and the economy between 
a rock and a hard place. Either Congress sides completely with the 
radical agenda of the Tea Party, which irresponsibly pulls the chair 
out from under the average American while polishing the throne of the 
wealthiest.
  This detour into a spending debate is as unnecessary as it is 
perilous, as increasing the debt ceiling does not obligate the 
undertaking of any new spending by the federal government. Rather, 
raising the debt limit simply allows the government to pay existing 
legal obligations promised to debt holders that were already agreed to 
by Presidents and Congresses, both past and present.
  Moreover, the impending crisis would have already occurred were it 
not for the extraordinary measures taken by Treasury Secretary Timothy 
Geithner, including the suspension of the investment in securities to 
finance the Civil Service retirement and Disability Fund, as well as 
the redemption of a portion of those securities already held by that 
fund.
  If the United States defaults on its obligations on August 3, the 
stock market will react violently to the news that for the first time 
in history, America is unable to keep its promises to pay. Not once in 
American history has the country's full faith and credit been called 
into question.
  Once America defaults, investors who purchase U.S. bonds and finance 
our government will be less likely to lend to America in the future. 
Just as a person who defaults on a loan will find it harder to convince 
banks to lend them money in the future, a country that defaults on its 
debt obligations will find it harder to convince investors to lend 
money to a government that did not pay.
  Showing the world that the United States does not pay its debts makes 
the purchasing of that debt less desirable because it requires the 
assumption of more risk on the part of the investors. The opponents of 
this bill are putting the country at serious risk of losing its status 
as the world's economic superpower. Our allies will lose faith in our 
ability to manage global economic affairs. Our status in the world will 
be diminished, which will undermine our leverage on the world stage 
that allows us

[[Page 12550]]

