[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12702-12731]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011

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

                                 S. 365

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

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

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Severability.

          TITLE I--TEN-YEAR DISCRETIONARY CAPS WITH SEQUESTER

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

            TITLE II--VOTE ON THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

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

              TITLE III--DEBT CEILING DISAPPROVAL PROCESS

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

         TITLE IV--JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON DEFICIT REDUCTION

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

          TITLE V--PELL GRANT AND STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM CHANGES

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

     SEC. 2. SEVERABILITY.

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

          TITLE I--TEN-YEAR DISCRETIONARY CAPS WITH SEQUESTER

     SEC. 101. ENFORCING DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

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

     ``SEC. 251. ENFORCING DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

       ``(a) Enforcement.--
       ``(1) Sequestration.--Within 15 calendar days after 
     Congress adjourns to end a session there shall be a 
     sequestration to eliminate a budget-year breach, if any, 
     within any category.
       ``(2) Eliminating a breach.--Each non-exempt account within 
     a category shall be reduced by a dollar amount calculated by 
     multiplying the enacted level of sequestrable budgetary 
     resources in that account at that time by the uniform 
     percentage necessary to eliminate a breach within that 
     category.
       ``(3) Military personnel.--If the President uses the 
     authority to exempt any personnel account from sequestration 
     under section 255(f), each account within subfunctional 
     category 051 (other than those military personnel accounts 
     for which the authority provided under section 255(f) has 
     been exercised) shall be further reduced by a dollar amount 
     calculated by multiplying the enacted level of non-exempt 
     budgetary resources in that account at that time by the 
     uniform percentage necessary to offset the total dollar 
     amount by which outlays are not reduced in military personnel 
     accounts by reason of the use of such authority.
       ``(4) Part-year appropriations.--If, on the date specified 
     in paragraph (1), there is in effect an Act making or 
     continuing appropriations for part of a fiscal year for any 
     budget account, then the dollar sequestration calculated for 
     that account under paragraphs (2) and (3) shall be subtracted 
     from--
       ``(A) the annualized amount otherwise available by law in 
     that account under that or a subsequent part-year 
     appropriation; and
       ``(B) when a full-year appropriation for that account is 
     enacted, from the amount otherwise provided by the full-year 
     appropriation for that account.
       ``(5) Look-back.--If, after June 30, an appropriation for 
     the fiscal year in progress is enacted that causes a breach 
     within a category for that year (after taking into account 
     any sequestration of amounts within that category), the 
     discretionary spending limits for that category for the next 
     fiscal year shall be reduced by the amount or amounts of that 
     breach.
       ``(6) Within-session sequestration.--If an appropriation 
     for a fiscal year in progress is enacted (after Congress 
     adjourns to end the session for that budget year and before 
     July 1 of that fiscal year) that causes a breach within a 
     category for that year (after taking into account any prior 
     sequestration of amounts within that category), 15 days later 
     there shall be a sequestration to eliminate that breach 
     within that category following the procedures set forth in 
     paragraphs (2) through (4).
       ``(7) Estimates.--
       ``(A) CBO estimates.--As soon as practicable after Congress 
     completes action on any discretionary appropriation, CBO, 
     after consultation with the Committees on the Budget of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate, shall provide OMB 
     with an estimate of the amount of discretionary new budget 
     authority and outlays for the current year, if any, and the 
     budget year provided by that legislation.
       ``(B) OMB estimates and explanation of differences.--Not 
     later than 7 calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and 
     legal holidays) after the date of enactment of any 
     discretionary appropriation, OMB shall transmit a report to 
     the House of Representatives and to the Senate containing the 
     CBO estimate of that legislation, an OMB estimate of the 
     amount of discretionary new budget authority and outlays for 
     the current year, if any, and the budget year provided by 
     that legislation, and an explanation of any difference 
     between the 2 estimates. If during the preparation of the 
     report OMB determines that there is a significant difference 
     between OMB and CBO, OMB shall consult with the Committees on 
     the Budget of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     regarding that difference and that consultation shall 
     include, to the extent practicable, written communication to 
     those committees that affords such committees the opportunity 
     to comment before the issuance of the report.
       ``(C) Assumptions and guidelines.--OMB estimates under this 
     paragraph shall be made using current economic and technical 
     assumptions. OMB shall use the OMB estimates transmitted to 
     the Congress under this paragraph. OMB and CBO shall prepare 
     estimates under this paragraph in conformance with 
     scorekeeping guidelines determined after consultation among 
     the Committees on the Budget of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate, CBO, and OMB.
       ``(D) Annual appropriations.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, amounts provided by annual appropriations shall 
     include any discretionary appropriations for the current 
     year, if any, and the budget year in accounts for which 
     funding is provided in that legislation that result from 
     previously enacted legislation.
       ``(b) Adjustments to Discretionary Spending Limits.--

[[Page 12703]]

       ``(1) Concepts and definitions.--When the President submits 
     the budget under section 1105 of title 31, United States 
     Code, OMB shall calculate and the budget shall include 
     adjustments to discretionary spending limits (and those 
     limits as cumulatively adjusted) for the budget year and each 
     outyear to reflect changes in concepts and definitions. Such 
     changes shall equal the baseline levels of new budget 
     authority and outlays using up-to-date concepts and 
     definitions, minus those levels using the concepts and 
     definitions in effect before such changes. Such changes may 
     only be made after consultation with the Committees on 
     Appropriations and the Budget of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate, and that consultation shall include written 
     communication to such committees that affords such committees 
     the opportunity to comment before official action is taken 
     with respect to such changes.
       ``(2) Sequestration reports.--When OMB submits a 
     sequestration report under section 254(e), (f), or (g) for a 
     fiscal year, OMB shall calculate, and the sequestration 
     report and subsequent budgets submitted by the President 
     under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, shall 
     include adjustments to discretionary spending limits (and 
     those limits as adjusted) for the fiscal year and each 
     succeeding year, as follows:
       ``(A) Emergency appropriations; overseas contingency 
     operations/global war on terrorism.--If, for any fiscal year, 
     appropriations for discretionary accounts are enacted that--
       ``(i) the Congress designates as emergency requirements in 
     statute on an account by account basis and the President 
     subsequently so designates, or
       ``(ii) the Congress designates for Overseas Contingency 
     Operations/Global War on Terrorism in statute on an account 
     by account basis and the President subsequently so 
     designates,

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

       ``(I) the average funding provided for disaster relief over 
     the previous 10 years, excluding the highest and lowest 
     years; and
       ``(II) the amount, for years when the enacted new 
     discretionary budget authority designated as being for 
     disaster relief for the preceding fiscal year was less than 
     the average as calculated in subclause (I) for that fiscal 
     year, that is the difference between the enacted amount and 
     the allowable adjustment as calculated in such subclause for 
     that fiscal year.

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

     SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

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

[[Page 12704]]



     SEC. 103. REPORTS AND ORDERS.

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

     SEC. 104. EXPIRATION.

       (a) Repealer.--Section 275 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is repealed.
       (b) Conforming Change.--Sections 252(d)(1), 254(c), 
     254(f)(3), and 254(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 shall not apply to the 
     Congressional Budget Office.

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

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

     SEC. 106. SENATE BUDGET ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) For the purpose of enforcing the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 through April 15, 2012, including section 300 of 
     that Act, and enforcing budgetary points of order in prior 
     concurrent resolutions on the budget, the allocations, 
     aggregates, and levels set in subsection (b)(1) shall apply 
     in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012 with 
     appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 and 2013 
     through 2021.
       (2) For the purpose of enforcing the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 after April 15, 2012, including section 300 of 
     that Act, and enforcing budgetary points of order in prior 
     concurrent resolutions on the budget, the allocations, 
     aggregates, and levels set in subsection (b)(2) shall apply 
     in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013 with 
     appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2012 and 2014 
     through 2022.
       (b) Committee Allocations, Aggregates, and Levels.--
       (1) As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of 
     this section, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     shall file--
       (A) for the Committee on Appropriations, committee 
     allocations for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 consistent with 
     the discretionary spending limits set forth in this Act for 
     the purpose of enforcing section 302 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974;
       (B) for all committees other than the Committee on 
     Appropriations, committee allocations for fiscal years 2011, 
     2012, 2012 through 2016, and 2012 through 2021 consistent 
     with the Congressional Budget Office's March 2011 baseline 
     adjusted to account for the budgetary effects of this Act and 
     legislation enacted prior to this Act but not included in the 
     Congressional Budget Office's March 2011 baseline, for the 
     purpose of enforcing section 302 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974;
       (C) aggregate spending levels for fiscal years 2011 and 
     2012 and aggregate revenue levels for fiscal years 2011, 
     2012, 2012 through 2016, 2012 through 2021 consistent with 
     the Congressional Budget Office's March 2011 baseline 
     adjusted to account for the budgetary effects of this Act and 
     legislation enacted prior to this Act but not included in the 
     Congressional Budget Office's March 2011 baseline, and the 
     discretionary spending limits set forth in this Act for the 
     purpose of enforcing section 311 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974; and
       (D) levels of Social Security revenues and outlays for 
     fiscal years 2011, 2012, 2012 through 2016, and 2012 through 
     2021 consistent with the Congressional Budget Office's March 
     2011 baseline adjusted to account for the budgetary effects 
     of this Act and legislation enacted prior to this Act but not 
     included in the Congressional Budget Office's March 2011 
     baseline, for the purpose of enforcing sections 302 and 311 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (2) Not later than April 15, 2012, the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget shall file--
       (A) for the Committee on Appropriations, committee 
     allocations for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 consistent with 
     the discretionary spending limits set forth in this Act for 
     the purpose of enforcing section 302 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974;
       (B) for all committees other than the Committee on 
     Appropriations, committee allocations for fiscal years 2012, 
     2013, 2013 through 2017, and 2013 through 2022 consistent 
     with the Congressional Budget Office's March 2012 baseline 
     for the purpose of enforcing section 302 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974;
       (C) aggregate spending levels for fiscal years 2012 and 
     2013 and aggregate revenue levels for fiscal years 2012, 
     2013, 2013-2017, and 2013-2022 consistent with the 
     Congressional Budget Office's March 2012 baseline and the 
     discretionary spending limits set forth in this Act for the 
     purpose of enforcing section 311 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974; and
       (D) levels of Social Security revenues and outlays for 
     fiscal years 2012 and 2013, 2013-2017, and 2013-2022 
     consistent with the Congressional Budget Office's March 2012 
     baseline budget for the purpose of enforcing sections 302 and 
     311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (c) Senate Pay-as-you-go Scorecard.--
       (1) Effective on the date of enactment of this section, for 
     the purpose of enforcing section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21 
     (110th Congress), the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the 
     Budget shall reduce any balances of direct spending and 
     revenues for any fiscal year to 0 (zero).
       (2) Not later than April 15, 2012, for the purpose of 
     enforcing section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress), 
     the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget shall 
     reduce any balances of direct spending and revenues for any 
     fiscal year to 0 (zero).
       (3) Upon resetting the Senate paygo scorecard pursuant to 
     paragraph (2), the Chairman shall publish a notification of 
     such action in the Congressional Record.
       (d) Further Adjustments.--
       (1) The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the 
     Senate may revise any allocations, aggregates, or levels set 
     pursuant to this section to account for any subsequent 
     adjustments to discretionary spending limits made pursuant to 
     this Act.
       (2) With respect to any allocations, aggregates, or levels 
     set or adjustments made pursuant to this section, sections 
     412 through 414 of S. Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress) shall 
     remain in effect.
       (e) Expiration.--
       (1) Subsections (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1) shall expire if 
     a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012 is 
     agreed to by the Senate and House of Representatives pursuant 
     to section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (2) Subsections (a)(2), (b)(2), and (c)(2) shall expire if 
     a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013 is 
     agreed to by the Senate and House of Representatives pursuant 
     to section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

            TITLE II--VOTE ON THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT

     SEC. 201. VOTE ON THE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT.

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

     SEC. 202. CONSIDERATION BY THE OTHER HOUSE.

       (a) House Consideration.--

[[Page 12705]]

       (1) Referral.--If the House receives a joint resolution 
     described in section 201 from the Senate, such joint 
     resolution shall be referred to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. If the committee fails to report the joint 
     resolution within five legislative days, it shall be in order 
     to move that the House discharge the committee from further 
     consideration of the joint resolution. Such a motion shall 
     not be in order after the House has disposed of a motion to 
     discharge the joint resolution. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption 
     without intervening motion except twenty minutes of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent. If such a motion is adopted, the House shall 
     proceed immediately to consider the joint resolution in 
     accordance with paragraph (3). A motion to reconsider the 
     vote by which the motion is disposed of shall not be in 
     order.
       (2) Proceeding to consideration.--After the joint 
     resolution has been referred to the appropriate calendar or 
     the committee has been discharged (other than by motion) from 
     its consideration, it shall be in order to move to proceed to 
     consider the joint resolution in the House. Such a motion 
     shall not be in order after the House has disposed of a 
     motion to proceed with respect to the joint resolution. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to its adoption without intervening motion. A motion 
     to reconsider the vote by which the motion is disposed of 
     shall not be in order.
       (3) Consideration.--The joint resolution shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the joint 
     resolution and against its consideration are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution to its passage without intervening motion except 
     two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent and one motion to limit debate on 
     the joint resolution. A motion to reconsider the vote on 
     passage of the joint resolution shall not be in order.
       (b) Senate Consideration.--(1) If the Senate receives a 
     joint resolution described in section 201 from the House of 
     Representatives, such joint resolution shall be referred to 
     the appropriate committee of the Senate. If such committee 
     has not reported the joint resolution at the close of the 
     fifth session day after its receipt by the Senate, such 
     committee shall be automatically discharged from further 
     consideration of the joint resolution and it shall be placed 
     on the appropriate calendar.
       (2) Consideration of the joint resolution and on all 
     debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith, shall 
     be limited to not more than 20 hours, which shall be divided 
     equally between the majority and minority leaders or their 
     designees. A motion further to limit debate is in order and 
     not debatable. An amendment to, or a motion to postpone, or a 
     motion to proceed to the consideration of other business, or 
     a motion to recommit the joint resolution is not in order. 
     Any debatable motion or appeal is debatable for not to exceed 
     1 hour, to be divided equally between those favoring and 
     those opposing the motion or appeal. All time used for 
     consideration of the joint resolution, including time used 
     for quorum calls and voting, shall be counted against the 
     total 20 hours of consideration.
       (3) If the Senate has voted to proceed to a joint 
     resolution, the vote on passage of the joint resolution shall 
     be taken on or before the close of the seventh session day 
     after such joint resolution has been reported or discharged 
     or immediately following the conclusion of consideration of 
     the joint resolution, and a single quorum call at the 
     conclusion of the debate if requested in accordance with the 
     rules of the Senate.

              TITLE III--DEBT CEILING DISAPPROVAL PROCESS

     SEC. 301. DEBT CEILING DISAPPROVAL PROCESS.

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

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

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) $900 billion.--
       ``(A) Certification.--If, not later than December 31, 2011, 
     the President submits a written certification to Congress 
     that the President has determined that the debt subject to 
     limit is within $100,000,000,000 of the limit in section 
     3101(b) and that further borrowing is required to meet 
     existing commitments, the Secretary of the Treasury may 
     exercise authority to borrow an additional $900,000,000,000, 
     subject to the enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval 
     enacted pursuant to this section. Upon submission of such 
     certification, the limit on debt provided in section 3101(b) 
     (referred to in this section as the `debt limit') is 
     increased by $400,000,000,000.
       ``(B) Resolution of disapproval.--Congress may consider a 
     joint resolution of disapproval of the authority under 
     subparagraph (A) as provided in subsections (b) through (f). 
     The joint resolution of disapproval considered under this 
     section shall contain only the language provided in 
     subsection (b)(2). If the time for disapproval has lapsed 
     without enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval under 
     this section, the debt limit is increased by an additional 
     $500,000,000,000.
       ``(2) Additional amount.--
       ``(A) Certification.--If, after the debt limit is increased 
     by $900,000,000,000 under paragraph (1), the President 
     submits a written certification to Congress that the 
     President has determined that the debt subject to limit is 
     within $100,000,000,000 of the limit in section 3101(b) and 
     that further borrowing is required to meet existing 
     commitments, the Secretary of the Treasury may, subject to 
     the enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval enacted 
     pursuant to this section, exercise authority to borrow an 
     additional amount equal to--
       ``(i) $1,200,000,000,000, unless clause (ii) or (iii) 
     applies;
       ``(ii) $1,500,000,000,000 if the Archivist of the United 
     States has submitted to the States for their ratification a 
     proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
     pursuant to a joint resolution entitled `Joint resolution 
     proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of 
     the United States'; or
       ``(iii) if a joint committee bill to achieve an amount 
     greater than $1,200,000,000,000 in deficit reduction as 
     provided in section 401(b)(3)(B)(i)(II) of the Budget Control 
     Act of 2011 is enacted, an amount equal to the amount of that 
     deficit reduction, but not greater than $1,500,000,000,000, 
     unless clause (ii) applies.
       ``(B) Resolution of disapproval.--Congress may consider a 
     joint resolution of disapproval of the authority under 
     subparagraph (A) as provided in subsections (b) through (f). 
     The joint resolution of disapproval considered under this 
     section shall contain only the language provided in 
     subsection (b)(2). If the time for disapproval has lapsed 
     without enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval under 
     this section, the debt limit is increased by the amount 
     authorized under subparagraph (A).
       ``(b) Joint Resolution of Disapproval.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except for the $400,000,000,000 increase 
     in the debt limit provided by subsection (a)(1)(A), the debt 
     limit may not be raised under this section if, within 50 
     calendar days after the date on which Congress receives a 
     certification described in subsection (a)(1) or within 15 
     calendar days after Congress receives the certification 
     described in subsection (a)(2) (regardless of whether 
     Congress is in session), there is enacted into law a joint 
     resolution disapproving the President's exercise of authority 
     with respect to such additional amount.
       ``(2) Contents of joint resolution.--For the purpose of 
     this section, the term `joint resolution' means only a joint 
     resolution--
       ``(A)(i) for the certification described in subsection 
     (a)(1), that is introduced on September 6, 7, 8, or 9, 2011 
     (or, if the Senate was not in session, the next calendar day 
     on which the Senate is in session); and
       ``(ii) for the certification described in subsection 
     (a)(2), that is introduced between the date the certification 
     is received and 3 calendar days after that date;
       ``(B) which does not have a preamble;
       ``(C) the title of which is only as follows: `Joint 
     resolution relating to the disapproval of the President's 
     exercise of authority to increase the debt limit, as 
     submitted under section 3101A of title 31, United States 
     Code, on ______' (with the blank containing the date of such 
     submission); and
       ``(D) the matter after the resolving clause of which is 
     only as follows: `That Congress disapproves of the 
     President's exercise of authority to increase the debt limit, 
     as exercised pursuant to the certification under section 
     3101A(a) of title 31, United States Code.'.
       ``(c) Expedited Consideration in House of 
     Representatives.--
       ``(1) Reconvening.--Upon receipt of a certification 
     described in subsection (a)(2), the Speaker, if the House 
     would otherwise be adjourned, shall notify the Members of the 
     House that, pursuant to this section, the House shall convene 
     not later than the second calendar day after receipt of such 
     certification.
       ``(2) Reporting and discharge.--Any committee of the House 
     of Representatives to which a joint resolution is referred 
     shall report it to the House without amendment not later than 
     5 calendar days after the date of introduction of a joint 
     resolution described in subsection (a). If a committee fails 
     to report the joint resolution within that period, the 
     committee shall be discharged from further consideration of 
     the joint resolution and the joint resolution shall be 
     referred to the appropriate calendar.
       ``(3) Proceeding to consideration.--After each committee 
     authorized to consider a joint resolution reports it to the 
     House or has been discharged from its consideration, it shall 
     be in order, not later than the sixth day after introduction 
     of a joint resolution under subsection (a), to move to 
     proceed to consider the joint resolution in the House. All 
     points of order against the motion are waived. Such a motion 
     shall not be in order after the House has disposed of a 
     motion to proceed on a joint resolution addressing a 
     particular submission. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without 
     intervening motion. The motion shall not be debatable. A 
     motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion is disposed 
     of shall not be in order.
       ``(4) Consideration.--The joint resolution shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the joint 
     resolution and against its consideration are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution to its passage without intervening motion except 
     two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent. A motion to reconsider the vote on 
     passage of the joint resolution shall not be in order.
       ``(d) Expedited Procedure in Senate.--
       ``(1) Reconvening.--Upon receipt of a certification under 
     subsection (a)(2), if the Senate has

