Skip to content

More Super Committee Names

House Speaker John Boehner has appointed Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI), Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), and Republican Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) as the House GOP members of the deficit reduction “super committee.”  Hensarling will be co-chairman of the committee.  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell also announced Wednesday the Senate Republican members:  Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Pat Toomey (R-PA), and Rob Portman (R-OH).

On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced the Senate Democratic members of the committee: Patty Murray of Washington, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Max Baucus of Montana.  Murray will be the other co-chair.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has yet to name the House Democratic members of the committee.

Murray Tapped for “Super Committee”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid plans to tap Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) to serve as the co-chair of the deficit reduction super committee, which was created through the debt legislation approved last week.  According to Democratic sources, the other two picks for the Senate Democrats will be Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) and John Kerry (D-MA).

Debt Deal Done!

The House approved the deficit reduction bill last night by a vote of 269-161; 95 Democrats and 66 Republicans voted against the measure.  Congressmen Adam Smith and Jim McDermott voted no, while the remaining members of our delegation voted in favor of the bill. The Senate is expected to clear deficit reduction legislation at noon today.  And while it is not on the President’s schedule for today, he is largely expected to sign the bill before the close of business.  With his signature, a six-month-long battle over raising the debt ceiling ends but the next round begins with future fights over spending, taxes, and entitlement programs.  

With that vote, the House went into recess last night and is not expected back in DC until after Labor Day.  The Senate will join their House colleagues once they conclude their vote.

As I reported yesterday, the legislation would cap discretionary spending for FY12 and FY13, effectively freezing it at current levels and only adjusting it to match historical levels of inflation (2.2 percent) through 2021. It would also create a joint congressional committee tasked with finding between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion in new savings, and sending a proposal to the House and Senate floor for guaranteed votes by December 23rd.  If those savings are not enacted, sweeping automatic budget cuts would be triggered.

Democrats are hopeful that the debt limit deal might generate more spending for domestic programs, while Republicans are concerned about cuts in defense.  The allocations would reverse cuts set in April by the House Republicans’ budget target, which would have lopped $30 billion from discretionary spending compared with FY11.  The Labor-HHS-Education and Transportation-HUD bills had been set to include the majority of those cuts and have yet to be unveiled in the House.  The extra funds could ease the path of those bills when they are marked up in September.  With an allocation to work from, Senate appropriators also hope to begin moving bills, which are almost certain to differ from their House-passed counterparts.

Finally-A Final Debt Deal

The framework for a final deal to raise the debt ceiling is finally on the table.  The House and Senate will continue working today with a goal of pushing a bill through both chambers by tonight.  The leadership of both parties in both chambers have also agreed to commence their August recess as soon as the bill is approved. 

The following is a summary of the final deal:

Debt Ceiling Increase:  The current $14.3 trillion ceiling on total federal borrowing would be increased by an amount sufficient to allow the Treasury Department to operate beyond the 2012 election and into 2013.  That would be accomplished in two steps.  The debt limit would be increased by $900 billion immediately.  Then, a second increase of between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion would be available at the President’s request.  However, exactly how that would happen is unclear.  Earlier measures would have provided an immediate increase and phased additional increases that would be subject to a congressional resolution of disapproval.  To block a debt limit increase, such a resolution would presumably have to be enacted over the President’s veto, requiring two-thirds majority votes in both chambers.

Spending Cuts — Round One:  An immediate reduction in the deficit of roughly $1 trillion over 10 years would be enacted.  Most details have not been made public, but such a cut would probably be accomplished through specific caps on appropriations for each year from FY12 through FY21.  The agreement is expected to set discretionary spending caps of $1.043 trillion for FY12 and $1.047 trillion for FY13, with a “firewall” between defense and non-defense spending — meaning domestic accounts could not be raided to bump up security spending.  The amount for FY12 is about $24 billion larger than the amount approved by the House-adopted budget resolution.  It is unclear if the House will adjust their appropriations bills to account for the higher number (not likely).

Spending Cuts — Round Two:  A special joint committee would be created to recommend specific ways to reduce the deficit by an additional $1.8 trillion by 2021.  This committee, composed of three Democrats and three Republicans from each chamber, was a part of earlier plans from both parties.  The panel would report its recommendations to both chambers, and the recommendations would be subject to up-or-down votes without amendment.  Earlier versions required the committee to report by November 23rd and required the House and Senate to act by December 23rd.  Presumably all aspects of the federal budget will be on the table, including entitlement cuts and revenue increases.  It is not clear if the committee will be specifically authorized to consider an overhaul of the tax code.