to command the respect and compliance of other nations when it comes to 
decision-making. This bill will allow America to compete with a surging 
China.
  Furthermore, any investors that do continue to purchase U.S. Treasury 
bonds will demand much higher interest rates in order to cover the 
increased risk. Once a default occurs, investors figure that the chance 
of the United States defaulting again is much greater, and will require 
the government to pay higher rates of interest in order to make the 
loan worth the risk for investors to take on.
  Imagine the impact on our stock market if we do not pay our debts. As 
we have seen throughout the recent financial crisis, a bad stock market 
hurts not only big businesses and large investors on Wall Street, but 
small businesses and small investors as well. Families with investments 
tied to the stock market, such as 401(k)s, pension plans, and savings, 
will once again see the value of their investments drop. The American 
people are tired of the uncertainty of the value of their retirement 
accounts. We must not allow another wild fluctuation to occur due to 
default and add to the uncertainty still lingering in the minds of 
citizens.
  The markets have made it clear that a short-term extension and Reid's 
plan is a long term solution which averts serious consequences.
  As if another stock market crisis were not enough, the housing market 
would take another hit if America defaulted. Higher mortgage rates in a 
housing market already weakened by default and foreclosures would cause 
a further depression of home values, destroying whatever equity 
families might have left in their homes after the housing crisis. 
Moreover, the long-term effects would reduce spending and investment in 
the housing market.
  Increasing the debt ceiling is the responsible thing to do. Congress 
has already debated and approved the debt that an increased ceiling 
makes room for. However, my Republican colleagues have chosen to use 
this as an opportunity to hold the American people hostage to their 
extreme agenda.
  Even prominent Republicans like Senator John McCain and Christine 
Todd Whitman have criticized the radical elements of their party who 
insist upon holding up the entire political process in order to flaunt 
their extreme, irrational, and unrealistic ideology. Senator McCain has 
called the Tea Party's stance and the way they have conducted 
themselves during this manufactured crisis ``bizarre,'' and I am 
inclined to agree. Their agenda for this country is even too radical 
for Speaker Boehner, with the Tea Party vowing to reject their leader's 
own bill.
  Texas has the unfortunate distinction of leading the nation as the 
highest percentage of residents uninsured. More than 5.8 million 
Texans--including 1.5 million children--lack health insurance. Texas' 
uninsured rates, 1.5 to 2 times the national average, create 
significant problems in the financing and delivery of health care to 
all Texans. One in every four Texans lacks health insurance coverage, 
and that number is one in every three in large cities like Houston and 
Dallas. According to the Gallup poll, an average of 26.8 percent of 
Texas residents was uninsured.
  With only 75% of the residents being insured, this means that one in 
four residents within the state is unprotected and could be in 
financial stress in case of a medical emergency. This extremely high 
percentage of residents lacking health insurance coverage is one of the 
biggest challenges the Texas Department of Insurance and Department of 
Health face.
  Here's an idea that wouldn't cost Texas a dime but would save 
millions of dollars every year: Remove all barriers restraining nurses 
from practicing to the full extent of their education and training. No 
state needs primary care providers more than Texas, which has a severe 
shortage. Texas ranks last in access to health care and in the 
percentage of residents without health insurance. Of Texas' 254 
counties, 188 are designated by the federal government as having acute 
shortages of primary care physicians. Of that number, 16 counties have 
one and 23 have zero. If every nurse practitioner and family doctor 
were deployed, we still couldn't meet the need. Texans are desperate 
for health care.
  I have worked effortlessly with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to gain bipartisan support for successful passage of an amendment 
to the landmark healthcare reform bill that made sure no hospital is 
forced to shut its doors or turn away Medicare or Medicaid patients. 
Existing physician-owned hospitals employ approximately 51,700 
individuals, have over 27,000 physicians on staff, pay approximately 
$2,421,579,312 in payroll taxes and $512,889,516 in other federal 
taxes, and have approximately $1.9 billion in trade payables. With 
approximately 50 physician-owned hospitals, Texas leads the nation in 
the number of physician-owned hospitals. The Texas economy could lose 
more than $2.3 billion and more than 22,000 jobs without these 
important hospitals.
  American families spend almost twice as much on health care--through 
premiums, paycheck deductions and out-of-pocket expenses--as families 
in any other country. In exchange, we receive quality specialty care in 
many areas. Yet on the whole, Americans do not get much better care 
than countries that spend far less. Americans do not live as long as 
people in Canada, Japan, and most of Western Europe. This should 
clearly indicate that health care reform was needed. The landmark bill 
signed by President Obama will provide coverage to millions of people 
who currently lack it.
  They live in a world that is not the world that the American people 
live in. In their world, they believe that taxes are always too high, 
even on people making over a billion a year in a struggling economy; 
that any increase in revenue is fundamentally wrong, even if it comes 
from large corporations who use tax loopholes at the expense of our 
job-creating small businesses; that investing anything in our economic 
future above tax revenues is impermissible, even in the midst of an 
economic downturn; and that tax cuts for the wealthy are always the 
nation's top priority, even at the expense of people that depend on 
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans benefits to survive.
  These beliefs place them on the fringe of American society, and yet 
due to the nature our political process, they have held up the entire 
government and placed our economy on the precipice of a turbulent 
second recession.
  If Congress cannot find a resolution then Congress will open the 
possibility that the President may invoke the Fourteenth Amendment to 
the United States Constitution, Section four, which states ``the 
validity of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be 
questioned.'' The argument can be made that if Congress will not 
resolve our nation's pending default then the President to protect the 
interest of our nation must act. The President would then have to 
consider his powers under the Fourteenth Amendment which may grant him 
the authority to raise the debt ceiling, on his own, through executive 
order and if Congress fails to raise the debt limit by the August 2, 
2011 deadline. As a body we should not place the President or our 
country in this position.
  For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to consider the constituents 
in their home districts who would be helped by this bill. I urge my 
colleagues to return to the world in which the vast majority of 
Americans live in; a world in which our shared destiny is determined by 
reasonable minds and good faith efforts to compromise. Federal Reserve 
Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that defaulting could ``throw the 
financial system into chaos,'' and ``destroy the trust and confidence 
that global investors have in Treasury securities as being the safest 
liquid assets in the world.''
  Instead of injecting ideological spending cuts into the traditionally 
non-political business of raising the debt ceiling, we must work 
quickly to pass a this bill that makes good on our debt obligations and 
restores confidence in American credit.
  There is in these difficult times no tea party, no Democratic Party, 
no Republican Party. There is only one party--there is only one party--
the party that is the embodiment of one nation--America and we should 
stand for Americans and one America--I vote ``yes'' to save America 
from default and to honor the full, faith and credit.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Scott).
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Ladies and gentlemen of the House of 
Representatives, this is not a Nation of Tea Party people. It is not a 
Nation of Democrats or Republicans. It is a Nation of all of us.
  And what the Reid plan presents, it represents the Tea Party, the 
Republicans and the Democrats and the President of the United States. 
This is what the American people expect us to do. That is what has made 
this country great. At critical times, we've come together and we have 
compromised. We're protecting Medicare. We're protecting Social 
Security. We're protecting Medicaid, as the people of this country 
want.
  And yet, as the Republicans and the Tea Party want, there are no tax 
increases in this. And as the President of the United States has asked 
us, there will be a second task in the year 2013.

[[Page 12551]]