[[Page 12706]]

     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) If Congress passes 
     a joint resolution, the period beginning on the date the 
     President is presented with the joint resolution and ending 
     on the date the President signs, allows to become law without 
     his signature, or vetoes and returns the joint resolution 
     (but excluding days when either House is not in session) 
     shall be disregarded in computing the appropriate calendar 
     day period described in subsection (b)(1).
       ``(B) Debate on a veto message in the Senate under this 
     section shall be 1 hour equally divided between the majority 
     and minority leaders or their designees.
       ``(5) Veto override.--If within the appropriate calendar 
     day period described in subsection (b)(1), Congress overrides 
     a veto of the joint resolution with respect to authority 
     exercised pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a), 
     the limit on debt provided in section 3101(b) shall not be 
     raised, except for the $400,000,000,000 increase in the limit 
     provided by subsection (a)(1)(A).
       ``(6) Sequestration.--(A) If within the 50-calendar day 
     period described in subsection (b)(1), the President signs 
     the joint resolution, the President allows the joint 
     resolution to become law without his signature, or Congress 
     overrides a veto of the joint resolution with respect to 
     authority exercised pursuant to paragraph (1) of subsection 
     (a), there shall be a sequestration to reduce spending by 
     $400,000,000,000. OMB shall implement the sequestration 
     forthwith.
       ``(B) OMB shall implement each half of such sequestration 
     in accordance with section 255, section 256, and subsections 
     (c), (d), (e), and (f) of section 253 of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and for the 
     purpose of such implementation the term `excess deficit' 
     means the amount specified in subparagraph (A).
       ``(g) Rules of House of Representatives and Senate.--This 
     subsection and subsections (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) (other 
     than paragraph (6)) are enacted by Congress--
       ``(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such it is 
     deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but 
     applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed 
     in that House in the case of a joint resolution, and it 
     supersedes other rules only to the extent that it is 
     inconsistent with such rules; and
       ``(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the 
     procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and 
     to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that 
     House.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 3101 the 
     following new item:

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

     SEC. 302. ENFORCEMENT OF BUDGET GOAL.

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

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

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

[[Page 12707]]

       ``(A) Discretionary.--OMB shall calculate the reduction to 
     discretionary appropriations by--
       ``(i) taking the total reduction for the defense function 
     allocated for that year under paragraph (4);
       ``(ii) multiplying by the discretionary spending limit for 
     the revised security category for that year; and
       ``(iii) dividing by the sum of the discretionary spending 
     limit for the security category and OMB's baseline estimate 
     of nonexempt outlays for direct spending programs within the 
     defense function for that year.
       ``(B) Direct spending.--OMB shall calculate the reduction 
     to direct spending by taking the total reduction for the 
     defense function required for that year under paragraph (4) 
     and subtracting the discretionary reduction calculated 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A).
       ``(6) Nondefense function reduction.--OMB shall calculate 
     the reduction to discretionary appropriations and to direct 
     spending for each of fiscal years 2013 through 2021 for 
     programs in nondefense functions as follows:
       ``(A) Discretionary.--OMB shall calculate the reduction to 
     discretionary appropriations by--
       ``(i) taking the total reduction for nondefense functions 
     allocated for that year under paragraph (4);
       ``(ii) multiplying by the discretionary spending limit for 
     the revised nonsecurity category for that year; and
       ``(iii) dividing by the sum of the discretionary spending 
     limit for the revised nonsecurity category and OMB's baseline 
     estimate of nonexempt outlays for direct spending programs in 
     nondefense functions for that year.
       ``(B) Direct spending.--OMB shall calculate the reduction 
     to direct spending programs by taking the total reduction for 
     nondefense functions required for that year under paragraph 
     (4) and subtracting the discretionary reduction calculated 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A).
       ``(7) Implementing discretionary reductions.--
       ``(A) Fiscal year 2013.--On January 2, 2013, for fiscal 
     year 2013, OMB shall calculate and the President shall order 
     a sequestration, effective upon issuance and under the 
     procedures set forth in section 253(f), to reduce each 
     account within the security category or nonsecurity category 
     by a dollar amount calculated by multiplying the baseline 
     level of budgetary resources in that account at that time by 
     a uniform percentage necessary to achieve--
       ``(i) for the revised security category, an amount equal to 
     the defense function discretionary reduction calculated 
     pursuant to paragraph (5); and
       ``(ii) for the revised nonsecurity category, an amount 
     equal to the nondefense function discretionary reduction 
     calculated pursuant to paragraph (6).
       ``(B) Fiscal years 2014-2021.--On the date of the 
     submission of its sequestration preview report for fiscal 
     years 2014 through 2021 pursuant to section 254(c) for each 
     of fiscal years 2014 through 2021, OMB shall reduce the 
     discretionary spending limit--
       ``(i) for the revised security category by the amount of 
     the defense function discretionary reduction calculated 
     pursuant to paragraph (5); and
       ``(ii) for the revised nonsecurity category by the amount 
     of the nondefense function discretionary reduction calculated 
     pursuant to paragraph (6).
       ``(8) Implementing direct spending reductions.--On the date 
     specified in paragraph (4) during each applicable year, OMB 
     shall prepare and the President shall order a sequestration, 
     effective upon issuance, of nonexempt direct spending to 
     achieve the direct spending reduction calculated pursuant to 
     paragraphs (5) and (6). When implementing the sequestration 
     of direct spending pursuant to this paragraph, OMB shall 
     follow the procedures specified in section 6 of the Statutory 
     Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, the exemptions specified in 
     section 255, and the special rules specified in section 256, 
     except that the percentage reduction for the Medicare 
     programs specified in section 256(d) shall not be more than 2 
     percent for a fiscal year.
       ``(9) Adjustment for medicare.--If the percentage reduction 
     for the Medicare programs would exceed 2 percent for a fiscal 
     year in the absence of paragraph (8), OMB shall increase the 
     reduction for all other discretionary appropriations and 
     direct spending under paragraph (6) by a uniform percentage 
     to a level sufficient to achieve the reduction required by 
     paragraph (6) in the non-defense function.
       ``(10) Implementation of reductions.--Any reductions 
     imposed under this section shall be implemented in accordance 
     with section 256(k).
       ``(11) Report.--On the dates specified in paragraph (4), 
     OMB shall submit a report to Congress containing information 
     about the calculations required under this section, the 
     adjusted discretionary spending limits, a listing of the 
     reductions required for each nonexempt direct spending 
     account, and any other data and explanations that enhance 
     public understanding of this title and actions taken under 
     it.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents set forth 
     in section 250(a) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 251 the following:

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

         TITLE IV--JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON DEFICIT REDUCTION

     SEC. 401. ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE.

       (a) Definitions.--In this title:
       (1) Joint committee.--The term ``joint committee'' means 
     the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction established 
     under subsection (b)(1).
       (2) Joint committee bill.--The term ``joint committee 
     bill'' means a bill consisting of the proposed legislative 
     language of the joint committee recommended under subsection 
     (b)(3)(B) and introduced under section 402(a).
       (b) Establishment of Joint Select Committee.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established a joint select 
     committee of Congress to be known as the ``Joint Select 
     Committee on Deficit Reduction''.
       (2) Goal.--The goal of the joint committee shall be to 
     reduce the deficit by at least $1,500,000,000,000 over the 
     period of fiscal years 2012 to 2021.
       (3) Duties.--
       (A) In general.--
       (i) Improving the short-term and long-term fiscal 
     imbalance.--The joint committee shall provide recommendations 
     and legislative language that will significantly improve the 
     short-term and long-term fiscal imbalance of the Federal 
     Government.
       (ii) Recommendations of committees.--Not later than October 
     14, 2011, each committee of the House of Representatives and 
     the Senate may transmit to the joint committee its 
     recommendations for changes in law to reduce the deficit 
     consistent with the goal described in paragraph (2) for the 
     joint committee's consideration.
       (B) Report, recommendations, and legislative language.--
       (i) In general.--Not later than November 23, 2011, the 
     joint committee shall vote on--

       (I) a report that contains a detailed statement of the 
     findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the joint 
     committee and the estimate of the Congressional Budget Office 
     required by paragraph (5)(D)(ii); and
       (II) proposed legislative language to carry out such 
     recommendations as described in subclause (I), which shall 
     include a statement of the deficit reduction achieved by the 
     legislation over the period of fiscal years 2012 to 2021.

     Any change to the Rules of the House of Representatives or 
     the Standing Rules of the Senate included in the report or 
     legislative language shall be considered to be merely 
     advisory.
       (ii) Approval of report and legislative language.--The 
     report of the joint committee and the proposed legislative 
     language described in clause (i) shall require the approval 
     of a majority of the members of the joint committee.
       (iii) Additional views.--A member of the joint committee 
     who gives notice of an intention to file supplemental, 
     minority, or additional views at the time of final joint 
     committee vote on the approval of the report and legislative 
     language under clause (ii) shall be entitled to 3 calendar 
     days in which to file such views in writing with the staff 
     director of the joint committee. Such views shall then be 
     included in the joint committee report and printed in the 
     same volume, or part thereof, and their inclusion shall be 
     noted on the cover of the report. In the absence of timely 
     notice, the joint committee report may be printed and 
     transmitted immediately without such views.
       (iv) Transmission of report and legislative language.--If 
     the report and legislative language are approved by the joint 
     committee pursuant to clause (ii), then not later than 
     December 2, 2011, the joint committee shall submit the joint 
     committee report and legislative language described in clause 
     (i) to the President, the Vice President, the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives, and the majority and minority 
     Leaders of each House of Congress.
       (v) Report and legislative language to be made public.--
     Upon the approval or disapproval of the joint committee 
     report and legislative language pursuant to clause (ii), the 
     joint committee shall promptly make the full report and 
     legislative language, and a record of the vote, available to 
     the public.
       (4) Membership.--
       (A) In general.--The joint committee shall be composed of 
     12 members appointed pursuant to subparagraph (B).
       (B) Appointment.--Members of the joint committee shall be 
     appointed as follows:
       (i) The majority leader of the Senate shall appoint 3 
     members from among Members of the Senate.
       (ii) The minority leader of the Senate shall appoint 3 
     members from among Members of the Senate.
       (iii) The Speaker of the House of Representatives shall 
     appoint 3 members from among Members of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (iv) The minority leader of the House of Representatives 
     shall appoint 3 members from among Members of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (C) Co-chairs.--
       (i) In general.--There shall be 2 Co-Chairs of the joint 
     committee. The majority leader of the Senate shall appoint 
     one Co-Chair from among the members of the joint committee. 
     The Speaker of the House of Representatives shall appoint the 
     second Co-Chair from among the members of the joint 
     committee. The Co-Chairs shall be appointed not later than 14 
     calendar days after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (ii) Staff director.--The Co-Chairs, acting jointly, shall 
     hire the staff director of the joint committee.
       (D) Date.--Members of the joint committee shall be 
     appointed not later than 14 calendar days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

[[Page 12708]]

       (E) Period of appointment.--Members shall be appointed for 
     the life of the joint committee. Any vacancy in the joint 
     committee shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled 
     not later than 14 calendar days after the date on which the 
     vacancy occurs, in the same manner as the original 
     designation was made. If a member of the joint committee 
     ceases to be a Member of the House of Representatives or the 
     Senate, as the case may be, the member is no longer a member 
     of the joint committee and a vacancy shall exist.
       (5) Administration.--
       (A) In general.--To enable the joint committee to exercise 
     its powers, functions, and duties, there are authorized to be 
     disbursed by the Senate the actual and necessary expenses of 
     the joint committee approved by the co-chairs, subject to the 
     rules and regulations of the Senate.
       (B) Expenses.--In carrying out its functions, the joint 
     committee is authorized to incur expenses in the same manner 
     and under the same conditions as the Joint Economic Committee 
     is authorized by section 11 of Public Law 7909304 
     (15 U.S.C. 1024 (d)).
       (C) Quorum.--Seven members of the joint committee shall 
     constitute a quorum for purposes of voting, meeting, and 
     holding hearings.
       (D) Voting.--
       (i) Proxy voting.--No proxy voting shall be allowed on 
     behalf of the members of the joint committee.
       (ii) Congressional budget office estimates.--The 
     Congressional Budget Office shall provide estimates of the 
     legislation (as described in paragraph (3)(B)) in accordance 
     with sections 308(a) and 201(f) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 639(a) and 601(f))(including estimates 
     of the effect of interest payment on the debt). In addition, 
     the Congressional Budget Office shall provide information on 
     the budgetary effect of the legislation beyond the year 2021. 
     The joint committee may not vote on any version of the 
     report, recommendations, or legislative language unless such 
     estimates are available for consideration by all members of 
     the joint committee at least 48 hours prior to the vote as 
     certified by the Co-Chairs.
       (E) Meetings.--
       (i) Initial meeting.--Not later than 45 calendar days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the joint committee shall 
     hold its first meeting.
       (ii) Agenda.--The Co-Chairs of the joint committee shall 
     provide an agenda to the joint committee members not less 
     than 48 hours in advance of any meeting.
       (F) Hearings.--
       (i) In general.--The joint committee may, for the purpose 
     of carrying out this section, hold such hearings, sit and act 
     at such times and places, require attendance of witnesses and 
     production of books, papers, and documents, take such 
     testimony, receive such evidence, and administer such oaths 
     as the joint committee considers advisable.
       (ii) Hearing procedures and responsibilities of co-
     chairs.--

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

       (G) Technical assistance.--Upon written request of the Co-
     Chairs, a Federal agency shall provide technical assistance 
     to the joint committee in order for the joint committee to 
     carry out its duties.
       (c) Staff of Joint Committee.--
       (1) In general.--The Co-Chairs of the joint committee may 
     jointly appoint and fix the compensation of staff as they 
     deem necessary, within the guidelines for employees of the 
     Senate and following all applicable rules and employment 
     requirements of the Senate.
       (2) Ethical standards.--Members on the joint committee who 
     serve in the House of Representatives shall be governed by 
     the ethics rules and requirements of the House. Members of 
     the Senate who serve on the joint committee and staff of the 
     joint committee shall comply with the ethics rules of the 
     Senate.
       (d) Termination.--The joint committee shall terminate on 
     January 31, 2012.

     SEC. 402. EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF JOINT COMMITTEE 
                   RECOMMENDATIONS.

       (a) Introduction.--If approved by the majority required by 
     section 401(b)(3)(B)(ii), the proposed legislative language 
     submitted pursuant to section 401(b)(3)(B)(iv) shall be 
     introduced in the Senate (by request) on the next day on 
     which the Senate is in session by the majority leader of the 
     Senate or by a Member of the Senate designated by the 
     majority leader of the Senate and shall be introduced in the 
     House of Representatives (by request) on the next legislative 
     day by the majority leader of the House or by a Member of the 
     House designated by the majority leader of the House.
       (b) Consideration in the House of Representatives.--
       (1) Referral and reporting.--Any committee of the House of 
     Representatives to which the joint committee bill is referred 
     shall report it to the House without amendment not later than 
     December 9, 2011. If a committee fails to report the joint 
     committee bill within that period, it shall be in order to 
     move that the House discharge the committee from further 
     consideration of the bill. Such a motion shall not be in 
     order after the last committee authorized to consider the 
     bill reports it to the House or after the House has disposed 
     of a motion to discharge the bill. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption 
     without intervening motion except 20 minutes of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent. If such a motion is adopted, the House shall 
     proceed immediately to consider the joint committee bill in 
     accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3). A motion to 
     reconsider the vote by which the motion is disposed of shall 
     not be in order.
       (2) Proceeding to consideration.--After the last committee 
     authorized to consider a joint committee bill reports it to 
     the House or has been discharged (other than by motion) from 
     its consideration, it shall be in order to move to proceed to 
     consider the joint committee bill in the House. Such a motion 
     shall not be in order after the House has disposed of a 
     motion to proceed with respect to the joint committee bill. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to its adoption without intervening motion. A motion 
     to reconsider the vote by which the motion is disposed of 
     shall not be in order.
       (3) Consideration.--The joint committee bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the joint 
     committee bill and against its consideration are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     committee bill to its passage without intervening motion 
     except 2 hours of debate equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent and one motion to limit debate 
     on the joint committee bill. A motion to reconsider the vote 
     on passage of the joint committee bill shall not be in order.
       (4) Vote on passage.--The vote on passage of the joint 
     committee bill shall occur not later than December 23, 2011.
       (c) Expedited Procedure in the Senate.--
       (1) Committee consideration.--A joint committee bill 
     introduced in the Senate under subsection (a) shall be 
     jointly referred to the committee or committees of 
     jurisdiction, which committees shall report the bill without 
     any revision and with a favorable recommendation, an 
     unfavorable recommendation, or without recommendation, not 
     later than December 9, 2011. If any committee fails to report 
     the bill within that period, that committee shall be 
     automatically discharged from consideration of the bill, and 
     the bill shall be placed on the appropriate calendar.
       (2) Motion to proceed.--Notwithstanding Rule XXII of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate, it is in order, not later than 
     2 days of session after the date on which a joint committee 
     bill is reported or discharged from all committees to which 
     it was referred, for the majority leader of the Senate or the 
     majority leader's designee to move to proceed to the 
     consideration of the joint committee bill. It shall also be 
     in order for any Member of the Senate to move to proceed to 
     the consideration of the joint committee bill at any time 
     after the conclusion of such 2-day period. A motion to 
     proceed is in order even though a previous motion to the same 
     effect has been disagreed to. All points of order against the 
     motion to proceed to the joint committee bill are waived. The 
     motion to proceed is not debatable. The motion is not subject 
     to a motion to postpone. A motion to reconsider the vote by 
     which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in 
     order. If a motion to proceed to the consideration of the 
     joint committee bill is agreed to, the joint committee bill 
     shall remain the unfinished business until disposed of.
       (3) Consideration.--All points of order against the joint 
     committee bill and against consideration of the joint 
     committee bill are waived. Consideration of the joint 
     committee bill and of all debatable motions and appeals in 
     connection therewith shall not exceed a total of 30 hours 
     which shall be divided equally between the Majority and 
     Minority Leaders or their designees. A motion further to 
     limit debate on the joint committee bill is in order, shall 
     require an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members 
     duly chosen and sworn, and is not debatable. Any debatable 
     motion or appeal is debatable for not to exceed 1 hour, to be 
     divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the 
     motion or appeal. All time used for consideration of the 
     joint committee bill, including time used for quorum calls 
     and voting, shall be counted against the total 30 hours of 
     consideration.
       (4) No amendments.--An amendment to the joint committee 
     bill, or a motion to postpone, or a motion to proceed to the 
     consideration of other business, or a motion to recommit the 
     joint committee bill, is not in order.
       (5) Vote on passage.--If the Senate has voted to proceed to 
     the joint committee bill, the vote on passage of the joint 
     committee bill shall occur immediately following the 
     conclusion of the debate on a joint committee bill, and a 
     single quorum call at the conclusion of the debate if 
     requested. The vote on passage of the joint committee bill 
     shall occur not later than December 23, 2011.
       (6) Rulings of the chair on procedure.--Appeals from the 
     decisions of the Chair relating to the application of the 
     rules of the Senate, as the case may be, to the procedure 
     relating to a joint committee bill shall be decided without 
     debate.
       (d) Amendment.--The joint committee bill shall not be 
     subject to amendment in either the House of Representatives 
     or the Senate.

