Congressional Record, Volume 158 Issue 66 (Thursday, May 10, 2012)

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 66 (Thursday, May 10, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H2583-H2633]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SEQUESTER REPLACEMENT RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2012

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 648,
I call up the bill (H.R. 5652) to provide for reconciliation pursuant
to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2013, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). Pursuant to House
Resolution 648, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting
of the text of Rules Committee Print 112 21 shall be considered as
adopted, and the bill, as amended, shall be considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 5652

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Sequester Replacement
Reconciliation Act of 2012''.

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The table of contents is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

TITLE I--AGRICULTURE

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. ARRA sunset at June 30, 2012.
Sec. 103. Categorical eligibility limited to cash assistance.
Sec. 104. Standard utility allowances based on the receipt of energy
assistance payments.
Sec. 105. Employment and training; workfare.
Sec. 106. End State bonus program for the supplemental nutrition
assistance program.
Sec. 107. Funding of employment and training programs.
Sec. 108. Turn off indexing for nutrition education and obesity
prevention.
Sec. 109. Extension of Authorization of Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.
Sec. 110. Effective dates and application of amendments.

TITLE II--COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

Subtitle A--Repeal of Certain ACA Funding Provisions

Sec. 201. Repealing mandatory funding to states to establish American
Health Benefit Exchanges.
Sec. 202. Repealing Prevention and Public Health Fund.
Sec. 203. Rescinding unobligated balances for CO-OP program.

Subtitle B--Medicaid

Sec. 211. Revision of provider tax indirect guarantee threshold.
Sec. 212. Rebasing of State DSH allotments for fiscal year 2022.
Sec. 213. Repeal of Medicaid and CHIP maintenance of effort
requirements under PPACA.
Sec. 214. Medicaid payments to territories.
Sec. 215. Repealing bonus payments for enrollment under Medicaid and
CHIP.

TITLE III--FINANCIAL SERVICES

Sec. 301. Table of contents.

Subtitle A--Orderly Liquidation Fund

Sec. 311. Repeal of liquidation authority.

Subtitle B--Home Affordable Modification Program

Sec. 321. Short title.
Sec. 322. Congressional findings.
Sec. 323. Termination of authority.
Sec. 324. Sense of Congress.

Subtitle C--Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection

Sec. 331. Bringing the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection into the
regular appropriations process.

Subtitle D--Flood Insurance Reform

[[Page H2584]]

Sec. 361. Treatment of swimming pool enclosures outside of hurricane
season.
Sec. 362. Information regarding multiple perils claims.
Sec. 363. FEMA authority to reject transfer of policies.
Sec. 364. Appeals.
Sec. 365. Reserve fund.
Sec. 366. CDBG eligibility for flood insurance outreach activities and
community building code administration grants.
Sec. 367. Technical corrections.
Sec. 368. Requiring competition for national flood insurance program
policies.
Sec. 369. Studies of voluntary community-based flood insurance options.
Sec. 370. Report on inclusion of building codes in floodplain
management criteria.
Sec. 371. Study on graduated risk.
Sec. 372. Report on flood-in-progress determination.
Sec. 373. Study on repaying flood insurance debt.
Sec. 374. No cause of action.
Sec. 375. Authority for the corps of engineers to provide specialized
or technical services.

Subtitle E--Repeal of the Office of Financial Research

Sec. 381. Repeal of the Office of Financial Research.

TITLE IV--COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Encouraging speedy resolution of claims.
Sec. 403. Compensating patient injury.
Sec. 404. Maximizing patient recovery.
Sec. 405. Punitive damages.
Sec. 406. Authorization of payment of future damages to claimants in
health care lawsuits.
Sec. 407. Definitions.
Sec. 408. Effect on other laws.
Sec. 409. State flexibility and protection of States' rights.
Sec. 410. Applicability; effective date.

TITLE V--COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Sec. 501. Retirement contributions.
Sec. 502. Annuity supplement.
Sec. 503. Contributions to Thrift Savings Fund of payments for accrued
or accumulated leave.

TITLE VI--COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

Subtitle A--Recapture of Overpayments Resulting From Certain Federally-
subsidized Health Insurance

Sec. 601. Recapture of overpayments resulting from certain federally-
subsidized health insurance.

Subtitle B--Social Security Number Required to Claim the Refundable
Portion of the Child Tax Credit

Sec. 611. Social security number required to claim the refundable
portion of the child tax credit.

Subtitle C--Human Resources Provisions

Sec. 621. Repeal of the program of block grants to States for social
services.

TITLE VII--SEQUESTER REPLACEMENT

Sec. 701. Short title.
Sec. 702. Protecting veterans programs from sequester.
Sec. 703. Achieving $19 billion in discretionary savings.
Sec. 704. Conforming amendments to section 314 of the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
Sec. 705. Treatment for PAYGO purposes.
Sec. 706. Elimination of the fiscal year 2013 sequestration for defense
direct spending.

TITLE I--AGRICULTURE

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Agricultural
Reconciliation Act of 2012''.

SEC. 102. ARRA SUNSET AT JUNE 30, 2012.

Section 101(a)(2) of division A of the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111 5; 123 Stat.
120) is amended by striking ``October 31, 2013'' and
inserting ``June 30, 2012''.

SEC. 103. CATEGORICAL ELIGIBILITY LIMITED TO CASH ASSISTANCE.

Section 5 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2014) is amended--
(1) in the 2d sentence of subsection (a) by striking
``households in which each member receives benefits'' and
inserting ``households in which each member receives cash
assistance'', and
(2) in subsection (j) by striking ``or who receives
benefits under a State program'' and inserting ``or who
receives cash assistance under a State program''.

SEC. 104. STANDARD UTILITY ALLOWANCES BASED ON THE RECEIPT OF
ENERGY ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS.

(a) Standard Utility Allowance.--Section 5 of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014) is amended--
(1) in subsection (e)(6)(C) by striking clause (iv), and
(2) in subsection (k) by striking paragraph (4) and
inserting the following:
``(4) Third party energy assistance payments.--For purposes
of subsection (d)(1), a payment made under a State law (other
than a law referred to in paragraph (2)(G)) to provide energy
assistance to a household shall be considered money payable
directly to the household.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 2605(f)(2) of the Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C.
8624(f)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and for purposes of determining any
excess shelter expense deduction under section 5(e) of the
Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014(e))'', and
(2) in subparagraph (A) by inserting before the semicolon
the following: ``, except that such payments or allowances
shall not be deemed to be expended for purposes of
determining any excess shelter expense deduction under
section 5(e)(6) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2014(e)(6))''.

SEC. 105. EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING; WORKFARE.

(a) Administrative Cost-sharing for Employment and Training
Programs.--
(1) In general.--Section 16 of the Food and Nutrition Act
of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2025) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a) by inserting ``(other than a program
carried out under section 6(d)(4) or section 20)'' after
``supplemental nutrition assistance program'' the 1st place
it appears, and
(B) in subsection (h)--
(i) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3), and
(ii) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs
(2) and (3), respectively.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 17(b)(1)(B)(iv)(III)(hh) of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2026(b)(1)(B)(iv)(III)(hh))
is amended by striking ``(g), (h)(2), or (h)(3)'' and
inserting ``or (g)''.
(B) Section 22(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Food and Nutrition Act
of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2031(d)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended is amended by
striking ``, (g), (h)(2), and (h)(3)'' and inserting ``and
(g)''.
(b) Administrative Cost-sharing and Reimbursements for
Workfare.--Section 20 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008
(7 U.S.C. 2029) is amended by striking subsection (g).

SEC. 106. END STATE BONUS PROGRAM FOR THE SUPPLEMENTAL
NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

Section 16 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2025) is amended by striking subsection (d).

SEC. 107. FUNDING OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMS.

For purposes of fiscal year 2013, the reference to
$90,000,000 in section 16(h)(1)(A) of the Food and Nutrition
Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2025(h)(1)(A)) shall be deemed to be a
reference to $79,000,000.

SEC. 108. TURN OFF INDEXING FOR NUTRITION EDUCATION AND
OBESITY PREVENTION.

Section 28(d) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2037(d)) is amended by striking ``years--'' and all
that follows through the period at the end, and inserting
``years, $375,000,000.''.

SEC. 109. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF FOOD AND NUTRITION
ACT OF 2008.

Section 18(a)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2027(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and
inserting ``2013''.

SEC. 110. EFFECTIVE DATES AND APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

(a) General Effective Date.--Except as provided in
subsection (b), this title and the amendments made by this
title shall take effect on October 1, 2012, and shall apply
only with respect to certification periods that begin on or
after such date.
(b) Special Effective Date.--Section 107 and the amendments
made by sections 102, 103, 104, and 109 shall take effect on
the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply only
with respect to certification periods that begin on or after
such date.

TITLE II--COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

Subtitle A--Repeal of Certain ACA Funding Provisions

SEC. 201. REPEALING MANDATORY FUNDING TO STATES TO ESTABLISH
AMERICAN HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGES.

(a) In General.--Section 1311(a) of the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18031(a)) is repealed.
(b) Rescission of Unobligated Funds.--Of the funds made
available under such section 1311(a), the unobligated balance
is rescinded.

SEC. 202. REPEALING PREVENTION AND PUBLIC HEALTH FUND.

(a) In General.--Section 4002 of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 300u 11) is repealed.
(b) Rescission of Unobligated Funds.--Of the funds made
available by such section 4002, the unobligated balance is
rescinded.

SEC. 203. RESCINDING UNOBLIGATED BALANCES FOR CO-OP PROGRAM.

Of the funds made available under section 1322(g) of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C.
18042(g)), the unobligated balance is rescinded.

Subtitle B--Medicaid

SEC. 211. REVISION OF PROVIDER TAX INDIRECT GUARANTEE
THRESHOLD.

Section 1903(w)(4)(C)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1396b(w)(4)(C)(ii)) is amended by inserting ``and for
portions of fiscal years beginning on or after October 1,
2012,'' after ``October 1, 2011,''.

SEC. 212. REBASING OF STATE DSH ALLOTMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2022.

Section 1923(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396r-4(f)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (10);
(2) in paragraph (3)(A) by striking ``paragraphs (6), (7),
and (8)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (6), (7), (8), and
(9)''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following new
paragraph:
``(9) Rebasing of state dsh allotments for fiscal year
2022.--With respect to fiscal 2022, for purposes of applying
paragraph (3)(A) to determine the DSH allotment for a State,
the amount of the DSH allotment for the State under paragraph
(3) for fiscal year 2021 shall be

[[Page H2585]]

treated as if it were such amount as reduced under paragraph
(7).''.

SEC. 213. REPEAL OF MEDICAID AND CHIP MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT
REQUIREMENTS UNDER PPACA.

(a) Repeal of PPACA Medicaid MOE.--Section 1902 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a) is amended by striking
subsection (gg).
(b) Repeal of PPACA CHIP MOE.--Section 2105(d)(3) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(d)(3)) is amended--
(1) by striking subparagraph (A);
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; and
(3) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``Continuation of
eligibility standards for children until october 1, 2019''
and inserting ``Continuity of coverage''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1902(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396a(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (74).
(2) Effective January 1, 2014, paragraph (14) of section
1902(e) (as added by section 2002(a) of Public Law 111 148)
is amended by striking the third sentence of subparagraph
(A).
(d) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection
(c)(2), the amendments made by this section shall take effect
on the date of the enactment of this section.

SEC. 214. MEDICAID PAYMENTS TO TERRITORIES.

(a) Limit on Payments.--Section 1108(g) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1308(g)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``paragraphs (3) and (5)''; and
(B) by inserting ``paragraph (3)'' after ``and subject
to'';
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``(3), and'' and all that
follows through ``of this subsection'' and inserting ``and
(3) of this subsection''; and
(3) by striking paragraph (5).
(b) FMAP.--The first sentence of section 1905(b) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)) is amended by
striking ``shall be 55 percent'' and inserting ``shall be 50
percent''.

SEC. 215. REPEALING BONUS PAYMENTS FOR ENROLLMENT UNDER
MEDICAID AND CHIP.

(a) In General.--Paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 2105(a)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(a)) are
repealed.
(b) Rescission of Unobligated Funds.--Of the funds made
available by section 2105(a)(3) of the Social Security Act,
the unobligated balance is rescinded.
(c) Conforming Changes.--
(1) Availability of excess funds for performance bonuses.--
Section 2104(n)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1397dd(n)(2)) is amended by striking subparagraph (D).
(2) Outreach or coverage benchmarks.--Section 2111(b)(3) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397kk(b)(3)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in clause (i), by inserting ``or'' after the semicolon
at the end; and
(ii) by striking clause (ii); and
(B) by striking subparagraph (C).

TITLE III--FINANCIAL SERVICES

SEC. 301. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The table of contents for this title is as follows:

TITLE III--FINANCIAL SERVICES

Sec. 301. Table of contents.

Subtitle A--Orderly Liquidation Fund

Sec. 311. Repeal of liquidation authority.

Subtitle B--Home Affordable Modification Program

Sec. 321. Short title.
Sec. 322. Congressional findings.
Sec. 323. Termination of authority.
Sec. 324. Sense of Congress.

Subtitle C--Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection

Sec. 331. Bringing the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection into the
regular appropriations process.

Subtitle D--Flood Insurance Reform

Sec. 341. Short title.
Sec. 342. Extensions.
Sec. 343. Mandatory purchase.
Sec. 344. Reforms of coverage terms.
Sec. 345. Reforms of premium rates.
Sec. 346. Technical Mapping Advisory Council.
Sec. 347. FEMA incorporation of new mapping protocols.
Sec. 348. Treatment of levees.
Sec. 349. Privatization initiatives.
Sec. 350. FEMA annual report on insurance program.
Sec. 351. Mitigation assistance.
Sec. 352. Notification to homeowners regarding mandatory purchase
requirement applicability and rate phase-ins.
Sec. 353. Notification to members of congress of flood map revisions
and updates.
Sec. 354. Notification and appeal of map changes; notification to
communities of establishment of flood elevations.
Sec. 355. Notification to tenants of availability of contents
insurance.
Sec. 356. Notification to policy holders regarding direct management of
policy by FEMA.
Sec. 357. Notice of availability of flood insurance and escrow in RESPA
good faith estimate.
Sec. 358. Reimbursement for costs incurred by homeowners and
communities obtaining letters of map amendment or
revision.
Sec. 359. Enhanced communication with certain communities during map
updating process.
Sec. 360. Notification to residents newly included in flood hazard
areas.
Sec. 361. Treatment of swimming pool enclosures outside of hurricane
season.
Sec. 362. Information regarding multiple perils claims.
Sec. 363. FEMA authority to reject transfer of policies.
Sec. 364. Appeals.
Sec. 365. Reserve fund.
Sec. 366. CDBG eligibility for flood insurance outreach activities and
community building code administration grants.
Sec. 367. Technical corrections.
Sec. 368. Requiring competition for national flood insurance program
policies.
Sec. 369. Studies of voluntary community-based flood insurance options.
Sec. 370. Report on inclusion of building codes in floodplain
management criteria.
Sec. 371. Study on graduated risk.
Sec. 372. Report on flood-in-progress determination.
Sec. 373. Study on repaying flood insurance debt.
Sec. 374. No cause of action.
Sec. 375. Authority for the corps of engineers to provide specialized
or technical services.

Subtitle E--Repeal of the Office of Financial Research

Sec. 381. Repeal of the Office of Financial Research.

Subtitle A--Orderly Liquidation Fund

SEC. 311. REPEAL OF LIQUIDATION AUTHORITY.

(a) In General.--Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act is hereby repealed and any
Federal law amended by such title shall, on and after the
date of enactment of this Act, be effective as if title II of
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
had not been enacted.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection
act.--The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act is amended--
(A) in the table of contents for such Act, by striking all
items relating to title II;
(B) in section 165(d)(6), by striking ``, a receiver
appointed under title II,'';
(C) in section 716(g), by striking ``or a covered financial
company under title II'';
(D) in section 1105(e)(5), by striking ``amount of any
securities issued under that chapter 31 for such purpose
shall be treated in the same manner as securities issued
under section 208(n)(5)(E)'' and inserting ``issuances of
such securities under that chapter 31 for such purpose shall
by treated as public debt transactions of the United States,
and the proceeds from the sale of any obligations acquired by
the Secretary under this paragraph shall be deposited into
the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous
receipts''; and
(E) in section 1106(c)(2), by amending subparagraph (A) to
read as follows:
``(A) require the company to file a petition for bankruptcy
under section 301 of title 11, United States Code; or''.
(2) Federal deposit insurance act.--Section 10(b)(3) of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1820(b)(3)) is
amended by striking ``, or of such nonbank financial company
supervised by the Board of Governors or bank holding company
described in section 165(a) of the Financial Stability Act of
2010, for the purpose of implementing its authority to
provide for orderly liquidation of any such company under
title II of that Act''.
(3) Federal reserve act.--Section 13(3) of the Federal
Reserve Act is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) in clause (ii), by striking ``, resolution under title
II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act, or'' and inserting ``or is subject to
resolution under''; and
(ii) in clause (iii), by striking ``, resolution under
title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act, or'' and inserting ``or resolution under'';
and
(B) by striking subparagraph (E).

Subtitle B--Home Affordable Modification Program

SEC. 321. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``HAMP Termination Act of
2012''.

SEC. 322. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) According to the Department of the Treasury--
(A) the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) is
designed to ``help as many as 3 to 4 million financially
struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure by modifying loans to
a level that is affordable for borrowers now and sustainable
over the long term''; and
(B) as of February 2012, only 782,609 active permanent
mortgage modifications were made under HAMP.
(2) Many homeowners whose HAMP modifications were canceled
suffered because they made futile payments and some of those
homeowners were even forced into foreclosure.
(3) The Special Inspector General for TARP reported that
HAMP ``benefits only a small portion of distressed
homeowners, offers others little more than false hope, and in
certain cases causes more harm than good''.
(4) Approximately $30 billion was obligated by the
Department of the Treasury to HAMP, however, approximately
only $2.54 billion has been disbursed.
(5) Terminating HAMP would save American taxpayers
approximately $2.84 billion, according to the Congressional
Budget Office.

SEC. 323. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

Section 120 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of
2008 (12 U.S.C. 5230) is amended

[[Page H2586]]

by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Termination of Authority To Provide New Assistance
Under the Home Affordable Modification Program.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided under paragraph (2),
after the date of the enactment of this subsection the
Secretary may not provide any assistance under the Home
Affordable Modification Program under the Making Home
Affordable initiative of the Secretary, authorized under this
Act, on behalf of any homeowner.
``(2) Protection of existing obligations on behalf of
homeowners already extended an offer to participate in the
program.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to
assistance provided on behalf of a homeowner who, before the
date of the enactment of this subsection, was extended an
offer to participate in the Home Affordable Modification
Program on a trial or permanent basis.
``(3) Deficit reduction.--
``(A) Use of unobligated funds.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this title, the amounts described in
subparagraph (B) shall not be available after the date of the
enactment of this subsection for obligation or expenditure
under the Home Affordable Modification Program of the
Secretary, but should be covered into the General Fund of the
Treasury and should be used only for reducing the budget
deficit of the Federal Government.
``(B) Identification of unobligated funds.--The amounts
described in this subparagraph are any amounts made available
under title I of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of
2008 that--
``(i) have been allocated for use, but not yet obligated as
of the date of the enactment of this subsection, under the
Home Affordable Modification Program of the Secretary; and
``(ii) are not necessary for providing assistance under
such Program on behalf of homeowners who, pursuant to
paragraph (2), may be provided assistance after the date of
the enactment of this subsection.
``(4) Study of use of program by members of the armed
forces, veterans, and gold star recipients.--
``(A) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
determine the extent of usage of the Home Affordable
Modification Program by, and the impact of such Program on,
covered homeowners.
``(B) Report.--Not later than the expiration of the 90-day
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this
subsection, the Secretary shall submit to the Congress a
report setting forth the results of the study under
subparagraph (A) and identifying best practices, derived from
studying the Home Affordable Modification Program, that could
be applied to existing mortgage assistance programs available
to covered homeowners.
``(C) Covered homeowner.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `covered homeowner' means a homeowner who is--
``(i) a member of the Armed Forces of the United States on
active duty or the spouse or parent of such a member;
``(ii) a veteran, as such term is defined in section 101 of
title 38, United States Code; or
``(iii) eligible to receive a Gold Star lapel pin under
section 1126 of title 10, United States Code, as a widow,
parent, or next of kin of a member of the Armed Forces person
who died in a manner described in subsection (a) of such
section.
``(5) Publication of member availability for assistance.--
Not later than 5 days after the date of the enactment of this
subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury shall publish to
its Website on the World Wide Web in a prominent location,
large point font, and boldface type the following statement:
`The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) has been
terminated. If you are having trouble paying your mortgage
and need help contacting your lender or servicer for purposes
of negotiating or acquiring a loan modification, please
contact your Member of Congress to assist you in contacting
your lender or servicer for the purpose of negotiating or
acquiring a loan modification.'.
``(6) Notification to hamp applicants required.--Not later
than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this
subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury shall inform each
individual who applied for the Home Affordable Modification
Program and will not be considered for a modification under
such Program due to termination of such Program under this
subsection--
``(A) that such Program has been terminated;
``(B) that loan modifications under such Program are no
longer available;
``(C) of the name and contact information of such
individual's Member of Congress; and
``(D) that the individual should contact his or her Member
of Congress to assist the individual in contacting the
individual's lender or servicer for the purpose of
negotiating or acquiring a loan modification.''.

SEC. 324. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

The Congress encourages banks to work with homeowners to
provide loan modifications to those that are eligible. The
Congress also encourages banks to work and assist homeowners
and prospective homeowners with foreclosure prevention
programs and information on loan modifications.

Subtitle C--Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection

SEC. 331. BRINGING THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL
PROTECTION INTO THE REGULAR APPROPRIATIONS
PROCESS.

Section 1017 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of
2010 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by amending the heading of such subsection to read as
follows: ``Budget, Financial Management, and Audit.--'';
(B) by striking paragraphs (1), (2), and (3);
(C) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs
(1) and (2), respectively; and
(D) by striking subparagraphs (E) and (F) of paragraph (1),
as so redesignated;
(2) by striking subsections (b), (c), and (d);
(3) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (b); and
(4) in subsection (b), as so redesignated--
(A) by striking paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) and inserting
the following:
``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated $200,000,000 to carry out this title for
each of fiscal years 2012 and 2013.''; and
(B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (2).

Subtitle D--Flood Insurance Reform

SEC. 341. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``Flood Insurance Reform
Act of 2012''.

SEC. 342. EXTENSIONS.

(a) Extension of Program.--Section 1319 of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is amended by
striking ``the earlier of the date of the enactment into law
of an Act that specifically amends the date specified in this
section or May 31, 2012'' and inserting ``September 30,
2016''.
(b) Extension of Financing.--Section 1309(a) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is amended by striking ``the earlier of
the date of the enactment into law of an Act that
specifically amends the date specified in this section or May
31, 2012'' and inserting ``September 30, 2016''.

SEC. 343. MANDATORY PURCHASE.

(a) Authority To Temporarily Suspend Mandatory Purchase
Requirement.--
(1) In general.--Section 102 of the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) Authority To Temporarily Suspend Mandatory Purchase
Requirement.--
``(1) Finding by administrator that area is an eligible
area.--For any area, upon a request submitted to the
Administrator by a local government authority having
jurisdiction over any portion of the area, the Administrator
shall make a finding of whether the area is an eligible area
under paragraph (3). If the Administrator finds that such
area is an eligible area, the Administrator shall, in the
discretion of the Administrator, designate a period during
which such finding shall be effective, which shall not be
longer in duration than 12 months.
``(2) Suspension of mandatory purchase requirement.--If the
Administrator makes a finding under paragraph (1) that an
area is an eligible area under paragraph (3), during the
period specified in the finding, the designation of such
eligible area as an area having special flood hazards shall
not be effective for purposes of subsections (a), (b), and
(e) of this section, and section 202(a) of this Act. Nothing
in this paragraph may be construed to prevent any lender,
servicer, regulated lending institution, Federal agency
lender, the Federal National Mortgage Association, or the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, at the discretion of
such entity, from requiring the purchase of flood insurance
coverage in connection with the making, increasing,
extending, or renewing of a loan secured by improved real
estate or a mobile home located or to be located in such
eligible area during such period or a lender or servicer from
purchasing coverage on behalf of a borrower pursuant to
subsection (e).
``(3) Eligible areas.--An eligible area under this
paragraph is an area that is designated or will, pursuant to
any issuance, revision, updating, or other change in flood
insurance maps that takes effect on or after the date of the
enactment of the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, become
designated as an area having special flood hazards and that
meets any one of the following 3 requirements:
``(A) Areas with no history of special flood hazards.--The
area does not include any area that has ever previously been
designated as an area having special flood hazards.
``(B) Areas with flood protection systems under
improvements.--The area was intended to be protected by a
flood protection system--
``(i) that has been decertified, or is required to be
certified, as providing protection for the 100-year frequency
flood standard;
``(ii) that is being improved, constructed, or
reconstructed; and
``(iii) for which the Administrator has determined
measurable progress toward completion of such improvement,
construction, reconstruction is being made and toward
securing financial commitments sufficient to fund such
completion.
``(C) Areas for which appeal has been filed.--An area for
which a community has appealed designation of the area as
having special flood hazards in a timely manner under section
1363.
``(4) Extension of delay.--Upon a request submitted by a
local government authority having jurisdiction over any
portion of the eligible area, the Administrator may extend
the period during which a finding under paragraph (1) shall
be effective, except that--
``(A) each such extension under this paragraph shall not be
for a period exceeding 12 months; and
``(B) for any area, the cumulative number of such
extensions may not exceed 2.
``(5) Additional extension for communities making more than
adequate progress on flood protection system.--
``(A) Extension.--
``(i) Authority.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
in the case of an eligible area for which the Administrator
has, pursuant to paragraph (4), extended the period of
effectiveness of the finding under paragraph (1) for the
area, upon a request submitted by a local government

[[Page H2587]]

authority having jurisdiction over any portion of the
eligible area, if the Administrator finds that more than
adequate progress has been made on the construction of a
flood protection system for such area, as determined in
accordance with the last sentence of section 1307(e) of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4014(e)), the
Administrator may, in the discretion of the Administrator,
further extend the period during which the finding under
paragraph (1) shall be effective for such area for an
additional 12 months.
``(ii) Limit.-- For any eligible area, the cumulative
number of extensions under this subparagraph may not exceed
2.
``(B) Exclusion for new mortgages.--
``(i) Exclusion.--Any extension under subparagraph (A) of
this paragraph of a finding under paragraph (1) shall not be
effective with respect to any excluded property after the
origination, increase, extension, or renewal of the loan
referred to in clause (ii)(II) for the property.
``(ii) Excluded properties.--For purposes of this
subparagraph, the term `excluded property' means any improved
real estate or mobile home--

``(I) that is located in an eligible area; and
``(II) for which, during the period that any extension
under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph of a finding under
paragraph (1) is otherwise in effect for the eligible area in
which such property is located--

``(aa) a loan that is secured by the property is
originated; or
``(bb) any existing loan that is secured by the property is
increased, extended, or renewed.
``(6) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection may
be construed to affect the applicability of a designation of
any area as an area having special flood hazards for purposes
of the availability of flood insurance coverage, criteria for
land management and use, notification of flood hazards,
eligibility for mitigation assistance, or any other purpose
or provision not specifically referred to in paragraph (2).
``(7) Reports.--The Administrator shall, in each annual
report submitted pursuant to section 1320, include
information identifying each finding under paragraph (1) by
the Administrator during the preceding year that an area is
an area having special flood hazards, the basis for each such
finding, any extensions pursuant to paragraph (4) of the
periods of effectiveness of such findings, and the reasons
for such extensions.''.
(2) No refunds.--Nothing in this subsection or the
amendments made by this subsection may be construed to
authorize or require any payment or refund for flood
insurance coverage purchased for any property that covered
any period during which such coverage is not required for the
property pursuant to the applicability of the amendment made
by paragraph (1).
(b) Termination of Force-Placed Insurance.--Section 102(e)
of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C.
4012a(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``insurance.'' and
inserting ``insurance, including premiums or fees incurred
for coverage beginning on the date on which flood insurance
coverage lapsed or did not provide a sufficient coverage
amount.'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(5) and 6), respectively; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraphs:
``(3) Termination of force-placed insurance.--Within 30
days of receipt by the lender or servicer of a confirmation
of a borrower's existing flood insurance coverage, the lender
or servicer shall--
``(A) terminate the force-placed insurance; and
``(B) refund to the borrower all force-placed insurance
premiums paid by the borrower during any period during which
the borrower's flood insurance coverage and the force-placed
flood insurance coverage were each in effect, and any related
fees charged to the borrower with respect to the force-placed
insurance during such period.
``(4) Sufficiency of demonstration.--For purposes of
confirming a borrower's existing flood insurance coverage, a
lender or servicer for a loan shall accept from the borrower
an insurance policy declarations page that includes the
existing flood insurance policy number and the identity of,
and contact information for, the insurance company or
agent.''.
(c) Use of Private Insurance to Satisfy Mandatory Purchase
Requirement.--Section 102(b) of the Flood Disaster Protection
Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``lending institutions not to make'' and
inserting ``lending institutions--
``(A) not to make'';
(B) in subparagraph (A), as designated by subparagraph (A)
of this paragraph, by striking ``less.'' and inserting
``less; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) to accept private flood insurance as satisfaction of
the flood insurance coverage requirement under subparagraph
(A) if the coverage provided by such private flood insurance
meets the requirements for coverage under such
subparagraph.'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting after ``provided in
paragraph (1).'' the following new sentence: ``Each Federal
agency lender shall accept private flood insurance as
satisfaction of the flood insurance coverage requirement
under the preceding sentence if the flood insurance coverage
provided by such private flood insurance meets the
requirements for coverage under such sentence.'';
(3) in paragraph (3), in the matter following subparagraph
(B), by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The
Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation shall accept private flood
insurance as satisfaction of the flood insurance coverage
requirement under the preceding sentence if the flood
insurance coverage provided by such private flood insurance
meets the requirements for coverage under such sentence.'';
and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Private flood insurance defined.--In this subsection,
the term `private flood insurance' means a contract for flood
insurance coverage allowed for sale under the laws of any
State.''.

SEC. 344. REFORMS OF COVERAGE TERMS.

(a) Minimum Deductibles for Claims.--Section 1312 of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4019) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``The Director is'' and inserting the
following: ``(a) In General.--The Administrator is''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Minimum Annual Deductibles.--
``(1) Subsidized rate properties.--For any structure that
is covered by flood insurance under this title, and for which
the chargeable rate for such coverage is less than the
applicable estimated risk premium rate under section
1307(a)(1) for the area (or subdivision thereof) in which
such structure is located, the minimum annual deductible for
damage to or loss of such structure shall be $2,000.
``(2) Actuarial rate properties.--For any structure that is
covered by flood insurance under this title, for which the
chargeable rate for such coverage is not less than the
applicable estimated risk premium rate under section
1307(a)(1) for the area (or subdivision thereof) in which
such structure is located, the minimum annual deductible for
damage to or loss of such structure shall be $1,000.''.
(b) Clarification of Residential and Commercial Coverage
Limits.--Section 1306(b) of the National Flood Insurance Act
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4013(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``in the case of any residential property''
and inserting ``in the case of any residential building
designed for the occupancy of from one to four families'';
and
(B) by striking ``shall be made available to every insured
upon renewal and every applicant for insurance so as to
enable such insured or applicant to receive coverage up to a
total amount (including such limits specified in paragraph
(1)(A)(i)) of $250,000'' and inserting ``shall be made
available, with respect to any single such building, up to an
aggregate liability (including such limits specified in
paragraph (1)(A)(i)) of $250,000''; and
(2) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by striking ``in the case of any nonresidential
property, including churches,'' and inserting ``in the case
of any nonresidential building, including a church,''; and
(B) by striking ``shall be made available to every insured
upon renewal and every applicant for insurance, in respect to
any single structure, up to a total amount (including such
limit specified in subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1),
as applicable) of $500,000 for each structure and $500,000
for any contents related to each structure'' and inserting
``shall be made available with respect to any single such
building, up to an aggregate liability (including such limits
specified in subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1), as
applicable) of $500,000, and coverage shall be made available
up to a total of $500,000 aggregate liability for contents
owned by the building owner and $500,000 aggregate liability
for each unit within the building for contents owned by the
tenant''.
(c) Indexing of Maximum Coverage Limits.--Subsection (b) of
section 1306 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 4013(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and'';
(3) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (7); and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) each of the dollar amount limitations under
paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) shall be adjusted
effective on the date of the enactment of the Flood Insurance
Reform Act of 2012, such adjustments shall be calculated
using the percentage change, over the period beginning on
September 30, 1994, and ending on such date of enactment, in
such inflationary index as the Administrator shall, by
regulation, specify, and the dollar amount of such adjustment
shall be rounded to the next lower dollar; and the
Administrator shall cause to be published in the Federal
Register the adjustments under this paragraph to such dollar
amount limitations; except that in the case of coverage for a
property that is made available, pursuant to this paragraph,
in an amount that exceeds the limitation otherwise applicable
to such coverage as specified in paragraph (2), (3), (4),
(5), or (6), the total of such coverage shall be made
available only at chargeable rates that are not less than the
estimated premium rates for such coverage determined in
accordance with section 1307(a)(1).''.
(d) Optional Coverage for Loss of Use of Personal Residence
and Business Interruption.--Subsection (b) of section 1306 of
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4013(b)),
as amended by the preceding provisions of this section, is
further amended by inserting after paragraph (4) the
following new paragraphs:
``(5) the Administrator may provide that, in the case of
any residential property, each renewal or new contract for
flood insurance coverage may provide not more than $5,000
aggregate liability per dwelling unit for any necessary
increases in living expenses incurred by

[[Page H2588]]

the insured when losses from a flood make the residence unfit
to live in, except that--
``(A) purchase of such coverage shall be at the option of
the insured;
``(B) any such coverage shall be made available only at
chargeable rates that are not less than the estimated premium
rates for such coverage determined in accordance with section
1307(a)(1); and
``(C) the Administrator may make such coverage available
only if the Administrator makes a determination and causes
notice of such determination to be published in the Federal
Register that--
``(i) a competitive private insurance market for such
coverage does not exist; and
``(ii) the national flood insurance program has the
capacity to make such coverage available without borrowing
funds from the Secretary of the Treasury under section 1309
or otherwise;
``(6) the Administrator may provide that, in the case of
any commercial property or other residential property,
including multifamily rental property, coverage for losses
resulting from any partial or total interruption of the
insured's business caused by damage to, or loss of, such
property from a flood may be made available to every insured
upon renewal and every applicant, up to a total amount of
$20,000 per property, except that--
``(A) purchase of such coverage shall be at the option of
the insured;
``(B) any such coverage shall be made available only at
chargeable rates that are not less than the estimated premium
rates for such coverage determined in accordance with section
1307(a)(1); and
``(C) the Administrator may make such coverage available
only if the Administrator makes a determination and causes
notice of such determination to be published in the Federal
Register that--
``(i) a competitive private insurance market for such
coverage does not exist; and
``(ii) the national flood insurance program has the
capacity to make such coverage available without borrowing
funds from the Secretary of the Treasury under section 1309
or otherwise;''.
(e) Payment of Premiums in Installments for Residential
Properties.--Section 1306 of the National Flood Insurance Act
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4013) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(d) Payment of Premiums in Installments for Residential
Properties.--
``(1) Authority.--In addition to any other terms and
conditions under subsection (a), such regulations shall
provide that, in the case of any residential property,
premiums for flood insurance coverage made available under
this title for such property may be paid in installments.
``(2) Limitations.--In implementing the authority under
paragraph (1), the Administrator may establish increased
chargeable premium rates and surcharges, and deny coverage
and establish such other sanctions, as the Administrator
considers necessary to ensure that insureds purchase, pay
for, and maintain coverage for the full term of a contract
for flood insurance coverage or to prevent insureds from
purchasing coverage only for periods during a year when risk
of flooding is comparatively higher or canceling coverage for
periods when such risk is comparatively lower.''.
(f) Effective Date of Policies Covering Properties Affected
by Floods in Progress.--Paragraph (1) of section 1306(c) of
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4013(c))
is amended by adding after the period at the end the
following: ``With respect to any flood that has commenced or
is in progress before the expiration of such 30-day period,
such flood insurance coverage for a property shall take
effect upon the expiration of such 30-day period and shall
cover damage to such property occurring after the expiration
of such period that results from such flood, but only if the
property has not suffered damage or loss as a result of such
flood before the expiration of such 30-day period.''.

SEC. 345. REFORMS OF PREMIUM RATES.

(a) Increase in Annual Limitation on Premium Increases.--
Section 1308(e) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4015(e)) is amended by striking ``10 percent'' and
inserting ``20 percent''.
(b) Phase-In of Rates for Certain Properties in Newly
Mapped Areas.--
(1) In general.--Section 1308 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by inserting ``or notice'' after ``prescribe by
regulation'';
(B) in subsection (c), by inserting ``and subsection (g)''
before the first comma; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) 5-Year Phase-In of Flood Insurance Rates for Certain
Properties in Newly Mapped Areas.--
``(1) 5-year phase-in period.--Notwithstanding subsection
(c) or any other provision of law relating to chargeable risk
premium rates for flood insurance coverage under this title,
in the case of any area that was not previously designated as
an area having special flood hazards and that, pursuant to
any issuance, revision, updating, or other change in flood
insurance maps, becomes designated as such an area, during
the 5-year period that begins, except as provided in
paragraph (2), upon the date that such maps, as issued,
revised, updated, or otherwise changed, become effective, the
chargeable premium rate for flood insurance under this title
with respect to any covered property that is located within
such area shall be the rate described in paragraph (3).
``(2) Applicability to preferred risk rate areas.--In the
case of any area described in paragraph (1) that consists of
or includes an area that, as of date of the effectiveness of
the flood insurance maps for such area referred to in
paragraph (1) as so issued, revised, updated, or changed, is
eligible for any reason for preferred risk rate method
premiums for flood insurance coverage and was eligible for
such premiums as of the enactment of the Flood Insurance
Reform Act of 2012, the 5-year period referred to in
paragraph (1) for such area eligible for preferred risk rate
method premiums shall begin upon the expiration of the period
during which such area is eligible for such preferred risk
rate method premiums.
``(3) Phase-in of full actuarial rates.--With respect to
any area described in paragraph (1), the chargeable risk
premium rate for flood insurance under this title for a
covered property that is located in such area shall be--
``(A) for the first year of the 5-year period referred to
in paragraph (1), the greater of--
``(i) 20 percent of the chargeable risk premium rate
otherwise applicable under this title to the property; and
``(ii) in the case of any property that, as of the
beginning of such first year, is eligible for preferred risk
rate method premiums for flood insurance coverage, such
preferred risk rate method premium for the property;
``(B) for the second year of such 5-year period, 40 percent
of the chargeable risk premium rate otherwise applicable
under this title to the property;
``(C) for the third year of such 5-year period, 60 percent
of the chargeable risk premium rate otherwise applicable
under this title to the property;
``(D) for the fourth year of such 5-year period, 80 percent
of the chargeable risk premium rate otherwise applicable
under this title to the property; and
``(E) for the fifth year of such 5-year period, 100 percent
of the chargeable risk premium rate otherwise applicable
under this title to the property.
``(4) Covered properties.--For purposes of the subsection,
the term `covered property' means any residential property
occupied by its owner or a bona fide tenant as a primary
residence.''.
(2) Regulation or notice.--The Administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency shall issue an interim final rule
or notice to implement this subsection and the amendments
made by this subsection as soon as practicable after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Phase-In of Actuarial Rates for Certain Properties.--
(1) In general.--Section 1308(c) of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015(c)) is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (7); and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraphs:
``(2) Commercial properties.--Any nonresidential property.
``(3) Second homes and vacation homes.--Any residential
property that is not the primary residence of any individual.
``(4) Homes sold to new owners.--Any single family property
that--
``(A) has been constructed or substantially improved and
for which such construction or improvement was started, as
determined by the Administrator, before December 31, 1974, or
before the effective date of the initial rate map published
by the Administrator under paragraph (2) of section 1360(a)
for the area in which such property is located, whichever is
later; and
``(B) is purchased after the effective date of this
paragraph, pursuant to section 345(c)(3)(A) of the Flood
Insurance Reform Act of 2012.
``(5) Homes damaged or improved.--Any property that, on or
after the date of the enactment of the Flood Insurance Reform
Act of 2012, has experienced or sustained--
``(A) substantial flood damage exceeding 50 percent of the
fair market value of such property; or
``(B) substantial improvement exceeding 30 percent of the
fair market value of such property.
``(6) Homes with multiple claims.--Any severe repetitive
loss property (as such term is defined in section
1366(j)).''.
(2) Technical amendments.--Section 1308 of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015) is amended--
(A) in subsection (c)--
(i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``the limitations provided under paragraphs (1) and (2)'' and
inserting ``subsection (e)''; and
(ii) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, except'' and all
that follows through ``subsection (e)''; and
(B) in subsection (e), by striking ``paragraph (2) or (3)''
and inserting ``paragraph (7)''.
(3) Effective date and transition.--
(A) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraphs (1)
and (2) shall apply beginning upon the expiration of the 12-
month period that begins on the date of the enactment of this
Act, except as provided in subparagraph (B) of this
paragraph.
(B) Transition for properties covered by flood insurance
upon effective date.--
(i) Increase of rates over time.--In the case of any
property described in paragraph (2), (3), (4), (5), or (6) of
section 1308(c) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968,
as amended by paragraph (1) of this subsection, that, as of
the effective date under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph,
is covered under a policy for flood insurance made available
under the national flood insurance program for which the
chargeable premium rates are less than the applicable
estimated risk premium rate under section 1307(a)(1) of such
Act for the area in which the property is located, the
Administrator of the

[[Page H2589]]

Federal Emergency Management Agency shall increase the
chargeable premium rates for such property over time to such
applicable estimated risk premium rate under section
1307(a)(1).
(ii) Amount of annual increase.--Such increase shall be
made by increasing the chargeable premium rates for the
property (after application of any increase in the premium
rates otherwise applicable to such property), once during the
12-month period that begins upon the effective date under
subparagraph (A) of this paragraph and once every 12 months
thereafter until such increase is accomplished, by 20 percent
(or such lesser amount as may be necessary so that the
chargeable rate does not exceed such applicable estimated
risk premium rate or to comply with clause (iii)).
(iii) Properties subject to phase-in and annual
increases.--In the case of any pre-FIRM property (as such
term is defined in section 578(b) of the National Flood
Insurance Reform Act of 1974), the aggregate increase, during
any 12-month period, in the chargeable premium rate for the
property that is attributable to this subparagraph or to an
increase described in section 1308(e) of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 may not exceed 20 percent.
(iv) Full actuarial rates.--The provisions of paragraphs
(2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) of such section 1308(c) shall
apply to such a property upon the accomplishment of the
increase under this subparagraph and thereafter.
(d) Prohibition of Extension of Subsidized Rates to Lapsed
Policies.--Section 1308 of the National Flood Insurance Act
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015), as amended by the preceding
provisions of this subtitle, is further amended--
(1) in subsection (e), by inserting ``or subsection (h)''
after ``subsection (c)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(h) Prohibition of Extension of Subsidized Rates to
Lapsed Policies.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
relating to chargeable risk premium rates for flood insurance
coverage under this title, the Administrator shall not
provide flood insurance coverage under this title for any
property for which a policy for such coverage for the
property has previously lapsed in coverage as a result of the
deliberate choice of the holder of such policy, at a rate
less than the applicable estimated risk premium rates for the
area (or subdivision thereof) in which such property is
located.''.
(e) Recognition of State and Local Funding for
Construction, Reconstruction, and Improvement of Flood
Protection Systems in Determination of Rates.--
(1) In general.--Section 1307 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4014) is amended--
(A) in subsection (e)--
(i) in the first sentence, by striking ``construction of a
flood protection system'' and inserting ``construction,
reconstruction, or improvement of a flood protection system
(without respect to the level of Federal investment or
participation)''; and
(ii) in the second sentence--

(I) by striking ``construction of a flood protection
system'' and inserting ``construction, reconstruction, or
improvement of a flood protection system''; and
(II) by inserting ``based on the present value of the
completed system'' after ``has been expended''; and

(B) in subsection (f)--
(i) in the first sentence in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by inserting ``(without respect to the level of Federal
investment or participation)'' before the period at the end;
(ii) in the third sentence in the matter preceding
paragraph (1), by inserting ``, whether coastal or
riverine,'' after ``special flood hazard''; and
(iii) in paragraph (1), by striking ``a Federal agency in
consultation with the local project sponsor'' and inserting
``the entity or entities that own, operate, maintain, or
repair such system''.
(2) Regulations.--The Administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency shall promulgate regulations to
implement this subsection and the amendments made by this
subsection as soon as practicable, but not more than 18
months after the date of the enactment of this Act. Paragraph
(3) may not be construed to annul, alter, affect, authorize
any waiver of, or establish any exception to, the requirement
under the preceding sentence.