                              {time}  1410

  Ladies and gentlemen of this House, the time is present. It is time 
for us to do the American thing: Stand up for the American people and 
let us compromise in the best interests of all of us so this Nation 
will not go into default.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Madam Speaker, I think it's very important to note that yesterday and 
today we are continuing to hear that under the Boehner proposal cuts in 
Medicare and Social Security would take place, when in fact both the 
Boehner and Reid proposals have virtually identical plans to put into 
place a joint select committee that would in fact report back to this 
institution.
  With that, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my very good friend, a 
member of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Houston, 
Texas (Mr. Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Speaker, I think it's important for everyone to 
know the reason the House is considering this bill today is to put up 
another guardrail to show what the House cannot do. It's important in 
any compromise to understand what can and cannot be done.
  The new constitutional conservative majority in the House will not 
pass the Reid bill because of its devastating cuts to our U.S. 
military. The House is going to find a way to compromise with the 
Senate, but it is not going to include massive cuts to the military. As 
we've established, it's not going to include tax increases. It looks 
like it's going to include some select committee that's going to make 
recommendations to the Congress.
  We're going to find a way to make sure that American companies do not 
hit the brick wall of running out of the ability to borrow. But this is 
one of the most important debates, one of the most important votes 
we'll have in our brief time here in Congress is to make sure that 
we're protecting our kids and grandchildren from a crushing 
unaffordable level of debt. So we're working hard to find what the 
limits are of what the House and the Senate will do.
  We've got to have this vote today to show what the House will not do. 
And we're not going to cut the military, as the Reid bill would.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Madam Speaker, make no mistake about it. From day one, this 
Republican majority has put Medicare on the chopping block. And the 
Boehner proposal would decimate Medicare and Medicaid and Social 
Security as we know it.
  At this point, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would point out to my good friend from 
Texas, Madam Speaker, as a constitutional conservative, he should 
recognize that the Constitution, itself, was a series of compromises.
  Our Nation and economy is being pushed closer and closer to default. 
Hardliners on the right--extremists by any other name--have refused to 
compromise. We are putting in jeopardy the payment of the Social 
Security obligations and paying the members of our military. The 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff yesterday couldn't even answer in 
the affirmative that he was confident that those payments could be made 
if we default. We're putting in jeopardy the full faith and credit of 
our Nation.
  Yesterday, seniors in my district called my office in tears, 
wondering whether we would default and what those consequences would 
mean for them. These are real people who live on Social Security to 
survive.
  We have many strongly held views on both sides of the aisle. I don't 
like everything in the Reid proposal before us, but compromise is 
critical. I recognize that I can't have everything 100 percent my way. 
Democrats have been at the compromise table for months with an empty 
chair on the other side of the table. It is time for Republicans to 
warm that seat across from us.
  Mr. Dreier claims that Republicans have brought the Reid proposal to 
the floor to show that it doesn't represent a bill that can pass the 
House, yet the process is a sham. The bill has been brought up under a 
rule that requires a two-thirds vote of this House for passage, which 
they know cannot happen.
  What are Republicans afraid of? They're afraid that a fair process 
might show just how much support there is for this proposal.
  Where are the cooler heads in the Republican Caucus? Where are they? 
They appear not to exist. Your caucus seems to be held hostage by 
extremists and have driven the moderates from the room and from the 
discussion. Allowing extremists to take over is doing harm to our 
country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you.
  President Obama and House and Senate Democrats have said we are 
willing to support cuts even to programs we would normally fight to 
preserve. Republicans in response have doubled down in a Groundhog Day 
move that has pushed dead-on-arrival proposals that jeopardize our 
economy by bringing us closer to the brink of chaos.
  At the end of the day, the stewardship of our economy is our 
responsibility.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to our good 
friend, a hardworking new Member of this institution, the gentlewoman 
from Camas, Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).
  Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Madam Speaker, the reason we came here, this 
caucus is here, the new freshmen are here, is because the American 
people said, Enough. They said, You're spending too much of our money. 
And that's what this conversation is about today.
  The President stood on the floor across the Rotunda a couple of years 
ago and said, It's a failure of leadership to raise the debt ceiling. 
Well, guess what? I came here never expecting to raise the debt 
ceiling, but I've now compromised. I've twice voted to raise the debt 
ceiling to cover spending from a failed stimulus, from a health care 
bill that ends Medicare as we know it. I voted twice for solutions. And 
that's compromise for me.
  When I ran for this seat, I told the people that I serve, I'm not 
extreme; I am mad. I'm mad that Washington, D.C., thinks you are their 
piggy bank.
  That's what this debate is about. We end it today.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 10 seconds, Madam Speaker, just to 
remind the gentlelady that she has voted time and time and time again 
to decimate Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and we're not 
going to stand by and let them do that.
  At this point I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, the 
ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Van Hollen.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I think the American people just heard a new 
definition of compromise: Paying your bills is a compromise. The 
American family can't wake up one morning and say, Boy, it's a 
compromise to pay for what I've already incurred. It's a compromise to 
pay my mortgage. That's a new one for the American people. And it's 
part of a reckless pattern that we've seen emerging here.
  First our Republican colleagues walked out of the Biden talks. Twice 
they walked out of talks with the President of the United States. Then, 
when the Republican leader in the Senate put forward a proposal, they 
ridiculed it. Then, Thursday night, in this very House, they said 
``no'' to the proposal by the Republican Speaker of this House until he 
amended--the same Speaker who said we need to have an adult moment.
  Here's the concluding paragraph of today's Wall Street Journal: 
Republicans are not looking like adults to whom we can entrust the 
government.
  The American people are looking for that adult moment. If you're not 
willing to compromise on critical things for the country, you are not 
fit to govern. And that is why Senator Reid put forward a compromise 
proposal. He doesn't like his own proposal. He would be the first to 
tell you that. But you know what it did? It met the criteria

[[Page 12552]]

our Republican colleagues put forward--$2.4 trillion in cuts. And even 
if you take out the war savings, more guaranteed cuts, according to 
CBO, than the Boehner proposal the other night. It also incorporates 
McConnell's proposal.
  Here's what it doesn't do. It doesn't end the Medicare guarantee. It 
doesn't cut Social Security. And it doesn't protect tax breaks for 
special interest corporations.
  What we're seeing here is people are holding the American economy 
hostage. You have to stop playing kamikaze pilot with the future of the 
American people in order to extract a hundred percent of demands for 
budgets your way. Compromise is necessary. And that is what Senator 
Reid put forward, a compromise proposal.
  Let's show we can govern together.