[[Page 12709]]

       (e) Consideration by the Other House.--
       (1) In general.--If, before passing the joint committee 
     bill, one House receives from the other a joint committee 
     bill--
       (A) the joint committee bill of the other House shall not 
     be referred to a committee; and
       (B) the procedure in the receiving House shall be the same 
     as if no joint committee bill had been received from the 
     other House until the vote on passage, when the joint 
     committee bill received from the other House shall supplant 
     the joint committee bill of the receiving House.
       (2) Revenue measure.--This subsection shall not apply to 
     the House of Representatives if the joint committee bill 
     received from the Senate is a revenue measure.
       (f) Rules to Coordinate Action With Other House.--
       (1) Treatment of joint committee bill of other house.--If 
     the Senate fails to introduce or consider a joint committee 
     bill under this section, the joint committee bill of the 
     House shall be entitled to expedited floor procedures under 
     this section.
       (2) Treatment of companion measures in the senate.--If 
     following passage of the joint committee bill in the Senate, 
     the Senate then receives the joint committee bill from the 
     House of Representatives, the House-passed joint committee 
     bill shall not be debatable. The vote on passage of the joint 
     committee bill in the Senate shall be considered to be the 
     vote on passage of the joint committee bill received from the 
     House of Representatives.
       (3) Vetoes.--If the President vetoes the joint committee 
     bill, debate on a veto message in the Senate under this 
     section shall be 1 hour equally divided between the majority 
     and minority leaders or their designees.
       (g) Loss of Privilege.--The provisions of this section 
     shall cease to apply to the joint committee bill if--
       (1) the joint committee fails to vote on the report or 
     proposed legislative language required under section 
     401(b)(3)(B)(i) not later than November 23, 2011; or
       (2) the joint committee bill does not pass both Houses not 
     later than December 23, 2011.

     SEC. 403. FUNDING.

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

     SEC. 404. RULEMAKING.

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

          TITLE V--PELL GRANT AND STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM CHANGES

     SEC. 501. FEDERAL PELL GRANTS.

       Section 401(b)(7)(A)(iv) of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a(b)(7)(A)(iv)) is amended--
       (1) in subclause (II), by striking ``$3,183,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$13,183,000,000''; and
       (2) in subclause (III), by striking ``$0'' and inserting 
     ``$7,000,000,000''.

     SEC. 502. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY TO MAKE INTEREST 
                   SUBSIDIZED LOANS TO GRADUATE AND PROFESSIONAL 
                   STUDENTS.

       Section 455(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 1087e(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Termination of authority to make interest subsidized 
     loans to graduate and professional students.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B) and 
     notwithstanding any provision of this part or part B, for any 
     period of instruction beginning on or after July 1, 2012--
       ``(i) a graduate or professional student shall not be 
     eligible to receive a Federal Direct Stafford loan under this 
     part; and
       ``(ii) the maximum annual amount of Federal Direct 
     Unsubsidized Stafford loans such a student may borrow in any 
     academic year (as defined in section 481(a)(2)) or its 
     equivalent shall be the maximum annual amount for such 
     student determined under section 428H, plus an amount equal 
     to the amount of Federal Direct Stafford loans the student 
     would have received in the absence of this subparagraph.
       ``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an 
     individual enrolled in course work specified in paragraph 
     (3)(B) or (4)(B) of section 484(b).''.

     SEC. 503. TERMINATION OF DIRECT LOAN REPAYMENT INCENTIVES.

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

     SEC. 504. INAPPLICABILITY OF TITLE IV NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING 
                   AND MASTER CALENDAR EXCEPTION.

       Sections 482(c) and 492 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1089(c), 1098a) shall not apply to the amendments 
     made by this title, or to any regulations promulgated under 
     those amendments.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
the measure before us.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, at this moment we are beginning debate on a measure 
which I believe will finally send a signal to job creators in this 
country and in the global marketplace that we are finally, finally 
getting serious about getting our fiscal house in order.
  We know that we are dealing with a very sad 9.2 percent unemployment 
rate in this country. We know that there are people hurting.
  We all have constituents who have lost their homes, people who have 
lost their jobs, people who have lost their businesses, people are 
hurting.
  It is absolutely imperative that we do everything that we can to get 
our economy back on track. We have just gotten the report, this 
downward report of the GDP growth rate down to 1.3 percent. We need to 
get back to robust, dynamic, strong, gross domestic product growth. We 
need to get to 4, 5, 6 percent GDP growth.
  And, Mr. Speaker, one of the main reasons that we have not done that 
is we have seen this dramatic increase in spending. And over the past 
half century, on 75 different occasions, 75 different occasions, we 
have seen our debt ceiling increased without any effort whatsoever to 
get at the root cause of why it is that we have had to increase the 
debt ceiling.
  I argue, Mr. Speaker, that we don't have a debt ceiling problem; we 
have a debt problem.
  That's why we're here today, and that's why I believe that after 
months and months and months of partisan bickering, finger-pointing, we 
have at this moment begun a debate that will allow us in a bipartisan 
way to increase the debt ceiling, which we all know needs to be done. 
It simply is meeting the obligation of paying for past spending. Many 
of us have been opponents of much of that spending, but we recognize 
that the bill has to be paid.
  Speaker Boehner, when just days after we took the oath of office in 
the 112th Congress, received the request from the President of the 
United States, through his Treasury Secretary, Mr. Geithner, that we 
increase the debt ceiling. The Speaker said then that he would agree 
that it's essential for us to increase the debt ceiling but we were not 
going to proceed with business as usual. We are not going to continue 
increasing the debt without getting to the root cause of the problem.

[[Page 12710]]

  Mr. Speaker, I have got to tell you that through all of the debate 
that's taken place, we have gotten to the point where we have a 
measure. It's a bipartisan compromise. It's a bipartisan agreement that 
I believe will, as I have said, send a signal to those who are seeking 
to create jobs for our fellow Americans that we now are going to have 
the kind of fiscal restraint and responsibility from Washington, D.C., 
the likes of which we haven't seen in a long, long period of time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that I strongly support this measure. As 
everyone has said, it's far from perfect, but I strongly support it, 
and I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, to join 
together in support of it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, after a month-long standoff over raising 
the debt ceiling, Congress is now forced to take action on a bill that 
by all accounts is deeply flawed. I think everybody today has agreed 
with that.
  Why are we doing a flawed bill? Because we waited until the last 
minute. Instead of reducing the Nation's debt by closing tax loopholes 
for oil companies and private jet owners, today's bill instead creates 
a supercommittee that will decide how to take over a trillion dollars 
in cuts. And this supercommittee will serve as a mock Congress, leaving 
523 Members of Congress sitting on the sidelines while a group of 12 
decides the shape of the country for a decade to come.
  Paying our debt should be a no brainer. Indeed the debt ceiling 
itself is an antiquated solution to a problem we no longer face and 
should be eliminated. It was originally created to pay for World War I, 
to provide our country with economic stability while at war. Today we 
are again in the midst of war, but instead of protecting the stability 
of our economy, some in Congress have decided to question the necessity 
of paying our bills. As we all know by now, they have taken our economy 
hostage and demanded draconian cuts in exchange for not leading our 
Nation into default.
  The actions have caused real and significant damage. Roll Call 
reports that because of the prolonged debt ceiling crisis, the interest 
rate the United States Government must pay has already increased, which 
means the interest rates for car loans and home mortgages are also 
increasing.
  The stock market has responded as expected. According to DealBook, as 
of July 29, big banks and companies withdrew $37.5 billion from money 
market funds that are described as a key artery for our economy. The 
Dow Jones Industrial Average lost nearly 5 percent of its value last 
week, which meant 401(k)s, pension plans, retirement plans of all 
Americans were put at risk and much of it lost. Baby boomers across the 
United States watched nervously as all those things were happening.
  As I mentioned earlier, this type of crisis has become the new normal 
in this Congress. Under the Republican rule, the House of 
Representatives has repeatedly led our country to the brink of 
unthinkable situations.
  First, the majority led the country to the brink of a government 
shutdown, threatening the jobs of hundreds of thousands of workers and 
endangering vital government services relied on by Americans every day. 
As we speak, the Federal Aviation Administration is shuttered, costing 
the United States Government hundreds of millions of dollars in lost 
revenue because the majority refuses to pass a clean legislation that 
does not include measures that threaten rural communities and the 
future of airline unions.

                              {time}  1710

  Now the majority has brought us to the edge of a cliff in order to 
see how much they can get for not throwing the country into default. In 
January, Speaker Boehner promised the American people the debt ceiling 
debate would be an example of an ``adult moment'' in Washington. Is 
this what he had in mind?
  Just this morning, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, 
went on National Public Radio saying his party has ``not threatened to 
torpedo the economy by defaulting.'' This statement defies reality. 
We've been brought to this point precisely because the leadership in 
his party has walked out of negotiations and demanded that they get 
ideologically driven cuts before they will vote to protect the 
stability of our economy.
  Last, but certainly not least, the crisis of the last few months has 
come at the expense of addressing the true crisis in our country--the 
jobs crisis that is facing millions of our fellow citizens. Last month, 
over 25 million Americans failed to find full-time work. Many have been 
out of work for so long that their unemployment benefits have expired 
as their skills erode and they are living on savings or charity from 
loved ones and friends. In response, we have not introduced a single 
bill in this House designed to invest significant government resources 
into creating jobs.
  Instead, we have repeatedly proposed cutting funding to investments 
in green technology and transportation infrastructure, destroying the 
promise of putting thousands of Americans back to work in the jobs that 
can't be outsourced overseas. They have refused to extend unemployment 
benefits for those who can't find jobs and are moving nowhere fast to 
extend a payroll tax break that has helped create the small number of 
jobs that we added in recent months.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time that serious responsibilities are taken here, 
the responsibilities of leadership, and in doing so, put an end to this 
self-inflicted crisis and focus on getting Americans back to work.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation to 
my colleague for her great spirit of bipartisanship.
  With that, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend 
from Staten Island, New York (Mr. Grimm).
  Mr. GRIMM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I rise today to ensure that the voices of those that I represent in 
Staten Island and Brooklyn are heard, and what they have to say is 
actually quite simple. They expect of us to use common sense to bring 
solutions to the problems that this Nation faces. And the problem that 
we face is not a debt ceiling problem; it's a debt problem. And the 
people in Staten Island and Brooklyn, every day, they go home and they 
have to figure out how to manage their households. They go to work and 
they have to figure out how to manage their small businesses, and to do 
that with common sense. That's what they ask of us.
  You cannot spend money you don't have. You cannot continue to rack up 
debt with no plan to pay it off. Today, this debate is about moving 
America forward, together, in a bipartisan way, because this is not a 
Democratic debt or a Republican debt. It's an American debt, which 
means that Americans must come together to solve the problems.
  Today is about solving problems. So I proudly stand here and say that 
I will support this bill, I will support Speaker Boehner, and I will 
bring solutions to the problem, not just bickering.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will control the time of the gentlewoman from New York.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, we have never cut our way out of an economic 
recession. We have always grown our way out. But we have never grown 
our way out by investing less than 15 percent of our GDP in our 
people's potential. In fact, the last time we cut back in the way we 
are about to do today was in 1937, and that sent us right back into an 
economic depression. But this time, we're not going to have World War 
II to rescue our economy.
  It's interesting to note that the Federal investment in homeownership 
and higher education for our returning GIs and the subsequent 
infrastructure investments and interstate highway system and the like 
created a permanent middle class after the war that lasted for two 
generations. But the middle class has never been more threatened

[[Page 12711]]

than it is today, and this will condemn those struggling to make it 
into the middle class to years of struggle without the help that we 
could, and should be providing them.
  And it's not because we're a poor country. Our largest corporations 
are experiencing record profits. The top 25 hedge fund managers are 
making more than a billion a year. Our corporations are sitting on more 
than $2 trillion of cash.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 20 additional seconds.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, the point is I understand that this train is 
leaving the station, but it's going in the wrong direction. We need to 
be investing in this country, not taking away the resources that will 
enable it to grow, it is through education, training, research and 
development and infrastructure investment that has made our country 
great but this agreement will make us smaller, weaker and far less able 
to tap our most valuable resource, the potential of all the American 
people.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute 
to my very good friend from Ashland, Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I have had a chance to watch this floor 
debate over the last week or so, and to say the least, I think we can 
say tempers have flared and there's been a lot of rhetoric on both 
sides. And as we come together today with a proposal that has been 
negotiated with both sides--with Speaker Boehner, the President, and 
Harry Reid--it's a deal that not everyone is pleased with. It's a deal 
that doesn't have in everything that I want, and I'm sure that it 
doesn't have everything in the deal that my friends across the aisle 
would want. And that's why I think so many of us are hearing from our 
constituents, a lot on the far right and a lot on the far left, saying, 
We don't like it.
  But the bottom line is I think this is one of the greatest moments of 
the House where two sides come together and figure out how they are 
going to find a solution that doesn't work for their parties; it's a 
solution that works for the American people.
  And at this point in our history we owe $14.5 trillion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 
seconds.
  Mr. DUFFY. It's about time this Congress comes together and figures 
out a way to live within our means. This bill is going to start that 
process, though it doesn't go far enough.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. I rise in support of this proposal, but as with many of 
our greatest capers in history, this is an inside job.
  I want to offer just in evidence that we had in the words of the 
Treasury Secretary for Reagan and for Bush an admittance that they were 
running up deficits, and that that was one of the ways to starve the 
government. And then we had the Republican Party at the height of its 
power, the Presidency, the House, the Senate, saying, no, we weren't 
going to have any tax increases. Even though we were running up these 
high deficits, we are going to cut taxes. We're going to hemorrhage 
trillions of dollars in revenue, and we're going to go into two wars. 
We're going to put a $7 trillion prescription drug plan on the 
financial pile of our debt.
  Alan Greenspan testified before the Congress in the first weeks of 
the Bush administration. He said Bush can leave office with our country 
being entirely debt-free. What happened then was the reverse. He 
doubled the debt and walked out with 8 million Americans losing their 
jobs. But as Solomon, in his wisdom, said to those who wanted to cut 
the baby in half, we choose not to default but to agree to this 
proposal.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to, as I've 
said, the next Governor of Indiana, my good friend from Columbus, 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a challenging time in the life of our country. 
Our economy is struggling; millions are out of work; and now, with a 
more than $14 trillion national debt, America is on the verge of having 
its debts exceed our statutory borrowing limit.
  Now, I recognize that if you owe debts, pay debts. Congress has an 
obligation to defend the full faith and credit of the United States. 
But this Congress also has an obligation to keep faith with this and 
future generations of Americans by restoring fiscal responsibility and 
discipline to our National Treasury.
  The bipartisan Budget Control Act that we will consider today will 
make it possible for the Nation's bills to be paid with no new taxes, 
dollar-for-dollar cuts in spending for every increase in the debt 
ceiling, and it will give the American people a fighting chance to 
consider a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
  Now, let me be clear. The Budget Control Act is not so much a good 
deal as it is a good start. I really believe this bipartisan compromise 
is a modest but meaningful step in the direction of fiscal discipline 
and reform, and I welcome it.

                              {time}  1720

  Now, while this bill doesn't go nearly far enough, it does move us in 
the right direction. You know, leadership means knowing when to say yes 
and knowing when to say no. I believe the time has come to get 
something done so this Congress can move our national government back 
in the direction of fiscal responsibility and reform, and begin to 
advance policies that will put Americans back to work.
  Last thought. There is a lot of credit taking on a day like today, a 
lot of bipartisanship, back patting, as we say. But let me say from my 
heart, this day, where we see the ship of state turning ever so 
slightly toward that lode star of fiscal responsibility, this day does 
not belong so much to any one political leader, to any one political 
party, or to any one branch of government. This day belongs to the 
American people who have stood, who have clamored, who have come to 
town halls and who have demanded this government live within its means 
and said: Enough is enough. This is your day.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Scott).
  Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Ladies and gentlemen of the House of 
Representatives, this, of course, is a very important day, a momentous 
decision, a difficult decision for all of us. I am going to vote for 
this in the best interest of our country and putting us in the stature 
where we need to be.
  But I do want to point out one area of weakness that we're going to 
have to look at carefully as we go forward, and that is in the 
application of this 12-member committee, and especially as it relates 
to the areas of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
  My understanding is, and I think this is understanding that we 
certainly need to make clear, that Social Security and Medicaid, 
veterans, Pell Grants, are all protected fully under this bill. But 
when it comes to Medicare, my understanding is that there will be an 
opportunity in here where they will look at Medicare on the provider 
side. The question becomes how can you basically separate benefits of 
Medicare patients when you have the patient, the doctors, and the 
hospital, and you can't adequately separate that. So I say, we must be 
very mindful of the Medicare apparatus here.
  Mr. DREIER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I did not come to Washington to dismantle the New Deal 
or the Great Society, and I did not come to Washington to force more 
people into poverty. I agree that we need to avoid default and confront 
our long-term fiscal challenges. That is why on Saturday I voted in 
support of the Reid proposal which would have reduced our debt by 
hundreds of billions of dollars.
  But the bill before us today is unfair in so many ways. It 
disproportionately places the burden of dealing with our

[[Page 12712]]

debt issue on the backs of those who can least afford it, while it 
spares the wealthiest from contributing anything.
  There is something fundamentally wrong when a billionaire hedge fund 
manager pays a lower tax rate than his secretary; when Big Oil can make 
tens of billions in profits every quarter, but still get sweetheart 
deals from the taxpayer; and when we are slashing funding for roads and 
bridges, but allowing tax breaks for corporate jet owners to continue.
  There are no new revenues in the bill before us today, only massive 
cuts in what is called domestic discretionary spending. But what does 
that actually mean? It means less investment in our transportation and 
infrastructure. It means less investment in medical research and 
education and food security.
  To put it simply, it means less jobs and higher unemployment at a 
time when millions of Americans are struggling to find work. And 
despite the rhetoric of its supporters, the bill puts Social Security, 
Medicare and Medicaid on the chopping block.
  We all know how we got into this mess: two huge tax cuts, mostly for 
the wealthy, that weren't paid for; two wars that weren't paid for; and 
a massive prescription drug bill that wasn't paid for. Now, there are 
certainly places to cut.
  Right now we are borrowing $10 billion every single month--$10 
billion every single month--for military operations in Afghanistan to 
prop up a corrupt and incompetent Karzai regime. But according to the 
Congressional Budget Office, the spending caps contained in this 
legislation do not apply to ending that misguided war. That makes no 
sense to me.
  The truth is that the best way to deal with our long-term fiscal 
situation is to grow our economy. That means creating jobs and putting 
people back to work. This bill goes exactly in the wrong direction.
  I have two children who I love more than anything, and I don't want 
them to grow up in a country where the gap between the very rich and 
poor grows wider and wider each year. We can do better, Mr. Speaker. We 
must do better, and we can do so in a way that does not abandon the 
principles of economic justice and fairness that have made our Nation 
so great. I will vote ``no'' on this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say to my good 
friend and Rules Committee colleague, time and time again he criticizes 
the tax cuts that have been put into place. They really are the Bush-
Obama tax cuts because, as we all know, last December, President Obama 
signed an extension of those. But I think it is important for us to 
look at the 2003 revenue flow and look at what happened just a few 
short years later in 2007.
  In 2003, Mr. Speaker, we had $1.782 trillion in revenues to the 
Federal Treasury. In 2007, after those tax cuts went into place, we had 
$2.567 trillion in revenues. That was a $785 billion increase, a 44 
percent increase in the take that the Federal Government had because of 
the implementation of those cuts.
  It is important to recognize that if we can grow the economy, we can 
generate an increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the gentleman 
from Bainbridge Township, Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, this moment in time on the floor reminds 
me exactly of a period during the 1990s. You know, there is a lot of 
publicity given to the new freshman class, and we from the 
revolutionary class of 1994 are feeling a little neglected these days, 
but welfare reform was the discussion. We endured overheated rhetoric 
on this floor about how our proposals were mean to pregnant women and 
children and old people and young people and poor people until one day 
the President of the United States, President Clinton, decided that he 
wasn't going to be the protector of overheated rhetoric, he was going 
to be the President of the United States, and he signed the welfare 
reform bill.
  I happened to walk on the floor, and you would have thought that my 
friends who were here on the other side of the aisle at that time that 
their dogs had all died because they looked so depressed. But the fact 
of the matter is that President Clinton decided to lead.
  Now, I don't know what's going on in all of the other offices, but 
we've taken a lot of phone calls over the last 4 or 5 weeks. Some 
people call in and tell me to hold the line; some people call in and 
tell me I'm an idiot. But the overwhelming sentiment of the calls is: 
You guys have got to work this out.
  So to the President of the United States' credit, President Obama, he 
had the Speaker, Mr. Boehner; the minority leader, Ms. Pelosi; the Vice 
President; Senator Reid; Senator McConnell down to the White House, and 
they worked this out.
  I don't think I'm going to stand here and listen to this continued 
harangue about how we are being mean to people because I don't think 
anybody on that side of the aisle believes that President Barack Obama 
would do the horrible things that the people are indicating he would 
do. I just don't believe it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  I hear a lot about the Bush tax cuts, but if they are so great, where 
are the jobs? I think it is simply wrong to have the middle class in 
this country bear the burden of balancing the budget when the Donald 
Trumps of the world get their tax cuts protected. There is something 
inherently wrong about that.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very tough place to put America. Not Members 
of Congress; we are paid to come here and do our job. But it is a very 
tough place to put America.
  So I have a simple state of facts to present today and listen to my 
other colleagues, which I will, because it is a tough decision to in 
actuality support legislation that seems to be driven by thoughts that 
the only way to get something done is to hold a whole country hostage 
and to hold Congress hostage.