SEC. 346. TECHNICAL MAPPING ADVISORY COUNCIL.

(a) Establishment.--There is established a council to be
known as the Technical Mapping Advisory Council (in this
section referred to as the ``Council'').
(b) Membership.--
(1) In general.--The Council shall consist of--
(A) the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (in this section referred to as the
``Administrator''), or the designee thereof;
(B) the Director of the United States Geological Survey of
the Department of the Interior, or the designee thereof;
(C) the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
Atmosphere, or the designee thereof;
(D) the commanding officer of the United States Army Corps
of Engineers, or the designee thereof;
(E) the chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service
of the Department of Agriculture, or the designee thereof;
(F) the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service of the Department of the Interior, or the designee
thereof;
(G) the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the
Department of Commerce, or the designee thereof; and
(H) 14 additional members to be appointed by the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, who
shall be--
(i) an expert in data management;
(ii) an expert in real estate;
(iii) an expert in insurance;
(iv) a member of a recognized regional flood and storm
water management organization;
(v) a representative of a State emergency management agency
or association or organization for such agencies;
(vi) a member of a recognized professional surveying
association or organization;
(vii) a member of a recognized professional mapping
association or organization;
(viii) a member of a recognized professional engineering
association or organization;
(ix) a member of a recognized professional association or
organization representing flood hazard determination firms;
(x) a representative of State national flood insurance
coordination offices;
(xi) representatives of two local governments, at least one
of whom is a local levee flood manager or executive,
designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as
Cooperating Technical Partners; and
(xii) representatives of two State governments designated
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as Cooperating
Technical States.
(2) Qualifications.--Members of the Council shall be
appointed based on their demonstrated knowledge and
competence regarding surveying, cartography, remote sensing,
geographic information systems, or the technical aspects of
preparing and using flood insurance rate maps. In appointing
members under paragraph (1)(H), the Administrator shall
ensure that the membership of the Council has a balance of
Federal, State, local, and private members, and includes an
adequate number of representatives from the States with
coastline on the Gulf of Mexico and other States containing
areas identified by the Administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency as at high-risk for flooding or
special flood hazard areas.
(c) Duties.--
(1) New mapping standards.--Not later than the expiration
of the 12-month period beginning upon the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Council shall develop and submit
to the Administrator and the Congress proposed new mapping
standards for 100-year flood insurance rate maps used under
the national flood insurance program under the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968. In developing such proposed standards
the Council shall--
(A) ensure that the flood insurance rate maps reflect true
risk, including graduated risk that better reflects the
financial risk to each property; such reflection of risk
should be at the smallest geographic level possible (but not
necessarily property-by-property) to ensure that communities
are mapped in a manner that takes into consideration
different risk levels within the community;
(B) ensure the most efficient generation, display, and
distribution of flood risk data, models, and maps where
practicable through dynamic digital environments using
spatial database technology and the Internet;
(C) ensure that flood insurance rate maps reflect current
hydrologic and hydraulic data, current land use, and
topography, incorporating the most current and accurate
ground and bathymetric elevation data;
(D) determine the best ways to include in such flood
insurance rate maps levees, decertified levees, and areas
located below dams, including determining a methodology for
ensuring that decertified levees and other protections are
included in flood insurance rate maps and their corresponding
flood zones reflect the level of protection conferred;
(E) consider how to incorporate restored wetlands and other
natural buffers into flood insurance rate maps, which may
include wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, erosion zones,
meander belts, endangered species habitat, barrier islands
and shoreline buffer features, riparian forests, and other
features;
(F) consider whether to use vertical positioning (as
defined by the Administrator) for flood insurance rate maps;
(G) ensure that flood insurance rate maps differentiate
between a property that is located in a flood zone and a
structure located on such property that is not at the same
risk level for flooding as such property due to the elevation
of the structure;
(H) ensure that flood insurance rate maps take into
consideration the best scientific data and potential future
conditions (including projections for sea level rise); and
(I) consider how to incorporate the new standards proposed
pursuant to this paragraph in existing mapping efforts.
(2) Ongoing duties.--The Council shall, on an ongoing
basis, review the mapping protocols developed pursuant to
paragraph (1), and make recommendations to the Administrator
when the Council determines that mapping protocols should be
altered.
(3) Meetings.--In carrying out its duties under this
section, the Council shall consult with stakeholders through
at least 4 public meetings annually, and shall seek input of
all stakeholder interests including State and local
representatives, environmental and conservation
organizations, insurance industry representatives, advocacy
groups, planning organizations, and mapping organizations.
(d) Prohibition on Compensation.--Members of the Council
shall receive no additional compensation by reason of their
service on the Council.
(e) Chairperson.--The Administrator shall serve as the
Chairperson of the Council.
(f) Staff.--
(1) FEMA.--Upon the request of the Council, the
Administrator may detail, on a nonreimbursable basis,
personnel of the Federal Emergency

[[Page H2590]]

Management Agency to assist the Council in carrying out its
duties.
(2) Other federal agencies.--Upon request of the Council,
any other Federal agency that is a member of the Council may
detail, on a non-reimbursable basis, personnel to assist the
Council in carrying out its duties.
(g) Powers.--In carrying out this section, the Council may
hold hearings, receive evidence and assistance, provide
information, and conduct research, as the Council considers
appropriate.
(h) Termination.--The Council shall terminate upon the
expiration of the 5-year period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(i) Moratorium on Flood Map Changes.--
(1) Moratorium.--Except as provided in paragraph (2) and
notwithstanding any other provision of this subtitle, the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, or the Flood Disaster
Protection Act of 1973, during the period beginning upon the
date of the enactment of this Act and ending upon the
submission by the Council to the Administrator and the
Congress of the proposed new mapping standards required under
subsection (c)(1), the Administrator may not make effective
any new or updated rate maps for flood insurance coverage
under the national flood insurance program that were not in
effect for such program as of such date of enactment, or
otherwise revise, update, or change the flood insurance rate
maps in effect for such program as of such date.
(2) Letters of map change.--During the period described in
paragraph (1), the Administrator may revise, update, and
change the flood insurance rate maps in effect for the
national flood insurance program only pursuant to a letter of
map change (including a letter of map amendment, letter of
map revision, and letter of map revision based on fill).

SEC. 347. FEMA INCORPORATION OF NEW MAPPING PROTOCOLS.

(a) New Rate Mapping Standards.--Not later than the
expiration of the 6-month period beginning upon submission by
the Technical Mapping Advisory Council under section 346 of
the proposed new mapping standards for flood insurance rate
maps used under the national flood insurance program
developed by the Council pursuant to section 346(c), the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (in
this section referred to as the ``Administrator'') shall
establish new standards for such rate maps based on such
proposed new standards and the recommendations of the
Council.
(b) Requirements.--The new standards for flood insurance
rate maps established by the Administrator pursuant to
subsection (a) shall--
(1) delineate and include in any such rate maps--
(A) all areas located within the 100-year flood plain; and
(B) areas subject to graduated and other risk levels, to
the maximum extent possible;
(2) ensure that any such rate maps--
(A) include levees, including decertified levees, and the
level of protection they confer;
(B) reflect current land use and topography and incorporate
the most current and accurate ground level data;
(C) take into consideration the impacts and use of fill and
the flood risks associated with altered hydrology;
(D) differentiate between a property that is located in a
flood zone and a structure located on such property that is
not at the same risk level for flooding as such property due
to the elevation of the structure;
(E) identify and incorporate natural features and their
associated flood protection benefits into mapping and rates;
and
(F) identify, analyze, and incorporate the impact of
significant changes to building and development throughout
any river or costal water system, including all tributaries,
which may impact flooding in areas downstream; and
(3) provide that such rate maps are developed on a
watershed basis.
(c) Report.--If, in establishing new standards for flood
insurance rate maps pursuant to subsection (a) of this
section, the Administrator does not implement all of the
recommendations of the Council made under the proposed new
mapping standards developed by the Council pursuant to
section 346(c), upon establishment of the new standards the
Administrator shall submit a report to the Committee on
Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the
Senate specifying which such recommendations were not adopted
and explaining the reasons such recommendations were not
adopted.
(d) Implementation.--The Administrator shall, not later
than the expiration of the 6-month period beginning upon
establishment of the new standards for flood insurance rate
maps pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, commence use
of the new standards and updating of flood insurance rate
maps in accordance with the new standards. Not later than the
expiration of the 10-year period beginning upon the
establishment of such new standards, the Administrator shall
complete updating of all flood insurance rate maps in
accordance with the new standards, subject to the
availability of sufficient amounts for such activities
provided in appropriation Acts.
(e) Temporary Suspension of Mandatory Purchase Requirement
for Certain Properties.--
(1) Submission of elevation certificate.--Subject to
paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection, subsections (a),
(b), and (e) of section 102 of the Flood Disaster Protection
Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a), and section 202(a) of such
Act, shall not apply to a property located in an area
designated as having a special flood hazard if the owner of
such property submits to the Administrator an elevation
certificate for such property showing that the lowest level
of the primary residence on such property is at an elevation
that is at least three feet higher than the elevation of the
100-year flood plain.
(2) Review of certificate.--The Administrator shall accept
as conclusive each elevation certificate submitted under
paragraph (1) unless the Administrator conducts a subsequent
elevation survey and determines that the lowest level of the
primary residence on the property in question is not at an
elevation that is at least three feet higher than the
elevation of the 100-year flood plain. The Administrator
shall provide any such subsequent elevation survey to the
owner of such property.
(3) Determinations for properties on borders of special
flood hazard areas.--
(A) Expedited determination.--In the case of any survey for
a property submitted to the Administrator pursuant to
paragraph (1) showing that a portion of the property is
located within an area having special flood hazards and that
a structure located on the property is not located within
such area having special flood hazards, the Administrator
shall expeditiously process any request made by an owner of
the property for a determination pursuant to paragraph (2) or
a determination of whether the structure is located within
the area having special flood hazards.
(B) Prohibition of fee.--If the Administrator determines
pursuant to subparagraph (A) that the structure on the
property is not located within the area having special flood
hazards, the Administrator shall not charge a fee for
reviewing the flood hazard data and shall not require the
owner to provide any additional elevation data.
(C) Simplification of review process.--The Administrator
shall collaborate with private sector flood insurers to
simplify the review process for properties described in
subparagraph (A) and to ensure that the review process
provides for accurate determinations.
(4) Termination of authority.--This subsection shall cease
to apply to a property on the date on which the Administrator
updates the flood insurance rate map that applies to such
property in accordance with the requirements of subsection
(d).

SEC. 348. TREATMENT OF LEVEES.

Section 1360 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4101) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(k) Treatment of Levees.--The Administrator may not issue
flood insurance maps, or make effective updated flood
insurance maps, that omit or disregard the actual protection
afforded by an existing levee, floodwall, pump or other flood
protection feature, regardless of the accreditation status of
such feature.''.

SEC. 349. PRIVATIZATION INITIATIVES.

(a) FEMA and GAO Reports.--Not later than the expiration of
the 18-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and the Comptroller General of the United
States shall each conduct a separate study to assess a broad
range of options, methods, and strategies for privatizing the
national flood insurance program and shall each submit a
report to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs of the Senate with recommendations for the best
manner to accomplish such privatization.
(b) Private Risk-Management Initiatives.--
(1) Authority.--The Administrator of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency may carry out such private risk-management
initiatives under the national flood insurance program as the
Administrator considers appropriate to determine the capacity
of private insurers, reinsurers, and financial markets to
assist communities, on a voluntary basis only, in managing
the full range of financial risks associated with flooding.
(2) Assessment.--Not later than the expiration of the 12-
month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Administrator shall assess the capacity of the
private reinsurance, capital, and financial markets by
seeking proposals to assume a portion of the program's
insurance risk and submit to the Congress a report describing
the response to such request for proposals and the results of
such assessment.
(3) Protocol for release of data.--The Administrator shall
develop a protocol to provide for the release of data
sufficient to conduct the assessment required under paragraph
(2).
(c) Reinsurance.--The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
is amended--
(1) in section 1331(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 4051(a)(2)), by
inserting ``, including as reinsurance of insurance coverage
provided by the flood insurance program'' before ``, on such
terms'';
(2) in section 1332(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 4052(c)(2)), by
inserting ``or reinsurance'' after ``flood insurance
coverage'';
(3) in section 1335(a) (42 U.S.C. 4055(a))--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) The Administrator is authorized to secure reinsurance
coverage of coverage provided by the flood insurance program
from private market insurance, reinsurance, and capital
market sources at rates and on terms determined by the
Administrator to be reasonable and appropriate in an amount
sufficient to maintain the ability of the program to pay
claims and that minimizes the likelihood that the program
will utilize the borrowing authority provided under section
1309.'';
(4) in section 1346(a) (12 U.S.C. 4082(a))--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting ``,
or for purposes of securing reinsurance of insurance coverage
provided by the program,'' before ``of any or all of'';
(B) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``estimating'' and inserting
``Estimating''; and

[[Page H2591]]

(ii) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a
period;
(C) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``receiving'' and inserting ``Receiving'';
and
(ii) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a
period;
(D) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by striking ``making'' and inserting ``Making''; and
(ii) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period;
(E) in paragraph (4)--
(i) by striking ``otherwise'' and inserting ``Otherwise'';
and
(ii) by redesignating such paragraph as paragraph (5); and
(F) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph:
``(4) Placing reinsurance coverage on insurance provided by
such program.''; and
(5) in section 1370(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 4121(a)(3)), by
inserting before the semicolon at the end the following: ``,
is subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, pursuant to section 13(a) or 15(d) of
such Act (15 U.S.C. 78m(a), 78o(d)), or is authorized by the
Administrator to assume reinsurance on risks insured by the
flood insurance program''.
(d) Assessment of Claims-Paying Ability.--
(1) Assessment.--Not later than September 30 of each year,
the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
shall conduct an assessment of the claims-paying ability of
the national flood insurance program, including the program's
utilization of private sector reinsurance and reinsurance
equivalents, with and without reliance on borrowing authority
under section 1309 of the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016). In conducting the assessment, the
Administrator shall take into consideration regional
concentrations of coverage written by the program, peak flood
zones, and relevant mitigation measures.
(2) Report.--The Administrator shall submit a report to the
Congress of the results of each such assessment, and make
such report available to the public, not later than 30 days
after completion of the assessment.

SEC. 350. FEMA ANNUAL REPORT ON INSURANCE PROGRAM.

Section 1320 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4027) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by striking ``report to the
president'' and inserting ``annual report to congress'';
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``biennially'';
(B) by striking ``the President for submission to''; and
(C) by inserting ``not later than June 30 of each year''
before the period at the end;
(3) in subsection (b), by striking ``biennial'' and
inserting ``annual''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Financial Status of Program.--The report under this
section for each year shall include information regarding the
financial status of the national flood insurance program
under this title, including a description of the financial
status of the National Flood Insurance Fund and current and
projected levels of claims, premium receipts, expenses, and
borrowing under the program.''.

SEC. 351. MITIGATION ASSISTANCE.

(a) Mitigation Assistance Grants.--Section 1366 of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking the last sentence and
inserting the following: ``Such financial assistance shall be
made available--
``(1) to States and communities in the form of grants under
this section for carrying out mitigation activities;
``(2) to States and communities in the form of grants under
this section for carrying out mitigation activities that
reduce flood damage to severe repetitive loss structures; and
``(3) to property owners in the form of direct grants under
this section for carrying out mitigation activities that
reduce flood damage to individual structures for which 2 or
more claim payments for losses have been made under flood
insurance coverage under this title if the Administrator,
after consultation with the State and community, determines
that neither the State nor community in which such a
structure is located has the capacity to manage such
grants.''.
(2) by striking subsection (b);
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking ``flood risk'' and inserting ``multi-
hazard'';
(B) by striking ``provides protection against'' and
inserting ``examines reduction of''; and
(C) by redesignating such subsection as subsection (b);
(4) by striking subsection (d);
(5) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking the paragraph designation
and all that follows through the end of the first sentence
and inserting the following:
``(1) Requirement of consistency with approved mitigation
plan.--Amounts provided under this section may be used only
for mitigation activities that are consistent with mitigation
plans that are approved by the Administrator and identified
under subparagraph (4).'';
(B) by striking paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) and inserting
the following new paragraphs:
``(2) Requirements of technical feasibility, cost
effectiveness, and interest of nfif.--The Administrator may
approve only mitigation activities that the Administrator
determines are technically feasible and cost-effective and in
the interest of, and represent savings to, the National Flood
Insurance Fund. In making such determinations, the
Administrator shall take into consideration recognized
benefits that are difficult to quantify.
``(3) Priority for mitigation assistance.--In providing
grants under this section for mitigation activities, the
Administrator shall give priority for funding to activities
that the Administrator determines will result in the greatest
savings to the National Flood Insurance Fund, including
activities for--
``(A) severe repetitive loss structures;
``(B) repetitive loss structures; and
``(C) other subsets of structures as the Administrator may
establish.'';
(C) in paragraph (5)--
(i) by striking all of the matter that precedes
subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
``(4) Eligible activities.--Eligible activities may
include--'';
(ii) by striking subparagraphs (E) and (H);
(iii) by redesignating subparagraphs (D), (F), and (G) as
subparagraphs (E), (G), and (H);
(iv) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) elevation, relocation, and floodproofing of utilities
(including equipment that serve structures);'';
(v) by inserting after subparagraph (E), as so redesignated
by clause (iii) of this subparagraph, the following new
subparagraph:
``(F) the development or update of State, local, or Indian
tribal mitigation plans which meet the planning criteria
established by the Administrator, except that the amount from
grants under this section that may be used under this
subparagraph may not exceed $50,000 for any mitigation plan
of a State or $25,000 for any mitigation plan of a local
government or Indian tribe;'';
(vi) in subparagraph (H); as so redesignated by clause
(iii) of this subparagraph, by striking ``and'' at the end;
and
(vii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(I) other mitigation activities not described in
subparagraphs (A) through (G) or the regulations issued under
subparagraph (H), that are described in the mitigation plan
of a State, community, or Indian tribe; and
``(J) personnel costs for State staff that provide
technical assistance to communities to identify eligible
activities, to develop grant applications, and to implement
grants awarded under this section, not to exceed $50,000 per
State in any Federal fiscal year, so long as the State
applied for and was awarded at least $1,000,000 in grants
available under this section in the prior Federal fiscal
year; the requirements of subsections (d)(1) and (d)(2) shall
not apply to the activity under this subparagraph.'';
(D) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Eligibility of demolition and rebuilding of
properties.--The Administrator shall consider as an eligible
activity the demolition and rebuilding of properties to at
least base flood elevation or greater, if required by the
Administrator or if required by any State regulation or local
ordinance, and in accordance with criteria established by the
Administrator.''; and
(E) by redesignating such subsection as subsection (c);
(6) by striking subsections (f), (g), and (h) and inserting
the following new subsection:
``(d) Matching Requirement.--The Administrator may provide
grants for eligible mitigation activities as follows:
``(1) Severe repetitive loss structures.--In the case of
mitigation activities to severe repetitive loss structures,
in an amount up to 100 percent of all eligible costs.
``(2) Repetitive loss structures.--In the case of
mitigation activities to repetitive loss structures, in an
amount up to 90 percent of all eligible costs.
``(3) Other mitigation activities.-- In the case of all
other mitigation activities, in an amount up to 75 percent of
all eligible costs.'';
(7) in subsection (i)--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``certified under subsection (g)'' and
inserting ``required under subsection (d)''; and
(ii) by striking ``3 times the amount'' and inserting ``the
amount''; and
(B) by redesignating such subsection as subsection (e);
(8) in subsection (j)--
(A) by striking ``Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994'' and inserting ``Flood
Insurance Reform Act of 2012'';
(B) by redesignating such subsection as subsection (f); and
(9) by striking subsections (k) and (m) and inserting the
following new subsections:
``(g) Failure to Make Grant Award Within 5 Years.--For any
application for a grant under this section for which the
Administrator fails to make a grant award within 5 years of
the date of application, the grant application shall be
considered to be denied and any funding amounts allocated for
such grant applications shall remain in the National Flood
Mitigation Fund under section 1367 of this title and shall be
made available for grants under this section.
``(h) Limitation on Funding for Mitigation Activities for
Severe Repetitive Loss Structures.--The amount used pursuant
to section 1310(a)(8) in any fiscal year may not exceed
$40,000,000 and shall remain available until expended.
``(i) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the
following definitions shall apply:
``(1) Community.--The term `community' means--
``(A) a political subdivision that--
``(i) has zoning and building code jurisdiction over a
particular area having special flood hazards, and
``(ii) is participating in the national flood insurance
program; or
``(B) a political subdivision of a State, or other
authority, that is designated by political subdivisions, all
of which meet the requirements of subparagraph (A), to
administer grants for

[[Page H2592]]

mitigation activities for such political subdivisions.
``(2) Repetitive loss structure.--The term `repetitive loss
structure' has the meaning given such term in section 1370.
``(3) Severe repetitive loss structure.--The term `severe
repetitive loss structure' means a structure that--
``(A) is covered under a contract for flood insurance made
available under this title; and
``(B) has incurred flood-related damage--
``(i) for which 4 or more separate claims payments have
been made under flood insurance coverage under this title,
with the amount of each such claim exceeding $15,000, and
with the cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeding
$60,000; or
``(ii) for which at least 2 separate claims payments have
been made under such coverage, with the cumulative amount of
such claims exceeding the value of the insured structure.''.
(b) Elimination of Grants Program for Repetitive Insurance
Claims Properties.--Chapter I of the National Flood Insurance
Act of 1968 is amended by striking section 1323 (42 U.S.C.
4030).
(c) Elimination of Pilot Program for Mitigation of Severe
Repetitive Loss Properties.--Chapter III of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 is amended by striking section
1361A (42 U.S.C. 4102a).
(d) National Flood Insurance Fund.--Section 1310(a) of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4017(a)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (7), by inserting ``and'' after the
semicolon; and
(2) by striking paragraphs (8) and (9).
(e) National Flood Mitigation Fund.--Section 1367 of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104d) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following
new paragraph:
``(1) in each fiscal year, from the National Flood
Insurance Fund in amounts not exceeding $90,000,000 to remain
available until expended, of which--
``(A) not more than $40,000,000 shall be available pursuant
to subsection (a) of this section only for assistance
described in section 1366(a)(1);
``(B) not more than $40,000,000 shall be available pursuant
to subsection (a) of this section only for assistance
described in section 1366(a)(2); and
``(C) not more than $10,000,000 shall be available pursuant
to subsection (a) of this section only for assistance
described in section 1366(a)(3).''.
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``section 1366(i)'' and
inserting ``section 1366(e)'';
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``sections 1366 and
1323'' and inserting ``section 1366'';
(3) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
(f) and (g), respectively; and
(4) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new
subsections:
``(d) Prohibition on Offsetting Collections.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, amounts
made available pursuant to this section shall not be subject
to offsetting collections through premium rates for flood
insurance coverage under this title.
``(e) Continued Availability and Reallocation.--Any amounts
made available pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of
subsection (b)(1) that are not used in any fiscal year shall
continue to be available for the purposes specified in such
subparagraph of subsection (b)(1) pursuant to which such
amounts were made available, unless the Administrator
determines that reallocation of such unused amounts to meet
demonstrated need for other mitigation activities under
section 1366 is in the best interest of the National Flood
Insurance Fund.''.
(f) Increased Cost of Compliance Coverage.--Section
1304(b)(4) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 4011(b)(4)) is amended--
(1) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) as
subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D), respectively.

SEC. 352. NOTIFICATION TO HOMEOWNERS REGARDING MANDATORY
PURCHASE REQUIREMENT APPLICABILITY AND RATE
PHASE-INS.

Section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973
(42 U.S.C. 4105) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(f) Annual Notification.--The Administrator, in
consultation with affected communities, shall establish and
carry out a plan to notify residents of areas having special
flood hazards, on an annual basis--
``(1) that they reside in such an area;
``(2) of the geographical boundaries of such area;
``(3) of whether section 1308(g) of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 applies to properties within such area;
``(4) of the provisions of section 102 requiring purchase
of flood insurance coverage for properties located in such an
area, including the date on which such provisions apply with
respect to such area, taking into consideration section
102(i); and
``(5) of a general estimate of what similar homeowners in
similar areas typically pay for flood insurance coverage,
taking into consideration section 1308(g) of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968.''.

SEC. 353. NOTIFICATION TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS OF FLOOD MAP
REVISIONS AND UPDATES.

Section 1360 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4101), as amended by the preceding provisions of
this subtitle, is further amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(l) Notification to Members of Congress of Map
Modernization.--Upon any revision or update of any floodplain
area or flood-risk zone pursuant to subsection (f), any
decision pursuant to subsection (f)(1) that such revision or
update is necessary, any issuance of preliminary maps for
such revision or updating, or any other significant action
relating to any such revision or update, the Administrator
shall notify the Senators for each State affected, and each
Member of the House of Representatives for each congressional
district affected, by such revision or update in writing of
the action taken.''.

SEC. 354. NOTIFICATION AND APPEAL OF MAP CHANGES;
NOTIFICATION TO COMMUNITIES OF ESTABLISHMENT OF
FLOOD ELEVATIONS.

Section 1363 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4104) is amended by striking the section
designation and all that follows through the end of
subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``Sec. 1363. (a) In establishing projected flood elevations
for land use purposes with respect to any community pursuant
to section 1361, the Administrator shall first propose such
determinations--
``(1) by providing the chief executive officer of each
community affected by the proposed elevations, by certified
mail, with a return receipt requested, notice of the
elevations, including a copy of the maps for the elevations
for such community and a statement explaining the process
under this section to appeal for changes in such elevations;
``(2) by causing notice of such elevations to be published
in the Federal Register, which notice shall include
information sufficient to identify the elevation
determinations and the communities affected, information
explaining how to obtain copies of the elevations, and a
statement explaining the process under this section to appeal
for changes in the elevations;
``(3) by publishing in a prominent local newspaper the
elevations, a description of the appeals process for flood
determinations, and the mailing address and telephone number
of a person the owner may contact for more information or to
initiate an appeal;
``(4) by providing written notification, by first class
mail, to each owner of real property affected by the proposed
elevations of--
``(A) the status of such property, both prior to and after
the effective date of the proposed determination, with
respect to flood zone and flood insurance requirements under
this Act and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973;
``(B) the process under this section to appeal a flood
elevation determination; and
``(C) the mailing address and phone number of a person the
owner may contact for more information or to initiate an
appeal; and''.

SEC. 355. NOTIFICATION TO TENANTS OF AVAILABILITY OF CONTENTS
INSURANCE.

The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 is amended by
inserting after section 1308 (42 U.S.C. 4015) the following
new section:

``SEC. 1308A. NOTIFICATION TO TENANTS OF AVAILABILITY OF
CONTENTS INSURANCE.

``(a) In General.--The Administrator shall, upon entering
into a contract for flood insurance coverage under this title
for any property--
``(1) provide to the insured sufficient copies of the
notice developed pursuant to subsection (b); and
``(2) require the insured to provide a copy of the notice,
or otherwise provide notification of the information under
subsection (b) in the manner that the manager or landlord
deems most appropriate, to each such tenant and to each new
tenant upon commencement of such a tenancy.
``(b) Notice.--Notice to a tenant of a property in
accordance with this subsection is written notice that
clearly informs a tenant--
``(1) whether the property is located in an area having
special flood hazards;
``(2) that flood insurance coverage is available under the
national flood insurance program under this title for
contents of the unit or structure leased by the tenant;
``(3) of the maximum amount of such coverage for contents
available under this title at that time; and
``(4) of where to obtain information regarding how to
obtain such coverage, including a telephone number, mailing
address, and Internet site of the Administrator where such
information is available.''.

SEC. 356. NOTIFICATION TO POLICY HOLDERS REGARDING DIRECT
MANAGEMENT OF POLICY BY FEMA.

Part C of chapter II of the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 4081 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following new section:

``SEC. 1349. NOTIFICATION TO POLICY HOLDERS REGARDING DIRECT
MANAGEMENT OF POLICY BY FEMA.

``(a) Notification.--Not later than 60 days before the date
on which a transferred flood insurance policy expires, and
annually thereafter until such time as the Federal Emergency
Management Agency is no longer directly administering such
policy, the Administrator shall notify the holder of such
policy that--
``(1) the Federal Emergency Management Agency is directly
administering the policy;
``(2) such holder may purchase flood insurance that is
directly administered by an insurance company; and
``(3) purchasing flood insurance offered under the National
Flood Insurance Program that is directly administered by an
insurance company will not alter the coverage provided or the
premiums charged to such holder that otherwise would be
provided or charged if the policy was directly administered
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
``(b) Definition.--In this section, the term `transferred
flood insurance policy' means a flood insurance policy that--
``(1) was directly administered by an insurance company at
the time the policy was originally purchased by the policy
holder; and

[[Page H2593]]

``(2) at the time of renewal of the policy, direct
administration of the policy was or will be transferred to
the Federal Emergency Management Agency.''.

SEC. 357. NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF FLOOD INSURANCE AND
ESCROW IN RESPA GOOD FAITH ESTIMATE.

Subsection (c) of section 5 of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act of 1974 (12 U.S.C. 2604(c)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new sentence: ``Each such
good faith estimate shall include the following conspicuous
statements and information: (1) that flood insurance coverage
for residential real estate is generally available under the
national flood insurance program whether or not the real
estate is located in an area having special flood hazards and
that, to obtain such coverage, a home owner or purchaser
should contact the national flood insurance program; (2) a
telephone number and a location on the Internet by which a
home owner or purchaser can contact the national flood
insurance program; and (3) that the escrowing of flood
insurance payments is required for many loans under section
102(d) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, and may
be a convenient and available option with respect to other
loans.''.

SEC. 358. REIMBURSEMENT FOR COSTS INCURRED BY HOMEOWNERS AND
COMMUNITIES OBTAINING LETTERS OF MAP AMENDMENT
OR REVISION.

(a) In General.--Section 1360 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4101), as amended by the
preceding provisions of this subtitle, is further amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(m) Reimbursement.--
``(1) Requirement upon bona fide error.--If an owner of any
property located in an area described in section 102(i)(3) of
the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, or a community in
which such a property is located, obtains a letter of map
amendment, or a letter of map revision, due to a bona fide
error on the part of the Administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, the Administrator shall
reimburse such owner, or such entity or jurisdiction acting
on such owner's behalf, or such community, as applicable, for
any reasonable costs incurred in obtaining such letter.
``(2) Reasonable costs.--The Administrator shall, by
regulation or notice, determine a reasonable amount of costs
to be reimbursed under paragraph (1), except that such costs
shall not include legal or attorneys fees. In determining the
reasonableness of costs, the Administrator shall only
consider the actual costs to the owner or community, as
applicable, of utilizing the services of an engineer,
surveyor, or similar services.''.
(b) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency shall issue the regulations or
notice required under section 1360(m)(2) of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as added by the amendment made
by subsection (a) of this section.

SEC. 359. ENHANCED COMMUNICATION WITH CERTAIN COMMUNITIES
DURING MAP UPDATING PROCESS.

Section 1360 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4101), as amended by the preceding provisions of
this subtitle, is further amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(n) Enhanced Communication With Certain Communities
During Map Updating Process.--In updating flood insurance
maps under this section, the Administrator shall communicate
with communities located in areas where flood insurance rate
maps have not been updated in 20 years or more and the
appropriate State emergency agencies to resolve outstanding
issues, provide technical assistance, and disseminate all
necessary information to reduce the prevalence of outdated
maps in flood-prone areas.''.

SEC. 360. NOTIFICATION TO RESIDENTS NEWLY INCLUDED IN FLOOD
HAZARD AREAS.

Section 1360 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4101), as amended by the preceding provisions of
this subtitle, is further amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(o) Notification to Residents Newly Included in Flood
Hazard Area.--In revising or updating any areas having
special flood hazards, the Administrator shall provide to
each owner of a property to be newly included in such a
special flood hazard area, at the time of issuance of such
proposed revised or updated flood insurance maps, a copy of
the proposed revised or updated flood insurance maps together
with information regarding the appeals process under section
1363 (42 U.S.C. 4104).''.

SEC. 361. TREATMENT OF SWIMMING POOL ENCLOSURES OUTSIDE OF
HURRICANE SEASON.

Chapter I of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 4001 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:

``SEC. 1325. TREATMENT OF SWIMMING POOL ENCLOSURES OUTSIDE OF
HURRICANE SEASON.

``In the case of any property that is otherwise in
compliance with the coverage and building requirements of the
national flood insurance program, the presence of an enclosed
swimming pool located at ground level or in the space below
the lowest floor of a building after November 30 and before
June 1 of any year shall have no effect on the terms of
coverage or the ability to receive coverage for such building
under the national flood insurance program established
pursuant to this title, if the pool is enclosed with non-
supporting breakaway walls.''.

SEC. 362. INFORMATION REGARDING MULTIPLE PERILS CLAIMS.

Section 1345 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4081) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(d) Information Regarding Multiple Perils Claims.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), if an insured
having flood insurance coverage under a policy issued under
the program under this title by the Administrator or a
company, insurer, or entity offering flood insurance coverage
under such program (in this subsection referred to as a
`participating company') has wind or other homeowners
coverage from any company, insurer, or other entity covering
property covered by such flood insurance, in the case of
damage to such property that may have been caused by flood or
by wind, the Administrator and the participating company,
upon the request of the insured, shall provide to the
insured, within 30 days of such request--
``(A) a copy of the estimate of structure damage;
``(B) proofs of loss;
``(C) any expert or engineering reports or documents
commissioned by or relied upon by the Administrator or
participating company in determining whether the damage was
caused by flood or any other peril; and
``(D) the Administrator's or the participating company's
final determination on the claim.
``(2) Timing.--Paragraph (1) shall apply only with respect
to a request described in such paragraph made by an insured
after the Administrator or the participating company, or
both, as applicable, have issued a final decision on the
flood claim involved and resolution of all appeals with
respect to such claim.''.

SEC. 363. FEMA AUTHORITY TO REJECT TRANSFER OF POLICIES.

Section 1345 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968
(42 U.S.C. 4081) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(e) FEMA Authority to Reject Transfer of Policies.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
Administrator may, at the discretion of the Administrator,
refuse to accept the transfer of the administration of
policies for coverage under the flood insurance program under
this title that are written and administered by any insurance
company or other insurer, or any insurance agent or
broker.''.

SEC. 364. APPEALS.

(a) Television and Radio Announcement.--Section 1363 of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104), as
amended by the preceding provisions of this subtitle, is
further amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(5) by notifying a local television and radio station,'';
and
(2) in the first sentence of subsection (b), by inserting
before the period at the end the following: ``and shall
notify a local television and radio station at least once
during the same 10-day period''.
(b) Extension of Appeals Period.--Subsection (b) of section
1363 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
4104(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(b) The Director'' and inserting ``(b)(1)
The Administrator''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) The Administrator shall grant an extension of the 90-
day period for appeals referred to in paragraph (1) for 90
additional days if an affected community certifies to the
Administrator, after the expiration of at least 60 days of
such period, that the community--
``(A) believes there are property owners or lessees in the
community who are unaware of such period for appeals; and
``(B) will utilize the extension under this paragraph to
notify property owners or lessees who are affected by the
proposed flood elevation determinations of the period for
appeals and the opportunity to appeal the determinations
proposed by the Administrator.''.
(c) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsections (a)
and (b) shall apply with respect to any flood elevation
determination for any area in a community that has not, as of
the date of the enactment of this Act, been issued a Letter
of Final Determination for such determination under the flood
insurance map modernization process.

SEC. 365. RESERVE FUND.

(a) Establishment.--Chapter I of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 is amended by inserting after section
1310 (42 U.S.C. 4017) the following new section:

``SEC. 1310A. RESERVE FUND.

``(a) Establishment of Reserve Fund.--In carrying out the
flood insurance program authorized by this title, the
Administrator shall establish in the Treasury of the United
States a National Flood Insurance Reserve Fund (in this
section referred to as the `Reserve Fund') which shall--
``(1) be an account separate from any other accounts or
funds available to the Administrator; and
``(2) be available for meeting the expected future
obligations of the flood insurance program.
``(b) Reserve Ratio.--Subject to the phase-in requirements
under subsection (d), the Reserve Fund shall maintain a
balance equal to--
``(1) 1 percent of the sum of the total potential loss
exposure of all outstanding flood insurance policies in force
in the prior fiscal year; or
``(2) such higher percentage as the Administrator
determines to be appropriate, taking into consideration any
circumstance that may raise a significant risk of substantial
future losses to the Reserve Fund.
``(c) Maintenance of Reserve Ratio.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall have the
authority to establish, increase, or decrease the amount of
aggregate annual insurance premiums to be collected for any
fiscal year necessary--
``(A) to maintain the reserve ratio required under
subsection (b); and

[[Page H2594]]

``(B) to achieve such reserve ratio, if the actual balance
of such reserve is below the amount required under subsection
(b).
``(2) Considerations.--In exercising the authority under
paragraph (1), the Administrator shall consider--
``(A) the expected operating expenses of the Reserve Fund;
``(B) the insurance loss expenditures under the flood
insurance program;
``(C) any investment income generated under the flood
insurance program; and
``(D) any other factor that the Administrator determines
appropriate.
``(3) Limitations.--In exercising the authority under
paragraph (1), the Administrator shall be subject to all
other provisions of this Act, including any provisions
relating to chargeable premium rates and annual increases of
such rates.
``(d) Phase-in Requirements.--The phase-in requirements
under this subsection are as follows:
``(1) In general.--Beginning in fiscal year 2012 and not
ending until the fiscal year in which the ratio required
under subsection (b) is achieved, in each such fiscal year
the Administrator shall place in the Reserve Fund an amount
equal to not less than 7.5 percent of the reserve ratio
required under subsection (b).
``(2) Amount satisfied.--As soon as the ratio required
under subsection (b) is achieved, and except as provided in
paragraph (3), the Administrator shall not be required to set
aside any amounts for the Reserve Fund.
``(3) Exception.--If at any time after the ratio required
under subsection (b) is achieved, the Reserve Fund falls
below the required ratio under subsection (b), the
Administrator shall place in the Reserve Fund for that fiscal
year an amount equal to not less than 7.5 percent of the
reserve ratio required under subsection (b).
``(e) Limitation on Reserve Ratio.--In any given fiscal
year, if the Administrator determines that the reserve ratio
required under subsection (b) cannot be achieved, the
Administrator shall submit a report to the Congress that--
``(1) describes and details the specific concerns of the
Administrator regarding such consequences;
``(2) demonstrates how such consequences would harm the
long-term financial soundness of the flood insurance program;
and
``(3) indicates the maximum attainable reserve ratio for
that particular fiscal year.
``(f) Availability of Amounts.--The reserve ratio
requirements under subsection (b) and the phase-in
requirements under subsection (d) shall be subject to the
availability of amounts in the National Flood Insurance Fund
for transfer under section 1310(a)(10), as provided in
section 1310(f).''.
(b) Funding.--Subsection (a) of section 1310 of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4017(a)), as
amended by the preceding provisions of this Act, is further
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(10) for transfers to the National Flood Insurance
Reserve Fund under section 1310A, in accordance with such
section.''.

SEC. 366. CDBG ELIGIBILITY FOR FLOOD INSURANCE OUTREACH
ACTIVITIES AND COMMUNITY BUILDING CODE
ADMINISTRATION GRANTS.

