Debt Ceiling Bill Passes House

After months of political wrangling, and with the threat of potential default breathing down their necks, the U.S. House on Monday night passed a debt ceiling increase, 269-161.

All five S.C. Republicans against the bill. Democratic Rep. James Clyburn was the lone yes vote.

The bill, awaiting approval in the Senate Tuesday morning, calls for spending cuts in exchange for the debt limit rise, but contains no tax increases. 

Despite all the political fighting, and in-fighting, over the debt ceiling rise -- a common and largely pro forma congressional activity until this year -- members of neither party seemed to like the legislation.

However, with the threat of default looming on Aug. 2, lawmakers held their nose and passed it anyway. Should the measure pass the Senate, which is expected, President Obama will sign it.

Republican Rep. Joe Wilson, whose District 2 includes Lexington and extends down to Hilton Head Island, was a firm 'no' vote, indicating that the bill didn't go nearly far enough to trim the budget deficit or address the nation's $14.3 trillion debt.

In a statement, Wilson said: "No legislation will present a perfect solution to solve our nation’s debt problems. Of all the plans introduced in the past days to tackle our out of control debt, I still believe the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011 provides the best solution for our nation’s current fiscal situation."

Rep. Mark Mulvaney, a Lancaster County Republican in District 5, is a firm Cut, Cap, and Balance proponent like Wilson and his fellow state GOP delegation members. In floor remarks quoted by the Associated Press Mulvaney, said: "At the end of the day, Washington's spending still has us sprinting toward a fiscal cliff. And this bill barely slows us down." 

Rep. Trey Gowdy, from District 4, also voted against the bill, releasing the following statement:

"Speaker Boehner has done a remarkable job throughout this process. I commend his diligent work negotiating basically with himself as the White House remained on the sidelines, refusing to offer any concrete plans, and I appreciate his willingness to accept input from our conference.

"America faces three distinct issues:  the short-term necessity to raise debt limit, the long-term debt crisis, and the imminent possibility of a downgrade.  I am not confident this legislation will solve all three issues, and thus am unable to support it."

Rep. Tim Scott of District 1 joined his Republican brethren in voting against the bill. Scott’s statement: "The debate surrounding the debt ceiling is proof we have taken huge steps towards changing the culture in Washington. Speaker Boehner and the Republican leadership team have done a great job of expressing the conservative position and showing the American people we are serious about tightening our belt.

However, this compromise did not take enough steps towards ensuring a stable economic future in order to earn my vote. The short-term spending reductions in the bill were insufficient, I believe the Balanced Budget Amendment should be mandated, and I have concerns with lingering questions regarding defense cuts. 

Despite my decision on this particular vote, I am pleased with the direction we are moving the debate, and want to thank the American people for supporting the principles of Cut, Cap, and Balance. I will continue the fight to reign in spending, reform our tax code, and get the government out of the way of our job creators."

Sen. Jim DeMint has signaled he will not vote for the measure. Sen. Lindsey Graham said ahead of the Senate vote he could not support the bill either, a compromise debt-limit agreement negotiated between congressional leaders and President Obama. In a statement, Graham said:

"I cannot in good conscience support this deal. Simply stated, it locks us into more debt, bigger government and most devastating of all, a weakened defense infrastructure at a time when we face growing threats.

"This agreement adds over $7 trillion in new debt over the next decade and only makes small reductions in future spending," Graham added. "We hardly address the future growth of entitlements, a major contributor of future budgetary problems. Instead of our nation running toward bankruptcy we will be walking toward bankruptcy.

"If fully implemented, the consequences to our nation’s defense infrastructure would be severe.  And these deep cuts would come at a time when threats to our nation are increasing, not declining.  What has happened to the Party of Reagan who viewed the primary purpose of the federal government was to provide a strong national defense?

"This agreement legitimizes the concept that defense spending is not only equal to other areas of federal spending, but is of lesser importance.  This is a philosophical shift I will have no part of. “I fear this agreement will destroy our nation’s defense infrastructure at a time when we need them the most.  The only part of our nation’s budget which is really exposed to serious consequences under this compromise is the Department of Defense.

"I have always believed we have to raise our nation’s debt-ceiling but it should be done in a responsible manner.  I support raising the debt-ceiling for a period of nine months, the historical average since 1940, accompanied by a dollar-to-dollar spending cuts to debt-ceiling increase.  In effect, this basically is the first portion of the Boehner-Reid proposal."

Here are the basics of what the bill passed by the House would do:

1. It would allow for an upfront increase in the debt ceiling of $900 billion, with the possibility of a total increase of between $2.1 and $2.4 trillion through the 2012 election cycle. The higher debt ceiling would be available if a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is submitted to the states for ratification.

2. The legislation also calls for spending cuts of slightly more than $900 billion over the next 10 years, split between defense and domestic programs.

3. However, the bill sets up a mechanism of potentially more cuts in spending -- at least $1.2 trillion. As part of the plan, Congress would create a 12-person bipartisan committee with members of both parties and both chambers -- often referred to as a "Super Congress." They would be directed to submit recommendation for $1.2 trillion or more in further cuts by Nov. 23.

For more details, click here, and here.