                              {time}  1730

  That is simply what we have.
  On the brink of August 2, we are now throwing something on the floor 
that is arguably supposed to be helpful. I am concerned that there are 
nuances in this legislation that will hurt people we all care about, 
but it's a tough decision not to say ``yes'' to having America pay her 
bills. I hope, for once, that once we get past today that we will not 
in any way yield again to the voices of 87 Members who care nothing 
about America but who simply care about their way or the highway.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I am upset, and we should not do this 
anymore.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my views on ``The Budget Control 
Act of 2011,'' which, is a final hour compromise on raising our debt-
ceiling. This plan differs from the previous debt-ceiling bills 
introduced by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Those 
measures attempted to resolve our budget ceiling crisis on the backs of 
seniors, children, and the working poor. Those measures demanded sharp 
cuts to domestic programs that ask average Americans to make life-
altering sacrifices while not asking America's wealthiest individuals 
and most profitable corporations to contribute their fair share. 
Today's compromise has arrived just in time to prevent our country from 
risking the financial collapse of our great nation. Yet, this bill is 
not perfect
  In less than 24 hours our nation's clock would have run out to raise 
our debt limit. This final hour compromise will allow our nation to 
continue to operate and prevent our country from failing to meet our 
financial obligations. I have steadfastly stood before this body 
demanding a raise to our debt limit. I have spoken on the behalf of the 
average American by making it clear that we should not wait until the 
last minute.
  As a country, we have been held hostage by a small fringe group of 
people, who were narrowly elected. In many ways this plan feels like we 
have been given a ransom note and now at the last minute we have 
limited choices, none of which are appetizing. I believe this election 
was not a mandate to overthrow the American government. It was a

[[Page 12713]]

mandate to find real solutions and not temporary fixes. Waiting to the 
final hour, waiting to the last minute, has placed our country in a 
terrible dilemma. We have not been given the adequate amount of time to 
review this plan. I will do what is right for my constituents. So that 
we may live to fight another day and let there be no mistake, we will 
fight another day.
  I believe that it is time that we all have come together to find a 
compromise; however, this bill does not have a perfect solution and 
there are areas in which I have strong reservation. This is a two 
phased plan. The first part of the plan includes approximately $1.2 
trillion of deficit reduction through the establishment of ten-year 
discretionary caps. In the first two years, there would be a firewall 
separating security and non-security spending. Total discretionary 
spending in Fiscal Year 2012 and 2013 will be limited to $1.o43 
trillion and $1.047 trillion, respectively, about $7 billion and $3 
billion below Fiscal Year 2011. The security savings would represent 
roughly $5 billion of the total $10 billion in reductions over this two 
year period.
  The plan provides for debt ceiling increases in two stages. The 
President may request a $900 billion increase now, of which $400 
billion is immediately available. This $900 billion is subject to a 
resolution of disapproval in both the House and Senate. The disapproval 
measure would be subject to Presidential Veto. Once the debt comes 
within $100 billion of the debt ceiling, the President may ask for at 
least an additional $1.2 trillion, which could rise to $1.5 trillion if 
a Balanced Budget Amendment is sent to the states or the Joint 
Committee process described below enacts more than $1.5 trillion in 
savings. This increase is also subject to a resolution of disapproval.
  I must emphasize that I particularly have strong concerns about the 
formation of a Joint Committee. As I believe we should not hand over 
the power of these decisions of this magnitude to a handful of Members 
of Congress. A Joint Committee that will be given the duty of finding 
ways to achieve $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction. I hope there will 
be structure and reason when these decisions are made, but again this 
is just a hope.
  We should have been able as a body to come to this decision, and 
because we are at the last minute, this measure is a stop gap way to 
find further consensus. This Committee will be a joint, bipartisan 
committee, made up of 12 members, with 6 from each Chamber of Congress, 
equally divided between Democrats and Republicans.
  This Committee has been charged with finding major cuts in a short 
time frame with little oversight. There is the challenge where will 
they find $1.5 trillion in future deficit before we cut our turkeys on 
Thanksgiving.
  I will continue to sound the alarm if programs that impact the lives 
and welfare of the poorest among us are cut by drastic amounts. If the 
Committee is successful and achieves cuts of at least $1.5 trillion, 
then the debt ceiling will be raised by $1.5 trillion. If the 
committee's bill is enacted and produces between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 
trillion, the debt ceiling limit will be raised dollar for dollar. This 
plan at the very least attempting to do something that I have been 
calling for from the very beginning, for now, protects Social Security 
and Medicaid, but leaves Medicare and other programs that serve the 
most in need amongst us.
  Another portion of the agreement will provide additional time for 
Congress to conduct its due diligence prior to considering an amendment 
to the Constitution. As unlike other bills that have come before this 
body this plan is not contingent upon the passage of the balanced 
budget amendment. The amendment can now be properly considered and a 
vote on the measure will occur by the end of the year, which will allot 
about four months of additional review.
  In the end, it appears that cooler heads have appeared and instead of 
political rhetoric we have come together to protect our nation. We must 
continue to work together to save the American people and do what's 
right for our nation. Instead of injecting ideological spending cuts 
into the traditionally non-political business of raising the debt 
ceiling, we must work quickly to pass a bill that makes good on our 
debt obligations and restores confidence in American credit.
  Before us is an example of acting in unison to resolve our conflicts. 
This is the reason the American people placed us in these positions to 
ensure that we act in their best interest. They have been calling for a 
resolution and what is before us today represents a long and at times 
lively debate on how best to serve the citizens of this fine country. 
Today, we are working under one flag and one nation; we are working in 
unison to ensure that every American can benefit from this debt-limit 
increase.
  There are times in which we are 50 states, and times when we exist as 
a single, united, Nation. One single state did not defend the Nation 
after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. One state, on its own, did not end 
segregation and establish Civil Rights. There are times when the stakes 
are too high, when we simply must unite as states and act as one. We 
must continue to work under one flag and one Nation to protect our 
economy and to our people.
  We should not have waited until the final hour to come to this 
conclusion. I along with many colleagues demanded that we protect the 
interest of our Nation. Namely, reading the President to utilize his 
rights under the Constitution to raise the debt limit through executive 
order if Congress remained grid locked.
  We need to change the tone here in Congress. Federal Reserve Chairman 
Ben Bernanke said it best when he stated before the House Committee on 
Financial Services. ``We really don't want to just cut, cut, cut,'' 
Chairman Bernanke further stated ``You need to be a little bit cautious 
about sharp cuts in the very near term because of the potential impact 
on the recovery. That doesn't at all preclude--in fact, I believe it's 
entirely consistent with--a longer-term program that will bring our 
budget into a sustainable position.'' The plan before the House today 
offers the compromise that the American people want, demand and need.
  I will continue to fight to for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, 
and other programs that protect the interests of the American people. 
In my lifetime, I have never seen such a concerted effort to ransom the 
American economy in order to extort the American public. Finally, we 
arrive at a conclusion that will not result in the poorest among us 
bearing the majority of the costs.
  I support this bill and future efforts to increase the debt limit and 
to resolve our differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues. 
I will only support bills that increase jobs for average Americans. We 
must work together to ensure their economic security and ability to 
provide for their families while constraining the ability of Congress 
to deal effectively with America's economic, fiscal, and job creation 
troubles.
  My home state of Texas ranks 43rd in education, and last (50th) in 
the Nation in people over 25 who only have a high school education. 
This bill will protect the hopes and dreams of people who are striving 
to improve those numbers. I have fought wholeheartedly to safeguard 
Pell grants and I will continue this fight. Some groups have estimated 
there will be a shortfall of more than $1 billion in fiscal year 2012, 
but again with the last minute nature of this bill, this remains 
unclear. There is yet another attack on students by eliminating Direct 
Loan Repayment incentives on all loans disbursed on or after July 1, 
2012. The elimination of both of these provisions will increase the 
cost of loan repayment and thus the cost of college attendance. The in-
school interest exemption for neither graduate nor professional 
students and the prohibition of financial incentives to students who 
repay their loans on a timely basis. We should not increase the cost of 
education for students.
  The founders of our Nation understood the importance of advancing our 
Nation. For decades, we have provided free education to all minor 
residence of the United States from kindergarten through high school. 
After, having provided free education to all students until the 12th 
grade I recognize that financial disparities prevent many aspiring 
students from attaining a higher education.
  I believe that the plan is a temporary solution to a long term 
problem. It removes, for the moment, the entire burden of resolving our 
debt crisis off the backs of seniors, the middle class and our Nation's 
most vulnerable citizens. The bill will not immediately result in 
dramatic reductions in safety net programs for vulnerable Americans, 
such as food stamps and unemployment and disability insurance. Any 
major cuts to these programs would be and should be unacceptable, and 
each is avoidable if corporations and the wealthy are required to 
shoulder their fair share of this burden.
  There has been a theme this Congress of focusing on cutting both 
programs that benefit the public good and programs that provide 
assistance to those who are most in need, while ignoring the need to 
focus on job creation and economic recovery. This bill places us 
between a rock and a hard place as we fight to get back on the right 
track. We should be focused on paying our Nation's bills and resolving 
our differences.
  I represent the 18th Congressional District in Houston, Texas. In my 
District, more than 190,000 people live below the poverty line. We 
cannot make draconian cuts to vital social services at a time when the 
Census Bureau places the number of Americans living in poverty at the 
highest rate in over 50 years.

[[Page 12714]]

  Finally, we must come to a place where as a body we recognize that 
cuts to social programs do not reflect that we are still in the wake of 
the 2008 financial crisis. There continues to be persistent 
unemployment. When any measure comes before this body, the first 
questions that must be asked is who will it help and who will it hurt.
  A raise in the debt-ceiling must include assistance to small 
businesses which are the true job creators in our country. It must 
include Pell Grants that will aid students who will join the workforce 
of the future, by receiving an advanced education today. Just 6 months 
ago there were members of the Republican Party who would not sit down 
with us to discuss these matters and now here we are in the final hour. 
I have worked diligently to ensure that something was done to protect 
our Nation.
  I ask my colleagues to look at the facts and consider what will 
happen to the hard-working Americans who rely on these benefits. Think 
of programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Access Program, SNAP, that 
fed 3.9 million residents of Texas in April 2011, or the Women, 
Infants, and Children, WIC, Program that provides nutritious food to 
more than 990,000 mothers and children in my home state.
  These programs are needed across our nation. According to the 2010 
Federal poverty threshold, determined by the U.S. Census, a family of 
four is considered impoverished if they are living on less than $22,314 
per year. In 2009, there were 43.6 million Americans living in poverty 
nationwide. Children represent a disproportionate amount of the United 
States' poor population. In 2008, there were 15.45 million impoverished 
children in the Nation, 20.7 percent of America's youth. Further, the 
Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that there are currently 5.6 million 
Texans living in poverty, 2.2 million of them children, and that 17.4 
percent of households in the state struggle with food insecurity.
  Childhood hunger continues to be a real and persistent problem in the 
Houston/Harris County area. The number of people participating in the 
Food Stamp Program in Texas has increased by 82 percent since 2000. 
However, only 60 percent of those eligible for food stamps in Texas 
participate in the program.
  In Harris County, only 75 percent of children approved to receive 
free lunch participated, and only 39 percent of children approved to 
receive free breakfast took advantage of the benefit. Participation 
numbers are similarly low for those students approved to receive 
reduced-price lunch and breakfast. During summer months, participation 
in these federal nutrition programs drops significantly. In Texas the 
summer participation rate was only 8.1 percent of low income children.
  In 2008, when the recession first hit, 22.9 percent of Texas children 
were living in poverty, the fifth worst rate in the Nation. As a result 
of the economic downturn that began in late 2008 in Texas, and parents 
losing their jobs, the child poverty rate increased to 24.4 percent in 
2009. That is 163,000 more children falling into poverty, or 1.6 
million Texas children overall.
  Many people assume that Texas was not hit as hard by the recession as 
other states because our unemployment rate is still below the national 
average. While our unemployment rate is low compared to the U.S. (8.2 
versus 9.8 percent, respectively, in November 2010), it is still nearly 
double where it stood in November 2007 (4.4 percent). In fact, Texas' 
unemployment rate has been around 8 percent for the last 16 months, 
which is extremely high given Texas' recent history.
  Nearly one in three Texas children has no parent with a full-time, 
year-round job, making them particularly vulnerable.
  When a household falls into poverty, children are exposed to 
increased parental distress, inadequate childcare arrangements, and 
poor nutrition. In past recessions, it took many years for employment 
and incomes to rebound, and low-income families rebound more slowly 
than others.
  Public benefits such as health care or nutrition assistance help 
families bridge the gaps in difficult economic times and are critical 
in reducing the effects of a recession. Cutting these supports will 
hurt child and family well-being and damage the Texas economy by taking 
money out of the private economy for critical local businesses such as 
grocery stores and medical providers.
  Programs like Women, Infants and Children, WIC, are targeted to help 
low-income pregnant women, new mothers, infants, and young children to 
eat well and stay healthy. These programs ensure that poverty will not 
be a reason that a baby does not receive adequate nutrition. WIC 
provides nutrition education, nutritious foods, referrals to health and 
human services, breastfeeding support, and immunizations (at some 
clinics).
  More than 802,000 Texas children ages 0-4 (40 percent) received 
support through WIC. When you look at infants alone, 67 percent 
received WIC supplements, compared to only 35 percent of children aged 
1-4.
  The program has grown by more than 176,000 kids between 2000 and 
2009, with an increase of 66,000 children from 2007 to 2009 alone.
  The dramatic rise in applications for SNAP initially overwhelmed the 
already beleaguered state workers who enroll families in these federal 
benefits. In November of 2009, 43 percent of SNAP applications were not 
being processed within the federally mandated 30-day time period, 
leaving hundreds of thousands of families each month waiting for food 
assistance.
  More than 2.8 million Texas children participate in the school lunch 
program, and close to half of them also receive breakfast. More than 
$1.3 billion of federal funding is used to support these programs 
during the school year. Many counties in Texas also run summer 
nutrition programs so that kids who depend on school lunches have 
access to good nutrition when school is closed for the summer.
  During the recession, more families needed greater assistance with 
basic expenses. SNAP (formerly Food Stamps) provided benefits to over 3 
million Texans, more than half of which are children (ages 0-17).
  In January 2011, more than 2 million Texas children received 
assistance from SNAP, an increase of nearly 700,000 kids since January 
2008. Furthermore, because of added funds from the ARRA, monthly 
benefits rose 13.6 percent, giving added assistance to families at a 
time when they needed it most.
  Perhaps my friends on the other side of the aisle are content to 
conclude that life simply is not fair, equality is not accessible to 
everyone, and the less advantaged among us are condemned to remain as 
they are, but I do not accept that. That kind of complacency is not 
fitting for America.
  Texas has the unfortunate distinction of leading the Nation as the 
highest percentage of residents uninsured. More than 5.8 million 
Texans--including 1.5 million children--lack health insurance. Texas' 
uninsured rates, 1.5 to 2 times the national average, create 
significant problems in the financing and delivery of health care to 
all Texans. One in every four Texans lacks health insurance coverage, 
and that number is one in every three in large cities like Houston and 
Dallas. According to the Gallup poll, an average of 26.8 percent of 
Texas residents was uninsured.
  Currently, one in four residents within the state of Texas is 
uninsured and would be in financial stress in case of a major medical 
emergency. The percentage of uninsured is extremely high and has become 
one of the greatest challenges faced by the Texas Department of 
Insurance and Department of Health.
  Here's an idea that wouldn't cost Texas a dime but would save 
millions of dollars every year: Remove all barriers restraining nurses 
from practicing to the full extent of their education and training. No 
state needs primary care providers more than Texas, which has a severe 
shortage. Texas ranks last in access to health care and in the 
percentage of residents without health insurance. Of Texas' 254 
counties, 188 are designated by the Federal Government as having acute 
shortages of primary care physicians. Of that number, 16 counties have 
one and 23 have zero. If every nurse practitioner and family doctor 
were deployed, we still couldn't meet the need. Texans are desperate 
for health care.
  I have worked tirelessly with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to gain bipartisan support for successful passage of an amendment 
to the landmark healthcare reform bill that made sure no hospital is 
forced to shut its doors or turn away Medicare or Medicaid patients. 
Existing physician-owned hospitals employ approximately 51,700 
individuals, have over 27,000 physicians on staff, pay approximately 
$2,421,579,312 in payroll taxes and $512,889,516 in other federal 
taxes, and have approximately $1.9 billion in trade payables. With 
approximately 50 physician-owned hospitals, Texas leads the Nation in 
the number of physician-owned hospitals. The Texas economy could lose 
more than $2.3 billion and more than 22,000 jobs without these 
important hospitals.
  American families spend almost twice as much on health care--through 
premiums, paycheck deductions and out-of-pocket expenses--as families 
in any other country. In exchange, we receive quality specialty care in 
many areas. Yet on the whole, Americans do not get much better care 
than countries that spend far less. Americans do not live as long as 
people in Canada, Japan, and most of Western Europe. This should 
clearly indicate that health care reform was needed. The landmark bill 
signed by President Obama will provide coverage to millions of people 
who currently lack it.