Section 105(a) of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (24), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (25), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(26) supplementing existing State or local funding for
administration of building code enforcement by local building
code enforcement departments, including for increasing
staffing, providing staff training, increasing staff
competence and professional qualifications, and supporting
individual certification or departmental accreditation, and
for capital expenditures specifically dedicated to the
administration of the building code enforcement department,
except that, to be eligible to use amounts as provided in
this paragraph--
``(A) a building code enforcement department shall provide
matching, non-Federal funds to be used in conjunction with
amounts used under this paragraph in an amount--
``(i) in the case of a building code enforcement department
serving an area with a population of more than 50,000, equal
to not less than 50 percent of the total amount of any funds
made available under this title that are used under this
paragraph;
``(ii) in the case of a building code enforcement
department serving an area with a population of between
20,001 and 50,000, equal to not less than 25 percent of the
total amount of any funds made available under this title
that are used under this paragraph; and
``(iii) in the case of a building code enforcement
department serving an area with a population of less than
20,000, equal to not less than 12.5 percent of the total
amount of any funds made available under this title that are
used under this paragraph,

except that the Secretary may waive the matching fund
requirements under this subparagraph, in whole or in part,
based upon the level of economic distress of the jurisdiction
in which is located the local building code enforcement
department that is using amounts for purposes under this
paragraph, and shall waive such matching fund requirements in
whole for any recipient jurisdiction that has dedicated all
building code permitting fees to the conduct of local
building code enforcement; and
``(B) any building code enforcement department using funds
made available under this title for purposes under this
paragraph shall empanel a code administration and enforcement
team consisting of at least 1 full-time building code
enforcement officer, a city planner, and a health planner or
similar officer; and
``(27) provision of assistance to local governmental
agencies responsible for floodplain management activities
(including such agencies of Indians tribes, as such term is
defined in section 4 of the Native American Housing
Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C.
4103)) in communities that participate in the national flood
insurance program under the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), only for carrying out outreach
activities to encourage and facilitate the purchase of flood
insurance protection under such Act by owners and renters of
properties in such communities and to promote educational
activities that increase awareness of flood risk reduction;
except that--
``(A) amounts used as provided under this paragraph shall
be used only for activities designed to--
``(i) identify owners and renters of properties in
communities that participate in the national flood insurance
program, including owners of residential and commercial
properties;
``(ii) notify such owners and renters when their properties
become included in, or when they are excluded from, an area
having special flood hazards and the effect of such inclusion
or exclusion on the applicability of the mandatory flood
insurance purchase requirement under section 102 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a) to such
properties;
``(iii) educate such owners and renters regarding the flood
risk and reduction of this risk in their community, including
the continued flood risks to areas that are no longer subject
to the flood insurance mandatory purchase requirement;
``(iv) educate such owners and renters regarding the
benefits and costs of maintaining or acquiring flood
insurance, including, where applicable, lower-cost preferred
risk policies under this title for such properties and the
contents of such properties;
``(v) encourage such owners and renters to maintain or
acquire such coverage;
``(vi) notify such owners of where to obtain information
regarding how to obtain such coverage, including a telephone
number, mailing address, and Internet site of the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (in
this paragraph referred to as the `Administrator') where such
information is available; and
``(vii) educate local real estate agents in communities
participating in the national flood insurance program
regarding the program and the availability of coverage under
the program for owners and renters of properties in such
communities, and establish coordination and liaisons with
such real estate agents to facilitate purchase of coverage
under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and increase
awareness of flood risk reduction;
``(B) in any fiscal year, a local governmental agency may
not use an amount under this paragraph that exceeds 3 times
the amount that the agency certifies, as the Secretary, in
consultation with the Administrator, shall require, that the
agency will contribute from non-Federal funds to be used with
such amounts used under this paragraph only for carrying out
activities described in subparagraph (A); and for purposes of
this subparagraph, the term `non-Federal funds' includes
State or local government agency amounts, in-kind
contributions, any salary paid to staff to carry out the
eligible activities of the local governmental agency
involved, the value of the time and services contributed by
volunteers to carry out such services (at a rate determined
by the Secretary), and the value of any donated material or
building and the value of any lease on a building;
``(C) a local governmental agency that uses amounts as
provided under this paragraph may coordinate or contract with
other agencies and entities having particular capacities,
specialties, or experience with respect to certain
populations or constituencies, including elderly or disabled
families or persons, to carry out activities described in
subparagraph (A) with respect to such populations or
constituencies; and
``(D) each local government agency that uses amounts as
provided under this paragraph shall submit a report to the
Secretary and the Administrator, not later than 12 months
after such amounts are first received, which shall include
such information as the Secretary and the Administrator
jointly consider appropriate to describe the activities
conducted using such amounts and the effect of such
activities on the retention or acquisition of flood insurance
coverage.''.

SEC. 367. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

(a) Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973.--The Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4002 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``Director'' each place such term appears,
except in section 102(f)(3) (42 U.S.C. 4012a(f)(3)), and
inserting ``Administrator''; and
(2) in section 201(b) (42 U.S.C. 4105(b)), by striking
``Director's'' and inserting ``Administrator's''.
(b) National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.--The National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``Director'' each place such term appears
and inserting ``Administrator''; and
(2) in section 1363 (42 U.S.C. 4104), by striking
``Director's'' each place such term appears and inserting
``Administrator's''.
(c) Federal Flood Insurance Act of 1956.--Section 15(e) of
the Federal Flood Insurance Act of 1956 (42 U.S.C. 2414(e))
is amended by striking ``Director'' each place such term
appears and inserting ``Administrator''.

[[Page H2595]]

SEC. 368. REQUIRING COMPETITION FOR NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE
PROGRAM POLICIES.

(a) Report.--Not later than the expiration of the 90-day
period beginning upon the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
in consultation with insurance companies, insurance agents
and other organizations with which the Administrator has
contracted, shall submit to the Congress a report describing
procedures and policies that the Administrator shall
implement to limit the percentage of policies for flood
insurance coverage under the national flood insurance program
that are directly managed by the Agency to not more than 10
percent of the aggregate number of flood insurance policies
in force under such program.
(b) Implementation.--Upon submission of the report under
subsection (a) to the Congress, the Administrator shall
implement the policies and procedures described in the
report. The Administrator shall, not later than the
expiration of the 12-month period beginning upon submission
of such report, reduce the number of policies for flood
insurance coverage that are directly managed by the Agency,
or by the Agency's direct servicing contractor that is not an
insurer, to not more than 10 percent of the aggregate number
of flood insurance policies in force as of the expiration of
such 12-month period.
(c) Continuation of Current Agent Relationships.--In
carrying out subsection (b), the Administrator shall ensure
that--
(1) agents selling or servicing policies described in such
subsection are not prevented from continuing to sell or
service such policies; and
(2) insurance companies are not prevented from waiving any
limitation such companies could otherwise enforce to limit
any such activity.

SEC. 369. STUDIES OF VOLUNTARY COMMUNITY-BASED FLOOD
INSURANCE OPTIONS.

(a) Studies.--The Administrator of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and the Comptroller General of the United
States shall each conduct a separate study to assess options,
methods, and strategies for offering voluntary community-
based flood insurance policy options and incorporating such
options into the national flood insurance program. Such
studies shall take into consideration and analyze how the
policy options would affect communities having varying
economic bases, geographic locations, flood hazard
characteristics or classifications, and flood management
approaches.
(b) Reports.--Not later than the expiration of the 18-month
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
and the Comptroller General of the United States shall each
submit a report to the Committee on Financial Services of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate on the results and
conclusions of the study such agency conducted under
subsection (a), and each such report shall include
recommendations for the best manner to incorporate voluntary
community-based flood insurance options into the national
flood insurance program and for a strategy to implement such
options that would encourage communities to undertake flood
mitigation activities.

SEC. 370. REPORT ON INCLUSION OF BUILDING CODES IN FLOODPLAIN
MANAGEMENT CRITERIA.

Not later than the expiration of the 6-month period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
shall conduct a study and submit a report to the Committee on
Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the
Senate regarding the impact, effectiveness, and feasibility
of amending section 1361 of the National Flood Insurance Act
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4102) to include widely used and
nationally recognized building codes as part of the
floodplain management criteria developed under such section,
and shall determine--
(1) the regulatory, financial, and economic impacts of such
a building code requirement on homeowners, States and local
communities, local land use policies, and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency;
(2) the resources required of State and local communities
to administer and enforce such a building code requirement;
(3) the effectiveness of such a building code requirement
in reducing flood-related damage to buildings and contents;
(4) the impact of such a building code requirement on the
actuarial soundness of the National Flood Insurance Program;
(5) the effectiveness of nationally recognized codes in
allowing innovative materials and systems for flood-resistant
construction;
(6) the feasibility and effectiveness of providing an
incentive in lower premium rates for flood insurance coverage
under such Act for structures meeting whichever of such
widely used and nationally recognized building code or any
applicable local building code provides greater protection
from flood damage;
(7) the impact of such a building code requirement on rural
communities with different building code challenges than more
urban environments; and
(8) the impact of such a building code requirement on
Indian reservations.

SEC. 371. STUDY ON GRADUATED RISK.

(a) Study.--The National Academy of Sciences shall conduct
a study exploring methods for understanding graduated risk
behind levees and the associated land development, insurance,
and risk communication dimensions, which shall--
(1) research, review, and recommend current best practices
for estimating direct annualized flood losses behind levees
for residential and commercial structures;
(2) rank such practices based on their best value,
balancing cost, scientific integrity, and the inherent
uncertainties associated with all aspects of the loss
estimate, including geotechnical engineering, flood frequency
estimates, economic value, and direct damages;
(3) research, review, and identify current best floodplain
management and land use practices behind levees that
effectively balance social, economic, and environmental
considerations as part of an overall flood risk management
strategy;
(4) identify examples where such practices have proven
effective and recommend methods and processes by which they
could be applied more broadly across the United States, given
the variety of different flood risks, State and local legal
frameworks, and evolving judicial opinions;
(5) research, review, and identify a variety of flood
insurance pricing options for flood hazards behind levees
which are actuarially sound and based on the flood risk data
developed using the top three best value approaches
identified pursuant to paragraph (1);
(6) evaluate and recommend methods to reduce insurance
costs through creative arrangements between insureds and
insurers while keeping a clear accounting of how much
financial risk is being borne by various parties such that
the entire risk is accounted for, including establishment of
explicit limits on disaster aid or other assistance in the
event of a flood; and
(7) taking into consideration the recommendations pursuant
to paragraphs (1) through (3), recommend approaches to
communicating the associated risks to community officials,
homeowners, and other residents.
(b) Report.--Not later than the expiration of the 12-month
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act,
the National Academy of Sciences shall submit a report to the
Committees on Financial Services and Science, Space, and
Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committees
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and Commerce, Science
and Transportation of the Senate on the study under
subsection (a) including the information and recommendations
required under such subsection.

SEC. 372. REPORT ON FLOOD-IN-PROGRESS DETERMINATION.

The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency shall review the processes and procedures for
determining that a flood event has commenced or is in
progress for purposes of flood insurance coverage made
available under the national flood insurance program under
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and for providing
public notification that such an event has commenced or is in
progress. In such review, the Administrator shall take into
consideration the effects and implications that weather
conditions, such as rainfall, snowfall, projected snowmelt,
existing water levels, and other conditions have on the
determination that a flood event has commenced or is in
progress. Not later than the expiration of the 6-month period
beginning upon the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Administrator shall submit a report to the Congress setting
forth the results and conclusions of the review undertaken
pursuant to this section and any actions undertaken or
proposed actions to be taken to provide for a more precise
and technical determination that a flooding event has
commenced or is in progress.

SEC. 373. STUDY ON REPAYING FLOOD INSURANCE DEBT.

Not later than the expiration of the 6-month period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency
shall submit a report to the Congress setting forth a plan
for repaying within 10 years all amounts, including any
amounts previously borrowed but not yet repaid, owed pursuant
to clause (2) of subsection (a) of section 1309 of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)(2)).

SEC. 374. NO CAUSE OF ACTION.

No cause of action shall exist and no claim may be brought
against the United States for violation of any notification
requirement imposed upon the United States by this subtitle
or any amendment made by this subtitle.

SEC. 375. AUTHORITY FOR THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO PROVIDE
SPECIALIZED OR TECHNICAL SERVICES.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, upon the request of a State or local government, the
Secretary of the Army may evaluate a levee system that was
designed or constructed by the Secretary for the purposes of
the National Flood Insurance Program established under
chapter 1 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 4011 et seq.).
(b) Requirements.--A levee system evaluation under
subsection (a) shall--
(1) comply with applicable regulations related to areas
protected by a levee system;
(2) be carried out in accordance with such procedures as
the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, may establish; and
(3) be carried out only if the State or local government
agrees to reimburse the Secretary for all cost associated
with the performance of the activities.

Subtitle E--Repeal of the Office of Financial Research

SEC. 381. REPEAL OF THE OFFICE OF FINANCIAL RESEARCH.

(a) In General.--Subtitle B of title I of the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is hereby
repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendments to the Dodd-Frank Act.--The Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is
amended--

[[Page H2596]]

(1) in section 102(a), by striking paragraph (5);
(2) in section 111--
(A) in subsection (b)(2)--
(i) by striking subparagraph (A); and
(ii) by redesignating subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), and (E)
as subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D), respectively;
(B) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``subparagraphs (C),
(D), and (E)'' and inserting ``subparagraphs (B), (C), and
(D)'';
(3) in section 112--
(A) in subsection (a)(2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``direct the Office of
Financial Research to'';
(ii) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(iii) by redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), (E), (F),
(G), (H), (I), (J), (K), (L), (M), and (N) as subparagraphs
(B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (I), (J), (K), (L), and
(M), respectively; and
(B) in subsection (d)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the Office of Financial
Research, member agencies, and'' and inserting ``member
agencies and'';
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the Office of
Financial Research, any member agency, and'' and inserting
``any member agency and'';
(iii) in paragraph (3)--

(I) by striking ``, acting through the Office of Financial
Research,'' each place it appears; and
(II) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``the Office of
Financial Research or''; and

(iv) in paragraph (5)(A), by striking ``, the Office of
Financial Research,'';
(4) in section 116, by striking ``, acting through the
Office of Financial Research,'' each place it appears; and
(5) by striking section 118.
(c) Conforming Amendment to the Paperwork Reduction Act.--
Effective as of the date specified in section 1100H of the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,
section 1100D(a) of such Act is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Designation as an Independent Agency.--Section
3502(5) of subchapter I of chapter 35 of title 44, United
States Code (commonly known as the Paperwork Reduction Act)
is amended by inserting `the Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection,' after `the Securities and Exchange
Commission,'.''.
(d) Technical Amendments.--The table of contents for the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is
amended--
(1) by striking the item relating to section 118; and
(2) by striking the items relating to subtitle B of title
I.

TITLE IV--COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Help Efficient,
Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of
2011''.

SEC. 402. ENCOURAGING SPEEDY RESOLUTION OF CLAIMS.

The time for the commencement of a health care lawsuit
shall be 3 years after the date of manifestation of injury or
1 year after the claimant discovers, or through the use of
reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury,
whichever occurs first. In no event shall the time for
commencement of a health care lawsuit exceed 3 years after
the date of manifestation of injury unless tolled for any of
the following--
(1) upon proof of fraud;
(2) intentional concealment; or
(3) the presence of a foreign body, which has no
therapeutic or diagnostic purpose or effect, in the person of
the injured person.
Actions by a minor shall be commenced within 3 years from the
date of the alleged manifestation of injury except that
actions by a minor under the full age of 6 years shall be
commenced within 3 years of manifestation of injury or prior
to the minor's 8th birthday, whichever provides a longer
period. Such time limitation shall be tolled for minors for
any period during which a parent or guardian and a health
care provider or health care organization have committed
fraud or collusion in the failure to bring an action on
behalf of the injured minor.

SEC. 403. COMPENSATING PATIENT INJURY.

(a) Unlimited Amount of Damages for Actual Economic Losses
in Health Care Lawsuits.--In any health care lawsuit, nothing
in this title shall limit a claimant's recovery of the full
amount of the available economic damages, notwithstanding the
limitation in subsection (b).
(b) Additional Noneconomic Damages.--In any health care
lawsuit, the amount of noneconomic damages, if available, may
be as much as $250,000, regardless of the number of parties
against whom the action is brought or the number of separate
claims or actions brought with respect to the same injury.
(c) No Discount of Award for Noneconomic Damages.--For
purposes of applying the limitation in subsection (b), future
noneconomic damages shall not be discounted to present value.
The jury shall not be informed about the maximum award for
noneconomic damages. An award for noneconomic damages in
excess of $250,000 shall be reduced either before the entry
of judgment, or by amendment of the judgment after entry of
judgment, and such reduction shall be made before accounting
for any other reduction in damages required by law. If
separate awards are rendered for past and future noneconomic
damages and the combined awards exceed $250,000, the future
noneconomic damages shall be reduced first.
(d) Fair Share Rule.--In any health care lawsuit, each
party shall be liable for that party's several share of any
damages only and not for the share of any other person. Each
party shall be liable only for the amount of damages
allocated to such party in direct proportion to such party's
percentage of responsibility. Whenever a judgment of
liability is rendered as to any party, a separate judgment
shall be rendered against each such party for the amount
allocated to such party. For purposes of this section, the
trier of fact shall determine the proportion of
responsibility of each party for the claimant's harm.

SEC. 404. MAXIMIZING PATIENT RECOVERY.

(a) Court Supervision of Share of Damages Actually Paid to
Claimants.--In any health care lawsuit, the court shall
supervise the arrangements for payment of damages to protect
against conflicts of interest that may have the effect of
reducing the amount of damages awarded that are actually paid
to claimants. In particular, in any health care lawsuit in
which the attorney for a party claims a financial stake in
the outcome by virtue of a contingent fee, the court shall
have the power to restrict the payment of a claimant's damage
recovery to such attorney, and to redirect such damages to
the claimant based upon the interests of justice and
principles of equity. In no event shall the total of all
contingent fees for representing all claimants in a health
care lawsuit exceed the following limits:
(1) Forty percent of the first $50,000 recovered by the
claimant(s).
(2) Thirty-three and one-third percent of the next $50,000
recovered by the claimant(s).
(3) Twenty-five percent of the next $500,000 recovered by
the claimant(s).
(4) Fifteen percent of any amount by which the recovery by
the claimant(s) is in excess of $600,000.
(b) Applicability.--The limitations in this section shall
apply whether the recovery is by judgment, settlement,
mediation, arbitration, or any other form of alternative
dispute resolution. In a health care lawsuit involving a
minor or incompetent person, a court retains the authority to
authorize or approve a fee that is less than the maximum
permitted under this section. The requirement for court
supervision in the first two sentences of subsection (a)
applies only in civil actions.

SEC. 405. PUNITIVE DAMAGES.

(a) In General.--Punitive damages may, if otherwise
permitted by applicable State or Federal law, be awarded
against any person in a health care lawsuit only if it is
proven by clear and convincing evidence that such person
acted with malicious intent to injure the claimant, or that
such person deliberately failed to avoid unnecessary injury
that such person knew the claimant was substantially certain
to suffer. In any health care lawsuit where no judgment for
compensatory damages is rendered against such person, no
punitive damages may be awarded with respect to the claim in
such lawsuit. No demand for punitive damages shall be
included in a health care lawsuit as initially filed. A court
may allow a claimant to file an amended pleading for punitive
damages only upon a motion by the claimant and after a
finding by the court, upon review of supporting and opposing
affidavits or after a hearing, after weighing the evidence,
that the claimant has established by a substantial
probability that the claimant will prevail on the claim for
punitive damages. At the request of any party in a health
care lawsuit, the trier of fact shall consider in a separate
proceeding--
(1) whether punitive damages are to be awarded and the
amount of such award; and
(2) the amount of punitive damages following a
determination of punitive liability.
If a separate proceeding is requested, evidence relevant only
to the claim for punitive damages, as determined by
applicable State law, shall be inadmissible in any proceeding
to determine whether compensatory damages are to be awarded.
(b) Determining Amount of Punitive Damages.--
(1) Factors considered.--In determining the amount of
punitive damages, if awarded, in a health care lawsuit, the
trier of fact shall consider only the following--
(A) the severity of the harm caused by the conduct of such
party;
(B) the duration of the conduct or any concealment of it by
such party;
(C) the profitability of the conduct to such party;
(D) the number of products sold or medical procedures
rendered for compensation, as the case may be, by such party,
of the kind causing the harm complained of by the claimant;
(E) any criminal penalties imposed on such party, as a
result of the conduct complained of by the claimant; and
(F) the amount of any civil fines assessed against such
party as a result of the conduct complained of by the
claimant.
(2) Maximum award.--The amount of punitive damages, if
awarded, in a health care lawsuit may be as much as $250,000
or as much as two times the amount of economic damages
awarded, whichever is greater. The jury shall not be informed
of this limitation.
(c) No Punitive Damages for Products That Comply With FDA
Standards.--
(1) In general.--
(A) No punitive damages may be awarded against the
manufacturer or distributor of a medical product, or a
supplier of any component or raw material of such medical
product, based on a claim that such product caused the
claimant's harm where--
(i)(I) such medical product was subject to premarket
approval, clearance, or licensure by the Food and Drug
Administration with respect to the safety of the formulation
or performance of the aspect of such medical product which
caused the claimant's harm or the adequacy of the packaging
or labeling of such medical product; and
(II) such medical product was so approved, cleared, or
licensed; or
(ii) such medical product is generally recognized among
qualified experts as safe and effective pursuant to
conditions established by the Food and Drug Administration
and applicable

[[Page H2597]]

Food and Drug Administration regulations, including without
limitation those related to packaging and labeling, unless
the Food and Drug Administration has determined that such
medical product was not manufactured or distributed in
substantial compliance with applicable Food and Drug
Administration statutes and regulations.
(B) Rule of construction.--Subparagraph (A) may not be
construed as establishing the obligation of the Food and Drug
Administration to demonstrate affirmatively that a
manufacturer, distributor, or supplier referred to in such
subparagraph meets any of the conditions described in such
subparagraph.
(2) Liability of health care providers.--A health care
provider who prescribes, or who dispenses pursuant to a
prescription, a medical product approved, licensed, or
cleared by the Food and Drug Administration shall not be
named as a party to a product liability lawsuit involving
such product and shall not be liable to a claimant in a class
action lawsuit against the manufacturer, distributor, or
seller of such product. Nothing in this paragraph prevents a
court from consolidating cases involving health care
providers and cases involving products liability claims
against the manufacturer, distributor, or product seller of
such medical product.
(3) Packaging.--In a health care lawsuit for harm which is
alleged to relate to the adequacy of the packaging or
labeling of a drug which is required to have tamper-resistant
packaging under regulations of the Secretary of Health and
Human Services (including labeling regulations related to
such packaging), the manufacturer or product seller of the
drug shall not be held liable for punitive damages unless
such packaging or labeling is found by the trier of fact by
clear and convincing evidence to be substantially out of
compliance with such regulations.
(4) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply in any health
care lawsuit in which--
(A) a person, before or after premarket approval,
clearance, or licensure of such medical product, knowingly
misrepresented to or withheld from the Food and Drug
Administration information that is required to be submitted
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301
et seq.) or section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 262) that is material and is causally related to the
harm which the claimant allegedly suffered
(B) a person made an illegal payment to an official of the
Food and Drug Administration for the purpose of either
securing or maintaining approval, clearance, or licensure of
such medical product; or
(C) the defendant caused the medical product which caused
the claimant's harm to be misbranded or adulterated (as such
terms are used in chapter V of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351 et seq.)).

SEC. 406. AUTHORIZATION OF PAYMENT OF FUTURE DAMAGES TO
CLAIMANTS IN HEALTH CARE LAWSUITS.

(a) In General.--In any health care lawsuit, if an award of
future damages, without reduction to present value, equaling
or exceeding $50,000 is made against a party with sufficient
insurance or other assets to fund a periodic payment of such
a judgment, the court shall, at the request of any party,
enter a judgment ordering that the future damages be paid by
periodic payments, in accordance with the Uniform Periodic
Payment of Judgments Act promulgated by the National
Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.
(b) Applicability.--This section applies to all actions
which have not been first set for trial or retrial before the
effective date of this title.

SEC. 407. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Alternative dispute resolution system; adr.--The term
``alternative dispute resolution system'' or ``ADR'' means a
system that provides for the resolution of health care
lawsuits in a manner other than through a civil action
brought in a State or Federal court.
(2) Claimant.--The term ``claimant'' means any person who
brings a health care lawsuit, including a person who asserts
or claims a right to legal or equitable contribution,
indemnity, or subrogation, arising out of a health care
liability claim or action, and any person on whose behalf
such a claim is asserted or such an action is brought,
whether deceased, incompetent, or a minor.
(3) Compensatory damages.--The term ``compensatory
damages'' means objectively verifiable monetary losses
incurred as a result of the provision of, use of, or payment
for (or failure to provide, use, or pay for) health care
services or medical products, such as past and future medical
expenses, loss of past and future earnings, cost of obtaining
domestic services, loss of employment, and loss of business
or employment opportunities, damages for physical and
emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical
impairment, mental anguish, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment
of life, loss of society and companionship, loss of
consortium (other than loss of domestic service), hedonic
damages, injury to reputation, and all other nonpecuniary
losses of any kind or nature. The term ``compensatory
damages'' includes economic damages and noneconomic damages,
as such terms are defined in this section.
(4) Contingent fee.--The term ``contingent fee'' includes
all compensation to any person or persons which is payable
only if a recovery is effected on behalf of one or more
claimants.
(5) Economic damages.--The term ``economic damages'' means
objectively verifiable monetary losses incurred as a result
of the provision of, use of, or payment for (or failure to
provide, use, or pay for) health care services or medical
products, such as past and future medical expenses, loss of
past and future earnings, cost of obtaining domestic
services, loss of employment, and loss of business or
employment opportunities.
(6) Health care lawsuit.--The term ``health care lawsuit''
means any health care liability claim concerning the
provision of health care goods or services or any medical
product affecting interstate commerce, or any health care
liability action concerning the provision of health care
goods or services or any medical product affecting interstate
commerce, brought in a State or Federal court or pursuant to
an alternative dispute resolution system, against a health
care provider, a health care organization, or the
manufacturer, distributor, supplier, marketer, promoter, or
seller of a medical product, regardless of the theory of
liability on which the claim is based, or the number of
claimants, plaintiffs, defendants, or other parties, or the
number of claims or causes of action, in which the claimant
alleges a health care liability claim. Such term does not
include a claim or action which is based on criminal
liability; which seeks civil fines or penalties paid to
Federal, State, or local government; or which is grounded in
antitrust.
(7) Health care liability action.--The term ``health care
liability action'' means a civil action brought in a State or
Federal court or pursuant to an alternative dispute
resolution system, against a health care provider, a health
care organization, or the manufacturer, distributor,
supplier, marketer, promoter, or seller of a medical product,
regardless of the theory of liability on which the claim is
based, or the number of plaintiffs, defendants, or other
parties, or the number of causes of action, in which the
claimant alleges a health care liability claim.
(8) Health care liability claim.--The term ``health care
liability claim'' means a demand by any person, whether or
not pursuant to ADR, against a health care provider, health
care organization, or the manufacturer, distributor,
supplier, marketer, promoter, or seller of a medical product,
including, but not limited to, third-party claims, cross-
claims, counter-claims, or contribution claims, which are
based upon the provision of, use of, or payment for (or the
failure to provide, use, or pay for) health care services or
medical products, regardless of the theory of liability on
which the claim is based, or the number of plaintiffs,
defendants, or other parties, or the number of causes of
action.
(9) Health care organization.--The term ``health care
organization'' means any person or entity which is obligated
to provide or pay for health benefits under any health plan,
including any person or entity acting under a contract or
arrangement with a health care organization to provide or
administer any health benefit.
(10) Health care provider.--The term ``health care
provider'' means any person or entity required by State or
Federal laws or regulations to be licensed, registered, or
certified to provide health care services, and being either
so licensed, registered, or certified, or exempted from such
requirement by other statute or regulation.
(11) Health care goods or services.--The term ``health care
goods or services'' means any goods or services provided by a
health care organization, provider, or by any individual
working under the supervision of a health care provider, that
relates to the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of any
human disease or impairment, or the assessment or care of the
health of human beings.
(12) Malicious intent to injure.--The term ``malicious
intent to injure'' means intentionally causing or attempting
to cause physical injury other than providing health care
goods or services.
(13) Medical product.--The term ``medical product'' means a
drug, device, or biological product intended for humans, and
the terms ``drug'', ``device'', and ``biological product''
have the meanings given such terms in sections 201(g)(1) and
201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
321(g)(1) and (h)) and section 351(a) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262(a)), respectively, including any
component or raw material used therein, but excluding health
care services.
(14) Noneconomic damages.--The term ``noneconomic damages''
means damages for physical and emotional pain, suffering,
inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish,
disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of society and
companionship, loss of consortium (other than loss of
domestic service), hedonic damages, injury to reputation, and
all other nonpecuniary losses of any kind or nature.
(15) Punitive damages.--The term ``punitive damages'' means
damages awarded, for the purpose of punishment or deterrence,
and not solely for compensatory purposes, against a health
care provider, health care organization, or a manufacturer,
distributor, or supplier of a medical product. Punitive
damages are neither economic nor noneconomic damages.
(16) Recovery.--The term ``recovery'' means the net sum
recovered after deducting any disbursements or costs incurred
in connection with prosecution or settlement of the claim,
including all costs paid or advanced by any person. Costs of
health care incurred by the plaintiff and the attorneys'
office overhead costs or charges for legal services are not
deductible disbursements or costs for such purpose.
(17) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern
Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands,
and any other territory or possession of the United States,
or any political subdivision thereof.

SEC. 408. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.

(a) Vaccine Injury.--

[[Page H2598]]

(1) To the extent that title XXI of the Public Health
Service Act establishes a Federal rule of law applicable to a
civil action brought for a vaccine-related injury or death--
(A) this title does not affect the application of the rule
of law to such an action; and
(B) any rule of law prescribed by this title in conflict
with a rule of law of such title XXI shall not apply to such
action.
(2) If there is an aspect of a civil action brought for a
vaccine-related injury or death to which a Federal rule of
law under title XXI of the Public Health Service Act does not
apply, then this title or otherwise applicable law (as
determined under this title) will apply to such aspect of
such action.
(b) Other Federal Law.--Except as provided in this section,
nothing in this title shall be deemed to affect any defense
available to a defendant in a health care lawsuit or action
under any other provision of Federal law.

SEC. 409. STATE FLEXIBILITY AND PROTECTION OF STATES' RIGHTS.

(a) Health Care Lawsuits.--The provisions governing health
care lawsuits set forth in this title preempt, subject to
subsections (b) and (c), State law to the extent that State
law prevents the application of any provisions of law
established by or under this title. The provisions governing
health care lawsuits set forth in this title supersede
chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, to the extent
that such chapter--
(1) provides for a greater amount of damages or contingent
fees, a longer period in which a health care lawsuit may be
commenced, or a reduced applicability or scope of periodic
payment of future damages, than provided in this title; or
(2) prohibits the introduction of evidence regarding
collateral source benefits, or mandates or permits
subrogation or a lien on collateral source benefits.
(b) Protection of States' Rights and Other Laws.--(1) Any
issue that is not governed by any provision of law
established by or under this title (including State standards
of negligence) shall be governed by otherwise applicable
State or Federal law.
(2) This title shall not preempt or supersede any State or
Federal law that imposes greater procedural or substantive
protections for health care providers and health care
organizations from liability, loss, or damages than those
provided by this title or create a cause of action.
(c) State Flexibility.--No provision of this title shall be
construed to preempt--
(1) any State law (whether effective before, on, or after
the date of the enactment of this Act) that specifies a
particular monetary amount of compensatory or punitive
damages (or the total amount of damages) that may be awarded
in a health care lawsuit, regardless of whether such monetary
amount is greater or lesser than is provided for under this
title, notwithstanding section 303(a); or
(2) any defense available to a party in a health care
lawsuit under any other provision of State or Federal law.

SEC. 410. APPLICABILITY; EFFECTIVE DATE.

This title shall apply to any health care lawsuit brought
in a Federal or State court, or subject to an alternative
dispute resolution system, that is initiated on or after the
date of the enactment of this Act, except that any health
care lawsuit arising from an injury occurring prior to the
date of the enactment of this Act shall be governed by the
applicable statute of limitations provisions in effect at the
time the injury occurred.

TITLE V--COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

SEC. 501. RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS.

(a) Civil Service Retirement System.--
(1) Individual contributions.--Section 8334(c) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``(c) Each'' and inserting ``(c)(1) Each'';
and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
subsection, the applicable percentage of basic pay under this
subsection shall--
``(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B) or (C), for
purposes of computing an amount--
``(i) for a period in calendar year 2013, be equal to the
applicable percentage under this subsection for calendar year
2012, plus an additional 1.5 percentage points;
``(ii) for a period in calendar year 2014, be equal to the
applicable percentage under this subsection for calendar year
2013 (as determined under clause (i)), plus an additional 0.5
percentage point;
``(iii) for a period in calendar year 2015, 2016, or 2017,
be equal to the applicable percentage under this subsection
for the preceding calendar year (as determined under clause
(ii) or this clause, as the case may be), plus an additional
1.0 percentage point; and
``(iv) for a period in any calendar year after 2017, be
equal to the applicable percentage under this subsection for
calendar year 2017 (as determined under clause (iii));
``(B) for purposes of computing an amount with respect to a
Member for Member service--
``(i) for a period in calendar year 2013, be equal to the
applicable percentage under this subsection for calendar year
2012, plus an additional 2.5 percentage points;
``(ii) for a period in calendar year 2014, 2015, 2016, or
2017, be equal to the applicable percentage under this
subsection for the preceding calendar year (as determined
under clause (i) or this clause, as the case may be), plus an
additional 1.5 percentage points; and
``(iii) for a period in any calendar year after 2017, be
equal to the applicable percentage under this subsection for
calendar year 2017 (as determined under clause (ii)); and
``(C) for purposes of computing an amount with respect to a
Member or employee for Congressional employee service--
``(i) for a period in calendar year 2013, be equal to the
applicable percentage under this subsection for calendar year
2012, plus an additional 2.5 percentage points;
``(ii) for a period in calendar year 2014, 2015, 2016, or
2017, be equal to the applicable percentage under this
subsection for the preceding calendar year (as determined
under clause (i) or this clause, as the case may be), plus an
additional 1.5 percentage points; and
``(iii) for a period in any calendar year after 2017, be
equal to the applicable percentage under this subsection for
calendar year 2017 (as determined under clause (ii)).
``(3)(A) Notwithstanding subsection (a)(2), any excess
contributions under subsection (a)(1)(A) (including the
portion of any deposit under this subsection allocable to
excess contributions) shall, if made by an employee of the
United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory
Commission, be deposited to the credit of the Postal Service
Fund under section 2003 of title 39, rather than the Civil
Service Retirement and Disability Fund.
``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `excess
contributions', as used with respect to contributions made
under subsection (a)(1)(A) by an employee of the United
States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission,
means the amount by which--
``(i) deductions from basic pay of such employee which are
made under subsection (a)(1)(A), exceed
``(ii) deductions from basic pay of such employee which
would have been so made if paragraph (2) had not been
enacted.''.
(2) Government contributions.--Section 8334(a)(1)(B) of
title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``Except as provided in
clause (ii),'' and inserting ``Except as provided in clause
(ii) or (iii),''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) The amount to be contributed under clause (i)
shall, with respect to a period in any year beginning after
December 31, 2012, be equal to--
``(I) the amount which would otherwise apply under clause
(i) with respect to such period, reduced by
``(II) the amount by which, with respect to such period,
the withholding under subparagraph (A) exceeds the amount
which would otherwise have been withheld from the basic pay
of the employee or elected official involved under
subparagraph (A) based on the percentage applicable under
subsection (c) for calendar year 2012.''.
(b) Federal Employees' Retirement System.--
(1) Individual contributions.--Section 8422(a)(3) of title
5, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
paragraph, the applicable percentage under this paragraph for
civilian service by employees or Members other than revised
annuity employees shall--
``(i) except as provided in clause (ii) or (iii), for
purposes of computing an amount--
``(I) for a period in calendar year 2013, be equal to the
applicable percentage under this paragraph for calendar year
2012, plus an additional 1.5 percentage points;
``(II) for a period in calendar year 2014, be equal to the
applicable percentage under this paragraph for calendar year
2013 (as determined under subclause (I)), plus an additional
0.5 percentage point;
``(III) for a period in calendar year 2015, 2016, or 2017,
be equal to the applicable percentage under this paragraph
for the preceding calendar year (as determined under
subclause (II) or this subclause, as the case may be), plus
an additional 1.0 percentage point; and
``(IV) for a period in any calendar year after 2017, be
equal to the applicable percentage under this paragraph for
calendar year 2017 (as determined under subclause (III));
``(ii) for purposes of computing an amount with respect to
a Member--
``(I) for a period in calendar year 2013, be equal to the
applicable percentage under this paragraph for calendar year
2012, plus an additional 2.5 percentage points;
``(II) for a period in calendar year 2014, 2015, 2016, or
2017, be equal to the applicable percentage under this
paragraph for the preceding calendar year (as determined
under subclause (I) or this subclause, as the case may be),
plus an additional 1.5 percentage points; and
``(III) for a period in any calendar year after 2017, be
equal to the applicable percentage under this paragraph for
calendar year 2017 (as determined under subclause (II)); and
``(iii) for purposes of computing an amount with respect to
a Congressional employee--
``(I) for a period in calendar year 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016,
or 2017, be equal to the applicable percentage under this
paragraph for the preceding calendar year (including as
increased under this subclause, if applicable), plus an
additional 1.5 percentage points; and
``(II) for a period in any calendar year after 2017, be
equal to the applicable percentage under this paragraph for
calendar year 2017 (as determined under subclause (I)).'';
and
(C) in subparagraph (C) (as so redesignated by subparagraph
(A))--
(i) by striking ``9.3'' each place it appears and inserting
``12''; and
(ii) by striking ``9.8'' each place it appears and
inserting ``12.5''.
(2) Government contributions.--Section 8423(a)(2) of title
5, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``(2)'' and inserting ``(2)(A)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:

[[Page H2599]]

``(B)(i) Subject to clauses (ii) and (iii), for purposes of
any period in any year beginning after December 31, 2012, the
normal-cost percentage under this subsection shall be
determined and applied as if section 501(b)(1) of the
Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012 had not been
enacted.
``(ii) Any contributions under this subsection in excess of
the amounts which (but for clause (i)) would otherwise have
been payable shall be applied toward reducing the unfunded
liability of the Civil Service Retirement System.
``(iii) After the unfunded liability of the Civil Service
Retirement System has been eliminated, as determined by the
Office, Government contributions under this subsection shall
be determined and made disregarding this subparagraph.
``(iv) The preceding provisions of this subparagraph shall
be disregarded for purposes of determining the contributions
payable by the United States Postal Service and the Postal
Regulatory Commission.''.

SEC. 502. ANNUITY SUPPLEMENT.

Section 8421(a) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (3)'' and
inserting ``paragraphs (3) and (4)'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``paragraph (3)'' and
inserting ``paragraphs (3) and (4)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(4)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), no annuity
supplement under this section shall be payable in the case of
an individual who first becomes subject to this chapter after
December 31, 2012.
``(B) Nothing in this paragraph applies in the case of an
individual separating under subsection (d) or (e) of section
8412.''.

SEC. 503. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THRIFT SAVINGS FUND OF PAYMENTS
FOR ACCRUED OR ACCUMULATED LEAVE.

(a) Amendments Relating to CSRS.--Section 8351(b) of title
5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (2)(A) and inserting the
following:
``(2)(A) An employee or Member may contribute to the Thrift
Savings Fund in any pay period any amount of such employee's
or Member's basic pay for such pay period, and may contribute
(by direct transfer to the Fund) any part of any payment that
the employee or Member receives for accumulated and accrued
annual or vacation leave under section 5551 or 5552.
Notwithstanding section 2105(e), in this paragraph the term
`employee' includes an employee of the United States Postal
Service or of the Postal Regulatory Commission.'';
(2) by striking subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2); and
(3) by redesignating subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) as
subparagraph (B).
(b) Amendments Relating to FERS.--Section 8432(a) of title
5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking all that precedes paragraph (3) and
inserting the following:
``(a)(1) An employee or Member--
``(A) may contribute to the Thrift Savings Fund in any pay
period, pursuant to an election under subsection (b), any
amount of such employee's or Member's basic pay for such pay
period; and
``(B) may contribute (by direct transfer to the Fund) any
part of any payment that the employee or Member receives for
accumulated and accrued annual or vacation leave under
section 5551 or 5552.
``(2) Contributions made under paragraph (1)(A) pursuant to
an election under subsection (b) shall, with respect to each
pay period for which such election remains in effect, be made
in accordance with a program of regular contributions
provided in regulations prescribed by the Executive
Director.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Notwithstanding section 2105(e), in this subsection
the term `employee' includes an employee of the United States
Postal Service or of the Postal Regulatory Commission.''.
(c) Regulations.--The Executive Director of the Federal
Retirement Thrift Investment Board shall promulgate
regulations to carry out the amendments made by this section.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a)
and (b) shall take effect 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

TITLE VI--COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

Subtitle A--Recapture of Overpayments Resulting From Certain Federally-
subsidized Health Insurance

SEC. 601. RECAPTURE OF OVERPAYMENTS RESULTING FROM CERTAIN
FEDERALLY-SUBSIDIZED HEALTH INSURANCE.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 36B(f) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking
subparagraph (B).
(b) Conforming Amendment.--So much of paragraph (2) of
section 36B(f) of such Code, as amended by subsection (a), as
precedes ``advance payments'' is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Excess advance payments.--If the''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2013.

Subtitle B--Social Security Number Required to Claim the Refundable
Portion of the Child Tax Credit

SEC. 611. SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER REQUIRED TO CLAIM THE
REFUNDABLE PORTION OF THE CHILD TAX CREDIT.

(a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 24 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(5) Identification requirement with respect to
taxpayer.--
``(A) In general.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any
taxpayer for any taxable year unless the taxpayer includes
the taxpayer's Social Security number on the return of tax
for such taxable year.
``(B) Joint returns.--In the case of a joint return, the
requirement of subparagraph (A) shall be treated as met if
the Social Security number of either spouse is included on
such return.
``(C) Limitation.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the
extent the tentative minimum tax (as defined in section
55(b)(1)(A)) exceeds the credit allowed under section 32.''.
(b) Omission Treated as Mathematical or Clerical Error.--
Subparagraph (I) of section 6213(g)(2) of such Code is
amended to read as follows:
``(I) an omission of a correct Social Security number
required under section 24(d)(5) (relating to refundable
portion of child tax credit), or a correct TIN under section
24(e) (relating to child tax credit), to be included on a
return,''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (e) of section 24 of
such Code is amended by inserting ``With Respect to
Qualifying Children'' after ``Identification Requirement'' in
the heading thereof.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

Subtitle C--Human Resources Provisions

SEC. 621. REPEAL OF THE PROGRAM OF BLOCK GRANTS TO STATES FOR
SOCIAL SERVICES.