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. DREIER. I yield myself 5 seconds to again say to my colleagues 
that the measure we voted on last night stemmed from a bipartisan 
compromise that was put together in this very Capitol one week ago 
today.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my good 
friend from Urbana, Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
  Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let's just cut to the numbers and what this bill does. We've got a 
$14 trillion debt. This is going to raise the debt ceiling $2.4 
trillion. It's going to achieve a savings of $18 billion in the first 
year.
  So just think of it the way the American people would see things. 
You've got a kid who has maxed out the credit card at $14,000. The kid 
goes to the bank, and the bank says, Okay. Here's what we're going to 
do. We're going to give you 2,400 more dollars on the credit card, but 
you have to promise us, over the next year, you're going to spend $18 
less than you planned on spending.
  That's what this bill does. This bill doesn't even come close to 
starting to solve the problem. That's why we're against it, and that's 
why it should be defeated.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 5 seconds.
  My colleague from California keeps on saying that the Boehner bill 
was bipartisan. I'll remind him that not one single Democrat voted for 
that bill because Democrats do not want to decimate Social Security, 
Medicare and Medicaid.
  At this time, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. I assume that some think that the American people are 
gullible, but this is not a coincidence or happenstance. We've got a 
Republican majority that took us from trillions in surplus to trillions 
in deficit, added a $7 trillion prescription drug plan, unfunded wars, 
and then refused any additional revenue. In choking off our country's 
ability to pay its debt, now they want to walk us towards default. This 
is a special place in the shadows of the history books for a group of 
people who in order to gain power are willing to sacrifice America's 
leadership in this world.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to any of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who will tell me where in the 
Boehner bill it says that we want to cut Medicare, Social Security or 
any of the other items that they continue to attack. I would be happy 
to yield to anyone who can point me to where in the Boehner bill it 
says that. I am happy to yield to anyone.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to my friend from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. In the balanced budget amendment that you have and in 
the Ryan proposal, you have all of it going after Medicare and Social 
Security.
  Mr. DREIER. With that, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to my good 
friend from Aurora, Colorado (Mr. Coffman).
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Madam Speaker, the President of the United 
States, Barack Obama, has said to the Congress that we need to put 
America first and get this debt limit done. I agree with that. I agree 
that we need to put America first and put politics aside.
  Last weekend, a bipartisan proposal emerged with Speaker Boehner and 
Majority Leader Reid, Senator Reid, coming to an agreement, but the 
President of the United States got ahold of Senator Reid and said, 
Absolutely not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds, Madam 
Speaker.
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. The reason he rejected the agreement was 
because it didn't have enough money to get him through the election of 
November 2012. The President's campaign consideration is not putting 
America first. We need to put America first and vote down the Reid 
proposal.
  Mr. McGOVERN. May I inquire of the time remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 6\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Maybe the gentleman from California might want to yield 
to Mr. Van Hollen; but at this point, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I did ask a few minutes ago and expended 
time by asking anyone to yield. We have a lot of Members here who want 
to be heard. Mr. McGovern has time if he would like to yield it.
  I yield 15 seconds to my friend from Maryland, and maybe Mr. McGovern 
will yield him 15 seconds. Then we can hear what Mr. Van Hollen has to 
say.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  If you look at the Boehner proposal, it says we've got to cut $1.8 
trillion. The Speaker of the House has already said that you can't have 
any revenue as part of that, that you can't close one corporate 
loophole. In fact, he said that the majority would override any 
proposal, so the only other way to get it mathematically is to start 
slashing Medicare and to start going after Social Security.
  Mr. DREIER. In reclaiming my time, my point has been made very 
eloquently by the gentleman, and I very much appreciate it. I thank my 
friend for his contribution.
  Madam Speaker, at this point, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my good 
friend from Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  As we used to say in the courtroom, the facts are that there are no 
facts. The truth of the matter is that the only people who are cutting 
$500 billion from Medicare are the Democrats in their proposal, but 
that's not my point.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEHAN. No, the gentleman will not yield. Let me make my point, 
and then I'll be off.
  The issue here is really one of compromise. I come here as a 
freshman, as somebody who is looking at this for the first time. When 
we came in and worked on the bill, the Boehner proposal, the 
frustration for me was knowing going in that evening that I'd already 
been made aware that this leadership, the leadership of the party on 
the other side, had whipped their members so not a single member was 
ready on the other side to sit and talk to anyone on this aisle. The 
whip was there: You will not vote. You will not talk.
  We were not able.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Just to be very clear, what we did was eliminate the 
overpayments to some of the Medicare Advantage plans. Listen, we used 
much of those savings to close the prescription drug doughnut hole. In 
your budget, you took the whole $500 billion, but you reopened the 
prescription drug doughnut hole at the same time you were eliminating 
the Medicare guarantee. That's the difference.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield myself 5 seconds to say that I thank the 
gentleman for, once again, pointing out the fact that there is nothing 
in the Boehner proposal that does anything to cut Social Security or 
Medicare.
  Madam Speaker, with that, I am happy to yield 15 seconds to a new