[[Page 12715]]

  Protecting Medicare represents the basic values of fairness and 
respect for our seniors, including the 2.9 million Texans who received 
Medicare in 2010.
  Any cuts to Medicaid would be just as damaging. Harris County has one 
of the highest Medicaid enrollment records in Texas. Limits and cuts to 
Medicaid funds would significantly hurt the citizens of Texas's 18th 
District. Harris County averages between 500,000 and 600,000 Medicaid 
recipients monthly, thousands of people who may not have access to 
healthcare should Congress sacrifice Medicaid to cut spending.
  Yes, we must take steps to balance the budget and reduce the national 
debt, but not at the expense of vital social programs. It is 
unconscionable that in our nation of vast resources, my Republican 
colleagues would ever consider fighting to pass a budget that cuts 
funding for essential social programs. Poverty impacts far too many 
Americans and social safety nets provide these individuals with vital 
assistance.
  As we continue to discuss the long term necessity of increasing out 
debt ceiling, I have heard the concerns of many of my constituents and 
the American people regarding the size of our national debt and the 
care with which taxpayer money is spent. I, too, am concerned about 
these issues; for to burden future generations of Americans with 
tremendous amounts of debt should not be a way to avoid our fiscal 
responsibilities to the American people. However, the task of resolving 
our debt ceiling crisis must take precedence over other concerns, 
including political ideology. The game is up, and the American people 
understand that increasing the debt ceiling has nothing to do with any 
new spending and everything to do with paying off the obligations that 
we have already agreed to and promised to pay.
  Prior to the existence of the debt ceiling, Congress had to approve 
borrowing each time the Federal Government wished to borrow money in 
order to carry out its functions. With the onset of World War I, more 
flexibility was needed to expand the government's capability to borrow 
money expeditiously in order to meet the rapidly changing requirements 
of funding a major war in the modern era.
  To address this need, the first debt ceiling was established in 1917, 
allowing the Federal Government to borrow money to meet its obligations 
without prior Congressional approval, so long as in the aggregate, the 
amount borrowed did not eclipse a specified limit.
  Since the debt limit was first put in place, Congress has increased 
it over 100 times; in fact, it was raised 10 times within the past 
decade. Congress last came together and raised the debt ceiling in 
February 2010. Today, the debt ceiling currently stands at $14.3 
trillion dollars. In reality, that limit has already been eclipsed, but 
due to accounting procedures by Treasury Secretary Geithner, the debt 
limit can be artificially avoided until August 2.
  We must be clear on what this issue means for our country. America 
has earned a reputation as the world's most trusted borrower. United 
States Treasury bonds have traditionally been one of the safest 
investments another country or investor could make. For investors 
around the world, purchasing a U.S. Treasury bond meant that they held 
something virtually as safe as cash, backed by the full faith and 
credit of the United States government.
  If we allow the United States to default on its debt obligations, the 
financial crisis that began in 2008 would pale in comparison, according 
to economic experts. The ensuing economic catastrophe would not only 
place the U.S. economy in a tailspin, but the world economy as well.
  The fact that Congress, a body that typically has its fair share of 
political battles, has never played political chicken when it came to 
raising the debt ceiling should give us all pause, and is a testament 
to the seriousness with which we must approach this issue. However, 
this time around, my Republican colleagues have created an impasse 
based upon an ideological commitment to spending cuts. While I 
understand and share the concern of my Republican colleagues with 
respect to deficit spending, and will continue to work with them in 
order to find reductions, now is not the time to put ideology over 
pragmatism. The reality is that, on August 3, the United States will 
begin to default on its debt obligations if the debt ceiling is not 
raised.
  This unnecessarily places the American public and the economy between 
a rock and a hard place. Either Congress sides completely with the 
radical agenda of the Tea Party, which in the irresponsibly pulls the 
chair out from under the average American while polishing the throne of 
the wealthiest.
  This detour into a spending debate is as unnecessary as it is 
perilous, as increasing the debt ceiling does not obligate the 
undertaking of any new spending by the Federal Government. Rather, 
raising the debt limit simply allows the government to pay existing 
legal obligations promised to debt holders that were already agreed to 
by Presidents and Congresses, both past and present.
  If the United States defaults on its obligations on August 3, the 
stock market will react violently to the news that for the first time 
in history, America is unable to keep its promises to pay. Not once in 
American history has the country's full faith and credit been called 
into question.
  Once America defaults, investors who purchase U.S. bonds and finance 
our government will be less likely to lend to America in the future. 
Just as a person who defaults on a loan will find it harder to convince 
banks to lend them money in the future, a country that defaults on its 
debt obligations will find it harder to convince investors to lend 
money to a government that did not pay.
  Showing the world that the United States does not pay its debts makes 
the purchasing of that debt less desirable because it requires the 
assumption of more risk on the part of the investors. The opponents of 
this bill are putting the country at serious risk of losing its status 
as the world's economic superpower. Our allies will lose faith in our 
ability to manage global economic affairs. Our status in the world will 
be diminished, which will undermine our leverage on the world stage 
that allows us to command the respect and compliance of other nations 
when it comes to decision-making. This bill will allow America to 
compete with a surging China.
  Furthermore, any investors that do continue to purchase U.S. Treasury 
bonds will demand much higher interest rates in order to cover the 
increased risk. Once a default occurs, investors figure that the chance 
of the United States defaulting again is much greater, and will require 
the government to pay higher rates of interest in order to make the 
loan worth the risk for investors to take on.
  Imagine the impact on our stock market if we do not pay our debts. As 
we have seen throughout the recent financial crisis, a bad stock market 
hurts not only big businesses and large investors on Wall Street, but 
small businesses and small investors as well. Families with investments 
tied to the stock market, such as 401(k)s, pension plans, and savings, 
will once again see the value of their investments drop. The American 
people are tired of the uncertainty of the value of their retirement 
accounts. We must not allow another wild fluctuation to occur due to 
default and add to the uncertainty still lingering the minds of 
citizens.
  Increasing the debt ceiling is the responsible thing to do. Congress 
has already debated and approved the debt that an increased ceiling 
makes room for. However, my Republican colleagues have chose to use 
this as an opportunity to hold the American people hostage to their 
extreme agenda.
  They live in a world that is not the world that the American people 
live in. In their world, they believe that taxes are always too high, 
even on people making over a billion a year in a struggling economy; 
that any increase in revenue is fundamentally wrong, even if it comes 
from large corporations who use tax loopholes at the expense of our 
job-creating small businesses; that investing anything in our economic 
future above tax revenues is impermissible, even in the midst of an 
economic downturn; and that tax cuts for the wealthy are always the 
nation's top priority, even at the expense of people that depend on 
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans benefits to survive.
  These beliefs place them on the fringe of American society, and yet 
due to the nature our political process, they have held up the entire 
government and placed our economy on the precipice of a turbulent 
second recession.
  If Congress cannot find a resolution then Congress will open the 
possibility that the President may invoke the Fourteenth Amendment to 
United States Constitution, Section Four, which states ``the validity 
of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be 
questioned.'' The argument must be made that if Congress will not 
resolve our nation's pending default then the President to protect the 
interests of our nation must act. We should act, however, so the 
vulnerable are protected.
  The President would have to consider his powers under the Fourteenth 
Amendment which may grant him the authority to raise the debt ceiling, 
through executive order if Congress fails to act by the August 2, 2011 
deadline. If the President has to use his presidential authority, he 
should to avoid a collapse--but Republicans should cease the hostage-
taking--and adults have to stand up for America and vote to pay 
America's bills.
  For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to consider the constituents 
in their home districts who need the protection of an America

[[Page 12716]]

that pays the bills. I urge my Republican colleagues to return to the 
world in which the vast majority of Americans live in; a world in which 
our shared destiny is determined by reasonable minds and good faith 
efforts to compromise. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned 
that defaulting could ``throw the financial system into chaos'', and 
``destroy the trust and confidence that global investors have in 
Treasury securities as being the safest liquid assets in the world''.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will advise all Members to respect 
the gavel.
  The gentlewoman from Texas was out of order.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my 
good friend from Hopkinsville, Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I rise in support of this legislation, and I think 
that President Obama and the leaders in the House and the Senate should 
be given a warm congratulations on being able to come to some agreement 
to prevent America from defaulting on its debt.
  We all know that this is not a perfect piece of legislation, but one 
of the real positives of this legislation is the joint commission 
that's going to be established by six Members from the House and six 
Members from the Senate who will come up with recommendations to reduce 
Federal spending. We do know that exempt from that is Social Security, 
veterans' benefits as well as Medicaid, for those who really need 
health care the most.
  Yet I've heard a lot of discussion today about ``this is not about 
jobs''; so I would just point out that getting our financial house in 
order is very important. If you've read any newspaper recently, you 
will find out that, in this administration, the excess of regulations 
coming out, particularly from the EPA, have been a real hindrance to 
job creation in America as well as the uncertainty of the health care 
bill that was adopted last year.
  So this is an important first step in getting our financial house in 
order. Next, we need to start working on removing uncertainty on the 
regulatory side of the government. So I would urge everyone to support 
this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California has 2\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic 
whip.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We have missed, in my opinion, a wonderful opportunity, an 
opportunity to make a grand bargain, as the Speaker wanted to do, as 
Leader Pelosi wanted to do, as Leader Reid wanted to do, as the 
President wanted to do, and as the Vice President wanted to do.
  For months now, the world has looked to America and has asked whether 
we are still a Nation that pays its bills or whether, thanks to the 
ideological intransigents of a few, we would do the unthinkable and 
default on our obligations. We are a more responsible and honorable 
Nation than that. We are only at this point because the far right wing, 
for the first time in American history, has chosen to hold our economy 
hostage in order to enact a radical ideological agenda far out of step 
for the majority of Americans. If nothing else, these months have shown 
the American people who puts our country's welfare first and who would 
rather have ideological purity at all costs.
  I am voting for this bill, not because I like this bill, although it 
does do some things that I think need to be done, but because we need 
to bring down the deficit; we need to address the debt; we need to 
return to fiscal responsibility. Default for the United States of 
America is not an option. This would affect all of the people I 
represent and all of the people of this country if we defaulted.
  At the very least, this bill averts this outcome by paying our bills 
through 2013, which will bring certainty to a struggling economy that 
badly needs it. This bill cuts spending by $1.2 trillion, and also 
establishes a process to arrive at additional spending cuts.
  The second set of deficit reductions will be entrusted to a 
bipartisan committee. Hopefully, that committee will accurately reflect 
the priorities of this Nation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. HOYER. We are here because we missed, as I said, a great 
opportunity, a chance to pass now a truly balanced agreement that 
relies on both spending cuts and revenue. We're not there, but I have 
said many times during the course of this debate that to govern is to 
compromise, not to sell out. Some people think on this floor that 
voting for a compromise is somehow a sellout. We cannot run America on 
that theory, and that is not what democracy is all about.
  I urge my colleagues to ensure that America, in fact, pays its bills.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield? I will yield my friend 
additional time if he would like.
  Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  I would just like to compliment him on pointing to compromise. I 
don't know if he heard, but I closed the rule debate in my closing 
remarks by talking about the Connecticut compromise, which established 
a bicameral legislature on July 16, 1787. It was called the Great 
Compromise. My friend is absolutely right. We're at that point today in 
dealing with an issue, not of that magnitude, but clearly of a very 
important one.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts 
has expired.
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield an additional 45 seconds to my friend 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen, I have said numerous times during 
the course of this debate about whether America was going to pay its 
bills and that we need to vote, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as 
Americans: Americans concerned about the fiscal posture of their 
country, concerned about the confidence that people around the world 
have in the American dollar, which is, after all, the standard of the 
world. That is what I think this vote is about.
  It should not be about partisan politics, and very frankly, it should 
not be about ideological extremes. It ought to be about responsibility. 
It ought to be about understanding that our oath of office is to 
preserve and protect the United States of America.
  This bill does that. Vote ``yes.''
  Mr. DREIER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I feel very honored to follow my good friend and classmate, the 
distinguished Democratic whip, as we talk about this compromise and 
where we are.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, saving Social Security and Medicare is a priority 
that I believe both political parties share. Contrary to much of what 
has been put out there, this is something that is addressed in this 
measure. We are going to be able to save Social Security and Medicare--
again, working together in a bipartisan way.
  Creating jobs, Democrats and Republicans alike talk about that. How 
is it that we're going to be able to do that? Getting our fiscal house 
in order is a very, very important step in our quest to ensure that the 
people who are hurting and looking for jobs will have an opportunity to 
get them.
  We are sending a positive signal to the global market that we are the 
world's economic, military and geopolitical leader. By increasing the 
debt ceiling, we are sending a positive signal that we are going to 
continue meeting our obligations and our responsibility but, at the 
same time, dramatically reducing spending.
  The problem that has gotten us to this point is what we're doing for 
the first time ever. After 75 times of increasing the debt ceiling, we 
are finally getting to the root cause. The problem, as has been said 
over and over again, is our debt, and we're going to turn the corner on 
that in a thoughtful and balanced way.

[[Page 12717]]

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

                              {time}  1740

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if the Congress does not act--and act now--America will 
default. That would wreak havoc on our economy and make it harder for 
Americans to find and keep a job in an already weak economy. Default 
cannot be an option, and I am pleased that the bill before us ensures 
that will not occur.
  Just as a default would threaten the economic health of this country, 
so would increasing taxes. Raising taxes on families and job creators 
would hinder investment, increase the cost of doing business, and 
result in even less hiring and fewer jobs. That is the wrong direction 
when we are struggling with an unemployment rate of 9.2 percent and 14 
million Americans looking for work. The good news is that the 
legislation before us recognizes these basic facts. It avoids a 
default, it makes sure the government pays our bills, and it does not 
increase taxes.
  And though some have argued that the new Joint Select Committee on 
Deficit Reduction could pave the way for tax increases, that is not 
going to happen. The committee's structure, the baseline it will work 
off of, and the fact that Republicans are in the majority in the House 
virtually guarantees that tax rates will not go up.
  Furthermore, this legislation finally forces Washington to make 
serious changes to the way it spends taxpayer dollars. There are real 
budget reforms, there is a path to a balanced budget amendment, and 
there are automatic spending cuts if Congress does not rein in spending 
on its own.
  I applaud the efforts of all of those who helped craft this 
agreement, especially Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor.
  I urge my colleagues to recognize this opportunity to fix what is 
broken in Washington and use this occasion to significantly cut runaway 
spending.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, a most 
distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee for a long time, 
Mr. Charles Rangel of New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, while I stand on this floor as an American 
and a person that loves this Congress so much, I'm embarrassed also as 
a Member that a President of the United States would have his domestic 
and foreign policy actually held hostage, because with him and only him 
and no other President have we decided that we would almost put in 
jeopardy the faith and the fiscal responsibility of this country paying 
its debts.
  You know, a lot of people have said that we got to a $14.4 trillion 
debt because we got drunk and spent money like a drunken sailor. If 
that is so, the people having the hangover certainly aren't the wealthy 
people in this country. And this decision was decided without any 
consideration of the people that are longing for jobs in our great 
country. If the Republicans had to hold the President hostage, I wish 
that they would have held him hostage on the questions that my 
constituents wake up in the morning and ask, not whether or not the 
debt ceiling has risen, but how can I get a job? How can I really get 
back my dignity? How can I put food on the table? These are issues that 
you certainly don't resolve by cutting spending, causing people to lose 
their jobs and to lose their hope.
  So, indeed, I'm glad that we are not going to default, but in the 
days ahead we ought to be spending some time talking about what most 
Americans want, and that is a fair tax system--while the wealthy have 
gained so much during this spree that we've had--and not allow a 
hangover to be with the people that are jobless.
  We still have time to close this responsibility that we have, to 
close the debt that we have, not by laying off people, not by just 
cutting programs during a recession, but by thinking about how we can 
train people, how we can research, and how we can get our people back 
to work.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of 
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).
  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, $14.4 trillion; $1.6 trillion every year added 
onto that national debt.
  The people in November, 2010, spoke loudly. We are listening. It is 
time that we in this Chamber accept the fact that D.C. has to and will 
change because the American people have spoken loudly. They want us to 
get our fiscal house in order. They want us to bring certainty to the 
American market so that we can invest in this great country again and 
put people back to work, not only for this generation, but for 
generations to come.
  I rise in support of this legislation. It is not the cure-all, it is 
not the one battle that will win this war on our national debt, but it 
opens us up on a path to where we need to be firmly dedicated and 
disciplined to carry on this battle and the battles to come.
  So I ask all my colleagues, let us govern responsibly, let us avoid 
default, but continue on this battle--and continue on we will, as a new 
class, as a freshman Member of this great Chamber.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to another 
distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this agreement, but this 
is a lousy way to run our great country or to rebuild a world-class 
economy. I support it because the alternative is unacceptable, 
defaulting on our Nation's obligations for the first time in our 
Nation's history. Doing so would be the greatest unforced error ever 
committed in the history of our country. And it's all political.
  The performance of this Congress the last couple of months has a lot 
to be desired. And if King Solomon were alive today, I think his 
metaphorical solution to all this would be to kill both women and spare 
the child. But if we are to achieve true fiscal solvency for our 
country, there are three things I think that need to happen:
  We need to invest in our future, grow the economy. You do that by 
investing in education and job training and scientific research. And 
the infrastructure upgrade our Nation needs in broadband expansion, 
that's not happening right now, and it won't, I fear, under this 
agreement.
  We need to also look for smart savings in the budget, starting with 
changing the way we pay for health care in this country so it's based 
on the value and no longer the volume of care that's given. By getting 
rid of outdated weapons programs the Pentagon keeps telling Congress to 
stop appropriating money for, because they're not asking for it, and 
they don't need it. It's ending taxpayer subsidies going to large 
agribusiness with mailing addresses in New York, Chicago, and San 
Francisco, not even to working families.
  And finally, we need tax reform, to simplify a code that has acted 
like an anchor on economic growth and job creation, but that is fair, 
asking the most wealthy to contribute their fair share as well.
  I support the agreement, and I encourage my colleagues to do so as 
well.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I have voted twice to raise the debt ceiling. 
In May, I voted with about 90 other people

[[Page 12718]]

for a clear debt ceiling raise. I voted this past weekend for Leader 
Reid's program, which had cuts.
  But I can't vote for this program because the first series of cuts we 
know, the second series of cuts we don't know. I fear it's a Trojan 
horse. And if you look inside that Trojan horse it's Scylla and 
Charybdis inside, the whirlpools and the shoals. And that's an odyssey 
and journey that this country should not have to traverse.
  This country has been taken to this point by a group of ideologues 
that don't like government, want to reduce it, are reducing it, want to 
hurt employment figures to hurt the President of the United States, Mr. 
Speaker, and I don't want to hurt him.
  Justice Louis Brandeis said, ``The greatest dangers to liberty lurk 
in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without 
understanding.'' Justice Brandeis is with us today.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of 
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it's important we know, as we try to 
change this government, that we're actually making changes in the 
direction it's going.
  Without the Budget Control Act, our government will be over 23 
percent of the size of our economy by the end of this decade. The 
Budget Control Act changes that. By the end of the decade, it will be 
about 21.5 percent of the size of our economy. It is comparable, coming 
close to the shrinkage of the economy under President Reagan in his 8 
years in the White House.
  The truth of the matter is this doesn't go far enough for 
conservatives. You can't cut far enough or soon enough for Members of 
Congress like myself because we just believe this country is so deep, 
so dangerously deep in debt.