(a) Repeals.--Sections 2001 through 2007 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397 1397f) are repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 404(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
604(d)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``any or all of the
following provisions of law:'' and all that follows through
``The'' and inserting ``the'';
(B) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by striking ``rules'' and all that follows through
``any amount paid'' and inserting ``rules.--Any amount
paid'';
(ii) by striking ``a provision of law specified in
paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``the Child Care and
Development Block Grant Act of 1990''; and
(iii) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(C) by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph
(3) as paragraph (2).
(2) Section 422(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
622(b)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(A)--
(i) by striking ``administers or supervises'' and inserting
``administered or supervised''; and
(ii) by striking ``subtitle 1 of title XX'' and inserting
``subtitle A of title XX (as in effect before the repeal of
such subtitle)''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``under subtitle 1 of
title XX,''.
(3) Section 471(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
671(a)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``, under subtitle 1 of
title XX of this Act,''; and
(B) in paragraph (8), by striking ``XIX, or XX'' and
inserting ``or XIX''.
(4) Section 472(h)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
672(h)(1)) is amended by striking the 2nd sentence.
(5) Section 473(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
673(b)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(3)'' and inserting
``(2)'';
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``paragraphs (1) and
(2)'' and inserting ``paragraph (1)''; and
(C) by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraphs
(3) and (4) as paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively.
(6) Section 504(b)(6) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
704(b)(6)) is amended in each of subparagraphs (A) and (B) by
striking ``XIX, or XX'' and inserting ``or XIX''.
(7) Section 1101(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1301(a)(1)) is amended by striking the penultimate
sentence.
(8) Section 1128(h) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1320a-7(h)) is amended--
(A) by adding ``or'' at the end of paragraph (2); and
(B) by striking paragraph (3) and redesignating paragraph
(4) as paragraph (3).
(9) Section 1128A(i)(1) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1320a-7a(i)(1)) is amended by striking ``or subtitle 1
of title XX''.
(10) Section 1132(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1320b-2(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``XIX, or XX''
and inserting ``or XIX''.
(11) Section 1902(e)(13)(F)(iii) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396a(e)(13)(F)(iii)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``Exclusions'' and inserting ``Exclusion'';
and
(B) by striking ``an agency that determines eligibility for
a program established under the Social Services Block Grant
established under title XX or''.
(12) The heading for title XX of the Social Security Act is
amended by striking ``BLOCK GRANTS TO STATES FOR SOCIAL
SERVICES'' and inserting ``HEALTH PROFESSIONS DEMONSTRATIONS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CONDITION DETECTION''.
(13) The heading for subtitle A of title XX of the Social
Security Act is amended by striking ``Block Grants to States
for Social Services'' and inserting ``Health Professions
Demonstrations and Environmental Health Condition
Detection''.
(14) Section 16(k)(5)(B)(i) of the Food and Nutrition Act
of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2025(k)(5)(B)(i)) is amended by striking
``, or title XX,''.
(15) Section 402(b)(3) of the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.
1612(b)(3)) is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and
redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B).

[[Page H2600]]

(16) Section 245A(h)(4)(I) of the Immigration Reform and
Control Act of 1986 (8 U.S.C. 1255a(h)(4)(I)) is amended by
striking ``, XVI, and XX'' and inserting ``and XVI''.
(17) Section 17 of the Richard B. Russell National School
Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(2)--
(i) in subparagraph (B)--

(I) by striking ``--'' and all that follows through
``(i)'';
(II) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i); and
(III) by striking clause (ii); and

(ii) in subparagraph (D)(ii), by striking ``or title XX'';
and
(B) in subsection (o)(2)(B)--
(i) by striking ``or title XX'' each place it appears; and
(ii) by striking ``or XX''.
(18) Section 201(b) of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978
(25 U.S.C. 1931(b)) is amended by striking ``titles IV B and
XX'' each place it appears and inserting ``part B of title
IV''.
(19) Section 3803(c)(2)(C) of title 31, United States Code,
is amended by striking clause (vi) and redesignating clauses
(vii) through (xvi) as clauses (vi) through (xv),
respectively.
(20) Section 14502(d)(3) of title 40, United States Code,
is amended--
(A) by striking ``and title XX''; and
(B) by striking ``, 1397 et seq.''.
(21) Section 2006(a)(15) of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 300z-5(a)(15)) is amended by striking ``and title
XX''.
(22) Section 203(b)(3) of the Older Americans Act of 1965
(42 U.S.C. 3013(b)(3)) is amended by striking ``XIX, and XX''
and inserting ``and XIX''.
(23) Section 213 of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 3020d) is amended by striking ``or title XX''.
(24) Section 306(d) of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. 3026(d)) is amended in each of paragraphs (1) and (2)
by striking ``titles XIX and XX'' and inserting ``title
XIX''.
(25) Section 2605 of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8624) is amended in each of
subsections (b)(4) and (j) by striking ``under title XX of
the Social Security Act,''.
(26) Section 602 of the Child Development Associate
Scholarship Assistance Act of 1985 (42 U.S.C. 10901) is
repealed.
(27) Section 3(d)(1) of the Assisted Suicide Funding
Restriction Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 14402(d)(1)) is amended by
striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating subparagraphs (D)
through (K) as subparagraphs (C) through (J), respectively.
(c) Effective Date.--The repeals and amendments made by
this section shall take effect on October 1, 2012.

TITLE VII--SEQUESTER REPLACEMENT

SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Sequester Replacement Act
of 2012''.

SEC. 702. PROTECTING VETERANS PROGRAMS FROM SEQUESTER.

Section 256(e)(2)(E) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 is repealed.

SEC. 703. ACHIEVING $19 BILLION IN DISCRETIONARY SAVINGS.

(a) Revised 2013 Discretionary Spending Limit.--Paragraph
(2) of section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended to read as follows:
``(2) with respect to fiscal year 2013, for the
discretionary category, $1,047,000,000,000 in new budget
authority;''.
(b) Discretionary Savings.--Section 251A(7)(A) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is
amended to read as follows:
``(A) Fiscal year 2013.--
``(i) Fiscal year 2013 adjustment.--On January 2, 2013, the
discretionary category set forth in section 251(c)(2) shall
be decreased by $19,104,000,000 in budget authority.
``(ii) Supplemental sequestration order.--On January 15,
2013, OMB shall issue a supplemental sequestration report for
fiscal year 2013 and take the form of a final sequestration
report as set forth in section 254(f)(2) and using the
procedures set forth in section 253(f), to eliminate any
discretionary spending breach of the spending limit set forth
in section 251(c)(2) as adjusted by clause (i), and the
President shall order a sequestration, if any, as required by
such report.''.

SEC. 704. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 314 OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET AND IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL
ACT OF 1974.

Section 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is
amended to read as follows:
``(a) Adjustments.--
``(1) In general.--The chair of the Committee on the Budget
of the House of Representatives or the Senate may make
adjustments as set forth in paragraph (2) for a bill or joint
resolution, amendment thereto or conference report thereon,
by the amount of new budget authority and 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) Matters to be adjusted.--The chair of the Committee
on the Budget of the House of Representatives or the Senate
may make the adjustments referred to in paragraph (1) to--
``(A) the allocations made pursuant to the appropriate
concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to section
302(a);
``(B) the budgetary aggregates as set forth in the
appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget; and
``(C) the discretionary spending limits, if any, set forth
in the appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget.''.

SEC. 705. TREATMENT FOR PAYGO PURPOSES.

The budgetary effects of this Act and any amendment made by
it shall not be entered on either PAYGO scorecard maintained
pursuant to section 4(d) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act
of 2010.

SEC. 706. ELIMINATION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 SEQUESTRATION
FOR DEFENSE DIRECT SPENDING.

Any sequestration order issued by the President under the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to
carry out reductions to direct spending for the defense
function (050) for fiscal year 2013 pursuant to section 251A
of such Act shall have no force or effect.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) each will control 1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.

General Leave

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 5652, the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind everybody for a minute as to how
we got here. Why are we doing this? What's going on?
When the President was requesting an increase in the debt limit last
year, he wanted a blank check. Just increase the debt limit. Borrowing
unchecked. Then when that wasn't going to happen, he asked for a big
tax increase. That didn't occur.

{time} 1100

What occurred out of that was the Budget Control Act. You've got to
cut at least a dollar's worth of spending for every dollar of debt-
limit increase that occurs.
So Congress passed the Budget Control Act with no tax increases,
spending cuts. Half of it, approximately, were the caps on
discretionary spending netting about $1 trillion in savings--$917
billion, to be specific. The other half, the $1.2 trillion, was the
Select Committee--people call this the supercommittee. That committee
failed to produce a result. As a result of that, a sequester occurs.
And the sequester, according to people on a bipartisan basis, is not
good government. The sequester, according to the Secretary of Defense,
the President himself, would hollow out our military when it kicks in
on January 2 next year. The sequester will take nondefense
discretionary spending down 8 percent and defense down 10 percent.
We believe the purpose of the sequester was to replace the fact that
Congress isn't governing. Well, let's have Congress govern. That's why
we're doing this. What we're doing is we're bringing a bill to the
floor to cut 405 percent of the spending cuts that are in the sequester
in the first year. A net deficit reduction of $242.8 billion to set
aside the sequester under discretionary for 1 year of $78 billion, we
think that's a good tradeoff.
More to the point, we need to get in the habit of doing
reconciliation because 61 percent of the Federal budget is off limits,
it's autopilot, it's not touched. Congress doesn't deal with it. So we
should look at this part of our government that is not being dealt
with.
The last time we used reconciliation for its intended purpose--to cut
spending, to reduce deficits--was 2005. So rather than just having
annual discretionary spending bouts and debates, we should look at the
other parts of government that are on autopilot.
Take a look at what we're doing. We basically are doing five things.
We're stopping the abuse by ensuring individuals are actually eligible
for the taxpayer benefits they receive--novel idea, I know. We're
eliminating government slush funds to stop bailouts. We're controlling
runaway, unchecked spending. We're putting restraints on government
spending by bureaucracies. And we're getting rid of duplicative
spending.
I can go through each program, and we will do this in this debate,
but what we're simply saying is people should actually be eligible for
the benefits that they receive, whether it's a tax credit, whether it's
a SNAP benefit, whatever it is. When we take a look at why we're
cutting spending, we are

[[Page H2601]]

doing this with the guise of the fact that we have a spending-driven
debt crisis on the horizon. If taxes go back to where they've been for
the last 40 years, which is what they are projected to do, there's no
way you can fix this problem by raising taxes.
We have a spending-driven debt crisis, and the debt crisis is one in
which we have a tidal wave of debt coming to this country just like
Europe is experiencing. If we don't get our spending under control and
we don't get our deficit under control, the people who need government
the most--the poor, the elderly--they're the ones who get hurt the
first and the worst.
We need to get spending and, therefore, deficits under control to
prevent a debt crisis. That's what this does. It's a downpayment.
Instead of saving hundreds of billions of dollars like this bill does,
we need to get into the practice of actually saving trillions of
dollars, which is what our budget does, in order to prevent a debt
crisis from ruining the American Dream for Americans.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, there's agreement here on two things: one, we need to
reduce our long-term deficits--the question is not whether we need to
do that, but how; second, we agree that the automatic, indiscriminate,
meat-ax cuts scheduled to begin next January are the wrong way to
reduce the deficit. We need a responsible alternative.
Now, the House Democrats put forward a budget, as did the President,
that deals with this issue over 10 years in a balanced way, building on
the more than $1 trillion of cuts we already made on a bipartisan basis
last August, and including additional cuts, but also cutting tax
loopholes that benefit special interests, and asking people who make
more than $1 million per year to help a little bit more toward deficit
reduction. That is the kind of bipartisan approach that's been
recommended by bipartisan groups like Simpson-Bowles and Rivlin-
Domenici. Unfortunately, the Republican approach to the budget--and now
to the sequester issue--takes this lopsided approach.
Now, let's remember, 98 percent of our House Republican colleagues,
while they come down here and talk about how we have this big deficit
and debt problem, they have signed a pledge that says we're not going
to ask for one penny of additional contribution from people making more
than $1 million a year to help reduce our deficit, not one penny. We
won't take one penny of taxpayer subsidies away from the big oil
companies to help reduce the deficit.
And the math is pretty simple after that. If you say from the
beginning you're not going to ask people making $1 million a year to
help do a little more to reduce our common deficit, if you say you're
not going to ask companies that have these tax loopholes that actually
incentivize them to ship jobs overseas to pay a little bit more, what
do you do? Your budget has to whack everyone else, and that's what it
did. That's why their budget ended the Medicare guarantee. That's why
they cut $800 billion from Medicaid--two-thirds of Medicaid spending
goes to help seniors and disabled people in nursing homes. That's why
they slash vital investments in education, research, infrastructure,
things that had been bipartisan investments to help our economy grow.
That's what they did then.
And now on this sequester proposal, what do they do? The chairman
talks about eligibility. These are people who are eligible to get food
and nutrition assistance because they're struggling. The nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office, which is our referee around here, has told
us what the real-world consequences of their proposal before us today
would be. Over 22 million households with kids would see their food and
nutrition support reduced; 300,000 kids knocked off the school lunch
program; 300,000 kids knocked off the Children's Health Insurance
Program. Those are the kinds of choices they make because they refuse
to take a balanced approach to this deficit issue.
Now, I want to say one word about defense spending. Last August, as
part of the bipartisan Budget Control Act, our Republican colleagues
deliberately chose to expose defense spending to deep additional cuts
rather than ask millionaires and big corporations to share a greater
responsibility for paying for our national security. Now our Republican
colleagues are on the floor today saying these defense cuts would
devastate our national security; but they still, even today, apparently
aren't concerned enough about the impact of those cuts on national
security to ask millionaires to pay a little bit more for our common
defense. That's the same kind of mentality that led us to put two
wars--Iraq and Afghanistan--on our national credit card. Even as we
asked our soldiers to sacrifice, we said we're just going to put that
on our national credit card.
So there's a fundamental question here: If you're so concerned about
those cuts to defense, why is it you won't close one special interest
tax loophole to help pay for them?
We, the Democrats, had a substitute amendment that we would have been
able to debate and vote on right here today. We took an alternative
approach. We also prevented those defense cuts. You know how we did it?
We said we don't need to make these big agricultural subsidies in
direct payments. We also don't think we should have taxpayer subsidies
for the big oil companies. We did it in a different way. Apparently,
our Republican colleagues are kind of worried about what we were going
to propose because they brought a closed rule to the floor, meaning
Democrats didn't have an opportunity to get a vote on our alternative.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 1 minute to say, Mr. Speaker,
that the gentleman's substitute raises taxes $85 billion and raises
spending $55 billion on the net to achieve simply $30 billion in
deficit reduction. This bill achieves $243 billion in deficit reduction
without raising taxes.
The ratio of tax increases to spending cuts gross 3 to 1. That's what
they think balance is.

{time} 1110

Let's look at food stamps. Food stamps went up 270 percent over the
last decade. If this passes, it will have gone up 260 percent.
Let's talk about Medicaid and SCHIP. This program has gone up 50
percent over the last 10 years. It's projected to grow 125 percent over
the next 10 years. If this passes, it will grow 123 percent over the
next 10 years.
If we can't have a civil debate about how to slow the growth of
spending around here then we'll never get this under control. Medicaid
alone made $15.8 billion in overpayments in 2011 alone. If we can't
deal with this waste, if we can't deal with this overspending, we can't
fix this problem.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes of my time to Mr.
Hensarling of the Financial Services Committee, and ask unanimous
consent that he be allowed to yield time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Hensarling) will control the time.
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished
chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, the Financial Committee's work on this
reconciliation package saves more than $35 billion. But more
importantly, it does what 2,300 pages of Dodd-Frank, 400 new
regulations, over 2,000 newly hired Federal regulators, many them
living in my Maryland colleague's district, and more than $24 million
worth of compliance work required of America's companies, at the cost
of $100 billion, don't: it ends the bailouts.
A bailout fund doesn't end the bailout; it guarantees them. We're
telling the big banks what my Democratic colleagues didn't want to tell
them: if they make risky bets and make bad decisions, they're on the
hook, not the taxpayers. No more privatizing the profits, no more
socializing the losses. In short, no more bailouts, period.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank Ranking Member Van Hollen.
Well, here we are again. America is still recovering from the worst
economic downturn since the Great Depression, and the Republicans don't

[[Page H2602]]

seem to understand that we need to focus on job creation.

Our economy has been producing private sector jobs each month for the
last 2 years, in stark contrast to the Bush years. But today we're not
debating job growth to balance the budget. We aren't considering a
transportation bill today. No, that would create the most new jobs,
making real investments in America by putting people back to work and
growing our economy.
Today we are debating nothing more than the latest political talking
points for the Republican Party. We all know that this strategy is
going nowhere in the Senate. So instead of focusing on economic growth
and job creation, the Republicans have decided to protect their rich
friends and slash the programs that the most needy in our country
depend upon.
While protecting the well-heeled, here's what the Republican bill
does to ordinary families:
Cuts health coverage for the least among us, 300,000 low-income
children.
The Republican bill slashes food and nutrition support for the
unemployed and for struggling children and families.
The Republican bill eliminates Social Services Block Grants, which
give States and local communities flexibility to target funding for
essential services like Meals on Wheels, preventing child abuse and
neglect, and providing child care for working parents.
The Republican bill wants to repeal the Prevention and Public Health
Fund established under the Affordable Care Act. And what does that do?
It supports cancer screenings, including for breast and cervical
cancer, immunizations, education, research, and prevention, which, in
the end, saves the most money. Prevention saves money.
If the Republicans were serious about putting our fiscal house in
order, they would put forward a serious proposal that grows our economy
and creates jobs to balance the budget and involves shared sacrifice.
That's how you balance budgets--you grow the economy.
I look forward to that day.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, a lot of discussion here this morning
about who we're protecting. Well, really the reason we're here today is
to protect the future of America.
They're throwing around a lot of large numbers here, but I think what
we need to do is put in perspective what we're talking about here
today. I want to talk to you about a little family that's making
$24,000 a year. Unfortunately, this family is spending $37,000 a year,
so they're spending $13,000 more a year than they're making.

And they just got their credit card statement the other day, Mr.
Speaker, and they found out they owe $157,000 on their credit card. And
people out there would say, that's a family that doesn't have a future.
Unfortunately, the family that I'm just talking about here, Mr.
Speaker, is the United States of America, because I took the eight
zeros off of the front of these numbers that we're kicking around
today.
So I think the American people ought to be excited that we're here
today making a start. And let me point out, this is just a start to
addressing a very large problem. And so when we go into some of the
programs out there like the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau
basically that was tucked inside the Fed, has no accountability, that
was the reason I was pleased to introduce H.R. 1355 to bring
accountability to that.
The American people deserve accountability, and they also deserve for
this body to come together and work on this very large problem because,
as has been pointed out, a lot of the things that we actually vote on,
in fact, this $13,000 deficit, if we eliminated the part of spending
that we are talking about voting on in these appropriation bills, it
would only eliminate $11,000 of that deficit. And so this family would
still have a $2,000 budget deficit, even after we eliminate all of the
programs that we vote on.
Mr. Speaker, this is the business that we are supposed to be about.
Let's work together and protect the future of our children and our
grandchildren so that they will have a future, they will have an
opportunity to have jobs and opportunities in America.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to respond to the
chairman of the Budget Committee in terms of the ratio of cuts to
revenue. I think the gentleman will recall that one of the
recommendations that the bipartisan commission made was the trillion
dollars in cuts that we made as part of the Budget Control Act, that
was 100 percent cuts. If you take that into account, the reality is
what we've done so far with our proposal is 92 percent cuts, 8 percent
revenue, and with that revenue generated by closing those tax loopholes
I talked about earlier.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the
Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act, the second phase in the
Republicans' Pathway to Poverty plan.
This bill, once again, fails to reach any measure of fairness and
shared responsibility. All of us agree that the implementation of
sequestration would be a damaging, harmful approach to take in an
effort to achieve deficit reduction.
The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that, instead of
taking a balanced approach, the Republicans would replace sequestration
with tax breaks to millionaires and special interests while ending the
Medicare guarantee, slashing investments that strengthen our economy,
and shredding the social safety net. Not surprisingly, important
provisions of the Affordable Care Act are in their sights.
The Prevention and Public Health Fund was an unprecedented investment
in our Nation's health and well-being, particularly the health of
America's women and children. By providing funding for vital cancer and
infection screenings, modernizing vaccine systems, and the fight
against epidemics like obesity and diabetes, this fund truly invests in
our Nation's health, and it will provide savings down the line by
helping to catch afflictions early.
By seeking to undermine the Affordable Care Act, the Republican
reconciliation bill would eliminate funding for hundreds of thousands
of lifesaving screenings, all to score political points with their
extreme base.
Mr. Speaker, just a few years ago, when I was 41 years old, I found a
lump in my breast, which was confirmed to be cancer in a series of
screenings, including a clinical screening just like the ones that this
fund provides. These screenings saved my life.
But this bill would prevent 326,000 women from having access to the
same lifesaving screenings that I did. It will prevent an estimated
10,300 women from being diagnosed with breast and cervical cancer in
its early stages, and it may cost them their lives.
Furthermore, this bill slashes funding for screening for birth
defects, developmental disabilities, and hearing loss in children.
How can any of us, in good conscience, cut funding by cutting
investments in children's health?
Frankly, as a mom of three young kids, I'm stunned because I think
it's just common sense that you don't pay down a deficit our children
didn't create by compromising their health.
Our constituents deserve a balanced approach to deficit reduction.
The Republicans' approach would deny women like me access to screenings
that save lives and deny children the screenings they need so we can
keep them healthy. It's unacceptable, and I ask colleagues with a
conscience to vote down this terrible bill.

{time} 1120

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
It is important for us to remember why we are here. We are here
because the President's policies have failed--a trillion-dollar
deficit, a second trillion-dollar deficit, a third trillion-dollar
deficit, and now a fourth trillion-dollar deficit--putting the Nation
on the road to bankruptcy. That's why we have a reconciliation bill
before us.
I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about deep
cuts. The deepest cuts that are happening in America today are to the
family budgets of breadwinners who are either unemployed or
underemployed due to the

[[Page H2603]]

economic policies of this administration. We just got the news last
month: the third month in a row where job growth is down. We're not
even keeping pace. We have the lowest labor force participation rate in
30 years because, Mr. Speaker, people have given up on the Obama
economy. Those are the deep cuts that truly count.
Republicans have a plan for America's job creators. We want to get
this economy going; and as we do, as people go back to work, they will
get off of the welfare checks and onto the paychecks. That's what
counts. So Republicans have brought forth a reconciliation plan that
says, You know what? Maybe we ought to quit spending money we don't
have, and maybe this will help provide part of the confidence that job
creators need to put America back to work.
I am very proud of the work that was done on the Financial Services
Committee, among other things, to end the perpetual Wall Street bailout
fund that was put in by the Democrats in the Dodd-Frank bill, because
if you lose your ability to fail in America, you lose your ability to
succeed, and the American people are tired of the bailouts.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, before I turn to one of my colleagues,
let me say in response to my friend Mr. Hensarling that the American
people are well aware of what was happening to the economy the very day
the President was sworn in as President of the United States: losing
800,000 jobs every month, the economy in free fall, almost 9 percent in
negative economic growth. People's retirement savings had dropped by
one-third compared to where they were in 2007. That's the economy the
President inherited.
As a result of the extraordinary measures taken by the President, by
the previous Congress and, most importantly, with the fortitude of the
American people, what we see is this. After the day the President was
sworn in and when the economy was in free fall--those were jobs lost--
we began to lift ourselves slowly out. We have now had 25 consecutive
months of positive private sector job growth.
Is it enough? No. Of course, we had no help from our Republican
colleagues in working on the turnaround. The President's jobs bill that
he submitted to this House last September is still sitting here.
Fortunately, we finally did a piece of it with the payroll tax cut.
My Republican colleagues say they have an answer. Their answer is
back to the old trickle-down economics: another round of tax breaks for
the folks at the very top, and somehow that's going to trickle down and
lift everybody up.
Do you know what? We tried it. It didn't work. It was called 8 years
of the Bush administration. We had two back-to-back tax cuts at the end
of the 8 years, a net job loss in the private sector after those 8
years, and we had big deficits. The last time we had a balanced budget
here was in 2001, which was before those policies. So it is important
for us to get the history of the past right in order to make sure we
know how to move forward properly in the future.
I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting
me to speak on this just as I appreciate his setting the stage in terms
of why we're here, in terms of what President Obama inherited when he
was elected to office.
But another reason we're here is that the Republican leadership
doesn't want to work with us in a balanced and reasonable way to reduce
the deficit and get us on a sustainable path. Nothing is a greater
illustration of this than the response to an amendment that I offered
in the Budget Committee. On Monday, when we were dealing with this, I
offered up to my colleagues:
Instead of eliminating food stamp benefits for 2 million people,
cutting benefits early to 20 months, reducing benefits for 44 million
people in total, school lunches for 280,000 children, I said, Wait a
minute. Why don't we work together on something that we agree on?
I've worked with the chairman of the Budget Committee in the past to
try and reform agriculture subsidies. We got reconciliation instruction
from the Ag Committee that takes it all out of the nutrition for poor
people, for children, for struggling families. I said, Why don't we go
to where we agree: crop insurance wastes billions, and direct payments
go to farmers who don't need them and don't deserve them.
We have an opportunity to put reasonable limits on the amount that
goes to the wealthiest agribusiness interests. We've worked on that
together. A majority of the Budget Committee, I'm sure, agrees. It
would pass on the floor, and we could meet this objective and more
without assaulting the well-being of 44 million struggling Americans.
I've looked at those people in my community, and I can't imagine my
colleagues who are proposing this have worked with the food kitchens,
have worked with the food stamp recipients.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. The answer, in part, was that we can't do this. We do
agree on some farm reform, but we have to do it when we reform the farm
bill. That's coming up for reauthorization later. You'll have to do it
in the farm bill. That's where we deal with direct payments. That's
where we deal with crop insurance.
Hello? Where are food stamps authorized? They're in the exact same
farm bill, and the Republicans have decided they're going to ignore
this opportunity for a bipartisan compromise that will save more money
and protect families. Instead, they're going to protect agribusiness
and avoid an opportunity for everybody to win on the floor. It's
shameful and should be rejected.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Canseco).
Mr. CANSECO. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the Financial Services Committee has responsibly
contributed, roughly, $35 billion in deficit reduction measures to this
bill, and I am happy that one of these measures that I sponsored--a
repeal of the Office of Financial Research--was adopted by voice vote
in our committee. This agency, which was created by the Dodd-Frank, is
a threat to the privacy of every American citizen, and it has no place
in a system of checks and balances such as ours. Repealing the OFR will
save $270 million over 10 years, and Americans will be better off for
it.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining 1\1/2\
minutes.
The American people know that after the Nation's first, second,
third, and now fourth trillion-dollar deficit--the American people know
after the worst employment record in 30 years--that the problem is with
the President's economic policies. Ultimately, the debate comes down to
this: Do we have a debt crisis because Washington spends too much or
because the American people are undertaxed?
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say a nation can tax its
way into economic growth, that it can tax its way into economic
prosperity. They want to impose taxes on 40 percent of the income on
small businesses, and they somehow think they will create more jobs.
Mr. Speaker, if you gave them every job-harming tax increase that
they have asked for, it would be roughly 16 percent of the additional
$11 trillion of debt that the President wants to put on this economy,
our children and our grandchildren. The American people know we can do
better. It is time to quit spending money we don't have for jobs the
stimulus program never creates.

{time} 1130

I'm proud to be a part of this reconciliation package which will save
the draconian cuts that are aimed at our warfighters and their families
and be able to begin the process of ensuring that a great Nation lives
within its means and that we can give the next generation greater hope,
greater opportunity, greater economic growth.
I urge all my colleagues to support this reconciliation bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office

[[Page H2604]]

has stated that as a result of the economic recovery bill and the
extraordinary actions that were taken, over 4 million jobs were created
or saved. That means a lot to the people who didn't lose their jobs and
to the people who were losing their jobs at the rate of 800,000 per
month when the President was sworn in. Are we where we want to be? Of
course not. Are we a lot better off than we were? We're pulling
ourselves up. The last thing we want to do is go back to where we were.
Nobody on the Democratic side has said we can deal with this on the
tax side alone. I keep hearing that. It's just not true. We just voted
on a bipartisan basis in August for a trillion dollars in cuts. What we
propose is what every bipartisan group that has looked at this
challenge has said: you have to do this through a combination of cuts,
but you also have to get rid of all that pork-barrel stuff in the Tax
Code and use some of that to reduce our deficit. Ask the folks who have
been making over a million dollars a year to help pay more for our
common defense. That is just common sense.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, normally when we think of reconciliation,
we think of a coming together, of finding common ground. This is not
such a reconciliation. Rather, this is a bill that provides more tax
breaks to the few and more pain to the many. It is, in fact, a wreck,
as in a train- or auto-wreck--``wreckonciliation.''
There is legitimate concern that we must address our budget
difficulties to avoid a long-term budget wreck, but I am concerned
about the wreck that this legislation under consideration today poses
to the lives of so many Americans. It is a wreck for educational
opportunity. The failure of this Budget Committee to address the needs
of our youngest Americans with Head Start and early learning, the
failure to extend the More Education tuition tax credit that I authored
for more opportunity at the Alamo Colleges, at Texas State and
institutions across this country.
It is a wreck for our most vulnerable neighbors, the Texas seniors,
who rely on one hot meal a day from Meals on Wheels. Their director
says it will be ``devastating'' to eliminate the Social Services Block
Grant, a wreck for those seniors. It is a wreck for those who are
relying on food security, like the 74-year-old who gave me this paper
plate at the food bank in San Antonio:

``My Social Security check doesn't give me enough to buy
any groceries, just my rent and utilities. Without the food
bank, I would starve.''

Those are the kinds of people for whom this bill is a wreck right
now.
We had a President once who realized the need for shared sacrifice.
He had almost half of his budget from new revenue. What he said was
that ``closing off special interest loopholes'' was just ``a matter of
simple fairness.'' His name was Ronald Reagan. I think we might follow
that example.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.
Mr. DOGGETT. We would contrast that example with those Republican
Presidential candidates who said they wouldn't support $1 of additional
revenue for $10 of spending cuts to get our budget in balance.
This is a ``wreckonciliation'' bill that asks nothing of Mr. Exxon,
that asks nothing more of hedge fund managers, but asks those who are
most vulnerable in our society to share more pain.
I think we must reject this reconciliation bill which is a wreck for
so many American families.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to
just address a few of these.
If you're eligible for food stamps today, you'll be eligible for food
stamps tomorrow under this bill. We're simply saying you have to be
eligible for this benefit to actually get the benefit.
The slush fund, which is called the Preventive Services Fund, doesn't
fund cervical and breast cancer research. It funded things such as the
Pitt County, North Carolina, funds for signage to promote recreational
destinations, including public parks, bike lanes, and more. The city of
Boston received a $1 million grant for urban gardening. The New York
Department of Health used a $3 million taxpayer-funded grant from this
fund to lobby for a soda-tax initiative. The Cascade Bicycle Club
Education Foundation granted $3 million to the Seattle and King County
Public Health Facility to use taxpayer dollars to ``improve the walking
and biking environment.'' This is where our taxpayer dollars are going.
With regard to the child tax credit, one investigation in Indiana
said an illegal immigrant is claiming $29,608 as a tax credit for 20
children who live in Mexico and have never visited the United States
before.
What we're saying is government spending on these programs should go
to the people who they are intended for, not to people who are not
eligible and are not intended for. If we're going to do prevention for
health care, then do cancer screenings, do cancer research. Don't fund
signs for bike paths.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California, the chairman of the House Armed Services
Committee, Mr. McKeon.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5652.
Fifty percent of the savings that we have already generated this year
have come from the military cuts, and we're talking about adding
another $500 billion to $600 billion on top of that next January with
sequestration. That's over a trillion dollars a year coming out of the
military over the next 10 years, while defense spending only accounts
for less than 20 percent of our budget and while we're fighting a war
in Afghanistan and facing other uncertainties around the world.
Let me remind everyone here of the major consequences of
sequestration. There will be 200,000 troops taken out of the Army and
the Marines, bringing our force level down below pre-9/11 levels. The
ability to respond to contingencies in North Korea and Iran and other
hot spots around the world will be put in jeopardy. We will have a
fleet of fewer than 230 ships for a Navy that has protected the sea
lanes around the world and our commerce. Ninety-five percent of our
commerce travels on the sea. They've protected that since World War II.
They'll be taken down to pre-World War I levels.
We'll have a smaller Air Force than at any time since the Air Force
was created and two rounds of base closures. That's why Secretary
Panetta has said, It's not shooting ourselves in our foot with
sequestration; it's shooting ourselves in the head. That's why 31
organizations representing more than 5\1/2\ million American troops and
veterans have called on Congress to act immediately to prevent these
catastrophic cuts to our military.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support our troops, support our
national security, and support this bill.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I also urge all our colleagues to
support our troops and support our military, and the Democratic
substitute that we offered would have made sure that the sequester on
defense spending did not take place.
I have great respect for the chairman of the Armed Services
Committee, Mr. McKeon, who just spoke. Here's what he said not long
ago. He said:

We need to address our budget problems comprehensively,
through smarter spending and increased revenue.

He also said:

If it came that I only had two choices, one was a tax
increase and one was a cut in defense over and above where we
already are, I would go to strengthen defense.

In our Democratic substitute, we said let's close some of those tax
loopholes to generate a little more revenue to help pay for defense;
let's ask people who are making over a million dollars a year to get
rid of some of their tax breaks to help pay for our common defense so
that we don't have to have a budget that whacks everybody else in the
country. That's what the chairman of the Armed Services Committee said.
I agree with him. He got beaten down by many in the Republican Party
after he made those comments with them saying, oh, you violated that
pledge that says we're not going to raise one more penny of revenue to
reduce the deficit. But he was candid.

{time} 1140

Unfortunately, neither he nor any one of us are going to have a
chance to vote on the Democratic substitute that makes sure that we
don't have the defense sequestration. We just do it in a

[[Page H2605]]

balanced way, through cuts as well as closing some of these tax
loopholes.
I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Castor).
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank the ranking member.
Mr. Speaker, two of the most prominent independent scholars on
Congress, Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein, recently completed a detailed
research initiative. They've never been shy in criticizing either side
of the aisle. But their latest research concluded that the Republican
Party has become ``ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise;
unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and
science.'' And they said:

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes
it nearly impossible for the political system to deal
constructively with the Nation's challenges.

The Republican budget is a perfect example of that. The Republican
budget shields special interests from participating in deficit
reduction, and instead says, We want to end Medicare as we know it. We
target children and our older neighbors and middle class families for
the overwhelming burden of deficit reduction.
If a political party wanted to undermine the health and economic
security of millions of American families, well, then, this is the way
to do it. And it's too bad, because I believe Democrats and Republicans
agree on the need for deficit reduction, but we have starkly different
visions on how to get there. Others have called this Republican budget
extreme, reverse Robin Hood, destructive, and a threat to middle class
security.
And here's an example. In the Budget Committee, I offered an
amendment to say, It's time. We don't have the luxury to be giving big
oil companies tax breaks any longer. Instead, let's make sure that
children across America can see a doctor, can get the immunizations
that they need. But what was the vote? The Republicans rejected that
commonsense amendment. It was paid for by eliminating these Big Oil
subsidies.
This is what Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein mean by they are
``ideologically extreme.'' It's not in keeping with our values, as
Americans. And I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Republican
budget and sequestration plan.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to make
three points.
That line the gentlelady used about Medicare was rated the ``lie of
the year'' in 2011 by PolitiFact. Number two, the reason the Democratic
substitute is not being considered is because it violates the House
rules. What's interesting about that is, it would have violated the
House rules that the Democrats had when they were in the majority. The
third point is, when it comes to tax loopholes, we're proposing to
close those tax loopholes in order to lower tax rates for American
families and businesses to create jobs. They want to do it to prevent
spending cuts; $3 of tax increases for $1 of spending cuts is the math
and the logic that the other side chooses to use. When you have a
spending problem, you've got to cut spending.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, and
ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Oklahoma will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.
It's no secret that we're facing a severe debt crisis right now. We
have almost $16 trillion in debt piled up. And if we don't act quickly,
we will be passing a crushing burden on to our children and
grandchildren.
Reducing government spending, though, is never an easy task. We face
difficult choices, but House Republicans have lived up to our
responsibility to find ways to cut our costs so that we can once again
live within our means.
The House Agriculture Committee has been asked to do its part by
finding $33 billion in savings over 10 years. We did that by making
credible, commonsense reforms to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program, or SNAP. These provisions reduce waste and abuse and close
program loopholes.
SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, comprises almost 80 percent of
the Agriculture Committee's mandatory spending. Over the past 10 years,
the cost of SNAP has nearly tripled, increasing by 270 percent. The
changes that we're proposing today cut only 4 percent over the next 10
years.
I would like to make it absolutely clear. None of these
recommendations will prevent families that qualify for assistance under
SNAP from receiving their benefits. We are working to better target the
program and improve its integrity so that families in need can continue
to receive nutritional assistance.
Opponents of this legislation would have you believe that we are
decimating the nutritional safety net and that hungry children and
seniors will be left to fend for themselves. That is a false and
misleading scare tactic. It's important to remember that many of the
very people opposing these cuts proposed and voted for similar measures
during the last Congress when they were in control of this body. Not
once, but twice my colleagues on the left voted to cut a temporary
increase in SNAP benefits under the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act. One of those cuts was to pay for the bailout of a union. And now
that House Republicans are advocating that same policy, those across
the aisle are crying foul.
By ending the artificial increase in SNAP benefits, we can save $5.9
billion over 10 years, and we won't be turning that into more
government spending. It will go towards deficit reduction.
This legislation also ends bonuses that have been awarded to States
on the taxpayer dime. States are responsible for administering SNAP,
and it's their duty to make sure the program is operating in the most
efficient and effective fashion. We save nearly $500 million by ending
bonuses that are given to States for merely doing their job. We also
find savings by closing loopholes that allow States to game the system
when administering SNAP.
First, we'll stop States from abusing the Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program, LIHEAP, to inflate SNAP benefits. States are
exploiting the interaction between LIHEAP and SNAP by sending a token
check to households which can trigger hundreds of dollars in increased
SNAP benefits. LIHEAP is a valuable program for households in need of
assistance with heating and energy costs. It shouldn't be abused in
this fashion.
In New York City, a $1 LIHEAP check triggers an additional $131 in
SNAP benefits per month for nearly 90,000 households. In Washington
State, a $1 LIHEAP check triggers an additional $43 million in SNAP
benefits. That's egregious, and taxpayers know it. These token checks
not only undermine the integrity of both SNAP and LIHEAP, but they also
cost taxpayers billions of dollars in overpayments. Closing this
loophole saves $14.3 billion over 10 years and ensures that both LIHEAP
and SNAP are targeted to the families who truly need the assistance.
Another loophole we've closed is called categorical eligibility,
which allows any household that receives a benefit from certain low-
income assistance programs to become automatically eligible for SNAP.
Some of these benefits can be as simple as providing a household with a
pamphlet or access to a 1 800 number hotline. When States implement
categorical eligibility, these households do not need to meet SNAP or
gross income tests. That's how lottery winners slip through the cracks
and continue to receive nutrition assistance. When someone is
categorically eligible for SNAP, States don't have to verify assets,
like lottery winnings.
And it isn't just lottery winners that are unfairly collecting
benefits either. The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that one woman
collecting $500 per month in SNAP benefits had $80,000 in savings, a
paid-for home valued at about $300,000, and a Mercedes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. LUCAS. So let me repeat what I said earlier: These provisions do
not decimate the program and leave struggling families to fend for
themselves. What they do is restore program integrity. They reserve
taxpayer dollars for families that are in need of assistance.

[[Page H2606]]

Every one of these provisions represents common sense and good
government in a time of fiscal restraint.
There's no denying that SNAP provides important support to many
Americans.

{time} 1150

That's why it's important that we ensure the integrity of the
program. Those who qualify for SNAP under the law will continue to
receive benefits.
By voting for this package, we're not only doing our part to reduce
the debt, we're improving the implementation of this important program
while continuing to meet the nutritional needs of our fellow Americans.
I urge my colleagues to put aside the rhetoric and vote for these
reforms.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
First, I would just like to respond to the chairman of the Budget
Committee and point out that the Rules Committee waived three rules to
bring the Republican legislation to the floor. It couldn't waive one
rule to allow a Democratic substitute to have an up-or-down vote. And
the one rule you wouldn't waive is the one that rigs the process
against closing special interest tax loopholes.
To the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I think everybody needs
to know that the Ag Committee didn't reduce one subsidy to ag
businesses--not one. Even though the overall Republican budget says it
should be $30 billion, there's a bipartisan bill that would do that,
but not one. Instead, they took $33 billion out of food and nutrition
programs.
Now, we should be very clear on this. People say that they're going
to make sure that everyone who's eligible to get food stamps will. And
then they say, under SNAP, suggesting that there are a lot of people
who are getting it who are cheating. That's not true. All those other
people are eligible. They're eligible.
And it's not Democratic scare tactics saying all these people are
going to lose their access to food and nutrition programs. It's the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the referee here, that was
never contested by our Republican colleagues in the Budget Committee.
They say 22 million American households with children will see their
food and nutrition support reduced; 2 million Americans, approximately,
will lose all access to the food and nutrition programs through SNAP;
300,000 kids will lose the school lunch program. Those aren't our
facts. That's what the Congressional Budget Office says.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Oregon (Ms.
Bonamici).
Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Ranking Member Van Hollen.
I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 5652, the Sequester
Replacement Reconciliation Act.
Not long ago, we were here debating a very misguided budget
resolution. And today, with H.R. 5652, the leadership has decided to
double down on the draconian cuts that were contained in that budget.
We should be able to come together and have a frank discussion about
deficit reduction. That is what the American people expect, and that's
what the American people deserve. But instead, here we are today
considering another bill, and here we are today with another missed
opportunity. There's not even the ability to consider a balanced
alternative today. This is of particular concern because of what is
actually in this bill.
Instead of cutting back generous agriculture subsidies, this bill is
cutting food stamps, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
This means a reduction in benefits for an estimated 47 million people
and a loss of benefits for almost 2 million people.
Instead of closing loopholes for oil companies, this bill eliminates
the Social Services Block Grant--not reduces, not tweaks, eliminates
the Social Services Block Grant--which are grants that assist States in
providing a wide range of services, from support to Meals on Wheels, to
foster care. These are programs that feed struggling seniors and
protect abused children. These are just two examples.