[[Page 12553]]

Member from Zeeland, Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I appreciate my colleague from California 
for yielding.
  Earlier, we heard from a colleague from Florida, on the other side of 
the aisle, who was talking about the Constitution and about the intent 
of it. Ladies and gentlemen, this is about controlling our spending and 
accountability with the American people. It might not be in this bill, 
and it might not be in other bills, but eventually, we have to realize 
we need to put institutional brakes on our spending because we cannot 
control our spending in this institution.
  Mr. McGOVERN. This is about protecting Social Security and Medicare 
and Medicaid.
  I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, 
our assistant leader, Mr. Clyburn.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. CLYBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, the clock is ticking, the American people are 
anxiously waiting for responsible leadership, and the Republicans here 
in Congress are continuing to play political games.
  Last night the United States Senate rightly defeated the Boehner bill 
on a bipartisan vote. That partisan bill was the product of the 
Republicans' ``my way or the highway'' approach that held all Americans 
hostage to exact a ransom payment for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social 
Security beneficiaries.
  Now we must find a commonsense compromise. That's why I will vote for 
the Reid bill today. The Reid bill saves America's economy from the 
devastation that would result from defaulting on our fiduciary 
obligations.
  Throughout the deliberations on this self-inflicted debt crisis, my 
bottom line has been to protect Social Security, Medicare, and 
Medicaid. This plan contains real spending cuts and deficit reduction 
to begin putting our Nation's fiscal house in order. It meets the 
Speaker's requirement that spending be cut by an amount at least as 
large as the debt ceiling increase. And it does so while protecting 
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid beneficiaries. It also 
safeguards Pell Grants that provide low-income young people the 
opportunity to go to college and to work to achieve the American Dream.
  We must take responsible action now to avert this crisis and move to 
significant measures to create jobs and generate economic growth.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Tupelo, Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).
  Mr. NUNNELEE. Thank you, Mr. Dreier.
  We've heard from our friends on the other side ``we want 
compromise.'' The American people expect solutions.
  This Harry Reid plan offers no real solutions to the out-of-control 
spending problem. This Harry Reid plan offers no solutions to the 
broken Washington mess that got us here. So I will vote ``no.''
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire about the time on both 
sides, please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1\3/4\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute 
to my good friend from Wantage, New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor, as the previous 
speaker has said, to say this side of the aisle is committed to 
reaching a solution and not just a deal to this problem. We are 
committed to reaching out across the aisle and across the other side of 
this House to reach a compromise.
  We have already compromised on the level of cuts going even further. 
We have already compromised on the level of the caps, raising the caps 
to make it even easier in that regard as well. We have also already 
compromised from where we started with regard to a balanced budget 
amendment, holding true to the idea that we should, as all Americans 
also agree, eventually pass a change to the Constitution and require a 
balanced budget amendment.
  But at the end of the day, although we will compromise on cuts and we 
will compromise on caps and we will compromise on moving forward on a 
balanced budget amendment, let it be clear, as God is my witness, we 
will not compromise on our principles; our principles of defending the 
Constitution and defending Americans and making sure that our posterity 
does not have this excessive debt on it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Here we're on the brink of economic disaster and we're 
wasting time with symbolic political theater at its worst.
  We want compromise and solutions and to protect Medicare on the 
Democratic side. Why don't you try working with Democrats? The American 
people want us to meet in the middle. They don't want this nonsense.
  The debate now focuses only on spending cuts, without closing tax 
loopholes, and that still isn't enough for some. No wonder The Wall 
Street Journal said the Republicans don't look like adults to whom 
voters can entrust the government.
  The Democrats want to compromise in the middle, and if the President 
needs to pull the 14th Amendment, I think he should do that because the 
Republicans have shown they don't want compromise at all.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Newburgh, Indiana (Mr. Bucshon).
  Mr. BUCSHON. Madam Speaker, here we are on the verge of a financial 
meltdown, and my friends on the other side of the aisle are worried 
about politics. They are here today worried about protecting the 
President from having to do his job: lead.
  The Republicans in the House are leading. We have passed two bills 
that would end this crisis, and the Senate hasn't voted on them; 
they've tabled them.
  We're here to lead. We need leadership and we are providing it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. At this time I'm happy to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Ashland, Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
  Mr. DUFFY. Madam Speaker, the American people are sick of these kinds 
of conversations.
  My friends across the aisle voted to rob $500 billion out of Medicare 
for ObamaCare. They instituted the IPAB Board that's going to ration 
care for our seniors.
  We brought a proposal to this House that was going to root out all 
loopholes in nooks and crannies where businesses hide their money, and 
they all voted ``no.''
  The American people are looking for real solutions. And you know 
what? This Harry Reid bill is full of budget gimmicks that don't get 
the job done.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 30 
seconds to the gentleman from Biloxi, Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).
  Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Speaker, the American people entrusted each Member 
of Congress with extraordinary power. That's the power to cast votes as 
their voice in Congress and provide solutions to America's problems. 
Most of all, they expect us to lead during times of crisis.
  House Republicans have led. House Republicans have provided plans and 
solutions to America's debt crisis. House Republicans have used their 
voice as Representatives of their district to end the debt limit crisis 
and begin balancing the budget. We've done our job; it's time the 
Senate does theirs.
  Leader Reid and President Obama are all that stand between the 
American people and a responsible resolution to this debt crisis. I say 
to our colleagues in the Senate, we were sent here not to punt on 
difficult decisions.
  Vote ``no'' on the Reid plan.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record an

[[Page 12554]]

article that appeared in The Wall Street Journal today entitled ``The 
Debt-Limit Hobbits.''