                              {time}  1750

  But with this vote today, tonight we cut out the same amount of 
spending the President put in this government in that ill-fated failed 
stimulus bill. And later this year, we get a chance to vote another cut 
in this government equivalent to the size of ObamaCare. So we start 
with two strong cuts reversing and shrinking the size of government.
  In this bill, we achieve two-thirds of the discretionary cuts 
included in the Ryan Budget, in the Path to Prosperity that the 
Republican House Members believe in. Now, a few months ago, if someone 
said the Senate passed a budget and they've agreed to two-thirds of 
your cuts in discretionary spending, we would have celebrated. We're 
not celebrating today because we know there's so much more work to be 
done.
  But we know also that this cuts spending today. It puts controls on 
future Congresses in the way they spend. That's important. And it holds 
Congress and the White House both accountable for getting the size of 
this government back in control without increasing taxes on families 
like you, on our job creators back home along Main Street, and it does 
so today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. I support this bill as a first step, anxious to 
get to more spending and savings and getting this wasteful, bloated 
government down to size. And I know, too, any vote, my principle is tax 
cuts and spending cuts. If I can change the direction of this country 
with bigger spending cuts, my vote will be a ``yes.''
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The Republicans in this House have taken this Nation to a dangerous 
and unnecessary brink. I definitely do not want our Nation to default 
on its full faith and credit, but I also don't want our Nation to 
default on our solemn obligations as a Nation, as a community to all of 
our citizens. That's why we need a balanced approach to keep us on an 
even keel as we move ahead. This means savings and revenues.
  So as I vote today as the ranking member on the Ways and Means 
Committee, I will keep in mind how we must not let down our citizens 
who need programs.
  One example is unemployment insurance. It's set to expire at the end 
of this year as millions desperately look for work. And I just now have 
received a report that this year's extension and the next year's 
extension would cost $45 billion. We need to get those resources. If 
we're not on a balanced path, we will not be able to address critical 
needs of our fellow and sister citizens such as unemployment insurance. 
We need balance to be true to ourselves.
  I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the ranking member of the 
Budget Committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the National Commission on 
Fiscal Responsibility, or Debt Commission, we received testimony from 
experts in economic policy research; and they said that when debt loads 
of a country reach above or at 90 percent of their economy or GDP, that 
results in the reduction in economic growth in that country by about 1 
percentage point. And using the administration's economic model, that 1 
percentage point increase in our GDP or decrease in our GDP costs about 
a million jobs. That's why this debate is so important. It is so 
important to get us on a path to fiscal responsibility, to begin to 
bring down our national debt.
  The plan before us today does that. It does that with spending 
reductions. It does it with the sort of structural reforms in terms of 
spending caps that are there. But it also does it with an automatic 
reduction in spending if, for some reason, this select committee set up 
in this bill fails to come to some sort of agreement on how to reduce 
spending. That automatic reduction, I think, is an important backstop 
so the select committee will take its work seriously and do everything 
to come to a bipartisan solution.
  Also, there is a path forward on a balanced budget amendment in this 
legislation that is absolutely critical I think for not just today, 
because we know it is impossible to bind future Congresses, but to put 
in place a structure and a mechanism well into the future so that we 
don't find ourselves continuing to deal with the fundamentals of this 
problem. We begin to deal with the problem; we make progress on the 
problem; and that progress will mean job creation, and that's something 
we're all looking forward to.
  I thank the Speaker and urge a ``yes'' vote on the legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair now recognizes members from the 
Committee on the Budget: the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), 
chairman; and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), ranking 
minority member.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is 
remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Maryland has 8\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
yield 3\1/2\ minutes to a member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
  Mr. LANKFORD. I tell you, I would love for people to be able to come 
to Oklahoma City anytime they have the opportunity to do that.
  But to be able to talk to the great folks in my district, I can tell 
you the one thing that comes up again and again is they are really 
frustrated and they are looking for things to really be able to change 
here in Washington. They see how broken our system is. They see the way 
that we interact. They are really legitimately frustrated, and I can 
tell you they have lost trust in what we're doing and how we're doing 
it.
  We, quite frankly, as the Federal Government, are trying to do too 
many things, and we can't afford all of the things that we're doing.
  So in some very simple way, this whole process has united the Nation 
to

[[Page 12719]]

be able to look simply at $14.3 trillion in debt and to say, as a 
Nation, we have a problem. That is a good first step.
  Now, the conversation that's been happening around Congress over the 
past several months now is now dealing with how do we resolve the 
problem and what is the core of the problem. Is the problem the debt 
ceiling vote? Is the problem tomorrow? Or is the problem $14 trillion 
in debt?
  And I feel like sometimes we have been trying to either figure out 
how to get past tomorrow or how to get past solving this issue of $14.3 
trillion in debt. That has created 7 months of debate and 7 months of 
conversation that I fear has made an unrealistic expectation of how 
much we can really do in one piece of legislation.
  Quite frankly, no piece of legislation can solve $14.3 trillion in 
debt all in one moment. No piece of legislation can be a perfect 
solution. There is no perfect ideal piece of legislation that's going 
to solve it all. Are there major issues that I think that are in every 
piece of legislation? I'm sure there are in every one of them. But in 
this one, I would look at it and say it is not perfect, but it takes us 
down that first step to start getting out of this.
  If there is a perception that we can solve it all in one piece, I 
think everyone has underestimated the size and the scope of what it 
really means to deal with this large of a debt and this large of a 
deficit. It is a single step on a very long journey.
  Does it solve all of the problems? No. Does it cure cancer? No. Does 
it get us out of all of the wars? No. Does it locate Amelia Earhart's 
body? No. Does it find us the Ark of the Covenant? No.
  It doesn't solve everything we would like to do with it, but it does 
begin to put a framework around the Federal Government for the next 10 
years to set spending caps in place to say we're going to stop the 
growth of government. We've grown very quickly very fast. We've got to 
first stop that growth of government and put some boundaries around it. 
That's a good first step on that.

                              {time}  1800

  It puts a square focus on the balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution, which 80 percent of the American people say they want 
some version of the balanced budget amendment. Quite frankly, this 
creates a moment for Republicans and Democrats to be able to have an 
honest conversation about what should that text be for a balanced 
budget amendment? How can we work together? The Constitution is not 
owned by one party but is owned by the people of the United States of 
America, so that is both parties coming together to have a very frank 
conversation about if we're going to have a balanced budget amendment 
to the Constitution, how do we get that done? What is the text of that? 
And how do we do what is best for our Nation?
  But the key thing of this piece of legislation today is focused on 
not just getting us past tomorrow but starting us down a process, that 
single first step of starting us down a process that in the days ahead 
our children will not live in the shadow of this kind of debt, of this 
kind of deficit, and we as a Nation can get back to doing the things we 
love to do rather than worrying about what creditor we're going to pay 
and which one we're not.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we should never have gotten to the point where our 
troops in Afghanistan had to ask whether they were going to be paid. 
That's a scandal. And it's scandalous that our Republican colleagues 
would threaten for the first time in American history to torpedo 
America's creditworthiness and American jobs unless they succeeded in 
enacting a budget plan to end the Medicare guarantee, slash Medicaid, 
and slash critical investments in education and our future.
  That was the plan. They wanted to do that now, and they wanted to 
have this whole debate again 6 months from now. Why? Not to reduce the 
deficit. If the goal was to reduce the deficit, why refuse to end 
taxpayer subsidies for the oil companies? If reducing the deficit was 
the purpose, why refuse to end special breaks for corporate jets and 
the folks at the very high end of the income scale? That wasn't the 
plan. The plan was to use this moment to threaten the economy, to try 
and slash the social safety net and those critical investments in 
education and innovation in our future.
  And guess what: They failed. They failed to do that. They failed to 
end the Medicare guarantee. They failed to slash Medicaid. They failed 
to slash education. In this measure, we succeeded in protecting 
Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries. We succeeded in protecting 
seniors in nursing homes, individuals with disabilities and poor kids 
who depend on Medicaid for their health care. And we succeeded in 
providing room for critical investments in education and America's 
future.
  Don't get me wrong, Mr. Speaker, there's much in this plan I don't 
like. We did not succeed in shutting down special interest tax 
loopholes that add hundreds of billions of dollars to our deficits. Our 
Republican colleagues refused to cut those subsidies for big oil 
companies. They refused to cut the others. And now we're going to have 
a great debate. We're going to have a great debate about how to grow 
the economy and reduce our long-term deficit. It will be a debate about 
our national priorities. I hope we will support the balanced approach 
that the President has called for, one that refuses to put greater 
burdens on Medicare beneficiaries in order to provide greater tax 
breaks to the wealthiest Americans.
  In the coming months, our Republican colleagues will be given the 
following test: Will they choose to protect special interest tax breaks 
over investments necessary to keep our Nation strong and secure? Will 
they finally demonstrate a willingness to pay for our national defense 
rather than put it on the credit card? Mr. Speaker, let's get on with 
that big national debate, and let's finally focus on jobs and getting 
the economy going as we reduce our long-term deficit.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Wisconsin, a 
member of the Budget Committee, Ms. Moore.
  Ms. MOORE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  So many of my colleagues have said that it was necessary to storm the 
White House and take the country hostage in the name of their 
grandchildren, so I wanted to go on record talking about what I want 
for my grandchildren.
  I want Head Start for my grandchildren. I want WIC programs and early 
childhood education programs for my grandchildren. I want my kids to go 
to a school where they can participate in the science fair. I want 
immunizations for them. I want research done for food safety to make 
sure that the chicken nuggets are safe. I want clean air and clean 
water for them. I want jobs where they invent things, like new energy 
sources. And, yes, I want them to be contributing citizens and pay 
taxes. And I want a safety net for them in case they are disabled, and 
when they become elderly, and if they get cold in the cold winters of 
Wisconsin, that they'll have some energy assistance.
  I want my grandchildren to have the American Dream.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding and also 
for his very bold and effective leadership.
  I rise in strong opposition to this unbalanced debt ceiling bill. 
This is an unbalanced approach. We all know that. We've heard that. 
Furthermore, this debt ceiling bill should have never been an option in 
terms of having to come to this floor to debate this and to do this. 
Like we have done for Democratic and Republican Presidents in the past, 
we should have lifted the debt ceiling.
  Rightfully so, many of us are concerned about these discretionary 
cuts.

[[Page 12720]]

What are these cuts going to do as it relates to our senior citizens, 
low income individuals and the poor? This debt ceiling bill does 
nothing to address the real crises in our country, the lack of jobs and 
economic growth. At a time when investments are needed to jump-start 
our economy and put people back to work, this deal and its cuts-only 
approach, which it is, it's the wrong approach. It's an outrage that as 
we stand here today that we could not raise the debt ceiling by voting 
for that.
  I intend to vote ``no'' on the bill.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey, 
who's been a fighter in this battle, Mr. Andrews.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, what brings us together is a need to create 
jobs for the American people, and I think people would agree there's 
three things we have to do to create jobs:
  The first is not fall off a cliff and have a default on our national 
obligations. This bill accomplishes that.
  The second thing is to make sure we have an interest rate environment 
so that our businesses and entrepreneurs can create jobs, so they have 
some predictability. By making a 25 to 30 percent down payment on 
reducing our deficit in a fair and equitable way, this bill does that.
  Finally, I think most of us agree that we need investments in our 
education, research and development, infrastructure, other activities 
to create jobs in our private sector for our people. By making sure 
that at least in the first 2 years of this agreement that the 
reductions in those areas are either nonexistent or moderate, I think 
that we give ourselves the freedom so our appropriators can put 
valuable investments forward in that way. This is a well-reasoned 
bipartisan agreement to create jobs for the American people. I urge a 
``yes'' vote.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 2 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, we should never have reached 
this point in our country. We should never have reached the point when 
our troops wondered whether they were going to get paid or individuals 
on Social Security wondered whether they were going to see their earned 
benefits. That should never have happened.
  This is the first time in history, the first time in history, that 
we've seen Members of this Congress threaten to close down the American 
economy unless they got their particular budget plan through, one that 
ends the Medicare guarantee, slashes Medicaid and would deeply cut our 
investments in education and innovation. We protected those investments 
in this bill. The plan did not work. It didn't work now, and the plan 
to do it again 6 months from now didn't work.

                              {time}  1810

  So now we will have that great debate over our priorities. We are 
looking forward to it. Let's get on to talking about jobs and the 
economy.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished Democratic 
leader, who has been a fighter for America's priorities, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And 
every chance I get, I want to salute him for his tremendous leadership 
as the top Democrat on the Budget Committee, for the work he did with 
Mr. Clyburn in the bipartisan talks, as they strove to have what the 
American people want: a balanced, bipartisan, fair agreement to lift 
the debt ceiling and take America forward.
  Unfortunately, that did not happen. What did happen, and it brings to 
mind the existential question, why are we here? And I would divide, as 
we say in legislation, I would divide that question into why are we 
here, and why are we here today? We are here because all of us in this 
body care about our country, have decided that public service is a 
noble pursuit, and that we have come here to make the future better for 
future generations. That is what our Founding Fathers visualized for 
America, that every generation would take responsibility to make the 
future better for the next.
  That is why, Mr. Speaker, our Founders, in addition to writing our 
founding documents, the Declaration, the great Declaration, which 
embodies fairness in it and equality, then the Constitution, they 
declared independence, they fought the greatest naval power in the 
world, they won, they wrote the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, 
making us the freest, greatest Nation in the world, founded on a 
principle of respect that all people are created equal. That had never 
been done in the history of the world.
  And when they did that, as I have told you before, because I love it 
so much, they also created the Great Seal of the United States. And 
that Great Seal of the United States has on it ``Novus Ordo Seclorum,'' 
a new order for the centuries, for the ages, forever.
  So confident were our Founders in their idea about generational 
responsibility, one to the next, that they were confident that our 
country, that what they were putting forth, would exist for the ages. 
For the ages. That was the challenge they gave us. That is the 
responsibility that we have. And for a couple of hundred years or more, 
that has always been the case.
  Every generation has always believed that it would make the future 
better for the next, for their children and for their grandchildren. We 
are here today because we believe that, and we believe that the public 
policy that we put forth, the legislation we put forth, should result 
in public policy that makes the future better for our children and our 
grandchildren. That we are committed to their education, the economic 
security of our families, the dignified retirement of our seniors, 
including my being a senior, and also safety and security of our 
neighborhoods and of our country, and that we would do it in a fiscally 
sound way that did not give our kids any bills, public or personal.
  So if we believe all of that, and that's why we are here in Congress, 
it's hard to believe that we are putting our best foot forward with the 
legislation that comes before us today. I am not happy with it, but I 
am proud of some of the accomplishments contained in it. And that's why 
I am voting for it.
  That takes me to the second question: Why are we here today? Why are 
we here today, within 24 hours of our Nation going into default, after 
months of conversation about how we would address the debt ceiling? Not 
to have future spending, but to pay our past obligations. And I won't 
go into it again, how we got here. But I will say that time is one of 
the most important commodities any of us have, the most precious, the 
most finite. And during that period of time, when our country could 
have been more productive, more optimistic, more confident in the 
tradition of our Founders, instead, a cloud of doubt was placed on it 
because of the delay, the delay, the delay in lifting the debt ceiling.
  As my distinguished colleague Mr. Van Hollen said, this has never 
happened before. We have never, never tied the hands of a President of 
the United States. We never placed any doubt in the public markets as 
to whether this would happen. We never had people around the boardroom 
tables all wondering if we even knew the consequences of our inaction. 
But I am concerned about the boardroom table. I am more concerned also 
about the kitchen table.
  Because this delay and uncertainty has a tremendous impact on 
America's families as they sit around the table and talk about how 
they're going to make ends meet, how they're going to pay their bills. 
Is Social Security going to be intact for them? Will their checks 
arrive this week or next week, whenever they're due? Is Medicare and 
Medicaid something that they can count on?

[[Page 12721]]

  Well, after months and months and months to reach an agreement that 
could have been reached a long time ago--it is not so great it took so 
long to achieve; it could have been accomplished months ago, and at 
least had the merit of instilling confidence earlier, sooner, rather 
than at the latest possible moment. So we must make sure that we are, 
as we say why are we here today, that we are not here some other day to 
go through these motions.
  That's another reason why I am supporting this bill, because the 
President was successful in impressing upon the Congress that we needed 
the full time, the 18 months so that we can have Americans' kitchen 
table--people sitting around that table and sitting around the 
boardroom table would all know that you can rely on the United States 
of America to meet its obligations. Okay?
  Another reason to support this bill, even though there are plenty of 
reasons not to, is that it stops cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and 
Medicaid. This is the most important assignment given to the Democratic 
leadership going to the table: Make sure there are no cuts in benefits 
in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That was achieved.
  Another issue of importance to us is that as we protect and defend 
our country, we also measure our strength in the health, education, and 
well-being of the American people. And so we have a 50-50 split between 
our expenditures for defense and our expenditures for strength defined 
in other ways for our country.
  So these are some reasons. While those who may have the luxury of not 
wanting to vote for the bill, I feel a responsibility to do so. We 
cannot, because of certain objections in the bill--and one of the main 
ones is that there is not one red cent coming from America's wealthiest 
families, the most successful people, and God bless them for their 
success, and I know that they are willing to do more, but not one red 
cent coming to help reduce the deficit while we are willing to cut 
Title I education for the poorest children in America. And that's too 
bad for those children. It's terrible for our country.
  So, again, you can make a list of things in the bill that we do not 
like and things that are not in the bill, like revenue, but I urge my 
colleagues to think about our seniors and to think about the 18 months 
and what that means in terms of confidence in our society and what it 
means also to have the 50-50 in terms of defining the strength of 
America.
  We cannot, despite our reluctance to vote for this bill for some of 
us, allow America's seniors and veterans, who are depending on 
receiving their check from the government or their security over time--
we cannot allow our seniors and veterans to be caught in the collateral 
damage of the assault on the middle class that is being waged in this 
Congress.