Enforcement Triggers for Panel’s Recommendations:  If the enacted recommendations from the joint committee do not produce at least $1.2 trillion in savings, a process for automatic spending cuts would be triggered that is similar to the system of spending “sequesters” enacted as part of the 1985 Gramm-Rudman anti-deficit law and the 1997 deficit-reduction law.  Any sequester would be equal to the portion of the $1.2 trillion savings target that was not achieved.  It would apparently fall equally on defense and non-defense accounts, including some entitlement spending.  Programs targeting low-income individuals and families would largely be exempt from the sequester, as they were under Gramm-Rudman.  Medicare cuts would be restricted to no more than 2 percent of the program’s outlays, and would only affect payments to providers, not to beneficiaries.  The idea is to provide a strong incentive for the committee not to deadlock in trying to make recommendations and for the two chambers to enact them.  Democrats did not win agreement to incorporate a tax increase as part of the enforcement trigger mechanism.

Entitlement Cuts:  The special joint committee is likely to look closely at entitlement spending to achieve its deficit reduction goals.  This could very likely include changes to the Pell Grant program.  Those spending cuts would be subject to tough negotiations over the next four or five months.  As noted, if a sequester is triggered to enforce mandated spending cuts later this year, some restricted automatic cuts in Medicare spending might occur.  It is unclear what other entitlement spending might be subject to a sequester.

Taxes:  The plan does not include any immediate increase in revenue, although the joint deficit-reduction committee may consider several forms of revenue increases.  Earlier in the negotiations, the House Speaker proposed an increase of $800 billion in revenue.  Such an increase might come either from the elimination of tax breaks or by not renewing the Bush-era tax cuts for high-earners, or both.  In addition, a comprehensive overhaul of the tax code might be structured to yield a net revenue increase.

Balanced-Budget Amendment:  The plan requires both the House and the Senate to vote on a proposed balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution by the end of the year.  Unlike the proposal approved by the House last week, lawmakers would not have to adopt this amendment — and send it to the states for ratification — for the debt limit increase to take effect.

House Debt Vote Delayed

House Republicans leaders were left scrambling to rewrite deficit reduction legislation after a widely anticipated vote on the proposal was canceled late Thursday.  The vote on the debt limit and deficit reduction plan could come today (Friday) if the House Speaker is able to modify his bill enough to garner the votes he needs for passage.  However, it is not clear what revisions would be made to the plan that would be acceptable to the most conservative members of the House.  House leadership had expected narrow passage of the bill, which would cut spending by $917 billion over 10 years, mostly through discretionary spending caps, and raise the debt ceiling by $900 billion.  It would also link a second, $1.6 trillion debt limit increase to the enactment of another $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction.  House conservatives have criticized the measure for not seeking deeper cuts and not mandating a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.

The Senate had planned to reject the measure after the House passed it Thursday, a move that was expected to clear the way for negotiations on a final package.  Without an agreement in place to raise it, the federal government will go into default.  To forge a deal that can clear Congress, negotiators will need to find a middle ground that meets each party’s basic needs.  It will need to reduce the deficit by at least as much as it increases the debt limit, without raising taxes, in order to be acceptable to the House’s Republican majority.  And to appeal to Democratic votes, it will have to raise the debt limit enough to allow government borrowing through 2012 — and leave entitlement programs alone.

Negotiators are increasingly focused on the chief difference in the plan: when and how to raise the debt ceiling.  Republicans want a second installment of a proposed $2.5 trillion increase conditioned on another deficit reduction measure being signed into law sometime next year.  But Democrats worry that would lead to another debt ceiling standoff if the plan does not clear Congress – a VERY likely scenario.  A compromise being promoted by Democrats would eliminate the conditional debt increase and instead put in place a fiscal enforcement mechanism, or a trigger, that would force tax increases or spending cuts, or a combination of both, if deficit reduction goals are not met.  The triggers would be modeled after similar mechanisms used in the 1985-90 Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction plan that required across-the-board spending cuts if the limits were breached. 

Meanwhile, the Treasury Department says the current $14.3 billion borrowing limit will be hit August 2nd (some say the “real” date is actually August 4th).  The Treasury plans to release information on their contingency plan after the financial markets close today (Friday).