             [From the Wall Street Journal, July 30, 2011]

                         The Debt-Limit Hobbits

       Political logic and perhaps even common sense seem to be 
     prevailing within the House GOP after Thursday's debt-ceiling 
     vote was postponed--at least among most of the caucus. The 
     shame is that the debt-limit absolutists have weakened 
     Speaker John Boehner's hand in negotiating a final bill with 
     Senate Democrats.
       At the most practical level, Mr. Boehner's plan is better 
     than the one Harry Reid supports in the Senate. This remains 
     true of the revisions Mr. Boehner released yesterday, though 
     the irony is that it is less credible and weaker politically 
     than the previous version. The concession the holdouts 
     demanded, and got--a balanced budget amendment--ensures that 
     it cannot pass the Senate. The best but unlikely scenario is 
     that the bill otherwise remains intact.
       In the years for which claims of spending restraint are 
     most credible--fiscal 2012 and 2013--the Boehner bill would 
     cut $25 billion and $47 billion from the outlays that the 
     Congressional Budget Office projected in March. Off the same 
     baseline, the plan would cut $756 billion through 2021 in 
     return for an initial $900 billion in new borrowing. The 
     topline figure of $1.2 trillion in cuts that everyone cites 
     comes by comparing the Boehner plan to CBO's ``budgetary 
     authority'' estimate from January, which is far less 
     realistic but is also the platform used in the negotiations 
     led by Joe Biden.
       Some will deride $72 billion in cuts over the next two 
     years as nickels and dimes, and it's true it is nowhere near 
     commensurate to the scale of the spending problem. But it's 
     also incremental progress, which is how the American 
     political system usually changes, and a larger real reduction 
     in government than any time since 1995.
       For comparison's sake, Paul Ryan's budget blueprint that 
     the House passed in April would cut $74 billion in outlays 
     over 2012-2013 and $746 billion in total over the next 10 
     years. Accomplishing roughly the same thing via the Boehner 
     plan, with no new tax increases, while controlling only one-
     half of one branch of government, would be a major GOP 
     achievement.
       The plan also includes domestic spending caps, enforced 
     with an automatic sequester for 10 years. Such caps could be 
     overridden by a future Congress, but they make it harder and 
     help to create a culture of fiscal discipline.
       Another benefit is that the Boehner bill would require a 
     second debt-limit increase of $1.6 trillion next year, with 
     conditions. Curbing the size and growth of government is a 
     constant struggle, and the Boehner plan creates another 
     opening for further progress.
       By contrast, the Reid plan raises the debt ceiling by $2.7 
     trillion now, which effectively closes off debate until after 
     the 2012 election. All told, it cuts spending by $2.2 
     trillion compared to the March CBO budgetary authority 
     baseline--though with multiple gimmicks that include $1.044 
     trillion in ``savings'' from winding down the wars in Iraq 
     and Afghanistan that will happen anyway.
       Amid this ``baseline'' confusion, we wish House Republicans 
     had used this debate to reform Washington's fiscal hall of 
     mirrors. Baseline budgeting is a rigged game, with spending 
     increasing automatically each year above the rate of 
     inflation. Anything below that inflated baseline is then 
     called a ``cut.'' Even Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo took 
     on these automatic spending formulas when he set out to tame 
     the New York budget.
       Instead of such a useful reform, a GOP faction is fixated 
     on a balanced budget amendment. After Thursday's stall, the 
     new Boehner plan will only authorize the second tranche of 
     debt if two-thirds of both chambers pass such an amendment 
     and send it to the states for ratification. This will not 
     happen.
       These columns drew much notice after John McCain quoted our 
     July 27 ``tea party hobbits'' line on the Senate floor. 
     Senator (sic) Sharron Angle responded that ``it is the 
     hobbits who are the heroes and save the land.'' Well, okay, 
     but our point was that there's no such thing as a hobbit. 
     Passing a balanced budget amendment this year is a similar 
     fantasy. Yet outfits like the Club for Growth used the 
     amendment as an excuse to flip from opposing the Boehner plan 
     to supporting it. Maybe it should be the Club for Futile 
     Fiscal Gestures.
       The main result of this pointless crusade has been to 
     damage Mr. Boehner's leverage and push the final debt-limit 
     increase in Mr. Reid's direction. The Speaker may now have to 
     seek the tender mercies of Nancy Pelosi to get a final bill 
     through the House, and who knows what her price will be.
       The debt-limit hobbits should also realize that at this 
     point the Washington fracas they are prolonging isn't helping 
     their cause. Republicans are not looking like adults to whom 
     voters can entrust the government.