                              {time}  1820

  This is one manifestation of making it harder for the future, for the 
great middle class which is, and those who aspire to it, which is the 
backbone of our democracy. So if we are going to honor the vows of our 
Founders and carry on the great legacy and tradition of their optimism, 
their determination, their hope for the future that we would last for 
ages, we would last for ages as a democracy, not an ever broadening 
disparity of income and equity in our country that undermines that 
democracy.
  So, please, my colleagues, if you are on the fence about this--I 
certainly am and have been, even though I worked very hard to support 
the President in preserving what I said about no cuts in Medicare, 
Medicaid, Social Security, about the 18 months and about the 50/50 
split--please think of what could happen if we defaulted. Please, 
please, please come down in favor of, again, preventing the collateral 
damage from reaching our seniors and our veterans.
  I urge you to consider voting ``yes,'' but I completely respect the 
hesitation that Members have about this.
  Again, I want to commend our distinguished colleagues, Mr. Van 
Hollen, Mr. Clyburn, the President of the United States, and, really, 
those who tried to work in a bipartisan way to try to accomplish 
something.
  Now, I hear that our Republican colleagues have said they got 98 
percent of what they want in the bill. I hope that their votes will 
reflect that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Maryland has 
expired. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman 
of the House Republican Conference, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, the American people want more jobs and 
they want less debt. The American people are telling Washington, you 
have got to quit spending money you don't have. You have got to quit 
borrowing 42 cents on the dollar, much of it from the Chinese, and then 
send the bill to our children and our grandchildren.
  Our crisis today is not the debt ceiling, it is our debt, and it is a 
spending-driven debt. That is why we are here today, Mr. Speaker.
  I would like to say that this bill solves our problem. It doesn't. 
It's a solid first step. Nobody, nobody on our side of the aisle wants 
to increase this debt ceiling. It's not in our DNA.
  But we do believe that ultimately you ought to stay current on your 
bills, and you have got to quit spending money you don't have. And in 
this bill, although the sums are very, very small, when we pass this 
bill, if the President signs it into law, it will be the first time in 
my lifetime, the first time in my lifetime that for 2 years in a row we 
have actually cut discretionary spending in Washington, D.C., and made 
a very slight directional change in the right direction.
  The numbers are small, the directional change is huge, but more 
importantly, Mr. Speaker, the seeds of the ultimate solution are 
planted in this bill, and that is the balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution. The American people aren't looking for a balanced 
approach; they are looking for a balanced budget. To have it work, it 
needs to be enshrined in our Constitution.
  This bill will assure, for the first time in 15 years, both the House 
and the Senate vote on a balanced budget. Those are the seeds of the 
solution to save this country for the next generation.
  I urge adoption of this bill.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Let me just start by saying this, Mr. Speaker, from this debate it's 
very clear that we have a difference of opinions. We have different 
philosophies on how to address these issues, but we are coming up to a 
deadline that we all must recognize: default.
  So what this has done is it has brought our two parties together. So 
I would just like to take a second to reflect for a moment that we have 
a bipartisan compromise here. That doesn't happen all that often around 
here; so I think that's worth noting. That's a good thing.
  First off, as my colleague from Texas has just said, this is a down 
payment on the problem. It's a good step in the right direction, and it 
is a huge cultural change to this institution.
  Both parties got us in this mess. Both parties are going to have to 
work together to get us out of this mess, and the real problem, I would 
add, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that we spend way more money than we take 
in. We have to address that.
  To my friends on the left, I think they would like to take comfort in 
the fact the way these spending cuts are designed and the way the 
sequester is designed.
  To my friends on the right, we are cutting spending. We have been 
trying to get discretionary caps in law for years. I have been here 13 
years trying for it every year, this is the first time.
  When we ran Congress the last time we were in the majority we 
couldn't even get it with the Republican Congress. Now we are getting 
discretionary caps. That's a big achievement.
  Number two, we used to just rubber stamp these debt limit increases. 
We used to sneak these debt limit increases in budget resolutions. Now 
it's out here in plain sight.

[[Page 12722]]

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

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


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

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

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

[[Page 12723]]

     would have strengthened his negotiating hand. Second, he 
     could have fought for an alternative strategy of invest, grow 
     and build which would have put Democrats on our turf and on 
     the offense instead of on the Republicans turf and on the 
     defense--and such a plan would create jobs, reduce deficits 
     and debt.
       The most vulnerable Americans will again suffer the most 
     under this agreement. This is a very bad and sad day for 
     America.
                                  ____


            Treat President Obama Like All Other Presidents!


               Raise The Debt Ceiling Without Conditions

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

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

  Mr. Speaker, I have given several Special Order speeches about my 
view of the Constitution, making the argument for why I think it should 
be amended to include certain basic rights that the American people 
currently lack. These include the right to a high-quality education, 
the right to health care, and equal rights for women. This afternoon, 
my special order time will be used to discuss the Continuing Resolution 
for FY 2011, the Republican Proposed FY 2012 Budget, and the Balanced 
Budget Amendment or what I've taken to calling the ``ImBalanced Budget 
Amendment''.
  Not too long ago, the House passed H.R. 1, a continuing resolution 
that would have forced middle and working class Americans to carry the 
heavy burden or spending cuts. My colleagues across the aisle 
simplified the impacts of this measure by describing it as ``tightening 
our belts''. They seem to be oblivious to the fact that these cuts went 
deep for those Americans who could least afford them.
  H.R. 1 ``tightened our belts'', slashing programs like Community 
Health Centers, specifically designed to provide access to basic health 
and dental services to underserved communities that may not otherwise 
be able to get the care they need.
  HR. 1 ``tightened our belts'' through cuts to the National Institutes 
of Health, setting back development of cancer treatments and cures for 
other diseases, the impact of which we will feel for years to come, as 
medical professionals are forced to shut down promising research 
projects.
  HR. 1 ``tightened our belts'' by hacking away at training for Health 
Professions, reducing this funding by more than 23%. Cuts to Title VII 
and VIII programs that help to train primary health professionals for 
underserved areas, would limit the access of low income individuals to 
quality doctors, nurses and physicians assistants in their areas.
  H.R. 1 ``tightened our belts'' by severing Title X family planning 
programs. In doing so, we stepped back in time, preventing life saving 
care from being offered to our nation's women, specifically women who 
wouldn't otherwise have access to this kind of care.
  The programs I've listed so far provide health services to our 
nation, and especially our most underprivileged populations. H.R. 1 
also 2 tightened our belts with cuts to job training programs, Head 
Start and after-school programs, Pell Grants, Hope VI Housing programs, 
and high speed rail.
  These programs were systematically sent to the guillotine. The people 
that they serve are not the millionaires, to whom we generously 
extended tax cuts. They are not the corporations who eagerly navigate 
tax loopholes, every year, costing our nation billions in revenue. They 
are the everyday, hard working, middle class, public school educated, 
check book balancing, minimum wage earning, mothers and fathers and 
grandparents that elected each of us, hoping we'd find a way to 
decrease unemployment, and bring America back from the brink.
  Mr. Speaker, thankfully, our colleagues across the Capitol thought we 
went a few notches too tight in our belt with H.R. 1. As the Senate 
refused to take up these cuts, much of our future long term budget 
discussions to reduce our deficit and get America back on track remain 
in limbo.
  Recently this discussion had reached a fever pitch.
  After multiple short term extensions of the FY 2011 Appropriations 
legislation, the negotiations between Speaker Boehner, Leader Reid and 
the President had broken down many times throughout the week.
  We were faced with the threat of the first government shutdown since 
1996. Agencies were planning which workers to furlough, National Parks 
and Museums were prepared to shut their doors for the weekend, and the 
brave women and men in the active-duty of our Armed forces were 
prepared to continue to work without pay.
  Then, at the eleventh hour, there was a breakthrough. The five and a 
half month Continuing Resolution, agreed to by the leadership of House 
and Senate, included a total of $39 billion worth of cuts.
  But these cuts that were agreed to late into Friday, have real 
consequences. There are significant cuts to programs like WIC, the 
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women Infants and Children, 
Community Health Centers, the Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance 
Program, international disaster assistance and Head Start.
  After the President and Congressional leadership agreed to giving 
$800 billion in tax cuts to America's top wage earners last December, 
we turned around and cut programs that working families and seniors 
depend on. It just doesn't make sense, Mr. Speaker.
  Again, while I was relieved that the federal government did not shut 
down, I am deeply disappointed in the process that has brought us to 
this ``compromise'', if you can even call it that.

[[Page 12724]]

  Like the negotiations that held up tax cuts for the middle class at 
the end of last year to hold out for tax cuts for the wealthy, our 
leadership has again demonstrated that they are willing to hold up 
programs that provide for the most vulnerable Americans. And this 
Congress is only just beginning.
  As for the next fiscal year's budget, there are a variety of 
solutions that have been presented, some with potential to succeed, 
others destined to fail. Among the proposals lie Budget Committee 
Chairman Paul Ryan's recent offering. Looking at the facts, his 
proposal will reduce our nation's deficit, but leaves us asking the 
question, at what cost?
  First and foremost, Mr. Ryan intends to place the burden of ending 
our nation's debt on the citizens least capable of caring for 
themselves, those most reliant on the help of others: our seniors.
  The Budget Committee's proposal would end the Medicare our senior 
citizens have come to know and rely on, replacing it with what can only 
be described as a coupon--a voucher that, according to the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office, would leave our eldest Americans 
shouldering 68% of their healthcare costs in the next 20 years.
  Who else pays the cost of balancing our budget within the Ryan 
proposal? The burden falls next to working American families. The Ryan 
proposal will lower the tax rates for individuals with the highest 
income as well as corporations, relying on raising taxes for the 
average American to pay for it.
  If it sounds familiar, it's because this is the same standby, trickle 
down, failure that we have placed our faith in for the past decade.
  Despite what Majority Leader Cantor says, during an economic 
downturn, decreasing the deficit does not create jobs. Also, cutting 
taxes does not create jobs. Both Presidents Bush and Obama have cut 
taxes so much that if Eric Cantor's theory were correct, we should have 
zero unemployment, which we DO NOT HAVE. This is what the Ryan plan 
aims to do.
  For ten years our economy has stagnated. The gap between the median 
wage and average wage is growing, because the highest earners are the 
only ones receiving wage increases.
  Unfortunately, balancing our nation's budget on the backs of the 
middle class does NOT end there.
  Where else will the burden of balancing the budget fall under the 
Ryan plan? Education. Cuts to K-12 education are just the starting 
point in disadvantaging the future of America. The proposal also makes 
significant cuts to Pell Grants. These cuts will prevent the educated 
generation of young Americans our country needs to compete in a global 
economy.
  The proposed cuts to Pell Grants would return the maximum award 
allowable to pre-stimulus levels, impacting millions of young Americans 
depending on financial assistance to attend college.
  This will stretch the time it will take for them to earn their 
degrees and enter the workforce.
  Finally, Ryan's budget continues to provide tax loopholes to big oil 
companies, and cuts all federal support for clean energy, short 
sighting our economic investments in the future of energy.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not promoting constant federal debt. I am not 
advocating against hoping or trying for a balanced budget. But when you 
look through the history of our nation, we see that when Americans were 
in the most need, during war or recession, during the Great Depression, 
we focused on solving those problems, not just reducing our debt.
  Mr. Speaker, we are currently engaged in two wars and fighting our 
way out of the worst recession of the modern era. The Ryan budget is a 
new attempt at an age old ploy to mandate a balanced budget for the 
Federal Government.
  Ending our Nation's deficit and returning our country to prosperity, 
should of course be the goal. But we must also ask the question, at 
what cost? Where do our priorities lie?
  The Ryan proposal, like the myriad constitutional amendments before 
it, attempts to balance our budget on the backs of those Americans who 
can least bear the burden.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in heavy-hearted support of S. 365, 
an imperfect, bipartisan compromise to raise the debt ceiling and rein 
in federal spending. House and Senate leaders have been bickering for 
months over this issue, and we have waited until the 59th minute of the 
11th hour to reach an agreement. If we do not raise the debt ceiling by 
tomorrow, our economy will be deeply shaken, resulting not only in 
massive losses to Wall Street, but also in increased costs and interest 
rates for American families. With the severe threat of default upon us, 
it is time to come together for our Nation's best interests.
  This is not the bill I would have written, and I do not know a single 
Member of Congress who believes this bill is perfect. I agreed with 
President Obama's sentiments today when he said that ``as with any 
compromise, the outcome is far from satisfying.'' However, as a Member 
of Congress, there are times when you must hold your nose and vote for 
a compromise that, while imperfect, is necessary. I believe this is one 
of those times. The grave threat of default is far too near and too 
serious not to vote for this agreement.
  I am happy to see that this compromise provides long-term economic 
certainty, raising the debt ceiling until 2013. This will give our 
markets, investors, and economic partners abroad confidence in the U.S. 
economy and our ability to pay our bills. It also takes a bold step 
toward fiscal responsibility, resulting in over $2.1 trillion in 
deficit reduction, as recently scored by the Congressional Budget 
Office. I believe it is important to seriously address our national 
debt so as not to burden future generations.
  The bill will immediately enact strict ten-year spending caps on both 
defense and non-defense programs, resulting in $917 billion in savings. 
It also creates a bipartisan congressional committee which will 
identify an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction by November 
23, 2011, including from entitlement and tax reform. Both the House and 
Senate will hold an up or down vote on the committee's proposal.
  I believe this compromise cuts too far into many important government 
programs and that these spending reductions will not be easy to 
swallow. Discretionary spending will be brought to its lowest levels 
since the Eisenhower Administration. I am reassured, however, that cuts 
will not be made to Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, 
programs for low-income families, Pell Grants for low-income college 
students, or civilian and military retirement programs.
  I am greatly disappointed that this compromise does not immediately 
include revenue increases for the wealthiest Americans, and I believe 
it places the brunt of the burden of deficit reduction on low-income 
and middle-class families. I am optimistic, however, that the future 
plan set forth by the bipartisan congressional committee on deficit 
reduction will include such revenue increases. Instead of protecting 
tax breaks for Big Oil, corporations that ship jobs overseas, and the 
very richest among us, these groups should share in the sacrifice.
  We could each sit here refusing to support a bill that does not 
mirror our individual priorities, allowing the U.S. to default on its 
loans and permitting an economic catastrophe. Or we could come together 
and support a compromise that, while imperfect, gets the job done. We 
were elected to be mature civic leaders who could put public interests 
before self interests. I urge my colleagues to serve that purpose by 
supporting this bill.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, the default debate is, at its heart, a debate 
between two visions for America. One side envisions rebuilding our 
country, investing in jobs and education and infrastructure, and rising 
from the Great Recession as a stronger and more resilient Nation. The 
other side accepts a pessimistic vision of a weakened America with a 
shrunken government--a Nation hampered by deep cuts to the safety net 
and hobbled by a refusal to invest in our future.
  I have no doubt that, in a fair debate, a hopeful vision for America 
would win out. But the default debate has not been held on fair terms. 
The Tea Party and their enablers have held America hostage. They have 
insisted that, unless Congress enacted their radical, ideological 
agenda, they would force an unprecedented default on America's 
obligations and thus trigger an economic collapse.
  From the beginning of this debate, I rejected the notion that 
America's creditworthiness should be used as a bargaining chip. Yet I 
was willing to support a balanced, fair deal if that was what was 
required to prevent a default. Unfortunately, today's deal is not 
balanced. It is not fair. Most of all, it is not right.
  The House has voted for vast cuts in government services that 
ordinary Americans depend on: student loans, unemployment insurance, 
food safety inspections, highway safety programs, and more. These cuts 
will force layoffs among teachers, public safety officers, construction 
workers, and more. These laid-off workers will, in turn, be forced to 
pare back their spending at their local grocery stores, drug stores, 
and small businesses, forcing still more layoffs--a vicious circle that 
threatens to destabilize our fragile economy. We saw in last week's 
economic reports that job growth has been choked back by cuts in state 
and local governments. This deal does not help the situation. It hurts 
the economy.
  The deal lays the groundwork for another $1.5 trillion in cuts to 
come, to be negotiated behind closed doors by an unelected super-
committee. Given that the first round of cuts

[[Page 12725]]

will have decimated discretionary programs, these later cuts will very 
likely focus on Social Security and Medicare. The citizens who will be 
hurt most are those who have the least voice in our democracy. After 
all, when a handful of politicians gather in the proverbial smoke-
filled room, the interests of ordinary Americans are nearly always left 
out.
  Yet although most Americans will sacrifice greatly, the most 
privileged among us will be immune. Favored corporate interests, 
millionaires, and billionaires will continue to receive special tax 
breaks as far as the eye can see. That is not the sort of fair, 
balanced deal that Americans asked for and expected.
  As poor as this deal is on its merits, I am even more troubled by the 
precedent it sets. The Tea Party and their enablers have, by taking the 
American economy hostage, transformed a routine budgetary authorization 
into the most dramatic reshaping of government in decades. Today's deal 
establishes that government by hostage negotiation is a legitimate, 
effective way to achieve one's political ends. I am frightened by what 
this means for the future of our democracy.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bipartisan, 
bicameral Budget Control Act.
  While imperfect, this is an historic agreement. With this compromise, 
we are taking another step in the long and difficult, yet vital, 
process of forcing our government to live within its means.
  Total government spending at all levels has risen to 37% of gross 
domestic product today from 27% in 1960--and is set to reach 50% by 
2038.
  To sustain the operations of the government, we borrow over 42-cents 
of every federal dollar we spend. As a result, our national debt has 
now increased to 100% of the size of our economy today, up from just 
42% in 1980.
  The implications for future generations of Americans of this 
dangerous spending spree are obvious. Enough is enough!
  While far from perfect, this realistic approach finally begins to 
turn back the tide of federal red ink in several important ways: (1) it 
cuts spending by $917 billion and does not raise taxes that would fuel 
additional spending; (2) it creates a process that keeps our underlying 
fiscal policy problems front-and-center for the foreseeable future.
  The bill we have before us today would extend the debt limit in two 
phases and avoid a default on the obligations of the United States. The 
first phase would provide for $917 billion in discretionary spending 
cuts and an immediate increase of up to $900 billion in the debt limit.
  The legislation would allow for a subsequent debt limit increase of 
up to $1.5 trillion only if a bipartisan, bicameral committee provides, 
and the full Congress approves by an ``up or down'' vote, additional 
spending cuts in excess of the requested debt limit increase, or a 
Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution is passed by Congress and 
sent to the states for ratification by the end of the year.
  Is this bill perfect. Absolutely not.
  Granted, some well-meaning Americans have opposed the Budget Control 
Act because they think it does not cut enough. I would remind my 
Colleagues that the Committee on Appropriations has already started 
making tough decisions on spending. In this year's appropriations 
bills, we have sheared billions of dollars and imposed strict spending 
reductions and will complete our work and pass responsible, 
sustainable, and timely funding legislation.
  I completely agree that the Budget Control Act is far from sufficient 
to solve our underlying budget problems. In that respect, it is a step 
in the right direction, nothing more.
  I, too, wanted deeper spending cuts and greater deficit and debt 
reduction. However, given the stubborn insistence of the President and 
his Congressional allies on new taxes and still more spending, I cannot 
see how we achieve greater savings at this time.
  I also fear that we may come to regret proposed cuts to our national 
security infrastructure. Our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines are 
already stressed and strained by ten years of multiple deployments. 
Future reductions in end strength and operations and maintenance will 
undoubtedly lead to the ``hollow force'' that our experienced military 
leaders have warned us to avoid.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to put progress before partisanship 
and support this measure.
  My constituents in New Jersey want our government to live within its 
means. But they also continue to ask ``where are the jobs?'' So, they 
want Congress to make economic growth and private-sector job creation 
its top priority.
  This is about our country, our way of life and restoring confidence 
in the American Dream. Let's get on with it.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this so-called debt 
limit compromise, S. 365. A compromise is when the two sides each make 
concessions. This bill fails to meet that definition because all 
concessions come from Democrats. This debt ceiling legislation protects 
special interests at the expense of America's working families, 
children, senior citizens, people who've lost their jobs, and people 
with disabilities.
  It punts the difficult decisions to a ``super committee'' of twelve 
Members of Congress who will be tasked with finding another $1.5 
trillion in savings. Those twelve people will have the power to cut 
Social Security benefits, turn Medicare into a voucher, and gut the 
Medicaid program into oblivion. The rest of Congress will have only the 
right to vote yes or no on the entire proposal. Unlike the vast 
majority of legislation, no amendments will be allowed.
  If the super committee fails, there will be automatic cuts to 
Medicare and additional draconian cuts on top of the draconian cuts 
that will be made when this bill is signed into law.
  Default is a dangerous proposition. But there is only one reason that 
our country has been pushed to the brink of default: the Republican Tea 
Party fringe. We are in the midst of a completely manufactured crisis 
that was orchestrated by this extreme faction of the Republican Party. 
They are a minority in Congress and in our nation, yet they are holding 
our nation's economy hostage because Republican leadership continues to 
pander to them at the detriment of our country and its future.
  Democrats and Republicans alike have lifted the debt ceiling some 75 
times in our history. Paying our bills is a necessary part of 
responsible governing.
  This year, I've voted twice to raise the debt limit ceiling. I first 
did so on May 31, 2011 when Republicans brought a clean debt ceiling 
bill to the floor. Because of uniform Republican opposition, that vote 
failed.
  I next voted this past Saturday to raise the debt ceiling in 
conjunction with significant spending cuts when the House considered 
Senator Reid's compromise package. It was far from perfect, but it was 
much more balanced than the package before us today.
  Today, the radical wing of the Republican Party has forced a no-win 
situation. Vote yes on today's ``debt-limit compromise,'' and we limit 
our ability to grow our economy, create jobs, and protect the most 
vulnerable members of our society. Vote no and we risk an unprecedented 
default that would further deteriorate our sputtering economy.
  We should never have gotten to this point and it is up to those who 
got us into this mess to get the votes to end this crisis. However I 
will not allow my vehement opposition to this deal to put our country 
into default. If my vote is needed to prevent default, I will hold my 
nose and change my vote to yes. I will do that because governing 
requires tough choices. If Tea Party Republicans refuse to govern, it 
is up to the rest of us to do so for them.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, although I have voted seven times 
in the past under President Bush to raise the debt ceiling, all of 
those votes in the past were clean debt ceiling bills, unlike the bill 
before the House today, which imposes $1 trillion in spending cuts on 
the working people and the poor, and decimates our social safety net.
  In this round of debt ceiling discussions, the Tea Party Republicans 
have tied the President's hands to couple a raise in the debt ceiling 
with billions of billions of dollars in cuts to our nation's safety net 
programs, bringing cuts across the board to WIC (Women, Infant and 
Children), programs to protect our nation's senior citizens, Pell 
Grants, education programs, community health care, and numerous other 
federal programs that assist middle and working class Americans. It is 
also important to take note of what isn't in this agreement: funding 
directed towards job creation. Indisputably, job production is 
essential to lifting our nation out of the economic downturn since 
consumer spending is the key driver of our economy.
  Just last December, the Republicans forced a vote on extending the 
Bush Tax Cuts for millionaires and billionaires, adding $70 billion to 
our nation's deficit. And this suicidal economic plan came right after 
eight years of horribly reckless spending and excessive tax cuts for 
the rich under President Bush and the Republican Congress, who left 
America trillions of dollars in debt. What was particularly troubling 
about this situation is that President Clinton had left the White House 
not only with a balanced budget but with a surplus!
  Yet the Republican Party has remained steadfast in implementing 
Reverse Robin Hood economic policies: cutting programs and services for 
the working and middle class, while maintaining tax cuts for the 
millionaires,

