was charged with issuing a recommendation by November 23, 2011, for at least $1.5 trillion in additional deficit reduction steps to be undertaken over a ten‐year period. This would have been the second installment of deficit reduction measures. Possible areas to be examined by the committee included: revenue increases, including raising taxes; tax reforms, such as simplifying the tax code and eliminating some tax breaks and loopholes; military spending cuts; and measures to reform and slow the growth of entitlement programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. According to White House economics adviser Gene Sperling, "everything is on the table." Congressional vote The committee's recommendations were to have been put to a simple up or down vote by Congress by December 23, 2011. The vote would not have been subject to amendments, House "majority of the majority" blocks, or Senate filibusters, guaranteeing a pure majority vote in both chambers. A "trigger mechanism" was included in the bill to enact $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts in the event that the committee could not agree on a recommendation or the full Congress failed to pass it. The bill stipulated that this automatic second installment of deficit reduction measures be split between the national security and domestic arenas, with the biggest entitlement programs excluded. The targeting of the automatic cuts was intended to provide incentives to both sides to compromise. Hearings and meetings While the majority of the committee's business was conducted through private negotiations, five hearings and meetings are public record. September 8, 2011: Organizational Meeting September 13, 2011: Hearing on The History and Drivers of Our Nation's Debt and Its Threats September 22, 2011: Hearing - Overview: Revenue Options and Reforming the Tax Code October 26, 2011: Hearing - Overview: Discretionary Outlays, Security and Non-Security November 1, 2011: Hearing - Overview of Previous Debt Proposals Debate over merit Support Supporters believed that the prospect of imminent across–the–board spending cuts if the committee's measures were not adopted would be sufficiently "distasteful to lawmakers" to prompt them to act and to impart a "strong incentive for bipartisan agreement." Representative Rob Andrews of New Jersey supported the idea as a way to "avoid a default" although he expressed concerns that it would take too long for lawmakers to learn the "nuances of Medicare and Medicaid" with respect to intricate reimbursement formulas. Criticism Criticism of the committee arrangement included comments from lawmakers concerned by