Now, we have a moral responsibility to get this right, Mr. Speaker.
This bill, yet again, attempts to balance the budget on the backs of
the most vulnerable--our seniors, our children, those who are
struggling--while not asking the most fortunate in our society to
contribute anything more.
I urge my colleagues to reject this latest misguided effort by voting
against H.R. 5652.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds simply
to say that the Social Services Block Grant, according to the
Government Accountability Office, is a textbook example of overlap and
duplication of Federal programs. It's one of 69 programs to fund early
education; it's one of 200 programs serving Americans with
disabilities; and it's one of 49 programs providing education and
training services. The program demands no accountability for results
and provides no means to measure the impact of the programs.
Mr. Speaker, we've got to end duplication and waste in government.
We're saying also, on the tax side, close loopholes for tax reform, not
to fuel more spending.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), a member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The reconciliation package we bring to the floor today sensibly
reduces spending so that we can continue to adequately defend our
Nation.
The first responsibility of the Federal Government is to keep our
Nation safe from foreign threats. By cutting wasteful spending and
reforming programs, we can continue to maintain a military that keeps
us secure at home and makes the world a more peaceful place.
I am proud to report that the Energy and Commerce Committee exceeded
the budget instructions by $17 billion to save a total of $114 billion
over 10 years. In three titles, we cut wasteful programs created by
ObamaCare, reform the Medicaid program, and reform our broken medical
liability system.
With the Nation struggling with trillion-dollar deficits, the
President chose to increase government spending by more than another $1
trillion with his health care law. This wasn't reform; it was a
government takeover of one-sixth of the U.S. economy that will increase
dependency and bankrupt the Nation. We continue to push for full
repeal, but also do everything we can to stop wasteful and unwise
spending immediately.
The Prevention and Public Health Fund is a classic example of how
government bureaucrats fail to spend public funds wisely. The health
care law provided an advance appropriation of $16 billion and called
for a permanent annual allotment of $2 billion per year for this fund.
That's $2 billion a year in perpetuity. So, in 2036, 2037, and 2057,
the Secretary of HHS has complete authority over this $2 billion to
spend on whatever he or she wishes without coming back for
appropriations authorization from Congress. Let's call this what it is:
It's a slush fund for the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Almost any program can make a claim that it is preventative. The
Secretary has the sole role of control of the fund and, so far, has
found some quite interesting ways to spend it. For example:
In Pitt County, North Carolina, a recipient used the money to fund
signage for parks and bike lanes;
In Boston, they spent $1 million on urban gardening;
One of the vaunted successes of the program was getting the city of
Baldwin Park, California, to put a 9-month moratorium on construction
of fast food restaurants. Government should be encouraging job
creation, not finding ways to stop it for a few months;
New York spent $3 million to lobby for a soda tax issue;
Philadelphia spent money to push for higher State cigarette excise
taxes. Why on Earth is the Federal Government paying for campaigns to
lobby State governments?
These are all examples from just the last 2 years. Who knows what
projects will get money in the future.
We have numerous public health and prevention funds that can be
managed through the yearly appropriations process. A permanent slush
fund with

[[Page H2607]]

limited oversight guarantees that money will be wasted every year.
We also repealed the unlimited authority to fund the implementation
of State health insurance exchanges. ObamaCare gave the Secretary a
credit card with no limit, a bottomless direct appropriation. This is
unprecedented and unwise. Again, we need oversight in order to make
sure that the public's money is being wisely spent. Congress never
should have abdicated its authority in this area, and now we need to
reclaim it.
We defund the CO-OP program before billions of public dollars can be
lost. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that a significant
portion of the funds given to unproven CO-OPs would never be returned
to the Treasury. We would stop this funding before HHS creates its own
Solyndra.

{time} 1200

The President's health care law places a dramatically increased
burden on State Medicaid programs. The maintenance of effort provisions
restrict States from making commonsense reforms to stop fraud and
abuse. We know that Medicaid is rife with fraudulent claims. In 2011,
there were $15 billion in improper payments. We need to give States the
flexibility to run these programs efficiently and to help the truly
needy.
We also repeal an unwise bonus program that encourages States to
undermine the integrity of the program. We should not place unnecessary
barriers to qualifying for Medicaid, but neither should we encourage
States to oversimplify reviews of eligibility. We do not have unlimited
funds. Again, Medicaid coverage needs to be open only to the truly
needy.
Finally, we include real medical liability reform in this
reconciliation package. The President's health care law gave a pitiful
$50 million for liability reform demonstration projects.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. PITTS. This is paying lip service to a $200 billion problem.
I recently heard from a doctor who has been practicing in my district
for decades. He bemoaned defensive medicine but was even more concerned
that doctors being trained in today's climate don't even realize that
they are prescribing unnecessary tests.
Defensive medicine is simply becoming the norm. Medical liability
reform means saving for consumers, for doctors, and for the government.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the job we've done in the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
I urge all of my colleagues to support the reconciliation package.
I would now yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania
has again expired.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise today to engage in a colloquy with my friend from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Pitts), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I am clearly no fan of ObamaCare, and I know that you
are not as well, Mr. Pitts. You and your committee have done some
excellent work in the reconciliation process in eliminating some of the
major spending abuses in this law. I do have a concern, however, with
one of the provisions that would affect Puerto Rico and what they
receive in Medicaid funding.
The fact of the matter is the question regarding Medicaid funding for
the territories was separate and has been separate from many issues
that many of us on this side of the aisle find so objectionable in
ObamaCare--for example, like the individual mandate and the raid on
Medicare and the slew of job-killing new taxes and regulations. They
are at least partially responsible for the unacceptable unemployment
situation, including 10 percent unemployment among Hispanics in the
United States.
As you know, the bill before us returns the Medicaid funding cap and
Federal match to pre-ObamaCare levels for the U.S. territories.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania
has again expired.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. If I may have an additional 30 seconds, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. An additional 30 seconds. I've got three other
committees that are coming.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I thank the gentleman.
For years, the territories have expressed concern with the funding
levels, and I believe that PPACA was a vehicle to try to alleviate some
of those concerns. My hope is that we can work together, along with
Governor Fortuno, who has been the most fiscally responsible Governor
in Puerto Rico, looking into the funding levels in Medicaid so that we
can properly address the needs of the millions of U.S. citizens in the
territories.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the gentleman's
concerns and want to assure him that these issues deserve the attention
of my Health Subcommittee. And as we continue the legislative process,
I will gladly work with the gentleman and Governor Fortuno to address
the needs of our most vulnerable citizens in the territories.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I know it makes our Republican colleagues feel better when they
pretend that these cuts don't harm real people, but the reality is they
do harm real people, and the cuts that were made in Energy and Commerce
will mean that 300,000 children will no longer get health care
throughout the Children's Health Insurance Program. That's not my fact.
That's from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
We have heard a lot about the fact that cuts to the prevention fund
to help provide for healthier starts, that won't have any impact. We
hear these stories coming up. I would just like to put in the Record
information from the Centers for Disease Control that refutes this
urban legend that somehow these funds were used to spay or neuter dogs.
These things just aren't true.
The reality is that it will mean 326,000 women will not get breast
cancer screenings and 284,000 will not get cervical cancer screenings.
That's what happens when you zero out the prevention fund.

CDC Analysis: Energy & Commerce Committee's Press Release Regarding
Communities Putting Prevention to Work

Background

CDC carefully monitors grantee activity for appropriate use
of Federal funds, and to ensure that investments are directed
to evidence-based interventions that make a difference in
health.
CDC continues to review all reported allegations regarding
grantee activities.
CDC has not found among these examples any instance in
which the anti-lobbying prohibitions have been violated. Many
allegations relate to activities that were performed by
outside organizations not using federal funds, or activities
that actually took place before CDC funding was even awarded
to the grantee. Other activities are, in fact, permissible
under the restrictions, such as educating the public on
health risks.
See below for information on CDC's Communities Putting
Prevention to Work program, which was primarily funded in FY
2009 with funding from the Recovery Act.
See below for additional information on how CDC implements
restrictions on grantee lobbying with Federal funding.

CDC Analysis of Press Release Statements

On May 2, the Energy and Commerce Committee issued a press
release including references to activities of specific CDC
grantees. Below is CDC's analysis of each statement and
further information relevant to the work being done within
these CPPW communities.

PITT COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, NORTH CAROLINA

Energy and Commerce Press Release Statement: ``Pitt County,
North Carolina, a recipient of a CPPW grant funded by health
care law, used these federal taxpayer funds to place `signage
to promote recreational destinations including public parks,
bike lanes, and more.''
CDC Analysis
Improving physical activity by placing signage about parks,
bike lanes and safe routes to school is an effective,
evidence-based activity that can increase physical activity.
CPPW staff in Pitt County, North Carolina has been working
to implement a wide range of interventions to address obesity
prevention within their community.
One of the ten approved objectives included in Pitt
County's workplan is to evaluate county planning and include
comprehensive land use plans, transportation plans, and other
plans that set community standards for biking, walking, and
zoning restrictions.

[[Page H2608]]

Elements included incorporating elements to improve
infrastructure for biking and walking, improve
interconnectivity of existing and proposed mobility networks,
and make it easier to establish access to healthy food. Among
the steps was the implementation of bike racks, signage, and
crosswalks once changes to planning documents were
implemented.
According to Pitt County, approximately $66,000 of their
$1.6 million in CPPW funding supported activities to
implement bike racks and signage for cross walks, safe routes
to schools, and other directional signs.
This project is the only one of those in the Energy and
Commerce release that is funded by PPHF.

NASHVILLE/DAVIDSON COUNTY METRO PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT, TENNESSEE

Energy and Commerce Press Release Statement: The City of
Nashville, which received a $7.5 million ``Communities
Putting Prevention to Work'' grant, provided free pet spaying
and neutering.
CDC Analysis
No CPPW funds were used to pay for spaying or neutering
dogs. Rather, a grant from PetSmart paid for the veterinary
neutering services.
A published report in The Hill on May 3, 2012 includes a
direct account from the grantee that non-Federal funds were
used. (http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-
implementation/225367
-official-no-taxpayer-funds-went-to-neuter
-tenn-dogs).
The Nashville/Davidson County CPPW project has been working
on a range of strategies to promote safe and accessible
opportunities for physical activity.
As part of the effort to increase outdoor physical activity
in low income areas, CPPW has worked with other groups on a
variety of activities to make parks safe. These include
enforcement of an existing leash law and other pet
ordinances, increased community awareness of responsible dog
ownership, and publicizing referrals to spay/neuter services
supported by other funding sources.
The Nashville/Davidson County CPPW project has been
involved in promoting safe parks because the large number of
loose/stray dogs was identified by the community as a safety
risk and environmental barrier to increasing outdoor physical
activity in low income areas.
The Nashville/Davidson County CPPW project has been working
on a range of strategies to promote safe and accessible
opportunities for physical activity and improve nutrition--
two modifiable risk factors to prevent obesity.
The Community Guide for Preventive Services includes
evidence-based recommendations that creation of or enhanced
access to places for physical activity combined with
informational outreach activities is effective in increasing
levels of physical activity, as measured by an increase in
the percentage of people engaging in physical activity or
other measures of physical activity.
Early data indicate that the public education campaign has
been successful.
This project was funded in 2009 by the Recovery Act, not by
the PPHF.

BOSTON PUBLIC HEALTH COMMISSION, MASSACHUSETTS

Energy and Commerce Press Release Statement: ``The City of
Boston received $1 million for `urban gardening.' ''
CDC Analysis
This project tackles two evidence-based strategies for
addressing obesity: increasing physical activity, and
improving the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables to
underserved areas.
The CPPW project in Boston has supported a range of
evidence-based strategies to increase opportunities for
physical activity and supported four evidence-based projects
to improve nutrition among low-income residents in Boston--
two modifiable risk factors to prevent obesity. Boston has
focused on improving access to fresh fruits and vegetables in
neighborhoods that have limited access.
Up to 360,000 Bostonians now have increased access to fresh
fruits and vegetables as a result of this CPPW investment.
CPPW funds are being used to improve access to affordable
produce in Roxbury, Mattapan, and Dorchester, which have
higher rates of obesity--at 40 percent, 33 percent, and 31
percent, respectively--and chronic disease than the city as a
whole.
The project includes hiring and training up to 250 youths
to work with The Food Project to build 400 backyard gardens
in the three neighborhoods; transforming a vacant 10,000-
square foot greenhouse in the heart of Roxbury into a
community growing and education center; doubling the number
of community garden plots in Dorchester, and expanding the
Nightingale Garden in Dorchester by 65,000 square feet, so
that it stretches across 1.5 acres.
To ensure the sustainability of these urban gardening
gains, Boston has enacted city-wide changes regarding use of
open city land to encourage temporary or permanent land
utilization for community gardens and other agricultural use.
An evaluation of a large urban gardening project found that
gardeners reported a higher consumption of specific
vegetables and a lower consumption of sweet foods and drinks
than non-gardeners. Focus groups conducted with inner-city
youth revealed that those involved in garden programs
reported more willingness to eat healthy food and try
unfamiliar food, than those not involved in a program.
This project was funded in 2009 by the Recovery Act, not by
the PPHF.

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

Energy and Commerce Press Release Statement: ``The New York
Department of Health used a $3 million taxpayer-funded grant
to lobby for a soda tax initiative.''
CDC Analysis
The press release mischaracterizes the program, which is
not one that used CDC funding.
CDC has been in contact with the grantee and the grantee
reports that no CPPW funds were used by the New York State
Department of Health (NYSDOH) to lobby the New York State
Legislature for a soda tax.
The actual use of CPPW funding by NYSDOH is to implement
strategies to increase access to healthy food choices.
CDC worked with NYSDOH at the beginning of the project
period to ensure that activities were both appropriate and in
compliance with applicable anti-lobbying provisions. CDC has
monitored the use of funds throughout project implementation.
As background, prior to CPPW funds being awarded, the
Governor's office initiated and put forth a soda tax
proposal. However, the Governor did not pursue implementing a
tax and withdrew his proposal, and the grantee has stated no
CPPW dollars were used to pursue this.
This project was funded in 2009 by the Recovery Act, not by
the PPHF.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, CALIFORNIA

Energy and Commerce Press Release Statement: `` . . .
moratorium on fast food construction in Baldwin Park,
California . . .''
CDC Analysis
No Los Angeles County CPPW funds were used to lobby for a
moratorium on fast food restaurants. The presentation
referenced in the press release referred to a city-led and
funded initiative supported by the California Center for
Public Health Advocacy, an independent organization, and was
not supported by CPPW funding.
Los Angeles County work on a moratorium predated the
inception of the CPPW program. These efforts were documented
to have started in 2008 by this independent organization.
This independent organization has provided education and
community-driven feedback to the City Planning Department in
Baldwin Park, California. Los Angeles County reports that no
CPPW funds were used to support lobbying activities.
CDC staff regularly interact with grantees to ensure that
they are implementing the activities and strategies set forth
in the grantee's work plan and that grantees are adhering to
administrative requirements, including adhering to provisions
relating to lobbying.
This project was funded by the Recovery Act, not the PPHF.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

Energy and Commerce Press Release Statement: ``. . .
increased cigarette taxes in South Carolina.''
CDC Analysis
The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control reports that no CPPW funds supported lobbying for the
South Carolina Cigarette Tax.
CPPW funds were used for public education efforts on the
science of health effects of second hand smoke exposure.
Activities included developing fact sheets for the public
that provided scientific data.
CDC staff regularly interact with grantees to ensure that
they are implementing the activities and strategies set forth
in the grantee's work plan and that grantees are adhering to
administrative requirements, including adhering to provisions
relating to lobbying.
This project was funded in 2009 by the Recovery Act, not by
the PPHF.

PHILADELPHIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, PENNSYLVANIA

Energy and Commerce Press Release Statement: ``The
Philadelphia Department of Public Health used their taxpayer-
funded grant to push for higher state cigarette excise tax
rates.''
CDC Analysis
No CPPW funds are being used by PDPH for lobbying or for
any other activities in support of a state cigarette excise
tax.
Philadelphia Department of Public Health (PDPH) has been
researching potential opportunities for a higher cigarette
excise tax at the local level, but this does not fall within
the scope of CPPW activity and is not being paid for by CPPW
funds.
This project was funded in 2009 by the Recovery Act, not by
the PPHF.

SEATTLE AND KING COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH, WASHINGTON

Energy and Commerce Press Release Statement: ``The Cascade
Bicycle Club Education Foundation received a portion of the
$3 million grant awarded to Seattle and King County Public
Health and used the taxpayer dollars to `improve the walking
and biking environment.' ''
CDC Analysis
CPPW project in Seattle/King County has been working to
implement a wide range of

[[Page H2609]]

evidence-based strategies to address obesity prevention.
One of the seventeen approved objectives included within
Seattle and King County's CPPW obesity workplan is to
increase opportunities for physical activity through changes
made to local transportation plans and other planning tools.
Evidence-based infrastructure changes to support bicycling
and walking are interventions that aim to increase physical
activity as means to combat obesity, and are working in
Seattle/King County where 327,000 residents already benefit
from sustainable changes made in their neighborhoods.
Sustainable changes have come from technical assistance
from the project that led to improvements in approaches to
new and reconstructed roadways in the area meet safety and
mobility needs of all travelers, including pedestrians and
bicyclists and also community members who have visual or
mobility impairments.
This project was funded in 2009 by the Recovery Act, not by
the PPHF.

Background: CDC's Communities Putting Prevention to Work initiative

Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW) is primarily
a Recovery Act funded program that provides states and
localities with resources to support locally designed efforts
to create healthy environments for their residents.
The preponderance of work under the CPPW program has been
completed; most were one-time awards made in FY 2009.
Only one community listed in the press release, Pitt County
North Carolina, is funded by the Prevention and Public Health
Fund (PPHF).
Each CPPW community selected strategies from evidence-based
interventions based on local context, priorities, and
capacity. CDC provided support to these communities through a
competitive process. Awardees then developed a locally
relevant workplan, which allowed CDC to monitor progress on
an ongoing basis.
CPPW programs are funded under a 2-year cooperative
agreement to implement evidence- and practice-based
strategies, with overarching goals, such as increasing
availability of healthy foods and beverages, improving access
to safe places for physical activity, discouraging tobacco
use, and encouraging smoke-free environments.
Each workplan represents a multi-pronged approach to
address obesity and/or tobacco prevention. All objectives and
activities included within the workplan must comply with
federal lobbying restrictions.
CDC does not allow funding to be used for lobbying at the
Federal, state, or local level. Awards include specific
language to this effect; grantees are educated on this
requirement; and CDC monitors the use of grant funds by
grantees and their sub-recipients to ensure compliance.
What problem was CPPW designed to address?
CPPW provides a significant investment in the prevention of
chronic diseases.
Obesity and tobacco are two leading causes of preventable
death and disability.
CPPW aims to address poor nutrition, lack of physical
activity and tobacco use to make an impact on preventing
serious health problems such as heart disease, stroke, type 2
diabetes, and cancer.
Annually obesity-related medical spending costs our nation
$147 billion.
Annually, tobacco use costs our nation $96 billion in
direct medical expenses.
Seven out of ten deaths among Americans each year are from
chronic diseases.

Background: CDC Steps to Prevent Lobbying with Federal Funding

CDC is committed to ensuring the proper use of appropriated
funds, and to ensuring awardees' compliance with all
applicable regulations and statutes related to lobbying
activities. CDC's policy prohibits lobbying at the federal,
state, and local levels. These restrictions apply to CDC
grants, including the CPPW and CTG programs.
CDC awardees, including those in the CPPW and the CTG
programs, are informed about the federal laws relating to use
of federal funds, including applicable anti-lobbying
provisions. Included within funding opportunity announcements
is specific language restricting lobbying, including ``any
activity designed to influence action in regard to a
particular piece of pending legislation.'' This lobbying
prohibition was also included within the terms and conditions
to which each grantee agreed prior to receiving federal
funds. In addition, CDC staffs has conducted trainings for
CPPW and CTG awardees on these prohibitions.
Applicable lobbying restrictions do not prohibit awardees
from interacting with policymakers. Federal law allows many
activities that are not considered lobbying and that
community awardees may decide to pursue. For example,
awardees may use funds to disseminate information about
public health problems and science-based solutions and to
implement specific programs, such as evidence-based
educational materials and media on the health effects of
increasing physical activity or decreasing exposure to
secondhand smoke.
We take our responsibility as stewards of taxpayer dollars
very seriously. CDC staff interact with awardees regularly to
monitor implementation of the activities and strategies set
forth in awardees' work plans and compliance with
administrative requirements, including provisions related to
lobbying. In addition, CDC staff monitors the use of federal
funds by awardees using tools such as on-site review and risk
mitigation plans.
CDC continues to review all reported allegations regarding
grantee activities. Thus far, we have not found among these
examples any instance in which the anti-lobbying prohibitions
have been violated. Many allegations relate to activities
that were performed by outside organizations not using
federal funds, or activities that actually took place before
CDC funding was even awarded to the grantee. Other activities
are, in fact, permissible under the restrictions, such as
educating the public on health risks.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania (Ms.
Schwartz), a member of the Budget Committee, who has focused very
clearly on these health issues.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ranking member's comments
and his good work and important work on the plan, the Republican plan
and the Democratic alternative.
Let me start by saying very clearly, once again, House Republicans
are taking a shortsighted approach to deficit reduction and economic
growth in this country. The Federal budget is a statement of our
priorities and our values as a Nation, and Republicans have made their
priorities and their values very clear. The Federal budget is about
choices: the choice to protect seniors; the choice to grow our middle
class; the choice to make smart investments in our economy. Or not.
The Republicans have made their choice very clear. They are choosing
to cut prevention and public health efforts, immunizations and flu
vaccines, screenings for birth defects, developmental disabilities, and
hearing loss in children. They are hurting mothers who need prenatal
care, children who need hearing and eye exams, women who need
screenings for cancer and heart disease, and our frailest, sickest
seniors who need nursing home and in-home care.
Republicans are choosing to eliminate essential health services that
save dollars and save lives. This choice will hurt millions of American
women, children, and seniors. Instead, Republicans are choosing to
protect tax breaks for the largest oil and gas companies and tax breaks
for companies that ship American jobs overseas.
There is a better way. The Democratic budget takes a balanced
approach to deficit reduction and makes spending cuts and targeted
investments to grow our economy, and it meets our obligations to our
Nation. The Republican plan rejects this balanced approach. It rejects
efforts to grow our economy. It rejects protections for our seniors,
our children, and our future. It is the wrong choice for the American
people, and we must reject this plan.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5652, to
stop sequestration of our Nation's defense. We need certainty in the
future of our national defense.
We need certainty in the industry that serves our national defense.
We can't wait until January to make decisions about sequestration, what
the funding is going to be. The Pentagon will begin in the next month
to prepare industry to begin stopping contracts, not issuing contracts,
basically putting small suppliers out of business, putting small
contractors out of business.
It is important for the readiness of our Nation, to defend our
Nation, that we avoid sequestration at all costs. There is much more to
be said about this. This is serious. When we talk about sequestration
regarding our national defense, this, my colleagues, is serious. We've
got to take this first step so, before the deadline, we can complete
this job.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5652, the Sequester
Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012. It is the first step we must
take if we are to avert sequestration and prevent the dismantling of
our national security.
Contrary to what some would say, this is not just a political
exercise today. This is a very real action that we must take for our
nation to avoid the threat to our national security and our nation's
economic security if we do not stop sequestration from taking place
next January.
The Secretary of Defense and our nation's senior military leadership
have all warned of the severe consequences we face if automatic
sequestration takes effect next year. We are a nation at war in
Afghanistan, we face multiple threats around the globe, our troops are
stretched thin from multiple deployments, and our equipment is wearing
out.

[[Page H2610]]

These situations will only grow worse with sequestration as we are
forced to further draw down our forces and significantly scale back--if
not stop altogether--the repair and replacement of our vehicles,
aircraft, and ships. And the prospect of a hollow force would be an
almost certainty as training and maintenance would be delayed and
canceled.
As the Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on National
Defense, I know that we have already made a number of difficult
spending decisions--$39 billion of cuts last year and any major
reductions as required by sequestration will affect the readiness of
our troops. I also know that any decision we are going to make about
averting sequestration cannot wait until the eleventh hour, as so many
other decisions are made before recess.
Our service chiefs tell me that planning will have to begin this
summer on how to respond to sequestration. Industry leaders are already
hearing the award of contracts will be delayed and that the advance
procurement of material and equipment will be postponed. This will not
only affect the large defense contractors, but will impact thousands of
small businesses in every part of our nation who provide unique
components for some of our most critical defense systems.
At a time when our national security remains at risk from emerging
threats abroad and from ongoing terrorist operations, our nation's
economy also remains at risk from a softening job market that will only
worsen with the closure of small defense suppliers and layoffs at
larger defense contractors.
The Secretary of Defense has already warned that sequestration could
add a full one percent to our nation's unemployment rate--many of these
as a direct result of civilian furloughs and military personnel draw
downs, but also from the companies and small businesses back home who
are second and third-tier suppliers for contracts that will be
abrogated or canceled.
Mr. Speaker, this cannot be an issue on which we act then sit and
wait for our colleagues in the Senate to respond. This is an issue on
which we must work together, in an expedient manner, to send a message
to our nation's military leadership and to the leadership of industry
that we are serious about averting this crisis and that we are
committed to working in a bipartisan manner to do it sooner rather than
later.
Our military leadership wants certainty. They want certainty for our
troops in the field and for their families at home. The leaders of
business and industry want certainty so they can make the investments
they need to make to help us rebuild our worn out force. And small
business suppliers want certainty that they will be able to continue
providing the critiical components for systems that are in many cases
their only line of work.
Mr. Speaker, the specter of sequestration is a serious national
security issue and it is a serious national economic issue. This is not
an issue that will be solved by talking at one another. This is an
issue that will only be solved by working together in the best
traditions of this House and the Senate. We have risen to the challenge
before and we can do so again. The legislation we consider today is a
first step in this process. We can't wait or we will face the most
severe and in my opinion irreversible consequences for the security of
our nation.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it is serious, and the Democratic
substitute proposal would have prevented those cuts from going across
the board in defense, as well as the non-defense part of the budget.
Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues don't think it is serious
enough to ask oil companies to do without taxpayer subsidies to help
cover the cost. They apparently don't think it is serious enough to ask
people making $1 million a year to help with our deficit reduction to
pay for the military that we have.
I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Financial Services
Committee, Mr. Frank, to talk about some of the impact of this on
taxpayers.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the Republican approach does
some cutting, but it does even more shifting. I agreed with The Wall
Street Journal editorial of a few weeks ago, which praised the
gentleman from Wisconsin because he was shielding the military from any
significant cuts and, instead, was making it up from Medicare and
Medicaid. That's The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Murdoch, thanking the
gentleman from Wisconsin for cutting Medicare and Medicaid, not to
balance the budget or reduce the deficit, but to pump up military
spending.
Similarly, this claim that they are saving $20-some-odd billion in
dealing with the liquidation authority is exactly wrong. What the
Republican approach says, and we have a roll call vote in our committee
which did this, it continues their position that the large financial
institutions, financial institutions with more than $50 billion in
assets, should pay nothing--nothing--for the costs of cleaning up the
mess.

{time} 1210

In our original bill in 2010, we met CBO's requirement that there be
a $20 billion cost by assessing the large financial institutions. To
get cloture in the Senate, three Republicans managed to back off. In
our committee this year, the Republicans said, We don't like this, and
it's going to cost $20 billion. CBO, by the way, says that it costs $20
billion only within the 10-year window. CBO said the $20 billion will
be paid out, and it will be repaid by the large financial institutions.
I will submit another article from The Wall Street Journal making that
point.
But here's what the Republicans did: they said, Let's not have the
financial institutions be vulnerable. We looked at what CBO said, and
we said, okay, CBO says the $20 billion from the financial institutions
will come at the end of the 10 years rather than the beginning. So we
had an amendment to assess the large financial institutions $20
billion--$29 billion, the CBO said it would cost--at the beginning of
the period. The Republicans said the banks were being overtaxed and
voted it down on a party-line vote.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 18, 2012]

Would Repeal of Key Dodd-Frank Provision Really Save $22 Billion?

A House committee later today will vote on a bill being
pushed by Republicans to repeal a central plank of the 2010
Dodd-Frank financial law, claiming it would save taxpayers
$22 billion over 10 years.
The figure triggered some head-scratching around
Washington. ``It's tough to understand where the $22 billion
comes from--it's a wild assumption since there are currently
no cash flows involved with this part of Dodd-Frank,'' Brian
Gardner, a Washington analyst with investment bank Keefe,
Bruyefte & Woods, in a note to clients. (He's a former GOP
Hill aide). ``Republicans on the committee would only
eliminate the possibility that the government might have to
spend money on liquidating a distress financial firm in the
future,'' he wrote, adding that investors shouldn't waste any
time thinking about the issue since the GOP bill ``has
virtually no shot at passing'' the Senate.
The provision in question is the so-called ``orderly
liquidation authority'' that gives regulators broad new
powers to take control of faltering megafirms and wind them
down in an orderly way so that their failure doesn't wreak
havoc on the broader economy a la 2008. The provision does
allow the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to borrow money
from the Treasury to finance the process--but that money, by
law, has to be paid back to Treasury. If the FDIC can't
recoup enough by selling off assets of the failed firm, then
regulators will levy a fee on the big financial firms left
standing over a five-year period.
House Republicans say they got the $22 billion figure from
the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Looking at that
office's 2011 cost estimate for the whole Dodd-Frank bill
shows how the CBO came up with the number--and the budget
quirks behind it that make it far from a tangible boost to
government coffers.
First, the CBO assumes regulators have to step in and use
their new powers to deal with a teetering financial giant
during the next 10 years. That's a pretty big if.
Nonetheless, as CBO puts it, while the likelihood of the feds
having to use this new process in any year ``is small, the
potential costs of liquidating a systemically important firm
could be large.'' And experts do say there will be another
financial crisis sooner or later.
Even so, the CBO's approach of only looking at 10 years at
a time is another quirk at play here. As the agency explained
in its 2011 document, ``[A] snapshot of cash flows in any
given 10-year budget window is unlikely to net to zero
because the spending to liquidate a firm would occur before
the income was received to cover those costs.''
In other words, the CBO is assuming that the FDIC won't be
able to get all the money it needs to pay back Treasury
within the 10-year period--but that doesn't mean that the
FDIC won't ever get that money. If the law works as it is
supposed to, in the end the total cost to taxpayers would be
zero--not $22 billion.
Of course, there are lots of critics who say that this new
resolution authority won't work and either regulators or
Congress will decide to bailout financial firms when the next
crisis strikes, in which case taxpayers would be on the hook.
But the CBO is assuming the law works like it's supposed to.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Medicaid is projected to grow at 125 percent over the next decade;
under this bill, it will grow 123 percent. Food

[[Page H2611]]

stamps grew 270 percent; under this bill, they would have grown 260
percent. Only in Washington is this considered draconian cuts. Slowing
the growth of spending is not cutting; it's slowing the growth of
spending.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Franks), a member of the Judiciary Committee, and ask
unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Arizona will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I certainly thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it's important, first of all, in this
challenge that we have with our Federal budget, to realize that all
budgets, whether they are personal budgets or business budgets or
budgets by governments, all of them eventually and inevitably come to
balance. They either do so by wise fiscal policy or by catastrophic
failure.
The fact is that this administration has spent us into the stone age
and added to our deficit approximately $1 trillion a year since they
came into office. Mr. Speaker, the result is that we have more people
living in poverty under this administration than ever before. So there
is something wrong with the equation.
Now, having listened to the debate over this reconciliation bill,
it's clear to me that Republicans and Democrats have a very
fundamental, philosophical difference over whether or not we should
take steps to reduce the Federal deficit and avoid the arbitrary and
inflexible automatic spending cuts that are set to go into effect next
year.
Republicans propose to reduce the deficit and avoid the automatic
sequestration by eliminating wasteful programs, wasteful government
spending, and curbing fraud in government programs in general. The
President, on the other hand, has proposed raising taxes on the
American people and American families and businesses, while at the same
time increasing Federal Government spending. I cannot think of a more
stark contrast, Mr. Speaker.
My friends on the other side of the aisle have demagogued this
reconciliation bill beyond recognition. The fact, however, remains that
this bill reduces the deficit--not by some parade of horribles, but by
stopping fraud, eliminating government slush funds and duplicative
programs, and controlling runaway Federal spending. It does so while
preventing devastating defense cuts that the Obama administration's own
Defense Department has called ``unacceptable.'' And it does so by
making sure that the domestic spending cuts that the President's own
budget claimed will ``inflict great damage on critical domestic
priorities'' do not go unaddressed.
As part of the reconciliation process, the Judiciary Committee, Mr.
Speaker, has recommended reforms to our medical liability system to
rein in unlimited lawsuits and to make health care more accessible and
affordable to all Americans.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Judiciary
Committee's proposed medical liability reforms will reduce the deficit
by more than $48 billion the very first year and beyond. The simple
fact is that frivolous lawsuits drive physicians out of the practice of
medicine in the primes of their careers, it pushes others away from
high-risk medical specialties, and causes the vast majority of health
care providers to practice defensive medicine. Studies indicate that
the cost of health care lawsuit abuse is between $230 billion and $650
billion annually. The Judiciary Committee's proposal helps to eliminate
the cause of this out-of-control lawsuit abuse.
Mr. Speaker, I would just urge my colleagues to join me in supporting
this reconciliation package so that we can both reduce the Federal
deficit and avoid the draconian sequestration of Defense Department
funding that threatens serious harm to our national security.
Mr. Speaker, just a word on our national security. There is no more
important thing to our economy of any kind than making sure that we are
doing everything to be productive in a secure environment. If our
national security is undermined, our economic security will be writing
its own economic obituary.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and thank
the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
We keep hearing from our Republican colleagues that there's nothing
more important than making sure we defend our national security. We
agree that that's essential. We also agree that we need a strong
economy. What's confusing is, if that's so important, why are our
Republican colleagues refusing to ask the big oil companies to give up
their big subsidies? They've said they don't need them.
So, Mr. Speaker, again, we also keep hearing that these cuts aren't
going to have an effect. There's the old saying that you're entitled to
your own opinions, but not your own facts. What we've been talking
about are facts from the Congressional Budget Office about the number
of kids that would lose their health care and the number of struggling
families that would lose their food and nutrition support.
I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr.
Pierluisi).
Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the provision in this
legislation that would single out the Medicaid programs in the U.S.
territories for a 65 percent cut, even though the territories are
already treated in a profoundly unequal manner under this program. I'm
joined in my opposition to this cut by the Republican Governor of
Puerto Rico, Luis Fortuno, who knows discrimination when he sees it.
And I'd like to remind the gentleman from Wisconsin that in the case
of the territories, we are talking about an actual cut. We're not
talking about a reduction in the growth of our funding, because we have
a cap to live with.
Just as we fought to obtain the funding that this bill now seeks to
repeal, we will fight alongside our allies in the White House, the
Senate, and this Chamber to retain this funding. This is a fight we
intend to win.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), chairman of the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee, and ask unanimous consent that he be
allowed to yield time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
California will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation.
Our committee has participated in $83 billion worth of this package,
saving our men and women in uniform from finding themselves holding
wooden rifles. I use that term because it once happened. It wouldn't
happen under sequestration, but we would make cuts that would make them
just as endangered in some cases as if they were carrying wooden
rifles.
Now, many people will talk about public servants in a less than kind
way. I am not one of them. The Federal workforce has kept its promises.
The Federal workers are not always well led or well managed, but they
themselves deliver the product they're asked to deliver. However, the
President's own commission--often called Simpson-Bowles on which the
chairman of the Budget Committee served--found something that they all
agreed on, that was that, in fact, the pension program that we as
Federal employees--and I say ``we'' because Members of Congress pay
into Social Security, have a 401(k), but we also have a pension--that
that pension was more generous than our counterparts in the private
sector.

{time} 1220

They recommended that we, in fact, make it a 50/50 shared pension. My
contribution from our committee, in fact, does that. At a rate of 5
percent, phased in over 5 years, we bring the Federal workforce,
members of the civilian DOD, members of your Park Service and Members
of Congress, House and Senate, we bring us all into paying what
Simpson-Bowles, on a bipartisan basis, very much felt was a fair share.
Now, I want to make sure that everyone understands today that this
is, in fact, a changing for members of the Federal workforce from what
they perceived they would always have. It will not be easy. They will
know that after this goes into effect, they will, in fact,

[[Page H2612]]

not have as much take-home as they did the day before.
That's not to say it isn't due, that it isn't known, and it doesn't
need to happen. What it's to say is, let's be understanding. These are
tough times. The American people have made sacrifices for many years
before this one. The Federal workforce has made some sacrifices. The
President implemented a pay freeze.
But I must tell you, our looking at it is that because of an outdated
system, the pay freeze does not, in fact, freeze pay. Step increases
have virtually automatically, almost 100 percent automatically caused
the vast majority of these individuals to be eligible and receive pay
increases, even at a time in which, theoretically, it was frozen.
Additionally, civil servants know that if we're going to continue to
hold on to a civil service workforce that has the confidence of the
American people, their wages have to be comparable to their civilian
counterparts.
Our committee will continue to work with others to study to make sure
we do keep Federal workers fairly paid as compared to the nongovernment
workforce. But our bill today takes the President's own
recommendations, the recommendations made to the President, and
implements them, for a savings over 10 years of $83 billion.
We believe this is the Federal workforce and we, as their
representatives, asking them to make a reasonable sacrifice, one that I
know they will do, while remaining confident that they will deliver the
kinds of products they can.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, there are things that are not in this bill. The
kind of pay-for-performance that we'd like to see enhanced, the kind of
procedure for a quick remedy for individuals who have become disabled--
those are not in there. There are many other savings and improvements
for the Federal workforce. We intend to go back on a bipartisan basis
and do that.
But when it comes to purely paying your fair share, we believe that
Simpson-Bowles got it right. We believe the Federal workforce will not
like this, but they will accept that this allows them to say our
package is not inherently more generous than the private sector. It's
been normalized for it.
That and other changes that we made in this bill allow the Federal
workforce to say stop saying that we somehow get something everyone
else doesn't. The Federal workforce pays into Social Security, into
Medicare and, in fact, they're going to be paying half the cost of
their pension plan, which is commensurate with their private sector.
So I want to be very positive here in saying this is never easy to do
in times of austerity, but, in fact, the Federal workforce will stand
behind this, as Congress will, in recognizing that they're doing their
share.
I'm very proud of the people throughout government who recognize that
getting this right is part of being able to say to the American people,
we're all in this together.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words the chairman of
the Government Reform Committee said with respect to Federal employees.
If you listen to the comments of a lot of these colleagues, they have
made Federal civil servants scapegoats, and, in fact, their budget
that's before us today does hit Federal employees.
So the folks in the intelligence community who helped track down
Osama Bin Laden, what do they get under this proposal? A 5 percent pay
cut.
How about the folks at NIH who are, every day, looking to find cures
and treatments for diseases that plague every American family? A 5
percent pay cut.
How about the nurses who work in the Veterans Hospitals? A 5 percent
pay cut.
And yet, you don't cut the direct payment subsidies to agriculture.
You don't cut the subsidies to the big oil companies. You just want to
whack Federal civil servants.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer), who has been working on this issue for a very long time.
Mr. HOYER. I want to thank my friend, Mr. Van Hollen, for the work
he's done.
I want to rise in opposition to this focus on Federal employees.
First of all, Federal employees have contributed $75 billion over the
last 2 years towards helping us reduce the deficit--$75 billion. No
other working American has been asked to do that.
You treat Federal employees in this House as second-class working
people. That's wrong. This is a 5 percent tax increase on Federal
employees. Nobody else, nobody else do we ask--the richest people in
America we don't ask to solve this deficit problem. But Federal
employees, yes, a $75 billion contribution. And you don't blink an eye
because it's easy, because we demagogue about government and, by
association, we demagogue about bureaucrats used as an epithet.
These are, as Mr. Van Hollen pointed out, people who protect our
food, try to make sure that we can find cures for cancer, protect us
from terrorism, guard our borders. That's who we're talking about. And
we treat them as second-class citizens. That's wrong. It's wrong for
our country, it's wrong for the American people, and it's wrong for us
as an institution representing the government of this country.
Ladies and gentlemen, reject this. I'm going to talk about other
aspects of this so-called reconciliation bill at a future date. But I
ask you on this basis alone: federal employees--I will tell you as one
who represents a large number of them--are ready to participate in
helping to bring down this deficit and meet this crisis. But do not ask
them to do it alone.

That's what Mr. Van Hollen says about oil companies, big
corporations, loopholes, and the wealthiest in America. Don't simply
ask more from those who have less and ask less from those who have
more. That is not good policy. Let us not pursue it.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the gentleman from Maryland.
It is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to another great Member of
Congress from the State of Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member
on the Government Reform Committee.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Van Hollen. This week marks the 28th
anniversary of Public Service Recognition Week, a week in which we
honor the contributions of Federal, State, local, and government
employees. These employees include outstanding public servants like
IRS' Shauna Henline, from Representative Rob Bishop's congressional
district, who saved the United States taxpayers billions of dollars by
identifying and bringing to justice tax evaders and scammers.
They include the State Department's Shane Morris, a constituent of
Representative Christopher Smith of New Jersey, who played a critical
role in ensuring that United States diplomats in the Middle East
continued to receive classified information, material, and equipment
during the Arab Spring uprisings in 2011.
Instead of us using this week to celebrate the good work of
government employees who dedicate their lives to serving others, the
Republican majority has put legislation on the House floor today that
would take billions of dollars out of their pockets.
I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, where is the
appreciation or compassion for the dedication and commitment that
public employees display day by day? It certainly is not in this bill,
which is an uncompassionate and wrongheaded approach to our fiscal
problems.
The Federal employee-related provisions in this bill which were
reported out of the Oversight Committee would reduce the take-home pay
of nearly 3 million middle class Americans by 5 percent, mandating
increased retirement contributions.
The bill also would eliminate the FERS annuity supplement for new
workers who retire before they are eligible for Social Security at 62.
According to the Office of Personnel Management, the average annuity
amount for current FERS retirees is nearly $700 per month. I do not
think any American who has dedicated his life to the public service
should be forced to lose that much money on a monthly basis,
particularly those on a fixed retirement budget.
Our middle class Federal employees have already contributed $75
billion towards deficit reduction and other government programs, while
millionaires and billionaires have not been asked to

[[Page H2613]]

contribute one additional cent to improve our government's financial
condition.