[[Page 12726]]

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

[[Page 12727]]

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

[[Page 12728]]

 When our budget was balanced in 1969 and for four years from 1998 to 
2001, tax revenues and federal spending represented around 20 percent 
of our gross domestic product (GDP), the overall size of the economy. 
Today, revenues are around 14.8 percent and spending is nearly 24.7 of 
GDP. These two extremes cannot continue if we are to balance the budget 
and provide for a sound economy for future generations.
   That is why any serious proposal to reduce the deficit must be 
comprehensive, and address all spending programs, including domestic 
discretionary spending, defense spending, as well as entitlement 
spending, such as Social Security and Medicare, and the other half of 
the equation, taxes and the inequalities in the tax code.
   We have already begun to take steps to reduce domestic discretionary 
spending. For example, as Ranking Member of the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee, I worked long and hard with my Chairman, Rodney 
Frelinghuysen, to reduce spending in the FY 2012 Energy and Water 
Appropriations Act by $2.826 billion below the FY 2010 funding level. 
Our subcommittee looked at each program and made a myriad of decisions, 
some to increase spending and some to reduce it, given the purpose and 
value of each program. Previously, I supported the Department of 
Defense and Full Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011, which 
reduced spending by $38 billion below the previous year's budget.
   Our fiscal crisis, however, cannot be solved by only addressing the 
discretionary spending. We must also make thoughtful decisions about 
our entitlement programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, not 
only to rein in their growth but also to preserve their solvency for 
future generations.
   There are many options that would extend the long term solvency of 
the Social Security program past 2036, its current estimated solvency 
date. For example, raising the so-called ``tax cap'' on employees would 
extend the solvency of the program past 2057. For 2011, Social Security 
taxable earnings are limited to $106,800. I do not believe that the 
Social Security tax rate should be raised. However, as a wage tax, I 
believe the Social Security tax should be paid on all wages. This would 
create a more equitable system without changing any benefits. If the 
tax is good enough for every dollar earned by someone waiting tables at 
a local diner or working in the mill then it is good enough for every 
dollar earned by someone working on Wall Street.
   Similar changes can be made to Medicare to ensure its long-term 
solvency and its existence for future generations. For example, the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services is prohibited by law from 
negotiating drug prices on behalf of Medicare Part D beneficiaries. I 
believe that this law should be repealed, as it would save the federal 
government an estimated $156 billion over ten years and lower drug 
costs for seniors.
   Which brings me to the most contentious side of the equation, taxes. 
Let me first remind my colleagues that currently, tax revenues are 
around 14.8 percent of GDP, the lowest it has been since 1950. But what 
makes our current tax code so abhorrent is not the fact that it is 
unsustainable, but the fact that it is disparately unequal. For 
example, from 2008 to 2010, 12 corporations, including Wells Fargo and 
General Electric, made a combined $171 billion in profits, but paid no 
federal corporate tax as a result of a convoluted tax code, while my 
constituents were paying their income taxes. Further, last year the top 
25 hedge fund managers alone had combined incomes of $22 billion yet 
they paid a lower tax rate than a fire fighter from Crown Point, 
Indiana. Where is the outrage that over a tax code that allows Wall 
Street to pay a lower tax rate than a person risking his or her life 
for our safety?
   At a time when our country faces its biggest financial crisis in 
decades, it is reprehensible that our tax code allows companies, 
including some of the most profitable in the nation, are able to 
exploit loopholes and credits in the tax code to eliminate their tax 
liabilities. Currently, the U.S. tax code contains over 200 tax 
loopholes or credits amounting to approximately $1.2 trillion in 
forgone revenue each year. These loopholes have the same effect on the 
federal budget as spending programs without being subject to the same 
public debate and annual evaluation as part of the appropriations 
process. If we are to address our growing national debt, this spending 
through the tax code must be reined in. All Americans and American 
companies should make a contribution to our shared society.
   We owe it to the next generation to solve this crisis, and swiftly. 
As our nation remains consumed by the ongoing deficit discussion, this 
body continues to avoid taking action on its most basic duties. For 
example, funding for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) expired 
in 2007. Since then, this body has temporarily extended the 
Administration's authorization 20 times. Earlier this year, both the 
House and the Senate finally passed separate FAA reauthorization 
legislation. Over 100 days have passed and we have yet to take action 
to resolve differences between the two versions and last week, funding 
for the FAA expired, causing 4,000 employees to be sent home without 
pay, 219 construction projects to be halted and $200 million to be lost 
in tax revenue. I fear that this measure, which even if enacted today 
will mandate votes down the road and prolong our single-minded focus on 
the debt ceiling. I urge my colleagues to work together to compromise 
budget options so that we can continue the work we were sent here to 
do.
   The key to confronting our fiscal challenge must be balancing cuts 
in spending and raising revenue while making the necessary investments 
in our nation's infrastructure and future. The road to fiscal solvency 
will be difficult, and tough decisions will need to be made. These 
decisions are not made in this bill and I am opposed to it.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, S. 365, the Budget Control Act of 2011, is 
a landmark in American history, but for the wrong reasons. It is a fake 
solution to a phony crisis. It provides for a radical transformation of 
the structure of government. It is an attack on the principle of 
government of the people. All this in the name of fiscal 
accountability.
  The choice we have today, default or dismantling of the social 
compact through draconian spending cuts, is a false choice. The 
President could have simply told Congressional leaders back in December 
of last year that the debt ceiling was not negotiable, and invoked the 
14th Amendment as a backstop.
  The ``debt crisis'' was spurred on by credit rating agencies of 
dubious integrity threatening a downgrade of the nation's credit unless 
the government cut spending. Most of the cuts are guaranteed to hurt 
those who live at society's margins, while S. 365 protects the investor 
class whose interests are served by the rating agencies.
  Unelected credit ratings agencies like Standard and Poor's, the self-
declared arbiter of U.S. Government creditworthiness, must themselves 
be subjected to a new level of scrutiny absent in the run-up to the 
Wall Street crisis. The credit raters helped to create that crisis too 
by procuring business through selling rating marks. The very idea that 
the sovereign United States must genuflect to dishonest rating agencies 
is antiquated and counterproductive to America's economic recovery.
  This bill fails on its own terms, which are allegedly about fiscal 
accountability. The debt has three main drivers:
  The first is the recession. If we want to reduce the debt, we have to 
stimulate the economy, which is hobbled by a jobless recovery. America 
has 14 million people out of work. We have over $3 trillion of 
infrastructure which must be replaced or rebuilt. We should be 
investing in America, rebuilding America, stimulating the American 
economy, priming the pump of our economy instead of capping our 
economic water well. Our GDP is lagging. This bill cuts nearly $3 
trillion in government spending, which is one of our main tools for 
fighting the recession. So much for the recovery. So much for putting 
America back to work.
  The second reason for the size of the debt is the Bush tax cuts. This 
bill fails to end the Bush tax cuts for the rich, which added a 
trillion dollars to the deficit. Not only are the wealthy not paying a 
fair share of the taxes but their privileged position is locked in, to 
the detriment to the rest of the society. This single action makes 
clear that this bill is a vehicle for the rich to get richer and the 
poor to get poorer.
  That working Americans are being offered a tax holiday is one of the 
cruel ironies of this bill in that the tax holiday adds more to the 
deficit on one hand, while requiring cuts to pay for it on the other. 
Those very cuts will undermine the social and economic position of 
those whom the tax holiday is alleged to help.
  The third reason for the size of the debt is the wars. This bill 
fails to realize savings from ending the wars. Instead it continues the 
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at current funding levels for at least 
another 10 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, 
``The caps would not apply to spending for the wars in Afghanistan and 
Iraq and for similar activities (sometimes referred to as overseas 
contingency operations) . . .'' If this bill required a slow drawdown 
of troops as the Reid bill did, it would save at least $1.2 trillion.
  It is inexplicable that we are creating more space for war and less 
space for jobs, housing, education, caring for our elderly, home 
heating assistance and a wide range of activities of any government 
which truly cares for its people.

[[Page 12729]]

  A policy of no limits for war and hard limits on domestic spending, 
coupled with hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for the rich, 
disproportionately affects the poor and middle class. Wall Street has 
swelled with bailouts, multiple editions of largesse through 
quantitative easing, skyrocketing executive pay and bonuses, and 
freedom to gamble the public's money through hedge funds. Main Street 
has suffered a massive loss of retirement savings, housing security, 
access to affordable health care, real wages and benefits, full 
employment and massive loss of small businesses. The wealth of America 
is being accelerated to the top and this bill pushes that acceleration.
  This bill is a direct assault on representative government. The House 
of Representatives and the Senate consist of 435 and 100 Members, 
respectively. With the creation of a super-committee, the Congress has 
been reduced to a czardom where 7 of 12 members are given the power to 
determine the course of the American economy, with hordes of K Street 
lobbyists already poised to swoop in to protect their narrow interests 
against $1 trillion in deficit reduction measures.
  The Congressional committee and subcommittee process, with its 
membership composed of individuals with expertise in specific areas, is 
designed to encourage thorough consideration of measures which affect 
the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans. This process is now 
abandoned. Abandoned with it is the intent of the founding Fathers when 
they established the House of Representatives specifically to avoid 
such a dangerous concentration of power. The super-committee is poised 
to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security while limiting 
accountability.
  We could have avoided this hostage-taking if the President chose to 
apply his expertise in Constitutional law to invoke the 14th Amendment 
of the Constitution to raise the debt ceiling. Instead, we are taking 
America from the New Deal of 1932 to the Raw Deal of 2011. We should be 
focusing on strengthening Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and 
creating jobs. The Democratic Party is running away from its 
traditional role of protecting the poor, the elderly, and the working 
class. To whom do these groups now turn?
  Mr. Speaker, I have had and continue to have serious concerns about 
Senator Reid's revised bill. The cuts to discretionary spending will be 
adverse to the beneficiaries of programs designed to provide essential 
services the private sector will never--and in some cases, should 
never--perform. The cuts to defense funding, the single biggest source 
of government waste, are a good start but are small compared to those 
cuts to non-defense spending. I will work to ensure that we achieve 
defense cuts greater than the minimum required by this bill.
  We are now three days away from reaching the effective debt ceiling, 
a landmark that would drastically accelerate the $400 billion of damage 
to our economy already caused by the mere threat of reaching the 
ceiling.
  This bill raises the debt ceiling while not prescribing cuts to 
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It prevents further instances 
of the debt ceiling (which has been raised 74 times since 1962 and 10 
times since 2001) from being held hostage. It cuts funding from the 
account that fuels the wars that dramatically increased our debt.
  In the past, I voted against three of the main drivers of our debt: 
the war in Iraq, the Bush tax cuts and Medicare Part D. I believe in 
fiscal responsibility. I do not believe America should go into default 
over a manufactured crisis. It is time to prevent fake crises, and get 
on with rebuilding the U.S. economy.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the debt ceiling and deficit 
reduction legislation and will vote against the bill.
  Raising the debt ceiling should be a legislative act that allows us 
to meet the obligations our country has already incurred. But this 
legal formality has been taken hostage by the Republican Party and tied 
to dangerous and extraordinary demands regarding spending and taxes 
that affect everyone in our country.
  As a result, we have a crisis that has been wholly manufactured. Our 
national debate has been paralyzed. Millions of Americans have been 
frightened about whether Social Security checks and salaries for our 
armed forces will be paid, financial markets have been rattled, and 
America's fiscal responsibility has been tarnished in the eyes of the 
world.
  As a matter of economic policy, the spending cuts in this legislation 
will do harm to the economy and will curb our ability to stimulate job 
growth. Our economy is weak. The recovery is stalled. Our workers and 
households need action from Congress that helps promote growth and 
investment. With unemployment over 9 percent and growth at barely 1 
percent, the last thing we need is for Washington to take the wind out 
of the sails of future growth. Cutting spending by over $2 trillion 
hurts the economy's ability to move forward.
  As a matter of equity, this package is not balanced. It is all 
spending cuts, cuts that are deeper because we are blocked by the 
Republicans' refusal to consider revenues to be gained from asking the 
wealthy and fortunate to play their fair share. There is nothing to end 
egregious tax expenditures benefiting corporations or to ask our most 
profitable companies today, such as the oil industry to pay a little 
more; or to have the burden of deficit reduction shared, even a little 
bit, by the wealthiest among us. This is not fair. It is willfully one-
sided. And given the magnitude of the task before us to deal 
responsibly with our long term debt, it is not right.
  As a matter of protecting and strengthening Medicare, Medicaid and 
Social Security, this legislation is also gravely deficient. There may 
be buffers for these programs in the sequester, but the pressure to cut 
these programs as a part of the new joint congressional committee that 
is established to secure an additional $1.5 trillion in spending cuts 
will be extreme. There will be tremendous pressure to restructure these 
programs in order to forestall additional defense cuts and additional 
cuts to discretionary spending. Such changes will undermine our 
country's promise to the elderly, the poor, the vulnerable. Raising the 
eligibility age for Medicare or Social Security, or cutting benefit 
levels, will be subject to an up-or-down vote by this new joint 
committee. No amendments can be offered or voted on. This process 
weakens Congress as an institution, and it is a dangerous abdication of 
our responsibility for these bedrock programs.
  We have worked over the years to make careful changes to Medicare 
when necessary to restore its solvency. In the Affordable Care Act, we 
enacted careful reforms that will improve the efficiency and soundness 
of Medicare. Arbitrary cuts to the program through sequestration, or 
rushed cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, are no way to 
guarantee the future of those vital programs. We run the risk of 
substantial changes that will drive providers out of the system, 
leaving patients without access to doctors or to nursing homes and long 
term care services.
  This legislation does not represent the values to which I have been 
committed since first being elected to Washington.
  That is why I have concluded that this package does not deserve my 
support today.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Budget Control Act of 2011, S. 365.
  First, with all the conflict and frustration surrounding this vote, 
I'm reverting to basic principles. One of which is, ``don't negotiate 
with thugs.'' It's been long obvious that we have no partner with whom 
to negotiate; only a party that started as our comrades in government, 
then our colleagues, who evolved into our opponents, declared 
themselves our enemies and now demand that we be their enablers. I 
refuse to play.
  Thugs are in the game to destroy, not build. They would destroy the 
government, and especially this presidency. They take hostages, and 
there is much work at stake that would be their next targets. It will 
be endless. The president has given into all of their demands, and they 
remain insatiable. It's time we starved the beast. Then . . .
  They came to Washington they say committed not to do business as 
usual. Then they demanded that we protect every loophole, every 
billionaire and every greedy element in our society except those who 
need some help.
  They set-up something that is their fail safe. I call it the 
``Kevorkian Commission'' that will deliver the poison if in November, 
we don't volunteer to do it ourselves.
  We Democrats in the House were not at the table, and we wind up on 
the menu.
  There are arguments that are valid and good for voting ``aye.'' But I 
didn't come to this place to forget the homeless, the hapless and the 
hungry.
  The most vulnerable in our society don't watch their 401K plan, the 
Dow Jones Industrial Average or the futures market. Their future is 
getting through till tomorrow. They are more concerned about having a 
roof than they are the national debt ceiling. They need jobs, 
nutrition, education and encouragement. The time we've spent on this 
debate would indicate that we've bought into the trickledown theory.
  Here's what I know: the people I came here to help need real help. 
Their lives and future are really endangered. What happens to us people 
with portfolios, and Wall Street watchers is scary, but conjecture.
  Sounds hokey, but I'm voting for what I came here to do.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, if this had been a clean vote to raise the 
debt ceiling, I would have supported it--as I have in the past, and as 
our nation has done 78 times since 1960.

[[Page 12730]]

  But this was far from a clean vote. The cuts were too large, there 
were no revenues, no plan for job creation, and thus it was an 
unbalanced approach to the deficit problem.
  Although cuts to Medicare and Medicaid were averted in the first 
round of cuts, the `sequestration trigger' included cuts to Medicare 
providers which would hurt my district, and ultimately Medicare 
recipients as well.
  What's more, making such large budget cuts now, in the midst of a 
struggling recovery would lead to a further loss of jobs--at a time 
when there are already five Americans out of work for every one job 
opening. This deal makes things worse; it would slow economic growth.
  The process by which this deal was reached was no less ugly. This 
issue was taken hostage by the most extreme parts of the Republican 
Party, who put forward non-negotiable demands, which is not how 
democracy works.
  By refusing to even consider closing tax loopholes and ending 
special-interest subsidies, the Republicans made clear who should pay 
for their extreme agenda: those who can least afford it.
  I will not be a party to a plan which is likely to hurt the interests 
of my district, my city and my country as it struggles to emerge from 
the worst economic crisis since the Depression.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 384, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third 
time.


                           CALL OF THE HOUSE

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

                             [Roll No. 689]

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Andrews
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     Welch
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                              {time}  1851

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 690]

                               AYES--269

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Denham
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Giffords
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)

[[Page 12731]]


     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Speier
     Stivers
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Webster
     West
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--161

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Baca
     Hinchey
     Moore

                              {time}  1909

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

                          ____________________