  I would advise the gentleman from California that our leader is 
prepared to close for us. I will take 15 seconds and then introduce our 
leader.
  Mr. DREIER. Then I will reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I implore rational Republicans to join 
Democrats in passing the Reid bill. I appeal to your sense of 
responsibility, to your sense of duty, to your country. Have the 
courage of your convictions to do what's right. Don't be paralyzed by 
the threats and intimidating tactics of the Tea Party or other extreme 
groups. Stand up to protect Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California, 
the Democratic leader, and a defender of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social 
Security, Nancy Pelosi.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I applaud him for his 
superb leadership of this bill today. I recognize the great leadership 
of Mr. Van Hollen as the ranking member on the Budget Committee and he 
and Mr. Clyburn representing the values of the American people at the 
negotiating table for this.
  I rise in support of the Reid legislation and urge my colleagues to 
support it because it protects Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, 
because it is fair.
  But I want to use my time in the following way.
  I listened very carefully and very attentively to our Speaker 
yesterday when he spoke, and he used the term the bill is not perfect, 
but we did ``our level best.'' ``Our level best.'' One might infer from 
that that this process is on the level.
  How can it be on the level if we're bringing a $2\1/2\ trillion bill 
to the floor under suspension the same way we might bring the naming of 
a post office? It's $2\1/2\ trillion, 20 minutes on each side.
  Members have said, on both sides of the aisle, this is a very 
important debate. Well, if it is, why is it brought under suspension, 
which requires a two-thirds vote, guaranteeing that it will not 
prevail? Not on the level.
  The word ``level,'' of course, enters into is this a level playing 
field? Is it on the level for America's seniors to pay more for 
Medicare for fewer benefits while we give tax subsidies to Big Oil? Is 
it on the level for us to throw people out of nursing homes by reducing 
Medicaid so we can give tax breaks to corporations sending jobs 
overseas? Is it on the level for us to make young people and their 
families pay more for their college education so we can give tax breaks 
to the high end? Is it on the level to bring a Boehner bill to the 
floor that makes all of those cuts, undermines Social Security, 
eliminates Medicare, and that does not charge one red cent to people 
who have benefited so much from the greatness of our country?
  Is it our best? Is it our best to drag this out for all this time to 
keep in suspense as to whether we would honor our constitutional 
responsibility to pay our debts? The Constitution says the national 
debt has to be recognized.
  And recognize we did, President after President, 32 times in recent 
memory--including when President Bush was President; at that time, even 
though many of us did not agree with the war in Iraq, did not agree to 
the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our country to the tune of 
hundreds of billions of dollars, did not agree to the giveaway to the 
pharmaceutical industry. We didn't agree with that policy. That's how 
we got into debt, turning around from the surplus direction we were 
going in with President Clinton whose last four budgets were in balance 
or in surplus. We didn't agree how President Bush took us into debt, 
but we never, never stood in the way of honoring the full faith and 
credit of the United States.
  Why, then, would we, this one time with this President, decide that 
we would put up barriers so extreme like changing the Constitution in 
order to lift the debt limit as a mathematical requirement?
  Of course, we must all reduce the deficit. But is it our best to say 
we're going to use the debate to reduce the deficit to destroy to the 
public space?
  Look at the appropriations bills they're bringing before us. 
Destroying

[[Page 12555]]