{time} 1230

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and,
instead, to support a more rational and equitable budget proposal that
asks for shared sacrifice from everyone in our country.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Members of Congress and Federal employees contribute .8 percent to
their pensions. According to the CBO, their benefits are 48 percent
higher than their average private sector counterparts. We think it's
just reasonable and appropriate that they contribute about 5.8 percent
to their pensions and contribute their half. It's the least we can ask
of ourselves as Members of Congress and of hardworking Federal
employees, that we treat ourselves like private sector workers are
treated. More to the point, Mr. Speaker, if we want to have the moral
authority to get spending under control, we need to ask more of
ourselves.
With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Camp), the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and ask unanimous
consent that he be allowed to yield time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Michigan will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. CAMP. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, back in 2010, I served on the President's debt
commission, otherwise known as the Simpson-Bowles Commission. During
that Commission, we heard nonpartisan, expert testimony that debts as
large as ours slow economic growth by about 1 percent. In America, that
translates into 1 million fewer jobs. So, to start getting our debt
under control and our economy back on track, we passed the Budget
Control Act, but we all know that was a blunt and ineffective tool. As
a result, Republicans have stepped forward with a smarter plan.
Today, I want to highlight the more targeted, sensible reductions in
spending the Ways and Means Committee has offered as part of the
reconciliation process, each of which has enjoyed bipartisan support.
Our first recommendation requires exchange subsidy overpayments in
the Democrats' health care law to be repaid in full. This is simple and
common sense. If you aren't entitled to the benefit, you don't get to
keep it. This policy will reduce the deficit by $43.9 billion over the
next 10 years.
A Democrat-controlled House and a Democrat-controlled Senate first
used a version of this offset in 2010 to pay for a temporary Medicare
so-called ``doc fix.'' This Congress also endorsed this policy as part
of the 1099 repeal legislation that became law early last year. As
Secretary Sebelius has previously said, requiring the return of
exchange subsidy overpayments ``makes it fairer for recipients and all
taxpayers.''
Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sam Johnson) to discuss the committee's second recommendation. He
is a true American hero, as well as the chairman of the Social Security
Subcommittee.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, due to a loophole in the Tax Code, the IRS is shoveling
out billions of American taxpayer dollars to those who are here
illegally.
The good news is this reconciliation measure includes a commonsense
solution based on legislation I've authored that would save $7.6
billion by putting a stop to this. The provision would stop illegal
immigrants from getting the $1,000 refundable Child Tax Credit by
simply requiring tax filers to provide their Social Security numbers.
Right now, those who are here illegally can get cash from Uncle Sam
by providing an IRS-provided taxpayer ID number to claim this
refundable credit. According to a recent report by NBC Indianapolis'
WTHR, illegal immigrants are even filing tax returns that claim
children who do not live in America.
Mr. Speaker, there really shouldn't be any controversy over this. The
American people are speaking out against this. Treasury's tax IG has
spoken out against this. Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill has spoken
out against this. Even the administration supports through the funding
of a verification program the idea of preventing illegals from
receiving public benefits.
Mr. Speaker, we can fix this and put a stop to the abuse of precious
taxpayer dollars by simply requiring a Social Security number.
Americans want, need, and deserve the better protection of their hard-
earned money, and we owe it to the United States of America to take
action today.
Mr. CAMP. I now yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Human Resources
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis), to discuss the
committee's final recommendation.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, including the
provision to end the duplicative Social Services Block Grant.
As chairman of the Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee, we
held a hearing last year on duplicative programs such as SSBG. Despite
what we have heard from some on the other side, our concern is focused
squarely on the design of the SSBG program, which does not serve
taxpayers well for a number of reasons.
SSBG is duplicative and unfocused. It supports 29 different types of
social services with no eligibility requirements. The Federal
Government already spends $446 billion per year on other social
services programs, which is about 260 times the amount of SSBG
spending. With no State spending requirements or accountability for
results, SSBG is more akin to stimulus dollars than other more
effective anti-poverty programs.
With staggering deficits, we can't afford to send money to States
without accountability through a program that is replicated by
literally dozens of other Federal programs. That's what SSBG does
today, and it is why it makes sense to end this duplicative program.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized
for 1 minute.
Mr. CAMP. Today, the economy is down and we're out of money, so it is
our responsibility to reevaluate these programs, to assess whether
they're meeting their intended purposes and to determine if the
American taxpayer can afford them. We must reduce the burden our debt
is putting on our economy, on our families, on job creation in this
country. This legislation does that. It encompasses commonsense,
bipartisan policies; and I urge its passage.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Child Tax Credit, I
would like to insert into the Record a letter we received from the
Catholic bishops on this subject. In part, it reads:

I reiterate our strong opposition to an unfair proposal
that would alter the Child Tax Credit to exclude children of
hardworking immigrant families.

The bishops also talk about the devastating impacts of eliminating
the Social Services Block Grant.

Committee on Domestic Justice

and Human Development,

Washington, DC, May 8, 2012.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: As you vote on a reconciliation
package for the fiscal year 2013 budget, I would like to
affirm the principle contained in the Committee Report that
the ``budget starts with the proposition that first, Congress
must do no harm.'' In this light, I urge you to ensure all
policies meet the moral criteria established by the Catholic
bishops of the United States to create a circle of protection
around programs that serve poor and vulnerable people and
communities:
1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it
protects or threatens human life and dignity.
2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it
affects the lives and dignity of ``the least of these''
(Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless,
without work or in poverty should come first.
3. Government and other institutions have a shared
responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially
ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity
in difficult economic times.
A just framework for future budgets cannot rely on
disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons;
it requires shared sacrifice by all, including raising
adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other
spending, and addressing the long-term costs of health
insurance and retirement programs fairly.
I reiterate our strong opposition to an unfair proposal
that would alter the Child Tax

[[Page H2614]]

Credit to exclude children of hard-working, immigrant
families. The bishops' conference has long supported the
Child Tax Credit because it is pro-work, pro-family, and one
of the most effective antipoverty programs in our nation.
Denying the credit to children of working poor immigrant
families--the large majority of whom are American citizens--
would hurt vulnerable kids, increase poverty, and would not
advance the common good.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP,
formerly known as food stamps), provides vital food security
to families during tough economic times. It is estimated that
cuts proposed in this bill would deny assistance to two
million families, and cut the benefit for everyone else. No
poor family that receives food assistance would be
unaffected, constituting a direct threat to their human
dignity. If savings in agricultural programs need to be
achieved, subsidies and direct payments can be reduced and
targeted to small and moderate-sized farms.
The Social Services Block Grant is an important source of
funding for programs throughout the country that serve
vulnerable members of our communities--the homeless, the
elderly, people with disabilities, children living in
poverty, and abuse victims. We should prioritize programs
that serve ``the least of these,'' not eliminate them.
The Catholic bishops of the United States recognize the
serious deficits our country faces, and we acknowledge that
Congress must make difficult decisions about how to allocate
burdens and sacrifices and balance resources and needs.
However, deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility efforts
must protect and not undermine the needs of poor and
vulnerable people. The proposed cuts to programs in the
budget reconciliation fail this basic moral test. The
Catechism of the Catholic Church states it is the proper role
of government to ``make accessible to each what is needed to
lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work,
education and culture, suitable information, the right to
establish a family, and so on'' (no. 1908). Poor and
vulnerable people do not have powerful lobbyists to advocate
their interests, but they have the most compelling needs.
As you pursue responsible deficit reduction, the Catholic
bishops join other faith leaders and people of good will
urging you to protect the lives and dignity of poor and
vulnerable families by putting a circle of protection around
these essential programs and to refrain from cutting programs
that serve them.
Sincerely,
Most Reverend Stephen E. Blaire,
Chairman, Committee on Domestic Justice and Human
Development.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, the ranking
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Waxman, who has been
working so hard on these issues.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the bill that is before us today is an
unbalanced package of cuts that hurts the most vulnerable populations
in our society and the working middle class.
There was a budget agreement on a bipartisan basis between the
Congress and the President by which we would shield low-income programs
from the cuts that are now before us today. That agreement is being
rejected, and the Republicans are pushing for cuts for low-income
programs such as Medicaid, SNAP--which is the food stamp program--
helped by the Social Services Block Grant and which are vital to
maintaining and continuing our economic recovery. These are the safety
net programs. With the slashes in Medicaid, we will have hundreds of
thousands of people, including 300,000 children, denied health
insurance.
Is this something that we have to do when we're not letting others do
their fair share?
The bill would establish a Federal medical malpractice system that
tramples on the meaning of states' rights, which the Republicans have
said is a central tenet of their point of view. They would undermine
our future health care by cutting prevention and public health
investments. They would make it harder for women to access important
and life-saving preventative care, and they fail to protect Medicare
from billions of dollars in cuts that would happen under the
sequestration.
But we shouldn't be surprised.
This is all based on the Ryan budget that the Republicans passed on
the House floor last month. Under that budget, defense spending is
increased over investments in health, education, and research.
Medicare, as we know it, would come to an end. The number of uninsured
would rise, but millionaires and billionaires would receive enormous
tax cuts.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. WAXMAN. Instead of a budget that actually reduces the deficit,
which this budget would not do, and that tries to do it in a balanced
and fair way, the Ryan budget, and this bill specifically, targets
those most in need; and it puts our Nation's financial recovery at
risk. I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from the Virgin
Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, to say I rise in strong opposition to
this bill would be an understatement. In addition to the other
egregious cuts, this bill would eliminate the critically needed $6.3
billion in funding that the U.S. territories' Medicaid programs receive
under the Affordable Care Act.

{time} 1240

More than that, it sends a clear message to Americans in the
territories that while they are American enough to defend this Nation
during times of war, they are not American enough for this Nation to
protect and preserve their health and well-being. This bill is un-
American and it is unjust.
I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this terrible reconciliation
bill.
Mr. Speaker, to say that I rise today in strong opposition to this
bill would be an understatement.
The truth is that there are so many elements included in this bill
that warrant everyone's strong opposition that the list reads like a
dishonor roll: the attacks on Medicare and CHIP; the elimination of
funding for the Exchanges that will expand health insurance to more
than 30 million uninsured Americans; and the repeal of the Prevention
and Public Health Fund, which expands access to preventive health care
services to millions of Americans who--as a result--would have improved
overall health and well-being. The list goes on for far too long.
But, it gets worse because this bill also includes a provision to
eliminate the critically needed 6.3 billion dollars in funding that the
U.S. Territories' Medicaid programs received under the Affordable Care
Act--a funding influx that, two years ago, my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle and in both chambers deemed legitimate and necessary. And,
if that is not bad enough, this bill also bumps our FMAP down from 55
to 50 percent--a percentage that every expert has agreed is far too low
and unjust, given the territories' income, poverty and cost of living
numbers.
I will call it like I see it: it bullies the most vulnerable
Americans in the territories whose medical needs surpass their
financial resources; and this bill sends the very clear message to
Americans in the territories that while they are ``American enough'' to
defend this nation and its honor during times of war, they are not
``American enough'' for this Nation to help protect and preserve their
health, health care and thus well-being. It is un-American; it is
unjust; it is an unnecessary embarrassment; and it must not pass.
We have one last chance to do the right thing; let's do it and not
pass this bill.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Oklahoma, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Cole.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, the American people know in their gut that
they're not taxed too little, and they also know that the Federal
Government spends too much.
This bill is an important first step in restraining spending and
bringing our out-of-control deficit under control. I'm very proud of
our chairman, Mr. Ryan, on our committee for bringing it to the floor.
I'm even prouder of the six authorizing committees that systematically
did their job of reviewing nondiscretionary spending and finding real
savings that we can use to reduce the deficit and protect important
investments in defense.
Taming the deficit will require that we take these steps each and
every year going forward. We haven't done it since 2005. It's time to
do it today. Let's take a step in the right direction.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this bill is vivid evidence of the
radicalization of the Republican Party.
I recall decades ago chairing a committee in the Michigan State
Senate

[[Page H2615]]

and addressing a number of reforms affecting the lives of working men
and women. I directly engaged in give and take and negotiated final
legislation with Governor George Romney, resulting in legislation that
passed on a bipartisan basis.
Today, the radicalization of the Republican Party would make that
impossible. Instead, we have a bill that would take away food stamps
for 2 million Americans, children, working parents, and seniors. It
would threaten 280,000 school meals and end the Social Services Block
Grants, which provide home care, transportation for individuals with
disabilities, protection for abused children, and Meals on Wheels. All
of this and much more extremism to carry out an additional tax cut of
$240,000 for the very wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers.
We can turn off the budget sequester and the damaging across-the-
board cuts, but not with this extreme partisan bill. The House
leadership refuses to follow a bipartisan path. This bill is sad proof
of how the Republican Party of today has moved dramatically to the
extreme, leaving behind most Americans, except the very wealthy.
Mr. Speaker, I now would like to enter into the Record letters from
organizations that are opposed to this bill's drastic cuts in services
for the elderly, the disabled, and children:

Catholic Charities USA,

Alexandria, VA, April 25, 2012.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Ryan: As the House Committee on the
Budget evaluates the priorities expressed in the federal
budgeting process, we urge you to reject the proposed
elimination of the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) as
proposed by the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Everyday thousands of individuals who are disabled,
children, preschoolers, homeless, elderly, or at risk of
being abused are receiving services because of SSBG funding.
These funds prevent the need for more expensive and less
desirable interventions. SSBG is a flexible federal funding
source that allows states, local governments and non-profit
organizations to support local programs and services for
vulnerable children, youth, and elderly and disabled people.
States have a long history of cooperation with community and
faith-based organizations in the allocation of SSBG funds.
Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA) is a network of more than
1,600 social service agencies and institutions providing
services to more than 10 million people annually. As one of
the nation's largest social service providers, CCUSA
recognizes the critical need for SSBG funding and uses these
funds in almost every category of direct services.
Among those vulnerable populations that receive critical
assistance from SSBG-funded programs are: Children: Local
Catholic Charities agencies use SSBG funds to provide child
care to low-income families; foster care support service; and
prevention and protective services for neglected and abused
children. Youth: Local Catholic Charities agencies utilize
funds from SSBG to supplement work with expecting and
parenting teens; drug counseling for troubled youth; and
special services for youth involved in or at risk of
involvement with criminal activity. Elderly: Local Catholic
Charities rely heavily on SSBG funds to support Meals on
Wheels programs that address both nutrition and isolation
issues for frail elderly persons; transportation services for
persons who also need assistance with their grocery shopping,
doctor appointments, and during church services; adult day
care; and emergency shelter and assistance for victims of
elder abuse.
The following provides some examples of programs at local
Catholic Charities agencies that would be affected by the
elimination of SSBG funding:
New Jersey: In Newark, SSBG funds are used to support many
programs and services, among them counseling and child abuse
prevention services for families referred from the State
child welfare system; supervised housing for youth exiting
the child welfare system for independent living; The funds
are used to provide services directed towards preventing,
reducing or eliminating dependency; achieving or maintaining
self-sufficiency; preventing neglect, abuse or exploitation
of children and adults; and preventing or reducing
inappropriate institutional care.
Pennsylvania: In Wilkes-Barre/Scranton SSBG funding
supports activities at a homeless veterans residence,
Maternity Home and Senior Citizens Housing.
Texas: In Beaumont, SSBG funds the soup kitchen, long term
disaster recovery, financial education and counseling
programs. In Brownsville, SSBG funds are used to assist with
long-term recovery from disasters including replacing
essential items for those who were rendered homeless from
such disasters.
Wisconsin: In LaCrosse, SSBG funds provide services for
children and adolescents in their Disabilities Services
Program. Its mission is to keep these young people in their
homes and prepare them for congregate or semi-independent
living and provides a unique niche and without it many would
not be able to be in mainstreamed into the community and
would be at risk for institutional care.
We acknowledge that tough choices will be made as part of
your ongoing budget discussions and that every one of these
tough choices will be met with frustration, disappointment
and even anger from certain segments of the population.
Catholic Charities USA recognizes that social service
initiatives will not be immune to those difficult decisions.
However, as you look for savings within the budget, we reject
the notion that those most vulnerable among us should feel
the greatest impact of future reductions.
Rather than simply embracing quick answers to the immediate
need to shave dollars off the federal budget by impairing
local organizations' ability to deliver critical services to
those in need, now is the time to work together to create a
new national approach to service delivery that enable the
country to permanently make a difference in the lives of
those living in poverty.
Sincerely,
Fr., Larry Snyder,
President.
____

May 5, 2012.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner: As groups of faith that provide
critical support for those living on the margin, we write to
urge you to reject the House Budget Committee's proposal to
repeal funding for the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG).
The SSBG is a flexible federal funding source that allows
states, local governments and nonprofit organizations to
support and supplement programs and services on the local
level for vulnerable children, youth, the elderly and people
with disabilities. States have a long history of cooperation
with community and faith-based organizations in the
allocation of SSBG funds.
According to the Department of Health and Human Services,
the SSBG helped more than 22 million individuals in 2009, 49
percent of whom were children. In 1996, funding for SSBG was
cut, and while it was intended to increase to $2.8 billion in
2003, instead it was reduced to $1.7 million and has remained
at this level. The flat funding level has failed to keep up
with inflation, forcing states to cut back on social services
or tap into funds allocated for the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families. In these times of economic hardship, states
are dealing with budget crises and a growing number of people
in need of social services. SSBG funds are critical to help
states fill in gaps with the flexibility to target the funds
according to their needs.
SSBG plays an important role in the types of services
provided by our organizations to low-income people. The
elimination of funding would disproportionately impact the
most vulnerable populations by impairing our ability to
provide services that help children in need of child care,
youth in need of intervention and prevention services, and
older Americans and persons with disabilities who might
otherwise need to be placed in institutional care. The
slightest reduction in funding for this vulnerable population
would compromise their livelihood and possibly their lives.
Therefore, we strongly urge you to protect SSBG funding so
that these vital programs continue to be available to these
vulnerable populations.
Sincerely,
Catholic Charities USA.
Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
Association of Jewish Family & Children's Agencies.
The Jewish Federations of North America.
Lutheran Services in America.
____

Easter Seals

Disability Services,

Washington, DC, April 19, 2012.
Dear Representative: On behalf of Easter Seals I am writing
to urge you to oppose legislation that eliminates the Social
Services Block Grant (SSBG) and cuts the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). We urge you to vote
against these proposals if they come before the full House of
Representatives.
The Social Services Block Grant is a critical resource that
enables Easter Seals affiliates throughout the country to
provide quality services that support the independence of
people with disabilities. Our affiliates work with localities
to provide inclusive child care for children with
disabilities, adult day services for older adults,
recreational programs for people with disabilities of all
ages and much more. Without SSBG, access to these critical
services would be extremely limited. In addition, many of the
people with disabilities we serve rely on SNAP and other
federal supports to remain independent.
Easter Seals appreciates the urgency for the federal
government to be fiscally responsible and to strengthen our
national economy. At the same time, we know that people with
disabilities disproportionately rely on government services
to live, learn and work in their communities. These services
were created by government because the private market place
would not meet the unique needs of people with disabilities.

[[Page H2616]]

Again, please oppose proposals to eliminate SSBG and cut
SNAP. Thank you for considering our views.
Sincerely,
Katherine Beh Nees,
Senior Vice President, Government Relations.
____

AARP,

May 9, 2012.
Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of over 38 million
members and other Americans who are age 50 and older, AARP is
writing to express serious concerns with the House
Reconciliation proposal pursuant to the Fiscal Year 2013.
While the reconciliation package offers ideas for confronting
our nation's deficits and debt, AARP believes the proposal
lacks balance and could jeopardize the health and economic
security of older Americans, as well as their families.

State Health Insurance Exchanges

The reconciliation proposal strikes funding for state
health insurance exchanges (Exchanges), as well as rescinds
obligated funds which states are relying on for future use.
The establishment of the Exchanges is one of a number of
initiatives in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(ACA) to improve access to affordable, quality care. AARP
believes the Exchanges can promote more cost-effective care,
improve pricing transparency, and increase health insurance
companies' accountability for quality health care. The
Exchanges' functions are critical in determining eligibility
for individuals or employers seeking to purchase qualified
health plans (QHPs), and in particular for determining
eligibility for the premium tax credits under the rules as
set out by the IRS. Exchanges are also important for
facilitating a seamless eligibility system with State
Medicaid programs under the rules set out for Medicaid. AARP
supports innovative ways to provide access to affordable,
quality care. The House proposal to defund the Exchanges by
$13.5 billion dollars will make it more difficult for
millions of Americans to obtain affordable and quality
healthcare.

Subsidies--True up

The proposal would require those who receive Exchange
subsidies overpayment to repay the full amount of the
overpayment. Individuals and families would still be allowed
to keep the subsidies they are entitled to receive under the
ACA. AARP supports health insurance Exchanges' subsidies to
individuals up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level.
The subsidies and their proper administration are a critical
element in assuring affordability of quality healthcare
coverage for individuals and families. Without these
subsidies, many of our members and other Americans will not
be able to afford coverage or the cost sharing for covered
care. We believe that efforts to change percentage limits or
decrease the subsidy levels will erode the affordability
protection of the credits, and will mean that over time more
people will find insurance unaffordable.

Repeal of the Public Health Fund

The proposal repeals the prevention and public health fund.
This fund is an important component in state and community
efforts to prevent illness and promote health, so that all
Americans can lead longer, more productive lives. An
estimated 32.5 million people with Medicare received at least
one free preventive benefit in 2011, including the new Annual
Wellness Visit, since the health reform law was enacted.
Seventy-five percent of all health care costs in our country
are spent on the treatment of chronic diseases, many of which
could be easily prevented. More than 70 million Americans
ages 50 and older--four out of five older adults--suffer from
at least one chronic condition. More than half of older
adults have more than one chronic condition, and 11 million
live with five or more chronic conditions. A focus on
prevention will not only lead to better health for Americans,
but will also help reduce the need for costly treatment and
intervention of these chronic diseases.
The prevention and Public Health Fund has also been used to
bolster the health care workforce to ensure that consumers
would have access to clinicians providing primary care,
prevention, and wellness care. In 2010, it helped to
transition 800 part time nursing students to full time status
to help infuse the healthcare workforce. Without such
funding, more consumers would go without necessary preventive
and primary care and would end up needing more advanced
interventions in acute care or chronic care institutions--
thereby decreasing their quality of life, overburdening the
health care delivery system, and increasing the cost of
health care. AARP strongly urges the House to oppose repeal
of the prevention fund.

Repeal of Medicaid and CHIP Maintenance-of-Effort Requirements

AARP opposes the reconciliation provision eliminating the
Medicaid Maintenance-of-Effort (MOE) requirement included as
part of the ACA. We are concerned this will lead to state
Medicaid cuts that could leave many older Americans, people
with disabilities, and children without health care coverage.
Medicaid often covers services that other programs, such as
Medicare, do not generally cover, including home health aide
and personal attendant care services, as well as nursing home
services. In fact, Medicaid is the largest payer of long-term
care for older adults and people with disabilities. Because
of the extremely high cost of long-term services and
supports--the average annual cost of nursing home care is
over $75,000--many older Americans, including middle income
Americans, have to virtually deplete all of their personal
resources to finance their ongoing care. Medicaid is a last
resort for these individuals and many other Americans who
find themselves uninsured or uninsurable in the private
market due to a catastrophic illness such as cancer. It
provides the needed long-term care services that Medicare
does not cover.
Starting in 2014, the ACA expands Medicaid coverage for
persons with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level,
to ensure that people who cannot afford care on the private
market still have access to core services without the
inefficiencies and expense of uncompensated care. The MOE
provisions included in ACA serve as a bridge to 2014, making
certain that important health coverage remains in place until
the new law is fully implemented. According to the non-
partisan Congressional Budget Office's scoring, the MOE
elimination would lead to hundreds of thousands of these
vulnerable Americans losing coverage each year.
Reducing Medicaid coverage is not the solution for reining
in health care costs. To be exact, cuts to Medicaid and CHIP
will only result in costly uncompensated care, which in turn
will result in higher health care costs in the private
market. Rather than simply continue to shift costs, health
care costs should be reduced by pursuing more effective ways
to deliver and coordinate care; by working to prevent and
treat costly chronic conditions; by carefully expanding home
and community-based services; and by reining in costs
associated with waste and fraud.

Repeal of increased federal Medicaid funding cap and match for
territories

AARP opposes the reconciliation provision that would
replace the ACA's increased Medicaid federal match and cap
for the territories with the levels in place prior to the
ACA. We supported raising the cap on Medicaid funding for
Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the other
territories. AARP believes that quality, affordable health
coverage should be available to all Americans wherever they
reside, and this reconciliation provision would only serve to
further increase health care inequities for Americans who
live in the U.S. territories. The proposal would cut federal
funding for Medicaid in the territories by 65% over the next
decade. Such a drastic cut would be a crippling blow that
would devastate Medicaid within the territories, as well as
budgets within the territories.

Eliminating Social Services Block Grant (SSBG)

The proposal aims to eliminate the SSBG. SSBG serve a
unique purpose and are not duplicative of other funding. The
original intent of SSBG funds was to increase the flexibility
of state governments to set social services spending
priorities outside the constraints of federal program
dollars. Since SSBG funds must be directed to services for
low income and vulnerable persons and enable them to be more
independent or gain greater economic self-sufficiency, around
23 million seniors, children and disabled persons will
experience reduced or no services since many states lack the
capacity to replace the funds if this proposal were to take
effect. Home delivered meals (1.7 million seniors), adult
protective services and transportation services are most
frequently noted as services for seniors supported by the
SSBG. In two recent reports by AARP and the National
Association of States United for Aging and Disabilities on a
wide array of supportive and long-term care services, states
acknowledge that maintaining current services levels is the
greatest challenge as the population ages at an increasing
rate. About 1.8 million children at risk of abuse and 4.4
million kids may lose child care related care services, while
an estimated 1 million disabled persons are affected by a
loss of transportation funds. Given the extreme vulnerability
of the populations receiving services under SSBG, AARP cannot
support this approach to balancing the federal budget and
urges rejection of this proposal.

Block Grant SNAP and Narrow Eligibility

The reconciliation proposal aims to cut and block grant the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). It
contradicts the evidence of the major reputable studies on
nutrition programs, including the Government Accountability
Office's findings that SNAP was very effective in meeting its
mission and targeting goals. Further, all the major
bipartisan deficit reduction proposals considered by Congress
in the past two years have agreed that the safety net needs
to be kept intact so those least able are not asked to bear
the burden of balancing the federal budget. The House
proposal cuts about $35 billion over 10 years from nutrition
programs without sacrifices from farm subsidies or other
agriculture spending. The result is a significant reduction
in assistance to buy food. 2.7 million seniors are currently
receiving SNAP benefits. Additionally, the proposal results
in close to 2 million persons being eliminated from SNAP
assistance as application and eligibility requirements are
tightened by prohibiting coordination with the Low Income
Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and other low income
benefits, eliminating the Recovery Act enhancement that
helped SNAP benefits gain on the inflated cost of food during
the recession, and capping the amount that can be spent to
provide nutrition to low income households. AARP urges
Congress to reject proposals to cap or reduce SNAP funding,
restrict eligibility or reduce benefits. Instead

[[Page H2617]]

Congress should support proposals to increase benefit
adequacy so that households have the resources to purchase a
nutritionally adequate diet.
On behalf of our millions of members and all older
Americans, we reiterate our concerns about the harm this
reconciliation proposal could cause Medicare and Medicaid
beneficiaries, as well as other older Americans and their
families. We strongly urge you to enact a reconciliation
package that will better protect the interests of our
nation's seniors and their families. If you have any
questions, feel free to call me, or please have your staff
contact Joyce Rogers, Senior Vice President of our Government
Affairs office at 202 434 3750.
Sincerely,
A. Barry Rand,
Chief Executive Officer.
____

The Arc,

Washington, DC, May 3, 2012.
Chairman Dave Camp,
Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Ranking Member Sander M. Levin,
Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Camp and Ranking Member Levin, I am writing
to express the strong opposition of The Arc of the United
States (The Arc) to two proposals approved by the Committee
on Ways and Means at its April 18 markup of budget
reconciliation language.
The Arc is the largest national community-based
organization advocating for and serving people with
intellectual and developmental disabilities and their
families. We have more than 140,000 members and more than 700
state and local chapters nationwide. We are concerned that
the proposals to eliminate the ``safe harbor'' for
individuals and families receiving premium tax credits under
the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and to eliminate the Social
Services Block Grant (SSBG) could harm people with
intellectual and developmental disabilities and their
families.
``Safe Harbor'' for Premium Tax Crafts Under the Affordable
Care Act
The ACA protects individuals and families from having
excessive penalties if the premium tax credit paid towards
insurance coverage during the year exceeds the actual amount
the individual or family was due. The protection, through a
``safe harbor'' that caps the amount of the premium tax
credit an individual or family under 400% of poverty will
have to re-pay, recognizes that there are certain instances
that cannot be easily accounted for that will change the
amount of credit due.
Eliminating this ``safe harbor'' will hurt people with
disabilities who have lower average incomes than non-disabled
workers and often work part-time. Penalizing low income
people for changes in earnings or family status that occur
during the year by removing the repayment cap will leave
people with disabilities vulnerable to an unaffordable tax
bill. This could lead to more people refusing coverage for
fear of the repayment penalty.
Social Services Block Grant
The Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) helps provide
critical services to approximately 23 million people with
disabilities, seniors, and children across the United States.
For example, the SSBG helps provide vital services for people
with disabilities and their families, including respite care
and transportation; Meals on Wheels and other supportive
services for seniors; child care and related assistance for
children; and child protective services for at risk children.
For people with intellectual and developmental
disabilities, the SSBG can provide invaluable supports and
can help leverage state and local funding to deliver
essential services. For example, in New Jersey the SSBG helps
fund an independent Living program operated by The Arc of
Bergen and Passaic Counties. The program assists low-income
people with developmental disabilities who are on a waiting
list for services from the State Division of Developmental
Disabilities (DDD) or who do not qualify for the full array
of state DDD services.
Under the program, The Arc of Bergen and Passaic Counties
receives referrals from homeless shelters, mental health
providers, and other agencies and often provides emergency
stabilization for referred individuals and families who are
in crisis. The program provides people with developmental
disabilities with individualized supports such as: locating
and maintaining housing; landlord relations; job search and
employer/employee relations; budgeting, bill paying, and
other financial challenges; and accessing medical and mental
health care.
SSBG funds leverage matching County contributions as well
as funding from the Community Development Block Grant.
Without the SSBG portion, the program would not be viable.
New Jersey's program is an example of how the SSBG can fill
gaps in the service continuum and act as a lifeline for
people with disabilities. Eliminating the SSBG would reduce
essential funding at a time when state and local budgets are
under severe pressure and people with disabilities, seniors,
and families need more help.
Preserving the ``Safe Harbor'' for Premium Tax Credits and
the SSBG
In closing, The Arc believes that eliminating the SSBG and
the ``safe harbor'' for premium tax credits under the
Affordable Care Act could harm people with disabilities and
their families, and we oppose the proposed elimination of
these important supports. Thank you for considering our
views.
Sincerely,
Marty Ford,
Director, Public Policy Office.
____

National Foster

Care Coalition,

April 23, 2012.
Dear Member of Congress: We are a coalition of diverse
groups opposed to the recent actions of the House Ways and
Means Committee to find federal budget savings through the
elimination of the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). The
actions taken on Wednesday, April 18, 2012, by the Ways and
Means Committee, through budget reconciliation, will hurt
some of this nation's most vulnerable families and children.
SSBG is a major funder for state and local child abuse
prevention services, child protective services (CPS) and it
supplements services for adoptions and for services to
infants, children and youth in foster care. In some states,
it is a significant source of local funding for adult
protective services.
During the 1996 welfare reform debate, the Congress and
Governors agreed to reduce SSBG funding to $2.38 billion
temporarily and return it to its former level of $2.8 billion
in 2003. The reductions were agreed to at a time when members
of both parties and houses were looking for revenue to
balance the federal budget. SSBG contributed to that deficit
reduction. It was to be restored when the fiscal condition
improved. Instead, Congress reduced SSBG further to $1.7
billion to help pay for a 1998 transportation bill in lieu of
other revenue sources. During this period, deficits not only
declined but were eliminated. Although this cut was intended
to be temporary, SSBG was never restored. We are disappointed
that some would propose to once again use SSBG for deficit
reduction--despite the fact that SSBG funding contributed not
a dollar to current deficits.
The champions of SSBG have included the leadership from
both parties, including the bipartisan leadership of both the
House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance
Committee. We hope these champions will remain strong.
SSBG helps to fill the numerous state budget gaps in areas
as diverse as senior services, mental health services, and
services to people with disabilities. While we focus on
SSBG's vital importance to child abuse prevention and child
welfare services, it also supports services for those adults
in jeopardy of entering a nursing home or institution, it
supports other low-income individuals and families including
adults who have been abused; children in need of child care;
and youth in need of transitional services.
Imposing these cuts to child abuse prevention funding and
child welfare services at a time when state and local budgets
are under severe pressure and families need more help, will
create a human deficit while failing to deal with the current
financial one.
The undersigned organizations ask you to reject this
proposed elimination of SSBG.
Sincerely,
Alliance for Children and Families; Alliance for
Children's Rights; American Academy of Pediatrics;
American Association on Health and Disability; American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME); American Group Psychotherapy Association;
American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children;
American Psychological Association; Ampersand Families,
MN; Association for Ambulatory Behavioral Healthcare;
Association of University Centers on Disabilities;
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Bill Wilson
Center, CA; Black Administrators in Child Welfare;
Buncombe County, North Carolina; California Alliance of
Child and Family Services; California Youth
Connections; Children's Advocacy Institute; Children's
Aid Society; Children and Families First, DE; Children
and Families Futures; Children's Defense Fund; Children
First for Oregon; Children's Home Society of America;
Children's Home Society of North Carolina; Children's
Rights Project, CA; Child Welfare League of America;
CLASP; Clinical Social Workers Association; Coalition
on Human Needs; Connecticut Association of Foster and
Adoptive Parents; Council of Family and Child Caring
Agencies, NY; County Welfare Directors Association of
California; Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption;
Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance; Every Child
Matters; Family Service Center of South Carolina; First
Focus Campaign for Children; Foster Care to Success
Foundation; Foster Family-Based Treatment Association;
Great Circle, MO; John Burton Foundation; Larry Brown
Associates; Lutheran Services in America; Mental Health
America; Minnesota Association of County Social Service
Administrators; Mississippi Children's Home Services;
Missouri Coalition of Children's Agencies; National
Adult Protective Services Association; National
Alliance of Children's Trust and Prevention Funds;
National Alliance to End Homelessness; National
Association for Children's Behavioral Health; National
Association for the Education of Homeless Children and
Youth; National Association of Area Agencies on Aging;
National Association of Counsel for Children; National
Association of

[[Page H2618]]

County Human Services Administrators; National
Association of Social Workers; National Center on
Shaken Baby Syndrome; National Center for Housing and
Child Welfare; National Crittenton Foundation; National
Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health;
National Foster Parent Association; National Indian
Child Welfare Association; National Respite Coalition;
New York Council on Adoptable Children; New York Public
Welfare Association; Nebraska Children's Home Society;
Nebraska Families Collaborative; North American Council
on Adoptable Children; North Carolina Association of
County Directors of Social Services; NYSCCC Support,
Information and Advocacy for Foster & Adoptive
Families; Oklahoma Therapeutic Foster Care Association;
Ohio Job and Family Services Directors' Association;
Parents Anonymous; Prevent Child Abuse America; Prevent
Child Abuse Indiana; Public Children Services
Association of Ohio; School Social Work Association of
America; Stop It Now; Three Rivers Adoption Council,
PA; The Villages of Indiana; Voice for Adoption; Voices
for America's Children; Weill Cornell Medical College's
Division of Geriatrics and Gerontology.
____

CWLA

Washington, DC, April 19, 2012.
Hon. Dave Camp,
Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, 1102 Longworth HOB,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Sander Levin,
Ranking Member, House Ways and Means Committee, 1106
Longworth HOB, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Camp and Ranking Member Levin: On behalf of
the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) representing
hundreds of public and private child-serving member agencies
serving millions of children and families in all fifty
states, I write this letter to express opposition to the
Committee's proposal to eliminate the Social Services Block
Grant (SSBG). At its inception, Title XX was an entitlement
to fund social services. It was then restructured in 1981
into a block grant that would provide states more flexibility
to support an array of services to children, youth, and
families.
The Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) has long supported
our most vulnerable children and continues to be a critical
resource for child welfare. This flexible funding stream
creates and sustains strong communities through a broad range
of health and human services. SSBG represents 12% of federal
funds states spend to provide child abuse prevention,
adoption, foster care, child protection, independent and
transitional living and residential services for children and
youth. Nationwide, more than 2.6 million children received a
range of child welfare services funded in part or in total by
SSBG.
According to the latest data available, 39 states use SSBG
funds for child abuse and neglect prevention, 22 states use
them for adoption assistance, while 36 states allocate them
to provide foster care services for children who may not be
eligible for federal IV E support. States also use SSBG to
fund independent and transitional living services to youth
aging out of the foster care system, residential treatment
and other prevention and intervention services.
Unfortunately, this Committee has proposed eliminating SSBG
in its entirety, despite the fact less than a decade ago this
Committee shared bipartisan support for increasing funding to
this vital safety net. Elimination of SSBG would place a
huge, undue burden on states already facing tight budgets. At
a time when states are struggling to avoid further cuts to
the human service delivery systems, arguing that funding for
the SSBG should be eliminated because it is duplicative
disregards the underlying need for services that will not go
away even if funding does.
In closing, I ask that you not turn your back on vulnerable
children and families, in an attempt to reduce the deficit.
CWLA appreciates your leadership in these trying times.
Sincerely,
Christine James-Brown,
President/CEO.
____

Coalition on

Human Needs,

Washington, DC, April 18, 2012.
Dear Member of the House Committee on Ways and Means: This
morning, the Committee will mark up legislation making
reckless and extreme cuts in assistance for poor and
vulnerable people, cutting even more deeply than the House
budget resolution required of you. It is particularly
striking, considering that tax policy is within the
jurisdiction of your Committee, that the chokes for reducing
the deficit come solely by hurting low-income children and
families, seniors, and the uninsured.
The Coalition on Human Needs strongly urges you to reject
this course. Here are some of the reasons why the
reconciliation cuts proposed are so unwise:
Denying the Child Tax Credit to millions of poor children:
By eliminating the Child Tax Credit for working families who
use a Taxpayer Identification Number instead of a Social
Security Number, you will hurt millions of poor children by
raising their families' taxes by an average of $1,800. Their
incomes average $21,000 a year; four out of five of the
children in these families are citizens. A decision to make
poverty deeper for millions of children is reckless because
it increases the chances that these children will suffer
inadequate nutrition, become sick, experience developmental
delays, and fall behind in school--all documented outcomes
associated with child poverty. It is wrong and makes no sense
to compromise children's life chances by deepening their
poverty.
Permanently terminating the Social Services Block Grant:
Ending this vital source of funds to programs operated by
states will mean millions of low-income seniors, children,
and families will do without help. In particular, this
extreme cut will deny protection to millions of children and
older people who are victims of abuse or neglect--a truly
reckless choice. Some examples of the services that will be
terminated:
Child Protective Services: 41 states used over $270 million
in SSBG funds to protect children from abuse and neglect in
FY 2009, providing services to more than 1.75 million
children, in a year when child protective services agencies
received an estimated 3.3 million reports of child abuse or
neglect.
Among other services to protect children from abuse and
neglect provided through SSBG:
36 states used $391 million for foster care services for
more than 451,000 children.
Over the course of FY 2009, more than 700,000 children
spent at least part of the year in foster, kinship, or
residential care. Many states use SSBG funds to pay foster
care costs for children not eligible for Title IV E foster
care assistance. 30 states used $133 million in SSBG funds in
FY 2008 for prevention and intervention services for more
than 640,000 children.
(Source: the National Foster Care Coalition, citing data
collected by the Office of Community Services, HHS (http://
www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg/reports/ssbg_focus_2009/
child_protective_services.html)).
Adult Protective Services (for seniors); 34 states used
$216 million in SSBG funds to provide adult protective
services to seniors who were victims of abuse or neglect in
FY 2009. These funds provided protective services to 579,465
seniors in 2009, up from 411,691 in 2005. These funds
provided core protective services for older adults:
investigations, interventions, and shelters for abused
elders. Such services are not funded by the Older Americans
Act, and so states use SSBG to carry out these essential
protections. Ten states use 10 percent or more of their SSBG
funds for adult protective services, among them:
New York: 37%
South Carolina: 23%
West Virginia: 18%
Texas: 16%
Oklahoma: 16%
Tennessee: 13%
A false rationale for terminating the Social Services Block
Grant is that its funds are ``duplicative.'' These core
protective services are not provided elsewhere. In the case
of seniors, the Older Americans Act does not provide them at
all. State funding in many states has been reduced, even for
services to protect children and seniors from abuse and
neglect. (Source: Office of Community Services, HHS, FY 2009
reports, at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg/reports/
ssbg_focus_2009/child_protective__services.html.)
Child Care: 35 states used $391 million in FY 2009 to
provide child care.
Six states spent more than 20 percent of their SSBG funds
for child care:
California: 52%
Oregon: 43%
Connecticut: 35%
Pennsylvania: 31%
Delaware: 21%
Rhode Island: 21%
New Hampshire: 20%
(Source: Office of Community Services, HHS, SSBG focus
reports, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg/reports/
ssbg_focus_2009/child_care.html)
States were struggling to provide child care in the face of
severe state budget shortfalls and eroding federal
assistance. According to the National Women's Law Center, 37
states reduced their child care assistance in FY 2011 below
FY 2010 levels. At the federal level, even the increases
proposed in the President's budget for FY 2013 will only
support 1.5 million children receiving child care, down from
1.7 million children in FY 2010. (Source: http://
www.nwlc.org/resource/additional-child-care-funding-
essential-stop-state-cuts) To deny child care assistance to
the 4 million children who make use of SSBG funds would
inflict grossly irresponsible harm to low-income working
families. Making work more difficult at a time when the
economy remains so fragile makes no sense.
When the Social Services Block Grant was created, its
stated purpose was to give states flexibility by pooling
funds from previously separate funding streams so states
could determine where the funds were most needed. Now to take
the funding away because it is ``duplicative'' misses the
point of this flexible funding source, denying states support
for the services they have deemed important, because other
funding sources are either nonexistent or inadequate to meet
need.
Recapturing overpayments In premium subsidies under the
Affordable Care Act: There have already been policy changes
to get some of the overpayments back when people do not
estimate their income correctly. To seek the full cost of the
premium subsidies back will be a tremendous disincentive to
participating in the program at

[[Page H2619]]

all, since many low-income families' earnings fluctuate in a
way that makes it impossible to be certain what level of
subsidy to claim. Having to repay the entire amount will
create significant hardships for families already living on
the edge.
Sincerely,
Deborah Weinstein,
Executive Director.