the public space of clean air, clean water, food safety, the education 
of our children, the financial security of our seniors through Medicare 
and Medicaid. That's what they are doing.
  If we are just reducing the deficit here, we have come to those 
conclusions. We have to do it. We know how to do it.
  But if they want to take it to the next step of destroying the public 
sector, we cannot go to that place when it affects the air our children 
breathe, the water they drink, the food they eat, the education they 
receive, the safety of the neighborhoods in which they live.
  The Speaker also said that the bill was not perfect. Well, no bill is 
perfect. But I think I disagree in one respect. I think this bill is 
perfect in its absurdity. His bill was perfectly absurd. It's perfectly 
absurd, again, to say to our President, after 32 times lifting the debt 
ceiling: We're going to change the game for you, Mr. President.
  It's perfectly absurd for them to say that the bill they brought to 
the floor, the Boehner bill that they brought to the floor, was an 
agreement of the four leaders of the House and Senate, Democrats and 
Republicans. Either you don't know what you're talking about or it's a 
perfect absurdity.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I will not yield to you.
  It is very, very important that we all take a deep breath. We have 
important work to do, an important decision to make. Senator Reid has 
given us a direction to go. No cuts in benefits for Medicare, Medicaid, 
and Social Security beneficiaries.
  I wish that we had revenues in there so that those who have benefited 
from the greatness of the last 50 years of bipartisan progress for the 
American people would be able to make their contribution, but there is 
not one red cent of revenue while we're saying kids should pay more for 
their student loans.
  So it's time to end this theater of the absurd. It's time for us to 
get real. It's time for us to get real and listen to the wisdom of the 
American people. They have said to us that they support, in 
overwhelming numbers, a bipartisan, balanced approach, in overwhelming 
numbers that we should all pay our fair share. And they all agree that 
we should get this over with so we can get back to work putting the 
American people back to work by creating jobs.
  The Speaker chose, when he didn't have the votes, instead of reaching 
out in a bipartisan way to see how we could work together, he chose to 
go to the dark side. I repeat, he chose to go to the dark side by 
putting forth a bill that he, himself, told his members would sink in 
the Senate, and I add, lead to default.
  We cannot default. We're the greatest country that ever existed in 
the history of the world. We're the United States of America.
  So let's go from the dark side to the bright side of the American 
people. Vote ``yes'' on the Reid bill.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. DREIER. I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Madam Speaker, I believe in civil discourse, and I want to say that 
on several occasions in the past 45 minutes, members of my staff have 
urged me to have the words taken down that have been offered by Members 
on the other side of the aisle, and I chose not to. In the name of 
civility, I chose not to because we have a very serious issue that 
needs to be addressed, and it's before us, and we need to make sure 
that in the next several hours, we effectively address it.
  Since 1962, on 75 different occasions, we have seen the United States 
Congress increase the debt ceiling. We keep hearing about the urgency 
that exists today. Well, I'll tell you what's urgent: If we don't 
change the course that we've been on the last 4 years, with an 82 
percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending, we are not 
going to have resources for any of the things that my colleagues have 
talked about. What we need to do and the message that has been sent is 
that for the first time ever, we are going to change business as usual.
  Now I'm going to say something that I probably shouldn't at the very 
end here. There are some good things in Senator Reid's proposal. I 
believe that the idea of establishing a joint select committee of our 
colleagues who will come together and make recommendations and force an 
up-or-down vote in both Houses of Congress is a positive thing. But I 
will say this: I don't believe that continuing down the road towards 
increasing the debt ceiling without the kinds of checks that are 
necessary is the right thing for us to do. Last night's agreement that 
we voted on here was, in fact. It stemmed from the bipartisan talks 
that took place right down this hall.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Vote ``no'' on the Reid proposal.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Bipartisan Budget 
Control Act, H.R. 2693. Unlike Speaker Boehner's bill, which has 
already been defeated in the Senate, this is the compromise bill that 
is needed to avert a default and protect our fragile economy.
  Congress needs to step up and start governing. Yet, the Republican 
majority appears uninterested in anything that has not been vetted by 
the radical wing of their party or designed to embarrass the President. 
Today is no exception. Rather than holding a real vote on this bill, it 
is being brought up under suspension of the rules in order to guarantee 
failure. This is a procedure we use to name post offices and 
congratulate sports teams. It is not how we handle serious issues and 
it is shameful that Republicans are holding a non-serious vote when our 
nation is three days away from a default.
  Make no mistake, this is not the legislation I would have written. It 
relies on cuts to domestic spending that will hurt the poor and the 
middle class. It includes no revenues, not even ending the egregious 
tax subsidies for big oil companies and corporate jet owners. However, 
the legislation does not cut Medicare and Social Security and protects 
both from automatic cuts in the future. It also saves $1 trillion by 
winding down the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which have been major 
drivers of our debt. Finally, unlike the failed Boehner bill, this 
legislation provides certainty and stability by extending the debt 
ceiling through next year and ensuring that we will not be on the brink 
of default once again in a few months.
  The long-term fiscal health of our country can only be improved if we 
make the investments necessary to create jobs and if we put revenues on 
the table. Unfortunately, House Republicans refused to consider the 
balanced approach that the American people wanted. Instead, they have 
driven us to the edge of default and the economic calamity that would 
result. Now is the time to act to end this crisis. This is not a 
perfect bill, but it is a responsible solution to the current crisis 
urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today, the House of Representatives 
considered and rejected the proposal placed by Senate Majority Leader 
Reid before the Senate. While this is not remotely the solution we 
need, I voted in favor because this is the best the Republicans in the 
Senate will allow. It is imperative that Congress keep the hope alive 
that we will avert default on our nation's obligations. This bill is 
likely the last and best proposal we will see.
  Speaker Boehner stated on the House Floor that he was ``sticking his 
neck out a mile,'' as he negotiated with the President on this issue. 
If he truly was sincere about this, Congress easily could have found a 
bipartisan solution to avoid the debt-ceiling crisis and start down a 
path of fiscal sustainability. I must point out that this crisis is 
wholly artificial and manufactured, and that the Speaker easily could 
have avoided it, had he chose to.
  While I voted yes today, at some point there are worse outcomes. This 
action, and Congress's failure to find a longer-term compromise, is a 
looming cloud over our finances. Repeatedly facing similar self-
manufactured crises will further damage the economy and family savings. 
The sad fact is we did not have to take this path in the first place.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 2693, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page 12556]]

  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on suspending the rules and passing H.R. 2693 will be 
followed by a 5-minute vote on suspending the rules and passing H.R. 
2062, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173, 
noes 246, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 682]

                               AYES--173

     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--246

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wu
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Ackerman
     Baca
     Bishop (UT)
     Brooks
     Chu
     Clay
     Gallegly
     Giffords
     Hinchey
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Maloney
     Reed
     Speier


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1513

  Messrs. NUNES, McKINLEY, TIPTON, and GRIFFITH of Virginia changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. DAVIS of Illinois, JACKSON of Illinois, FILNER, and MURPHY of 
Connecticut changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So (two-thirds not being in the affirmative) the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 682, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________