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a
distinguished gentleman on the Budget Committee, the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, we've heard a lot about fairness, which the Democrats
have defined to mean taxing businesses to finance a variety of welfare
programs.
The problem is businesses do not pay business taxes. Business taxes
can only be paid by consumers through higher prices; by employees
through lower wages; and by investors--mainly pension funds--through
lower earnings. There is no other way to pay a business tax.
So the net effect of pursuing their definition of ``fairness'' is to
push more consumers into debt, push more employees into unemployment,
and push more retirees into poverty, which in turn requires more and
more government welfare spending until their financial house of cards
collapses. That's the economic spiral their policies are producing in
our time.
The House budget, which this act advances, breaks that cycle and
restores policies that throughout our history have lifted our Nation
from times of want and despair to eras of prosperity and abundance.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, we're still waiting for this House to
take up the President's jobs bill that was submitted last September.
We've seen 25 consecutive months of positive private sector job growth.
It was a whole lot better than where we were in January when the
President was sworn in, losing 800,000 jobs a month. But we need to
sustain that recovery, and we're still waiting. The clock is ticking.
Let's take that legislation up so that we can accelerate the recovery.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas,
representing the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Ms. Sheila
Jackson Lee.
(Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member,
and I thank the ranking member of the full Judiciary Committee, Mr.
Conyers, who worked extensively to bring reason to this discussion.
I must remind my colleagues that this is a debate that is, of course,
necessary, but it is not going anywhere. This is in essence to respond
to the potential and pending sequestration and the deadlock of the
committee, but the deadlock of the committee gave us an opportunity to
work in a bipartisan manner.
My good friend who just spoke on the other side of the aisle talked
about abundance and prosperity and talked about welfare. What I would
say to the gentleman is that we're not talking about welfare. We're
talking about investment in people, and we're talking about not having
a siege upon our children.
On April 25, 2012, we were back in the Judiciary Committee again
looking at medical malpractice for the umpteenth time. I wondered why
we were there. It was because each committee was told to find a way to
find money. So the directions of the Republicans for the Judiciary
Committee were to oppress the sick and to be able to cap medical
malpractice insurance on innocent victims such as women and children
and the elderly when the medical system fails us as it relates to
medical devices and other elements.

We were told to eliminate for the children of America by limiting
noneconomic damages, restricting punitive damages, limiting access to
courts for poor victims of medical malpractice, shortening the statute
of limitations for claims, eliminating the protections of children, and
prohibiting joint and several liability. We were simply told to shut
the courthouse door for children that needed to be able to have the
opportunity to have their lives saved, just like a little boy who
needed surgery in a hospital in San Antonio. They told the family it
was a serious surgery and they needed to have a cardiologist on staff.
He went into surgery, and, of course, things went wrong. There was no
cardiologist there; there was a mishap; there was a fault; and that
little boy died. They want to deny that poor family access to the
courthouse. That is what that bill does.
When my friends begin to talk about what else it does, it cuts SNAP,
the nutrition program. It cuts Medicaid.
Mr. Speaker, what I would say is that this bill is a siege on
children. We should oppose it. It is not reconciliation. It is
oppression. I would ask us to vote against it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 5652, the
``Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012'' This piece of
legislation should really be entitled the ``Ryan's Replacement
Sequester to Thwart the Bipartisan Budget Control Act of 2012''
Whatever anyone wants to entitle this measure, one thing will still
remain true . . . this legislation is unfair. It literally takes money
out of programs dedicated to serving low income families, children,
seniors, the disabled, the most in need of our assistance. Why isn't
the funding coming from war savings. There has been a consistent attack
on the other side of the aisle on programs that are proven to be
affective at combating the stresses associated with poverty, aging, and
long term care. Before us is a measure that is a wolf in sheep's
clothing.
In my lifetime, I have never seen such a concerted effort to ransom
the American economy in order to extort the American public. While I
support bipartisan efforts to decrease the debt and to resolve our
differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues, I cannot
support a bill that unduly robs average Americans of their economic
security and ability to provide for their families while constraining
the ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic,
fiscal, and job creation troubles.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying to give the
American people the impression that their sentimental and unbridled
concern for the military means that it is necessary to take an ax to
programs for seniors and low income that is not something that our
military would be proud to be connected too. Why not use, instead, war
savings and a small finite tax on income over $1 million dollars.
This unbalanced bill modifies last year's bipartisan Budget Control
Act to cancel the sequestration of discretionary spending currently
scheduled to occur in January 2013 in order to prevent cuts to defense.
That is fine but Republicans have already voted twice this year to pass
their budget to end the Medicare guarantee and increase costs for
seniors while giving massive tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans.
While the U.S. economy is healing, the world economy continues to be
in a fragile state and all economies are linked through trade and
finance. In this environment, this bill sends the economy downward.
However, over the last few years the economy has been steadily growing.
We are not where the American people should be but the economy has
gained jobs.
According to Secretary Solis she stated ``know where our nation's
unemployment rate stands. I have to report it every month. But we've
now added private sector jobs to our economy for 26 months running.
Since President Obama took office, we've created 4.2 million new jobs.
That's no small potatoes when you consider we were bleeding 750,000
jobs a month when this President took office. I know we've got a lot
more to do. But we're making progress.'' During this time of progress,
this is no time to cut the social safety net for those still
unemployed--no time to cut food stamps, medicaid, or medicare.
The President signed the Recovery Act which invested in mass transit,
roads, and bridges to build critical infrastructure and secure
construction jobs. The Recovery Act also included strong Davis-Bacon
and Buy American provisions, to stimulate local economies and create
high-quality jobs. In total, the Recovery Act supported up to 3.5
million jobs through the end of 2010.
It is essential that we allocate the money spent on previous wars to
programs to help expand opportunities for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, if you asked the typical American family what they would
need to do to balance their family budget, they would respond: spend
less. But they would also be quick to acknowledge that without a job,
or in the case of the federal budget, tax revenue, the budget will
never balance. It is critical to address both sides of the ledger. It
is also imperative for the Republicans to place the President's jobs
bill on the agenda to vote on and pass.
Sure, save money but cutting benefits but without additional revenue,
the budget is doomed. Moreover, you surely would not find any family in
Texas that would suggest buying luxury items, while struggling to
balance the family budget is a sensible approach. But Republicans
insist on advocating for tax breaks for the wealthy--the luxury class.

[[Page H2620]]

Economists

Economists have long pointed to investments in ``human capital''--the
productive capability that is embedded in people--as one of the most
important determinants of economic growth. A large and growing body of
literature has examined the returns to investments in human capital
from both a societal and individual perspective.
In his book, Dangerous Half-Truths & Total Nonsense, Pfeffer writes:
``There is compelling evidence that when companies use Human Resources
best practices based on the best research, they trump the competition.
These findings are replicable in industry after industry, from
automobiles to textiles, to computer software to baseball. ``We must
use our Human Resources wisely.

energy and deficit reduction

And speaking of saving money and reducing the deficit, I have
introduced H.R. 3710 which increases the acreage to 10 percent of what
is already allocable under a proposal by Interior Secretary Salazar, as
announced on November 8, 2011. In other words, more land will be
available for exploration, in line with two objectives: decreasing our
dependence on foreign sources for oil, and plugging our budget deficit.
The monies will be deposited into the DRES Fund and invested by the
Secretary of the Treasury, until the money is transferred to the
Coastal and Ocean Sustainability Health Fund (COSH). Annually, the
Secretary of the Interior is required to lease 20 percent of the DRES.
In addition, this bill will help foment job creation in an industry
that is already responsible for 9.2 million American Jobs.
The bill also establishes the Deficit Reduction Energy Security Fund,
housed within the United States Treasury Department, which will receive
the accrued funds that are dedicated to deficit reduction. In order to
ensure that the putative funds generated from the leasing activities
which derive from this bill inure to the goal of deficit reduction, the
legislation also sets up the aforementioned COSH.
This bill establishes in the Department of the Treasury, the COSH,
which shall fund grants for addressing coastal and ocean disasters; and
programs and activities that restore, protect, maintain, manage, or
understand marine resources and their habitats, and ocean, and coastal
resources, including baseline scientific research, and other programs
in coordination with federal and state agencies. Monies will be
deposited into the COSH fund from interest accrued on OCS royalties,
rents, revenues, and fees that will remain, for the period of one year,
in the Fund before moving the entirety of the principle in the general
Treasury. The bill authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to make grants
for such purposes. I look forward to working with members of this
Committee and our colleagues to ensure passage of this legislation.
Simply put Mr. Speaker, my bill does not rob Peter to pay Paul but
actually requires that money made from the hard work of drilling by our
companies is rededicated to reducing our deficit--common sense fiscal
and energy policy.
As called for by the House's FY 2013 budget resolution, it replaces
the $98 billion sequester in discretionary spending with a $19 billion
reduction in the discretionary cap for FY 2013 and with
``reconciliation'' savings from mandatory programs recommended by six
House committees. These cuts hurt the American people, children and
families.
It also eliminates the separate cap on defense spending for the year
to allow for higher spending levels. The measure would modify mandatory
programs to save $19.7 billion through FY 2013 and about $315 billion
over 10 years, including by decreasing benefits and eligibility for the
food stamp program, reducing and repealing elements of the 2010 health
care law, and requiring all current and future federal workers to pay
an additional 5 percentage points of this salary toward their federal
pensions.
President Obama and Democrats oppose the GOP measure, and say that
preventing the January 2013 sequester and replacing the savings that
would come through sequestration should be done in a ``balanced''
approach in which revenue is part of the solution.
Republicans must abandon their ideological agenda and join Democrats
to restore fairness, opportunity, and prosperity to our budget and our
economy.

taxes and the buffett rule and taxes

Mr. Speaker, the cloud looming over this Congress is an unintended
``triple-watching hour'' of tax increases that will take effect at the
beginning of 2013.
The expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts, the end of the recently extended
Payroll Tax Cut, and increases in capital gains and dividends taxation
will shock the conscience and wallets of the American people. That is
why Congress needs to enact bi-partisan legislation that helps lower
the deficit but does not wreck havoc on the financial soul of the
middle class. This is a moral document and frankly, the other side is
getting more than a little fresh with the American people. It is May
and we are voting on a vacuous budget that will likely pass but is
doomed to failure in the Senate.
But again, tax reform that lowers the rate, reduces the deficit, and
does not pick winners and losers is not easy, but let's not forget, if
President Reagan and then-Speaker Tip O'Neill could do it in 1986,
anything is possible. But this morning we are not doing a bipartisan
dance, but participating in a roller-derby, a truly zero-sum game.
In the budget, the Administration calls for individual tax reform
that: cuts the deficit by $1.5 trillion, including the expiration of
the high-income 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. As a matter of sound fiscal
policy, I am supportive of this effort. I recognize the economic
benefits that many attribute to the Bush Tax Cuts, but we must ask
ourselves are they affordable at this time.
The President's budget also eliminates inefficient and unfair tax
breaks for millionaires while making all tax breaks at least as good
for the middle class as for the wealthy; and observes the Buffett Rule
that no household making more than $1 million a year pays less than 30
percent of their income in taxes.
The individual income tax is a hodgepodge of deductions, exemptions,
and credits that provide special benefits to selected groups of
taxpayers and favored forms of consumption and investment. These tax
preferences make the income tax unfair because they can impose
radically different burdens on two different taxpayers with the same
income. In essence, Congress has been picking winners and losers.

the hope and promise of the democratic alternative budget

Preserves the Medicare guarantee and the Social Safety Net. The
Democratic budget rejects any policy to end Medicare's guarantee of
health care coverage for seniors and disabled workers, and ensures the
social safety net remains intact.
Protects Medicare Beneficiaries. Rejects the Republican budget's
proposal to end the Medicare guarantee. It supports reforms in the
Affordable Care Act (ACA) to close the prescription drug ``donut hole''
for seniors with high prescription drug costs and ensure free
preventive care. As a result of these measures, as well as provisions
in the ACA to make Medicare spending more efficient, a person in
Medicare will save an average of about $4,200 on premiums and
coinsurance from 2011 through 2021. Medicare beneficiaries with high
prescription drug costs will save even more--an average of nearly
$16,000 over the same period.
Preserves Medicaid for Low-Income Families and Seniors. Maintains
Medicaid to ensure that 57 million low-income people continue to get
health care. Seniors and people with disabilities account for two-
thirds of Medicaid spending, and children account for another 20
percent.
Preserves Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP). Fully funds SNAP
and supports the President's proposal to continue certain benefits
added because of the economic downturn. Nearly three-quarters of people
served by SNAP are in families with children, and one-quarter are in
households with someone who is elderly or disabled.
Protects Social Security from Privatization. Social Security is not
responsible for our current deficits and should not be cut to reduce
the deficit. However, many Republicans continue to advocate
privatization, which would put retirees' financial security at risk and
worsen the deficit for decades. Our budget affirmatively rules out
privatization.
Helps Create More Jobs Now. Unlike the Republican resolution, our
budget includes the President's jobs initiatives, including the
following:
Transportation Jobs. $50 billion to fund jobs that address immediate
surface transportation priorities and $10 billion to establish an
infrastructure bank.
Tax Credits for Job Creation. A temporary 10 percent tax credit for
new jobs and wage increases.
Tax Incentives for Manufacturing. Includes a number of incentives for
domestic manufacturing, such as providing a tax credit for companies
that return operations and jobs to the U.S. while eliminating tax
breaks for companies that move opertions and jobs overseas.
Education Jobs. $80 billion to promote jobs creating the
infrastructure to help students learn and create a better future
workforce, including $30 billion to put hundreds of thousands of
Americans back to work upgrading at least 35,000 crumbling public
schools, and $25 billion to help prevent hundreds of thousands of
educator layoffs.
First Responder Jobs. $5 billion to help states and localities hire
police officers and firefighters and reverse previous layoffs.
Jobs for Veterans. $1 billion for the President's proposal to
establish a Veterans Job Corps and employ at least 20,000 veterans.
Builds a Stronger America through Long-Term Growth. Our budget
invests in research,

[[Page H2621]]

education, and innovation that will create a globally competitive
workforce for the future.
Education Investments. Follows the President's request for increased
investment in education and includes his request for $6 billion to
prevent the interest rate on subsidized student loans from doubling
this July.
Innovation and Research Investments. Funds science and engineering
workforce development and supports innovative manufacturing processes
that will reduce costs by using less energy, improving product quality,
and accelerating product development.
Small Business Investments. Provides additional resources for the
Small Business Administration (SBA) to ensure that the lending volume
for loan programs remains the same, rather than shrinking and denying
many small businesses' access to capital.
Infrastructure Investments. In addition to short-term jobs
initiatives for transportation, our budget includes the President's
six-year surface transportation proposal to create construction jobs
and fuel long-term economic growth. It also includes additional funding
to maintain America's harbors, seaports, and waterways.
Reduces the Deficit through Shared Responsibility. Congress has
already reduced projected deficits by more than $1 trillion through
discretionary cuts for 2011 and 2012 and enacting tight spending limits
for the next nine years. Our budget further reduces the deficit with
policies that balance spending cuts increased revenue.
Gets Deficits Under Control. The deficit falls from 8.7 percent of
GDP in 2011 to under 3 percent of GDP by 2015, and it remains there
through the ten-year budget window.
Cancels Sequestration and Replaces it with Balanced Deficit
Reduction. Replaces the $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction under the
scheduled Budget Control Act sequestration with greater deficit
reduction from targeted spending cuts and revenue increases.
Provides Tax Relief for Working Families and Ends Tax Breaks for the
Wealthy. Extends the 2001 03 tax cuts for the middle class and rejects
tax increases on the middle class. Accommodates expansion of incentives
for low- and middle-income families to earn income, save for
retirement, and attend college. To increase fairness and reduce the
deficit, this budget ends unwarranted and fiscally irresponsible Bush-
era tax cuts for millionaires, closes a variety of corporate tax
loopholes, and establishes a ``Buffett Rule'' to ensure that working
families do not face a higher tax rate than the wealthiest Americans.

ryan republican alternative: hurt and pain--part II

Ends the Medicare Guarantee. The Republican budget ends the Medicare
guarantee, giving seniors a voucher with an artificial price cap to
purchase insurance and leaving it up to them to figure out how to keep
their costs down as the value of their voucher fails to keep pace with
projected growth in health care costs. This plan will raise health care
costs for seniors and leave traditional Medicare to ``wither on the
vine.''
Reopens the Medicare ``Donut Hole'' and Increases Costs of Preventive
Care Services. The budget takes away important Medicare improvements
for seniors and persons with disabilities by repealing key provisions
of the Affordable Care Act. The budget reduces the prescription drug
health by re-opening the coverage gap, or ``donut-hole,'' and it
increase costs to seniors for preventive care services. Reopening care
services. Reopening the donut hole alone will increase costs for
Medicare beneficiaries with high prescription drug costs by an average
over $10,000 over the next ten years.
Abandons American Workers. Putting Americans back to work is the
fastest and most effective way to reduce the short-term deficit-in
fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that slow growth and
under-employment account for over one-third of the projected deficit
for 2012. But the Republican budget turns it back on American workers,
ignoring the President's proposals for new jobs for teachers, first
responders, construction workers, and veterans involved in building a
better infrastructure that will boost our economy now and in the
future. Independent analysts have found that the Republican budget
could lead to the loss of more than 2 million jobs over two years.
Transportation Jobs. Instead of investing in infrastructure, the
Republican budget reduces transportation spending by at least one-
quarter over 10 years. Next year, transportation spending would be
barely one-half of this year's level, a steep cut that could delay or
stop projects already underway. A failure to invest in transportation
will also hurt businesses' ability to transport goods and supplies in
the long run, weakening future economic growth.
Tax Breaks for Outsourcing jobs. The Republican budget boosts tax
incentives that encourage multinational companies to ship profits,
intellectual property, and thousands of jobs overseas while costing the
American economy billions of dollars.
Makes College More Expensive, Undermining U.S. Competitiveness. The
budget eviscerates funding for higher education, eliminating the $104
billion that Congress has already enacted to help sustain the maximum
Pell grant award and to provide for yearly inflationary increases. It
adds an average of $2,800 in higher loan repayment costs to more than 7
million low-and moderate-income college students by letting the
interest rate on subsidized students loans double, from 3.4 percent to
6.8 percent. It also eliminate $47 billion for lower-cost loans for
low-income students as well as repayment plans enacted and paid for by
previous Democratic Congresses. It even rejects the President's
proposal to extend a $2,500 tax cut to working families to help cover
the costs of college, refusing to extend the American Opportunity Tax
Credit beyond December. Overall, mandatory higher education funding is
cut by $166 billion over ten years versus current law levels, and by
$285 billion below the President's request.
Slashes the Social Safety Net. The Republican budget shreds the
social safety net for seniors, low-income children, persons with
disabilities, and families struggling to get by in a challenging
economy, all while cutting taxes for the very wealthy.
Slashes Medicaid for Seniors and Low-Income Families. The budget
slashes Medicaid by $810 billion and converts it into a block grant to
states. ``Block-granting'' Medicaid is not entitlement reform it is
entitlement destruction. This is simply code for deep, arbitrary cuts
in support to the most vulnerable seniors, individuals with
disabilities, and low-income children.
Block-grants and Cuts Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP). The
budget slashes SNAP funding by $133.5 billion over ten years, harming
the million who rely on this aid to feed their families. Nearly three-
quarters of people served by SNAP are in families with children, and
one-quarter are in households with someone who is elderly or disabled.
Abandons Fairness. The budget provides tax breaks for the wealthy and
special interests at the expense of everyone else. Republicans' refusal
to ask millionaires to pay one more penny in taxes leads them to place
the entire burden of reducing deficits and debts on the shoulders of
middle-income families and seniors. This budget dismantles the Medicare
guarantee, cuts back and nutritional assistance for low-income children
and families, and severely underfunds the crucial health care safety
net for more than 56 million Americans provided by Medicaid. At the
same time, it showers an additional $4.6 trillion in tax cuts (over and
above extending all of the Bush-era tax cuts) that primarily benefit
the wealthy. Overall, millionaries can expect an average tax cut of
$394,000 in this budget, which includes $129,000 just from extending
all of the Bush-era tax cuts.
Mr. Speaker, again I call on my colleagues to vote against H.R. 5652,
an unrealistic, unpragmatic, and unPATRIOTIC so-called bill that is a
punch to the gut of the most vulnerable Americans.
International Association

of Fire Fighters^',

Washington, DC, May 10, 2012.
Member of Congress,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the nation's 300,000
professional fire fighters and emergency medical personnel, I
write to express my strong opposition to H.R. 5652, the
Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012. This
legislation would rewrite the bipartisan Budget Control Act
of 2011 by placing greater economic hardships on working
class Americans or vulnerable populations.
Although the IAFF is deeply concerned with the impact that
defense cuts will have on our federal members employed at
defense installations, we cannot support unraveling the
Budget Control Act through the unbalanced and draconian
approach of H.R. 5652. Balancing the budget on the backs of
fire fighters without requiring those who are well off in our
society to share more of the burden is simply inexcusable. To
solve our fiscal challenges, we must have shared sacrifice
from all members in our society. Instead of shared sacrifice,
H.R. 5652 just leaves fire fighters sacrificed at the altar.
One of the main ways H.R. 5652 achieves savings in the
federal budget is by shifting a greater burden for funding
essential services to state and local governments. Over the
past five years, states already have cut nearly $300 billion
from their operating budgets as a result of the Great
Recession. Even as the private sector recovers, state and
local governments are still struggling to balance their
budgets, leading to continued job losses among fire fighters
and other public sector employees. Since April 2012, the U.S.
economy has lost 584,000 jobs in the public sector. Further
cuts in federal aid for essential government services will
only exacerbate public sector job losses and undermine core
functions of government such as fire protection and emergency
medical treatment.
Specifically, H.R. 5652 would completely eliminate the
Social Services Block Grant, saving the federal government
$18.7 billion. Originally established during the Reagan
administration, these critical funds help state and local
governments provide essential

[[Page H2622]]

services to 23 million seniors, children, and disabled
Americans. Home-based services like Meals on Wheels, child-
care services for low-income families, and programs to
prevent child abuse and neglect all receive funding, in whole
or in part, through the Social Services Block Grant.
H.R. 5652 would also cut $22.7 billion from the Medicaid
program. Created along with Medicare in 1965, Medicaid
represents an historic joint commitment by the federal
government and our states and territories to provide
essential health care to our nation's poor. Medicaid is one
of our nation's core safety-net programs. As the depths of
the Great Recession grew, so too did Medicaid enrollment,
creating increased pressures on state budgets. The proposed
cuts in H.R. 5652 to Medicaid will only add to state budget
pressures. For example, nearly half of the cuts will come
from a reduction in the state provider tax threshold. States
can use the revenues generated from the provider tax to
offset their share of Medicaid payments.
Eliminating the Social Services Block Grant and cutting
Medicaid would have disastrous consequences for our local
communities. State and local governments would be hard-
pressed to fill the budget holes created by H.R. 5652.
Without these funds, state and local governments may be
forced to eliminate these programs or cut funding from other
essential programs such as the fire service to balance their
budgets. Either way, the consequences to our local
communities would be devastating.
Furthermore, the IAFF strenuously objects to forcing
drastically higher pension contributions from current and
future federal employees. H.R. 5652 would require all current
federal employees to contribute an additional five percent in
pay toward their defined benefit pension plan, with no
enhancement in benefits. Federal workers have already
contributed $60 billion toward deficit reduction through a
two-year pay freeze. Forcing greater economic sacrifices from
federal fire fighters is particularly insulting, given the
sacrifices these brave men and women already make on the job.
The nation's federal fire fighters protect many of America's
most vital national assets, ranging from sensitive military
bases to Veterans hospitals. Federal fire fighters should not
be treated like a piggy bank for Congress.
For these reasons, we urge you to reject H.R. 5652, the
Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012 when it
comes for a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives. Thank
you for your consideration of the views of America's front
line domestic defenders.
Sincerely,
Harold A. Schaitberger,
General President.

{time} 1250

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting just to hear all the
hyperbole. As a freshman that walks in this body, I'm not used to
hearing all the back-and-forth. I am used to sitting down at a table
and working things out and actually going through the facts. It's
always fascinating for me to be able to hear the speeches and to be
able to hear how impressive things are when there are some simple
things. It reminds me again of how difficult it really is to bring down
Federal spending and to actually balance our budget when we can't agree
on simple things--simple things like:
Should we write a check and mail it on April 15 to people that are
here in this country illegally? Yes or no.
If people do not qualify for food stamps, should we give them food
stamps anyway?
If there's a TARP program that's out there that all of us, in a
bipartisan manner, have said does not work--it was supposed to give
home assistance for mortgages to millions of people, and it's been a
miserable failure--can we close down that program and use those
dollars?
The answer seems to come back, no, no, and no. And it's this
repetitive statement again and again of, if we'll just tax those oil
companies, everything will be all right. Well, I'm sorry, but a $4
billion tax on oil companies, which will cause prices to increase on
gasoline, does not solve a $1 trillion hole.
This is a first step. This is a beginning point to say we've got to
get in balance. And this is a real, practical way to begin to deal with
fraud and abuse and waste in our system and duplication in government
so we do not have the across-the-board sequestration, so we do not have
a big hit on our defense. We've got to solve this. And we should be
able to come together and say this is waste, abuse, and fraud. Let's
settle that before we deal with taxes.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing about waste, fraud, and
abuse. We all need to do everything humanly possible to make sure
there's no waste, fraud, and abuse. We keep hearing about these people
who are receiving assistance under Food and Nutrition programs like
they are cheating the system. They are eligible for the program. And
that is why the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that 22
million households with kids are going to see their food nutrition cut,
not because they're getting it somehow fraudulently. It is because what
the Republican proposal does is cut it off. Almost 2 million people
will be eliminated from access to the Food and Nutrition program.
I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms.
Moore), somebody who knows a lot about these issues and is a terrific
member of the Budget Committee.
Ms. MOORE. I thank the gentleman from Maryland.
It's important that the American people know the truth about this
sequestration replacement bill. And no matter how many times we hear
that this package is going to cut welfare programs or socialist
programs, like Medicare and Medicaid, things that we call the safety
net, all for the sake of reserving every last dime of military
spending, ignoring the opportunity to rout out waste, fraud, and peace
dividends, it doesn't add up.
The math I was taught is that what you do to one side of an equation,
you have to do to the other side of the equation for it to balance out.
You can't just subtract from the social safety net--Medicare, Medicaid,
food stamps, cut the Social Services Block Grant, stop the Wall Street
bailouts; you can't just add more tax cuts for the wealthiest, add more
defense spending, maintain oil subsidies, maintain expensive corporate
farm subsidies and say that that's a balanced approach.
I have very limited time, but I want to say to Americans: It don't
add up. This dog doesn't hunt. You can't just cut the social safety net
and add billions of dollars of corporate welfare and say that that's a
balanced equation. It doesn't support simple math.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds all Members to address
their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
for the purpose of joining me in a colloquy.
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the
gentleman from Oklahoma if he could respond to the notion: All of us
want to protect the social safety nets for the truly needy, but we also
want to stop abuses within the system that take money from those
programs and hurt the poor, for example, people who hide their assets
to fraudulently qualify, people who misuse food stamps for alcohol and
tobacco.
So I would like to ask the gentleman if he is going to be doing more
to close the loopholes, to reduce waste and abuse, and reform the
system, while really protecting those who qualify.
Mr. LUCAS. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is exactly right. That is
the goal of our language in this bill, and it will be the additional
efforts that we will undergo in the comprehensive farm bill that will
follow soon.
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I have one additional question for the
gentleman.
In fairness here, will you be bringing forward a bill to the House
from the committee that's truly going to reform farm subsidies, produce
savings, and result in deficit reduction?
Mr. LUCAS. I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that, when
we come with our comprehensive farm bill, things that have been
identified by many people as a concern, like the direct payments, will
not be there. We will address all spending in all portions of the farm
bill. We will make reductions in every part of agricultural spending,
as we do our part in helping address this huge, tremendous national
deficit.
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for his responses.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear that last colloquy,
because this Republican proposal cut the Food and Nutrition programs in
the Ag Committee's jurisdiction and then

[[Page H2623]]

didn't ask for one penny from the ag subsidies. If our Democratic
substitute had been made in order, that was one of the cuts that we
made in order to prevent devastating cuts to the Food and Nutrition
programs for over 22 million American families with children.
I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to achieve a very worthy goal: reduce
the debt of the United States and establish a sustainable level of
spending. I share that goal, but I oppose this bill for two reasons:
First, the proponents of this bill know--or they certainly should
know--that there is absolutely no chance this bill will be passed by
the Senate or signed by the President. That turns this into a political
manifesto, not a practical proposal.
Second, and most importantly, the design of this bill guarantees that
it will fail. Our budget is a three-pronged stool: domestic spending,
Pentagon spending, and revenues. And if you want a strong and durable
stool, you need three strong legs. This budget cuts two away. It takes
revenues off the table completely, and it exempts the Pentagon, with
its nearly $700 billion budget, from making any contribution to debt
reduction.
Mr. Speaker, our debt problem is serious but solvable. There were 100
of us in this House--60 Democrats and 40 Republicans--who wrote to the
supercommittee, and we said the obvious: Put everything on the table.
By doing so, we can succeed.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney), a member of the Budget
Committee.
Mr. MULVANEY. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. Speaker, in my office, as we all do, we get emails, from time to
time, from constituents, viral emails alleging, from time to time, some
type of violent fraud in the system or some type of bizarre government
overreach, and we actually research them in my office to find out if
they are true or not.

{time} 1300

And we got this one this week--in fact, we got dozens of them this
week--about a program that, supposedly, was part of an investigative
report by a television station in the Midwest. It said that,
supposedly, illegal immigrants were able to file paperwork every April
15 and receive a thousand dollars back from the Federal Government for
every child that they had, regardless of whether or not they could
prove the child existed, regardless of whether or not the child
actually lived in the country.
I was stunned by it, to be quite frank with you, and we gave it to my
office to actually research it. And it turns out, Mr. Speaker,
stunningly, it's absolutely true. Absolutely true. And it's not just
the radio station or television station in the Midwest. The IRS admits
that this is true. The inspector general looked into this and said we
are spending $4 billion every single year--over $4 billion--on this
type of program. They admit that it's true, and the IRS has asked us to
act. And we have done nothing.
This is an outrage, Mr. Speaker. I'm surprised to hear anybody defend
this system. This is the type of waste, fraud, and abuse that
undermines confidence in the way we do business in this town. This is
the type of thing that gives people concern that we don't have any idea
what we're doing about anything.
The good news here is that, for a change, we actually have a chance
to do something about it. We could pass the bill of the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Johnson), but we could also do something today. We don't
have to wait to fix this type of abuse. We can pass this reconciliation
bill today and stop this program and at least take a small step towards
restoring confidence in the way the American government provides
services to its people. And I hope we do exactly that.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Neal), who is on the Ways and Means Committee and knows a lot
about this issue.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, we just heard a moment ago from the gentleman
from South Carolina that there was an illicit or perhaps illegal
initiative that was taking place across the country in the Midwest. So
the answer in that instance is to notify the U.S. Attorney's Office if
it's fraudulent. The answer there is to notify immigration authorities.
But this argument right here is not about illegal immigration. This
argument today is about once again asking the wealthiest people in our
society just to sacrifice a bit.
When the gentleman talks about $4 billion of fraud, there isn't
anybody on the Democratic side that encourages or countenances the idea
of fraud. Tell the American people where the expenditures go.
A million new veterans have been created between Afghanistan and
Iraq. You're 20 years old, and you've been wounded in Iraq or
Afghanistan, you're going to be in the care of the VA system for the
next 50 or 60 years. We are obligated to take care of them. That's
where the money goes.
We cut taxes in this country by
$2.3 trillion during the Bush years, and my Republican pals were all
culpable in that argument. You can fight two wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq, now both north of $2 trillion, and cut taxes by $2.3 trillion,
and people wonder why we're in the predicament that we're in.
Twelve successive years of tax cuts, and at the same time asking
nothing of the people at the very top, who, incidentally, during the
Clinton years were not even asking for a tax cut. Their argument was:
Pay down the debt.
We are being asked to revisit with this budget what went awry during
the Bush years. We are being asked with this budget to go back to the
policies that got us into this predicament during the Bush years. We
are being asked at this time, once again, to ask the poorest people in
our society to shoulder the burden of tax cuts for the wealthiest in
America--tax cuts that have not paid for themselves, tax cuts that will
not pay for themselves, and tax cuts that do not take us on a sound
path to fiscal stability in the near- or long-term future.
This conversation should be about balancing the budget, and it should
be done by Democrats and Republicans, not with a sledge hammer, as is
being proposed early this afternoon.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I would say, Mr. Speaker, this is not a tax
cut bill, this is a spending cut bill.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R.
5652, the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act. I commend Budget
Committee Chairman Paul Ryan for the leadership in bringing this
important legislation to the floor.
This reconciliation legislation will make necessary and strategic
reforms to a number of mandatory programs to better ensure that those
most in need of government assistance receive it, instead of
individuals who are not eligible or indeed may be gaming the system.
With these reforms, we will find nearly $328 billion in savings over 10
years. Furthermore, H.R. 5652 will offset $78 billion in cuts to the
Department of Defense as a result of sequestration.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that there are two provisions that I
authored that have been included in H.R. 5652. The first is H.R. 5,
which seeks to address the rising cost of health care through
meaningful, fair, and balanced medical liability reform. The second is
H.R. 1683, the State Flexibility Act, which seeks to correct a problem
created by the failed stimulus and ObamaCare. This provision gives
States the opportunity to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in the
Medicaid program.
I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support
H.R. 5652.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Democratic
Whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the challenging times we live in force us to make
difficult choices about our priorities. The reconciliation bill before
us today is an example of choosing the wrong priorities.

While we must address our deficits and avert sequestration, the
Republican reconciliation bill does it absolutely the wrong way. It
places the entire burden of deficit reduction on the

[[Page H2624]]

most vulnerable while asking nothing of the best off. Indeed, it asks
for more from those who have less, and less from those who have more.
It harms seniors and children by eliminating Social Services Block
Grants, which provide for programs for our communities like child
protection services and Meals on Wheels.
They say they're getting rid of fraud, waste, and abuse--I've heard
that for 31 years--while they added $6.4 trillion to the deficit. It
slashes food stamp funding by $33.2 billion. They say that's waste,
fraud, and abuse. CBO does not agree. It's real assistance to families
in need. Furthermore, it cuts the pay of middle class workers who serve
the public--the only workers it adversely affects.
These are the priorities we've seen throughout the Republican budget:
Ending the Medicare guarantee, slashing jobs while cutting taxes for
the wealthiest at the expense of seniors. The gentleman from Wisconsin
says this bill doesn't do that. He's correct. His budget did that.
Middle class families and those who are the most vulnerable pay the
price.
Democrats have our own proposal. Unfortunately, it wasn't made in
order. As the gentleman from Maryland, my colleague said, you only had
to waive one rule as opposed to the three you waived for your budget,
but you wouldn't do it because you didn't want to have the American
public see the real alternatives out here. I regret that. To that
extent, you closed down this rule which you railed so much against.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. HOYER. Unlike today's Republican bill, our proposal reduces
deficits in a balanced way and prevents sequestration through a
balanced combination of spending cuts and revenues.
And let me say something: Nobody is asked to make a sacrifice in the
richest country on Earth; what we have to do is make appropriate
contributions. Nobody is asked to make a sacrifice--and certainly not
the most vulnerable in our country, as does this reconciliation bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this bill. We can and should do
better.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman from Maryland and I rise in
opposition to this bill.
It should come as no surprise the Republicans in Congress do not take
the budget deficit seriously. When they were in total control during 6
of the 8 Bush years, they did nothing to reduce the deficit. Quite the
opposite.
Republicans say they're all for cutting spending, just not the
spending they like. So here we have an attempt to replace sequestration
so that they can continue to destroy the social safety net while
protecting defense spending, Big Oil, and the wealthiest in this
country, yet again asking the middle and lower classes to bear the cost
of cutting the budget.
I said when they agreed to the sequester that they'd try to back out
of the deal to protect their pet policies and gut the social safety
net. And that's what we see in this document: cutting food stamps,
cutting SNAP, hurting senior citizens, repealing evidence of health
care reforms, hurting Federal workers.

{time} 1310

I voted against the Budget Control Act because it was an unbalanced
budget that put the responsibility of balancing the budget on the backs
of the middle class. But at least it was an agreement that put both
defense and discretionary spending up for equal cuts. It was an
agreement that both parties came to, recognizing the need to cut
Federal spending. Now the Republicans are trying to back out of that.
And in backing out of that, they are protecting the wealthiest among
us, hurting the middle class. This is the wrong way to go. It is a
shameful document.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I continue to reserve.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, it's called a reconciliation act, but how
do we reconcile more money for bombs while cutting money for bread? How
do we reconcile our Nation helping oil companies, arms merchants, and
war profiteers while cutting assistance to low- and moderate-income
families?
My colleagues are worried about abuse of food stamps. I wish they
would have additional concern and sympathy for the abuse of the middle
class, for 10 million Americans out of work, for millions losing their
homes, their retirement security.
Let's look to where the real fraud is in our government--in wars
based on lies, over trillions of dollars, billions of U.S. money lost
or stolen in Afghanistan. Just in the last week, $80 million for a
consulate that they are not even going to use, they are going to close.
And we blame poor people using food stamps?
The real deficit we're dealing with here is a moral deficit, and it's
time that we face the truth.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Baca).
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this misguided
budget that we'll vote on today. This package literally takes food off
the table for millions of disadvantaged Americans by cutting $33
billion from the SNAP program.
I ask my Republican colleagues: Where are your priorities? Is it to
take from the poor to give to the rich?
SNAP is a lifeline for 46 million Americans. We continue to spend
hundreds of millions of dollars every year to assist foreign countries,
but we don't spend money to take care of the struggling families right
here at home. It's a shame.
This budget proposal not only cuts benefit levels, but it also keeps
thousands of children from receiving school meals. Can you imagine
going to school on an empty stomach and having to take a test? In
America, this should not happen.
I understand the value of the SNAP program because I once relied on
food stamps. Unless you've been in that situation, you don't know what
it's like. You have no choice. You have no choice but to receive
assistance to feed your family.
I ask my colleagues to make sure that we vote against this and make
sure that we put food on the table for the 46 million people who are
going hungry right here in the United States. Vote ``no'' on this.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time
remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 3 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
As we said at the beginning, there is no disagreement over the fact
that we need to have a plan to reduce our deficit. The question has
been how. And there is no dispute about whether we need to replace the
sequester, the meat-ax cuts that will take place automatically January
1. Again, the question is how.
The Republican approach once again asks nothing of people who are
doing so well in this country, people who are making over $1 million a
year. And because they ask nothing of them, their budget hits everybody
else. The figures we're talking about today, these are about real
people. These are figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget
Office as to the impact of their proposal: 300,000 kids will lose their
health care coverage under CHIPs; 22 million kids will see their food
and nutrition support under SNAP reduced; 2 million people will see all
of their food and nutrition support eliminated. Those are facts.
I know people want to pretend that this doesn't impact real people.
That makes it easier to say we're not going to ask big oil companies to
get rid of their subsidies if we can pretend that the cuts don't have
an impact, but they do. And that's why every bipartisan group that's
looked at this budget challenge has said we need a combination of cuts.
We did a trillion more, and we have cuts in our substitute, but you
also need to get some revenue by closing some of these tax loopholes.
Mr. Speaker, the Democrats had a substitute amendment. The
Republicans won't even let us have a vote on

[[Page H2625]]

it. They waived three provisions in their rules to bring up their
proposal. They wouldn't waive one to hear an alternative.
We keep hearing that it's so important to reduce the deficit;
apparently, not important enough to ask for one penny from people who
are making a million dollars a year.
We keep hearing that the impact of sequester is going to hit defense.
But again, not one penny from the oil companies to help take a balanced
approach.
I urge rejection of the Republican proposal.
I wish we could have an up-or-down vote on the Democratic substitute.
That would be democracy, but maybe that's asking too much these days.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield the balance of my time to a lady who has
spent her life fighting for justice and trying to make sure that is
reflected in the budgets that we present to the American people, the
distinguished Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 1 minute.

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to call to the attention of all of our colleagues and those
who follow the work of Congress the extraordinary contribution that
Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen has made to this debate. He has led our
Democratic members on the Budget Committee in a way that reflects the
values of our country: how we can meet the needs of our children, their
health, their education, and the economic security of their families.
When people ask me what are the three most important issues facing
the Congress, I always say the same thing: our children, our children,
our children. And the issues that are addressed in the budget address
the needs of our children directly and the families in which they live.
I watched with great pride the debate and the strong distinction that
has been made between a values-based budget, put forth by the
Democrats, that supports a thriving middle class, and the Ryan
Republican Tea Party budget that upholds millionaires over the middle
class.
We are here today because the Republicans in the House have decided
over and over again to walk away from a bipartisan, bicameral agreement
that we reached to avert economic crisis and to reduce our deficit and
to honor the full faith and credit of the United States of America.
They are walking away and punishing the middle class, because they
refuse to close even one special interest tax loophole to reduce our
deficit. They are putting Big Oil and millionaires ahead of America's
middle-income families.
In recent weeks, House Republicans have voted twice--not once, but
twice; here we go again, in the words of a great Republican President--
have voted twice to pass a budget that gives massive tax breaks to the
wealthiest Americans while ending the Medicare guarantee and increasing
cost for seniors in the meantime. That is an absolute fact. Today
Republicans are voting to begin implementing their out-of-touch budget,
and middle class people, seniors, women, and children will pay the
price.
Consider these few things. I know that members of the committee have
made the case, but I just want to focus on a few things that affect
people very directly in their lives.
This Republican-Ryan-Tea Party budget will assault women's health by
eliminating the Prevention Fund: 326,000 women would not get the breast
cancer screening they're slated to receive next year; 248,000 women
would not get the cervical cancer screening they're slated to receive
next year. Those are big numbers, but every individual case is
important to the families that those women live in.

{time} 1320

So the numbers are staggering, but the specific cases are what is
important, and this is hundreds of thousands.
This budget would harm children and seniors, literally taking food
out of the mouths of babies, as nearly 300,000 children would lose free
or reduced-cost school meals--300,000 kids. Wait a minute. We're going
to give a $400,000 tax cut to people making over $1 million a year, and
we're going to take food from 300,000 children to do that.
1.7 million seniors would lose Meals on Wheels--people are familiar
with that in their neighborhoods, in their communities--and other
services.
It would put Wall Street ahead of middle class and working families
by weakening the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In the Wall
Street reform bill, we not only had the biggest changes in regulations
so that the recklessness on Wall Street would no longer cause
joblessness on Main Street--the recklessness of some. I don't paint
everyone with the same brush. The recklessness of some on Wall Street
would not create, again, massive joblessness on Main Street.
In that same legislation--and they were the biggest regulation
changes in a long time, decades--the biggest change in history was in
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This budget weakens consumer
protection. That's just not right.
So, here we are again with the Republican budget, to name a few.
In contrast to this draconian Republican bill, Democrats are fighting
for a balanced approach that creates jobs, expands opportunity, reduces
the deficit, protects the health and economic security of America's
families, and honors the entrepreneurial spirit of America.
Republicans are focused on obstruction rather than solutions.
Americans have rejected Republican obstructionism and made it clear
over and over again: We must work together to find solutions.
Because this legislation will have a devastating impact, it's opposed
by numerous organizations, from Easter Seals, to the National Women's
Law Center, to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Voices for
America's Children.
As the Obama administration wrote in expressing their strong
opposition to this bill, the bill's unbalanced provisions fail the test
of fairness and shared responsibility. At the same time the House is
advancing tax cuts that benefit the most fortunate Americans, this
legislation would impose deep budget cuts that cost jobs and hurt the
middle class and vulnerable Americans, especially seniors, veterans,
and children.
Mr. Speaker, instead of the slash-and-burn approach, let's come
together in a bipartisan way, in a balanced way, to cut our deficit by
growing the economy, creating growth, creating jobs, bringing in
revenue to reduce the deficit, to make the priority choices that
reflect the values of our country, the values of fairness and
opportunity, of sustaining a thriving middle class for the middle class
and all who aspire to it. It is the backbone of our democracy. For that
reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this devastating bill.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
First off, Mr. Speaker, let me thank those six committees that
contributed to making this possible.
Over 60 percent of the Federal budget is in a category of spending we
call mandatory spending. It's a budget term of art that means that part
of spending is on autopilot. Congress does not address or oversee or
set the levels of that spending in any given year. Congress does
address what we call discretionary spending. That's government agency
budgets--about 39 percent of the budget every single year. The last
time Congress actually looked at this 60 percent of spending on
autopilot for savings was 2005. It's important that we make sure that
we're scrutinizing how we're spending hard-earned taxpayer dollars, and
it's a shame that we haven't revisited this category of spending since
2005. We're doing that here.
Now, the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Speaker of the
House, the minority leader of the House, they've all said that this
sequester is a mistake; it's bad, it's going to hurt. Not only does it
hollow out defense, according to the Defense Secretary, but it also
creates an 8 percent across-the-board cut to domestic discretionary
spending, like the National Institutes of Health. We think we should
prevent that. On a bipartisan basis, we think we should prevent that.
That's what we're doing. This is the only plan that says, Prevent that
from happening, and here's how you pay for it. Here's our plan to stop
that from happening, this event that everybody says should be stopped.
Now, when we take a look at what this package does, I think we want
to

[[Page H2626]]

look at, is our government working the way it ought to be?
In particular, we're hearing lots of comments about how this hurts
people, how this hurts the poor. Let's take a look at our poverty-
fighting efforts. And should we measure our poverty-fighting efforts
based on inputs or based on outcomes? Should we measure our poverty-
fighting efforts based on how much money we're spending and how many
programs we're creating? Or should we think about how many people are
we getting out of poverty?
Here's the problem: These efforts aren't working. One out of six
Americans today are in poverty. We have the highest poverty rates we've
had in a generation. These programs aren't working. Let's fix them.
Let's pass reforms that instead decrease the poverty rate, which is
happening these days, and get people back into lives of self-
sufficiency.
Let's go back to the American idea of an opportunity society with a
safety net that doesn't keep people in poverty but gets people out of
poverty into lives of self-sufficiency. And we're not going to be able
to achieve that if we don't grow our economy. We're not going to be
able to achieve that if we don't have more opportunities in society so
that people who are on the bottom rung of the economic ladder can't
climb up and out.

We shouldn't be defining success as how many people we have on these
benefit programs. We should be defining success as to how many people
we are graduating from these benefit programs into lives of self-
sufficiency, into jobs. That's the American idea.
So when you take a look at whether these programs are working well or
not, we need to reform them. We haven't touched these programs for
decades. Food stamps, we've gone from 17 million people to 45 million
people in a decade, a 270 percent spending increase--$1.8 billion in
overpayments last year alone. We're just saying you need to qualify for
the benefit to get the benefit.
Medicaid. If we think this is such a success, then why are half the
doctors filling out surveys saying they're not going to take any new
Medicaid patients. If this program is working so well, then why was
$15.8 billion in overpayments made just last year? Does this devastate
Medicaid? Instead of increasing Medicaid by 125 percent over the next
decade, this proposal increases it by 123 percent over the next
decade--hardly draconian.
What we're saying is we need to make these programs work to achieve
their intended results. Give States more flexibility to customize their
benefits to meet the needs of the people in their States. That's what
these Medicaid reforms are all about.
When we hear the other side talk about no spending cuts but more tax
increases, that's going to slow down job creation. We're the first ones
who came to this floor saying, ``Close these tax loopholes, but close
these tax loopholes to create economic growth by reforming the Tax
Code.'' Treat people fairly in the Tax Code so that a company or a
person who makes the same amount of money pays the same level of tax.
You do that by getting rid of tax shelters and tax loopholes, not to
raise spending, but to lower tax rates so American businesses can
survive, can thrive, and create jobs. Upward mobility. Economic
opportunity. That's what we're trying to achieve here.

{time} 1330

Mr. Speaker, we should not be talking to each other in this society
as if we're stuck in some class, as if this person's middle class, that
person's lower class, and that person's upper class. Our ancestors left
those class-based societies to form this country, which should not be a
class-based society. It should be a society of upward mobility, where
we can make the most of our lives, based on our own God-given talent
and our own effort. We should not be speaking to people as if they're
stuck in their current station in life and the government is here to
help them cope with it.
We need to get ourselves out of this debt crisis because, if we have
a debt crisis, if we keep on this path where we're borrowing 40 cents
of every dollar we spend, we're going to have a debt crisis. Europe is
in a debt crisis.
And what happens when you're in a debt crisis? Immediate austerity,
cutting benefits to seniors, cutting benefits to people in the safety
net, raising taxes. That slows down the economy, especially for the
youth.
Look what we're doing right now. Half of our Nation's college
graduates are either unemployed or underemployed--half.
It's not working. We need to change these policies. We need to grow
the economy. And if we have a debt crisis because of this spending,
then the people who need government the most, they're the ones who get
hurt the first and the worst.
We're leading. The President, no plan to fix this. The Senate, no
budget since 2009. And our friends on the other side of the aisle, tax
increases, spending increases, no spending cuts.
Mr. Speaker, this is a small step in the right direction. It's
something Congress should do every day. I urge passage of this bill.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this morning, I met with
homeless individuals and families, and community leaders who advocate
on their behalf. I can tell you that even in my district the wealthiest
in the nation--we have real needs. While our poverty rate may be the
envy of most jurisdictions across the nation, that's just a statistic.
In real numbers, more than 60,000 people are struggling with poverty--
hard working men and women trying to provide for themselves, and tens
of thousands of children not knowing where they'll sleep tonight, or if
they'll eat. In fact there are more people below the poverty line in
Fairfax County than the total population of more than 100 of Virginia's
139 jurisdictions.
This sequester replacement is a short sighted and cynical action.
Make no mistake; this is NOT about fiscal responsibility. It forces
sacrifices on the less fortunate among us; seniors and children who
will lose supplemental meal assistance; struggling single parents who
will lose child care support, threatening their ability to work; lower
income families who will lose their health care. What this plan does
not do is ask similar sacrifices from the most wealthy in our nation.
In fact, it paves the way for another tax cut for the top 1 percent.
Oil and gas companies, which have seen $290 billion in profits over the
last 4 years are not asked to contribute even 1 penny of the $16
billion in special tax breaks they received.
No, this Republican Reconciliation Ruse is really an attempt to
fundamentally change American values at the expense of the sick, the
old, the young and the disadvantaged. I would ask my colleagues to go
home and talk to those individuals struggling to get by in their
community, and faith leaders who work with them, and ask how these
draconian cuts affect their lives. I urge my colleagues to reject this
Republican Reconciliation Ruse and to work toward truly comprehensive,
responsible and bipartisan deficit reduction that safeguards the less
fortunate among us and is reflective of our nation's shared values.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ride in strong opposition to
the draconian cuts to health care, food stamps, and other essential
programs that are being proposed by the House majority in H.R. 5652.
Last summer, this Congress and the Administration agreed on a path to
reduce the national deficit by over $2.1 trillion. Over half of this
amount was going to come either through a bipartisan agreement by the
so-called ``Super Committee'' or through sequestration.
I do not like sequestration. It is an inefficient way to make
spending decisions that affect millions of Americans. However, this is
what was agreed to and for the House majority to go back on that
agreement and not have an open and frank debate on how this chamber can
agree to reduce our national deficit while preserving essential
programs and services is more than just disappointing. For millions of
our fellow Americans, it is a matter of survival.
This legislation would result in cutting food stamps by over $33
billion dollars. Nearly 50 cents of every dollar into food stamps helps
children get the food they need to grow and thrive.
H.R. 5652 would gut vital health care services, including ending the
Prevention and Public Health Trust Fund, which is essential for finding
better ways to promote wellness, prevent disease, and protect against
public health emergencies.
This bill would also reduce matching state funds to Medicaid, as well
as make it more difficult to qualify for the program and make
devastating cuts to the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
It would make sharp cuts to the Social Services Block Grant program,
which could result in 1.7 million children losing access to protective
services, 450,000 children being denied foster care, and 640,000
children losing child abuse prevention services.
This legislation would also eliminate the FDIC's ability to unwind
financial institutions

[[Page H2627]]

that are ``too big to fail'' in an orderly way, eliminate the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) funding source, and cut pension
contributions to federal workers.
I stand with our nation's servicemembers and am committed to making
sure that they have the tools and resources necessary to protect
America from any and all threats.
However, support for our nation's heroes should not and cannot come
at a cost to America's most vulnerable. We can find a better way to
balance our priorities, protect those in need, and honor our servicemen
and women.
I call on Members on both sides of the aisle to join me in finding a
better way to reduce our deficit while protecting children, the needy,
and America's men and women in uniform and vote against this
legislation.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to express my strong
support in favor of the H.R. 5652, the Sequester Replacement Act of
2012. This legislation reflects the support I have for the Republican
Budget and the principles I have stood for during my almost thirty
years in this House, a return to fiscal sanity and responsibility. This
legislation also makes certain that the brave men and women in our
Armed Forces will have the resources to protect this Nation from the
many threats we face in an uncertain world.
However, I do have one concern. During my tenure here I have been an
advocate for equal treatment for our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico,
who have defended this Nation in record numbers in every military
conflict since U.S. citizenship was conferred on them in 1917. Puerto
Ricans take pride in their American citizenship and our Nation should
be grateful for their service.
My dear friend and former colleague, Governor Luis Fortuno, was
recently able to accomplish what other Puerto Rican Governors have
tried to do for decades in lessening the disparities between the
funding of federal healthcare programs in the territories and the
states. Through his hard work, persistence and dedication, Governor
Fortuno was able to obtain an increase in Medicaid funding for the US
territories that reduces the gap. Unfortunately, the available
legislative vehicle in which this could be accomplished was Obamacare,
which I have been a staunch opponent of for a whole host of reasons
that have nothing to do with Medicaid in Puerto Rico. I am, as a
result, troubled that we have included the repeal of the expansion of
Medicaid for Puerto Rico and the other territories in H.R. 4966. I
believe there are other ways to cut spending that do not contribute to
the perception that Puerto Ricans are less deserving U.S. citizens than
residents of the states.
I want to assure our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico that the action
we take today is just a step in what promises to be a long budget
negotiation. As we continue to move forward to repeal Obamacare, I know
I am not alone among my Republican colleagues in the belief that we
should adequately fund federal healthcare programs in Puerto Rico and
the other US territories. As we continue to work this year to reach an
agreement on the budget with the Senate, I am hopeful that the
principle of equal treatment for Puerto Rico will not be lost, and that
the final budget product will bring our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico
closer than ever to the parity they deserve in federal healthcare
programs.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today's debate is about priorities. The
Republican reconciliation bill provides a stark contrast between the
measures Democrats know are necessary to get our fiscal house in
order--creating jobs and encouraging investments, and those that
Republicans covet--tax cuts for special interests and giveaways for
millionaires.
It is high time we get serious about our fiscal situation, and I,
like most Americans, am prepared to make sacrifices to put us on a
sustainable path.
But this reconciliation bill sends our country in the wrong
direction--reducing benefits for our children, elderly, and most
vulnerable to pay for tax cuts to millionaires and subsidies for oil
and gas companies. Under the Republican plan, 22 million families could
see their food and nutrition assistance cut, and up to 300,000 children
could lose both their health coverage and their school lunch program.
Jeopardizing struggling families is not the way to get your country
back on track.
I see the importance of these programs to my constituents every day.
There are thousands of hard working Rhode Islanders who still can't
make ends meet, who need a little help so their kids don't go to bed
hungry or sleep in a cold house. The economic downturn has been a
trying time for everyone, and all of us have a family member or a
friend who has been forced to ask for help at one time or another. yet
Republicans are trying to pull away the helping hand the government
offers to those who are living on the edge.
At a time when we ought to be investing in our future, the Republican
budget offers shortsighted measures that will irreparably shortchange
our most critical national investments. With unemployment at 11.1
percent in my home state of Rhode Island, my number one priority is
spurring job growth and development. Unfortunately, this Republican
budget, which gives away $3 trillion in tax breaks to corporations and
the super-wealthy, will do just the opposite.
Democrats are offering a fair and balanced approach that keeps the
promises made to our seniors, preserves our social safety net, and
maintains investments in our economic security. With key
recommendations of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles and Domenici-Rivlin
budget commissions as a guide, it addresses both sides of the ledger--
through strategic spending cuts and revenues. There is simply no other
way to equitably address our fiscal challenges.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget is not what the American public
wants, it is not what Rhode Islanders need, and it is not what our
future generations deserve. I urge my colleagues to reject it.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I believe that our Vice President, Joe
Biden was correct when he said, ``Don't tell me what you value, show me
your budget, and I'll tell you what you value''. Well Mr. Speaker, we
have seen the Tea Party budget, and we sure know what their values are.
The majority values millionaires over women and children's access to
healthcare. They value corporate welfare for outsourcing jobs over
helping the next generation of workers afford college. And they value
oil and gas companies over ensuring that our most vulnerable citizens,
including seniors and children, have access to important nutrition and
healthcare programs, plain and simple.
As a Member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I fought against that
committee's unfair reconciliation legislation that inordinately Placed
the burden of increased defense spending and tax cuts for the very
wealthy on seniors, the disabled and middle class families.
Instead of asking the wealthiest amongst us to pay just a small
fraction of their income more, the majority's legislation squeezes it
out of the 14.5% of U.S. children living in poverty in New Jersey. This
bill will snatch $1,800 from the pockets of a family earning $21,000 a
year. Instead of cutting back on oil and gas subsidies for companies
like Exxon, which made an almost $10 billion profit last quarter, this
bill cuts $47 billion in tax credits for middle class families could to
purchase health insurance.
In short, the majority's choice is to cut $75 billion from programs
that directly benefit seniors, the middle class and poor, in order to
protect special interests and millionaires.
We must fight back against the Tea Party assault on the middle class,
women, children, and the poor, and I ask my colleagues to vote no on
this legislation.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I resolutely oppose H.R. 5652,
the Sequester Replacement Act of 2012. As our nation struggles to
emerge from one of its worst economic crises, I am profoundly
disappointed with the Republican Leadership for offering legislation
that would harm tens of millions of Americans to deliver a windfall of
additional wealth to already-privileged individuals and companies. Such
overt protection for the wealthiest and most secure at the expense of
the most vulnerable represents an affront to American values and
blatant disregard of a policymaker's responsibility to protect our
nation's citizens. Robbing the poor, children, elderly, and ill to
further balloon the wealth of the most affluent in our country is
deplorable.
The Sequester Replacement Act of 2012 clearly demonstrates the
fundamental disagreement between parties at present. The Democratic
lawmakers believe that the federal government has the responsibility to
help it citizens during times of struggle and economic hardship. To
achieve this support and revitalize our nation, the Democrats maintain
that shared responsibility among the wealthy and the middle class,
defense and non-defense initiatives, and spending cuts and revenues are
necessary. Strengthening our national and individual economic well-
being requires balance. In contrast, the Republican Leadership asserts
that the responsibility for helping the poor or vulnerable falls to
individual charity and the path to economic revitalization is to
eviscerate federal services that support the poor, elderly, children,
and ill to deliver billions of dollars in financial assistance to the
wealthiest individuals, oil companies, and businesses that ship jobs
overseas.
There are multiple provisions within the Republican Sequestration
bill that exemplify the approach of giving massive tax breaks to the
wealthiest while slashing vital services to the vulnerable.
Take the elimination of the Social Services Block Grant, which
provides critical support for child care, child welfare, and elderly
services. Nearly all SSBG funds serve the needs of vulnerable adults,
children and disabled. Terminating the program will affect
approximately 23 million people, half of them children. Cutting

[[Page H2628]]

SSBG means the 1.7 million seniors would lose ``Meals on Wheels'' and
other home-based services. Eliminating SSBG means that 1.7 million
children likely lose access to protective services, 451,000 children
would be denied foster care, and 640,000 children likely lose child
abuse prevention services. Stopping SSBG means that 4.4 million
children would lose child care and related assistance--a loss that is
especially egregious when 22 states reported considerable wait-lists
for child care assistance in 2011.
Slashing $36 billion to the food assistance program for the poor
would reduce aid to 47 million Americans, terminate benefits for
approximately 2 million low-income individuals, and revoke the
automatic eligibility for free school meals for nearly 300,000 low-
income children. In my Congressional District alone, there are 40,784
households receiving benefits--with 49.2% of these families having
children under 18 and 30.9% having one or more people over the age of
60. These families already are bearing the brunt of our economic
hardship. They cannot sustain further cuts to their food aid.
Repealing the Medicaid and CHIP maintenance-of-effort requirements
directly threatens the health coverage of millions of pregnant women,
infants and children. Medicaid finances about 41% of births each year,
serving as THE source of health care for 1 out of 4 children in our
country--especially children with special healthcare needs. Removing
the maintenance-of-effort protections of coverage would increase the
number of uninsured children by at least 300,000 in 2015, as estimated
by the Congressional Budget Office.
Eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund further jeopardizes
the health and well-being of women and children. Specifically, loss of
the Prevention Fund means about 2.2 million fewer childhood
vaccinations to prevent childhood diseases, 326,000 fewer breast cancer
screenings, and 284,000 fewer cervical cancer screenings. Cutting the
Prevention Fund means stopping tobacco cessation and obesity prevention
programs. I have been a strong proponent of prevention my entire adult
life given its proven ability to improve the quality of life for
citizens with minimal financial investment. Indeed, proven community-
based prevention programs yield an estimated return of $5.60 for every
dollar invested. Since 2010, the state of Illinois has received $31
million from the Prevention Fund. I cannot support the loss of these
funds.
Dramatically reducing the Child Tax Credit by $7.6 billion means that
more than 3 million children would lose the pro-family support that
their low-income families need to put food on the tables and roofs over
their heads.
The Republican reconciliation bill offers an unacceptable vision for
our nation that calls on the most vulnerable of our citizens to support
a privileged lifestyle for the most secure. At a time in our history
where more than one in five children currently lives in poverty and
tens of millions of citizens struggle with unemployment,
underemployment, and foreclosure, I cannot support such a vision that
would undermine the well-being of millions of Americans. We must pursue
a balanced approach to strengthening our nation's and our citizens'
economic well-being, asking all to share in the sacrifice.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to
H.R. 5652, ``Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012,'' which
slashes $238 billion over 10 years and cancels the discretionary
sequestration scheduled for 2013 to exempt defense spending from the
cuts agreed upon by the Republican majority in the Budget Control Act
of 2011. This bill is unfair to children, seniors, women, and working
families. This abomination is unworthy of a civilized nation. Little
wonder that so many faith-based and leading national organizations,
from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to the National Education
Association oppose this bill. I stand with them in strong opposition to
this assault on working and middle class families.
My Democratic colleagues and I agree that the scheduled sequester,
with its indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts, should be replaced with
a balanced deficit reduction package that includes both spending cuts
and additional revenues. Republicans disagree and would let the burden
and cost of deficit reduction fall on the shoulders of children,
seniors, working families, and the middle class rather than close even
one special interest tax loophole or ask any sacrifice of the truly
wealthy.
This bill makes cuts to critical safety-net programs that millions of
people rely on, all while returning to policies that sparked the
recession in the first place. They are choosing the wrong programs to
cut in order to reduce the deficit. Let me highlight a few examples to
illustrate just how extreme and unfair this legislation is.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5652 makes cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP), the program formerly known as food stamps)
that would result in reducing benefits for all 46 million SNAP
participants--one million of whom live in Los Angeles County--and
terminate assistance for at least two million. Low-income households
who do not lose benefits altogether will face monthly reductions of
$50, $60, or even $90 a month. In 2010, SNAP kept 4.4 million people
from being poor, 1 million of whom were lifted out of poverty just from
the increase in SNAP benefits that began in 2009.
You cannot make a nation's economy healthy by impoverishing its
people.
A 9-year panel study conducted by the Department of Agriculture
showed that the federal food assistance program alone was responsible
for lifting low-income persons purchasing power by six percent. This is
a program that is proven to work, and yet the this Republican bill
seeks to slash it $33.2 billion. With cuts of this magnitude,
eligibility for the program will have to be scaled back dramatically,
and benefits will be cut deeply for those who still qualify. This will
have serious effects on millions of low-income families who rely on the
program just to get by.
The bill also proposes to end the Prevention and Public Health Fund.
Since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, the Department of
Health and Human Services has awarded more than $90.6 million in
Prevention Fund grants to my home state of California. These grants are
used to combat obesity, tobacco use, unhealthy nutrition practices, and
to fund other programs that promote good health. If the Republican
sequestration replacement were to become law, these essential programs
will have to be scaled back or cut entirely.
Mr. Speaker, we need get our fiscal house in order but I will not
vote to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, the vulnerable, or
the middle class.
My Democratic colleagues and I supported a balanced approach to the
current fiscal challenge that preserves Medicare. House Republicans
favor ending Medicare as we know it, along with gutting the Children's
Health Insurance Program and the Child Tax Credit.
The Republican approach is unfair, unwise, and short-sighted. For
example, childhood immunizations are among the most cost effective
preventative health measures available. On average each dollar invested
in children's immunization saves $16.50 in medical and societal costs
down the road. Given the persistent rise in the cost of treating
serious health problems it makes absolutely no sense to cut programs
that will lead to substantial cost reductions in the future.
Mr. Speaker, this bill would leave our most vulnerable citizens
exposed and unprotected. I cannot and will not support legislation
inflicts such grave hardship on the most vulnerable of our citizens
while asking nothing of those who benefited most from the reckless
economic policies of the previous administration.
We cannot have a serious conversation about getting our budget under
control when House Republicans are taking large items like revenue and
defense off the table, all while repealing programs like the Social
Services Block Grant. This unique grant allows states to help their
citizens become more self-sufficient by providing child care,
preventing and addressing child abuse, and supporting care for the
elderly and disabled. Slashing the Social Services Block Grant program
in an effort to avoid the defense cuts reflects poorly upon those who
propose do so.
Mr. Speaker, if House Republicans are unwilling to abide the
agreement they made just last year, how can they be trusted to keep
faith with promises made to seniors, children, the poor and weak, that
bind us together as a nation?
What we need right now is for responsible leaders to work together to
come to an agreement on a balanced long-term approach to resolve our
fiscal challenges. As legislators, our constituents are looking to us
to get on with, and serious about, the work that must be done to get
our fiscal house in order and make the needed investments that will
grow our economy and position our people to compete and with in an
increasingly globalized world. That is what they sent us here to do and
they deserve no less.
Mr. Speaker, my constituents did not send me to Congress to make the
wrong choice for our nation. That is why I cannot support the
legislation before us. It places the burden for the nation's financial
crisis squarely on the shoulders of the middle class and the poor,
while failing to ask anything of those most able to contribute toward
economic recovery.
For these reasons, I stand in strong opposition to H.R. 5625, the
Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012, and urge my
colleagues to join me in rejecting this radical and dangerous proposal.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5652,
the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012.
As the Ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee,
which has jurisdiction over the various insular territories of the
United States, I wish to call the attention of my colleagues to the
adverse impact of this bill on the 4.1 million Americans who live on

[[Page H2629]]

the five U.S. territories--Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas Islands.
Of all the cuts being proposed by this bill today, perhaps none is as
cynical, thoughtless and irresponsible as the Republican proposal to
repeal Section 1204 of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act
of 2010, which finally mitigated the profoundly unjust treatment that
these Americans in the five U.S. territories have always been subject
to under the Medicaid program.
If this proposal is enacted, it would cut total federal funding for
Medicaid in the territories by 65% over the next decade--a crippling
blow that would devastate the territories' Medicaid programs and
drastically restrict the ability of millions of Americans to receive
care.
The territories' Medicaid programs are already vastly underfunded. By
law, they are supposed to receive a 50% federal funding match, but they
get nowhere near it. Unlike the 50 states and the District of Columbia,
the amount that the federal government can contribute to their Medicaid
programs is capped, and so Puerto Rico, for example, receives less than
a 20% match.
The 50 states and the District of Columbia, on the other hand,
receive up to an 80% match. Even the wealthiest states--which receive
the lowest match rates--get 50%.
If the federal match for each of the territories was calculated the
same way they are calculated for the states, each of the territories
would have Federal Medical Assistance Percentages, (FMAP) in the 75% to
83% range based on their poverty levels.
The results of this chronic underfunding by the federal government
are both devastating and predictable: too many patients in the
territories receive inadequate care and too many providers in the
territories are not adequately compensated for their services.
Because the treatment of the territories under Medicaid was a
travesty from both a moral and public policy perspective, the
Affordable Care Act (ACA) sought to partially redress this profound
inequality. It provided $6.3 billion in additional Medicaid funding to
the territories between the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2011 and
Fiscal Year 2019.
The territories have already begun to use--and will continue to use--
this new funding to increase the number of low-income individuals that
can receive Medicaid coverage and to provide beneficiaries with
essential health services. Prior to this funding increase, the
territory governments could not afford to provide many basic services
or to cover many of their neediest residents under Medicaid. Every
penny of this money will be used.
H.R. 5652 cuts funding that would merely narrow the inequality gap
between the states and the territories. It still would not come close
to eliminating it.
It is important to remember that residents of the territories are
Americans who, if they are not receiving adequate health care, can
relocate to the states and become eligible for fully-funded Medicaid
whenever they wish. Thus, treating territory residents like second-
class citizens under Medicaid is extraordinarily short-sighted.
It is also important to remember that residents of the territories
serve in disproportionate numbers in the U.S. military. Residents of
the territories have made tens of thousands of deployments to Iraq,
Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa since 2001, and nearly 170 service
members from the territories have lost their lives.
The Republicans should explain to the hundreds of thousands of
soldiers and veterans from the territories why they are ``American
enough'' to defend our country in combat, but somehow not ``American
enough'' to receive a modicum of fair treatment under critical health
care programs.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this mean-spirited bill.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act.
Today, House Republican leadership is asking low and middle income
families to sacrifice their health care and basic services in order to
protect bloated and wasteful Pentagon spending and to protect tax cuts
for millionaires.
This out of touch budget to end the Medicare guarantee while giving
massive tax breaks to Big Oil and the wealthiest is not a serious
proposal, Mr. Speaker.
In these difficult times for millions of struggling families,
Republicans are asking that we vote to cut $36 billion from the food
stamp program and children's health services so we can spend more money
on cold war weapons that do nothing to improve our national security.
Our budget should reflect our values. We should not be balancing our
budget on the backs of the most vulnerable.
We do not have to make these heartless cuts that hurt our poor and
struggling families so we can spend more money to build two more
nuclear submarines or buy more over budget V 22 helicopters.
We do not have to make choices that abandon the needy, our seniors
and the futures of our children.
We must come together to protect people who are struggling, our
Nation's children and our elderly during economic downturns, not make
them more vulnerable.
We must protect and invest in the futures of our most vulnerable
families, not dole out more money to the Pentagon for outdated and over
budget weapons programs that we don't need and doesn't make America any
safer.
We should not be shortchanging the education of our children, risk
the health of our seniors and allow our infrastructure to crumble
beneath our feet so that bloated defense contractors can keep getting
contracts.
The priorities on display in this bill are clear and shameful. Once
again, the Republicans put millionaires and billionaires, subsidies for
big oil and gas, and bloated Pentagon spending above everyone and
everything else.
As co-chair of the Out of Poverty caucus, I urge my colleagues to
reject this attack on our most vulnerable.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are considering today is
quite possibly the moral low-point of this House Republican Majority.
Not only does it negate a law that was agreed to just last year to cut
the deficit, it makes unconscionable cuts to safety net programs that
help to feed hungry children and seniors and to protect them from
abuse. It could also cause 14 million children to lose health insurance
due to massive cuts to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance
Program (CHIP).
Republican leaders are claiming that this legislation is needed to
reduce the deficit. That is false. The reality is that we are voting
today to protect the bloated defense budget and tax breaks for
millionaires.
The choice before us could not be clearer: will you stand with
families, children, and seniors? Or will you stand with special
interests? Do you believe America should be a nation that cares if
children have enough to eat and seniors can age with dignity? Or do
believe our country should be run by and for the wealthiest among us?
The Sequester Replacement and Reconciliation Act (H.R. 5652) is
designed to prevent the pending automatic spending cuts, or
``sequester,'' that Congress passed last year in the Budget Control
Act. Half of the $110 billion in cuts under the sequester would come
from the defense budget. That makes sense, as roughly half of our
discretionary budget is dedicated to defense. Medicare and other vital
programs will also take a hit under the sequester.
As an alternative to the reckless Reconciliation Act before us today,
Congress could come up with a balanced approach to replace the
sequester while still cutting the deficit. Such an approach should
include ending taxpayer subsidies for oil companies, rolling back
subsidies for agri-business, allowing the Bush tax cuts for
millionaires to expire, closing tax loopholes that allow lawyers and
lobbyists to avoid paying Medicare taxes. A balanced approach should
also include cuts to defense, bringing the Afghan War to an end, and
eliminating federal programs that do not work.
Yet Instead of trying to legislate responsibly, the Republican
Majority is doubling down on their Budget and bringing legislation to
the floor that only asks families, children, seniors, and federal
workers to sacrifice. H.R. 5652 eliminates the Social Services Block
Grant, which funds Meals and Wheels and child abuse prevention
programs. It continues the assault on Health Reform by making it harder
for working people to afford insurance. It undermines the new Wall
Street Reform law by de-funding the Consumer Financial Protection
Agency. It makes devastating cuts to Food Stamps, Medicaid, and CHIP.
Our nation will be a sicker and crueler place if this legislation is
allowed to become law. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this
immoral and irresponsible bill.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider the Sequester
Replacement Reconciliation Act.
This bill is a broken promise.
It would eliminate the Social Service Block Grant, which funds
essential services like child abuse prevention and Meals on Wheels.
It would cut off food assistance for 1.8 million Americans, and leave
100,000 children and senior citizens without health insurance, so we
can increase defense spending.
We spend nearly as much on defense every year as the rest of the
world combined.
This includes billions maintaining a nuclear arsenal designed for the
Cold War, and $500 million a year for military bands.
We can protect ourselves and our allies with a leaner, smarter
defense.
Yet if we make cuts like these, our military will have little to
defend.
We will only solve our debt crisis with a balanced, bipartisan
approach that honors our commitments.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in regards to H.R. 5652,
the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012.

[[Page H2630]]

Eliminating the threat of our massive national debt must be a top
priority for this Congress. I am pleased that House Republicans have
identified and put forward a sensible plan. This reconciliation bill
will forestall the Budget Control Act's sequestration cuts to defense
while, at the same time, offer alternative reductions in federal
spending. This measure is a critical first step in getting our fiscal
house in order and doing so in a responsible manner.
In addition to the number of spending reforms that are included in
H.R. 5652, there is an important reform that was proposed--meaningful
medical liability reform. Specifically, H.R. 5, the Help Accessible,
Efficient, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare, which seeks to ensure that the
cost of frivolous litigation is not passed on to consumers in the form
of higher health-care premiums by capping non-economic damages in
medical liability lawsuits. While I am supportive of these efforts, I
currently own shares in multiple corporations that may benefit from its
enactment.
While my participation in legislative consideration of H.R. 5652
would not appear to violate current House Rules and established
precedent, as in all matters susceptible to subjective examination,
there are no bright line rules to determine whether a Member should
recuse himself or herself in legislation that may benefit that Member
in a personal or financial manner. While this may be a gray area, I do
not want to raise any potential ethical questions regarding my
participation in this legislation. As a result, I have acted to dispel
any appearance of conflict by recusing myself from legislative
consideration of H.R. 5652 in the 112th Congress.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I commend our Leaders and Chairman
Ryan for the bold budget which we are going to approve today. Many of
the programs targeted for cuts in the Reconciliation Package are
worthwhile initiatives that I have and will continue to support such as
childhood nutrition programs and family support services. However, the
future of this nation and that of our children and grandchildren
depends on our resolve to address the debt crisis while making certain
that our national security is protected. This is not an easy vote, but
it is a necessary one.
Despite my willingness to support our Leadership in making these
tough choices, I rise to express some concern over one particular
provision which would eliminate the Medicaid expansion in the U.S.
territories. While on this side we have all voted for the full repeal
of Obamacare, this provision had very little to do with that measure.
The territories provision was instead intended to close the gap between
healthcare funding on the mainland and in the U.S. territories. Puerto
Rico, for example, had previously funded 80% of its Medicaid, while
states with similar demographics funded only 20%. The provision I am
concerned about helped to close that gap.
While we will continue to pursue the full repeal of Obamacare, I will
continue to stand for the closing of that gap and for fully funding
healthcare in the U.S. territories. The citizens of those jurisdictions
are Americans and deserve to be treated with equality.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the ``Sequester
Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012.'' While my Democratic
colleagues and I are working to stimulate the economy and create jobs,
protect and extend health care coverage, and promote affordable, high-
quality education for all Americans, Tea Party Republicans have
launched a radical, ideological, and partisan attack on American
families. The ``Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act'' is yet
another misguided attempt to eliminate critical support for middle-
class Americans, seniors, veterans, and children in favor of Bush
Administration policies that caused the recent economic recession. It
is utterly and truly irresponsible to balance the budget on the backs
of our seniors, veterans, children, and families.
This bill is a joke. The Tea Party Republicans have proposed to
reduce the deficit by slashing more than $300 billion dollars from
programs on which millions of ordinary Americans rely. For example,
this bill cuts over $33 billion dollars in funding for nutrition
programs that help millions of hard-working Americans feed their
families. I am appalled that my colleagues across the aisle are more
concerned with cutting taxes for millionaires and billionaires than
supporting programs which ensure that our nation's children have enough
to eat.
In addition, this extreme, hyper-partisan bill would eliminate the
Social Services Block Grant program. This vital program provides much
needed social services--including daycare and protective services,
foster care and adoption services, and transportation and meals for
elderly and disabled individuals--to roughly 23 million of the most
vulnerable Americans. If that was not enough, this irresponsible piece
of legislation would also slash funding for Medicaid, cut pension
contributions for federal workers, and eliminate funding for the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--an office established to protect
consumers engaged in financial transactions.
Our nation's seniors, veterans, children, and families should not be
forced to bear the burden of fiscal austerity measures while
millionaires and billionaires are not asked to pay their fair share in
taxes. I urge my colleagues to stand together in opposition to yet
another right-wing attack on programs that have a significant impact on
the residents of my district and millions of ordinary Americans. I
remain committed to working with my colleagues to fight against
fundamentally flawed bills like the ``Sequester Replacement
Reconciliation Act of 2012,'' and to support a budget proposal that
creates jobs, expands health care coverage, and promotes access to
affordable education.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 648, the
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. LOEBSACK. I am opposed in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Me. Loebsack moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5652 to the
Committee on the Budget with instructions to report the same
back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
At the end of title V, add the following:

SEC. 504. PROHIBITION ON TAXPAYER-FUNDED PENSIONS FOR MEMBERS
OF CONGRESS WHO BECOME HIGHLY-PAID LOBBYISTS.

(a) In General.--Any former Member of Congress who is
registered as a lobbyist, and whose annual income from
lobbying activities exceeds $1,000,000, shall not be eligible
to receive benefits under either the Civil Service Retirement
System or the Federal Employees' Retirement System for the
period of time during which such former Member is employed as
such a lobbyist and receiving from lobbying activities an
annual income that exceeds $1,000,000.
(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``former Member of Congress'' means an individual who becomes
a former Member of Congress after the date of the enactment
of this Act.

SEC. 505. ENSURING THAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS PAY THEIR FAIR
SHARE FOR RETIREMENT BENEFITS.

[[Page H2631]]

revised annuity employee by virtue of becoming a Member after
December 31, 2012)--
``(i) for a period in calendar year 2013, be equal to the
applicable percentage under this paragraph for calendar year
2012, plus an additional 2.5 percentage points;
``(ii) for a period in calendar year 2014, 2015, 2016, or
2017, be equal to the applicable percentage under this
paragraph for the preceding calendar year (as determined
under clause (i) or this clause, as the case maybe), plus an
additional 1.5 percentage points; and
``(iii) for a period in any calendar year after 2017, be
equal to the applicable percentage under this paragraph for
calendar year 2017 (as determined under clause (ii)).''; and
(C) in subparagraph (C) (as so redesignated by subparagraph
(A)), in the line relating to a Member, by striking ``9.3''
and inserting ``12''.
(2) Government contributions.--Section 8423(a)(2) of title
5, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``(2)'' and inserting ``(2)(A)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(B)(i) Subject to clauses (ii) and (iii), for purposes of
any period in any year beginning after December 31, 2012, the
normal-cost percentage under this subsection for Members
shall be determined and applied as if section 505(b)(1)(B) of
the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012 had not
been enacted.
``(ii) Any contributions under this subsection with respect
to Members in excess of the amounts which (but for clause
(i)) would otherwise have been payable shall be applied
toward reducing the unfunded liability of the Civil Service
Retirement System.
``(iii) After the unfunded liability of the Civil Service
Retirement System has been eliminated, as determined by the
Office, Government contributions under this subsection shall
be determined and made disregarding this subparagraph.''.

SEC. 506. ANNUITY SUPPLEMENT TERMINATION APPLICABLE TO
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ONLY.

Section 8421(a) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (3)'' and
inserting ``paragraphs (3) and (4)'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``paragraph (3)'' and
inserting ``paragraphs (3) and (4)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) No annuity supplement under this section shall be
payable in the case of any individual who, after December 31,
2012, first becomes subject to this chapter by virtue of
being a Member.''.

SEC. 507. EXCLUSION OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS FROM PROVISIONS
ALLOWING CONTRIBUTIONS TO THRIFT SAVINGS FUND
OF PAYMENTS FOR ACCRUED OR ACCUMULATED LEAVE.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, nothing
in section 503 or any amendment made by section 503 shall
apply with respect to a Member (within the meaning of section
8331 or 8401 of title 5, United States Code).

Mr. LOEBSACK (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Iowa?
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will continue to read.
The Clerk continued to read.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state the inquiry.
Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Speaker, is it not the case that if my final
amendment is adopted, the underlying bill is amended and we immediately
vote on final passage of the bill, as amended?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If a motion to recommit with forthwith
instructions is adopted, the amendment is reported by the chair of the
committee and is immediately before the House.
Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, while I oppose the underlying bill, I am offering this
amendment to prohibit former Members of Congress who cash in to become
million-dollar lobbyists from collecting their pensions. My amendment
also stops Members of Congress from getting a better deal than everyone
else by asking them to contribute the same amount to their pensions as
other Federal employees.
We all know that Americans' faith in their government has been
severely damaged. If Congress does not take action to stop the
revolving door between Capitol Hill and Washington lobby firms, there
is little chance that that faith can be restored. It is time we take
action and put a stop to these practices.
Members of Congress who choose to take this route, especially those
making exorbitant salaries as millionaire lobbyists, should forego
their pensions. It's that simple. It is patently ridiculous that these
Members are finding a way to have their cake and eat it, too. It is
just another example of special Washington privileges for out-of-touch
elites, privileges that I have promised not to take and that should be
ended.
I have vowed never to use my public service for personal gain to
become a lobbyist. I first ran for office because, having grown up in
poverty, I know that Iowa families need a strong voice and an advocate
who will ensure that their voices are heard over the voices of the
special interests who dominate Washington.
I came here for one reason: to serve the people of Iowa. I go back to
Iowa every weekend and visit with my constituents so that I know what's
on their minds and what they want to happen here in Washington.
Sadly, some people come to Washington to cash in, and I think we can
all agree that this is unacceptable. I believe that former Members of
Congress who become millionaire lobbyists should never be able to
collect their pensions. It's that simple.
My final amendment would make sure that millionaire lobbyists aren't
using their status as former Members to line their pockets at the
expense of middle class Americans.
In these tough economic times, we have had to make difficult choices
in order to improve our Nation's fiscal status. While I might not like
all the cuts that have been made or are being proposed, I know that we
need to be on better footing if our economy is to recover.

{time} 1340

The unemployment rate remains far too high, and we need to get the
economy moving again and get people back to work. Americans need jobs.
That is my number one priority here in Congress, and it is something I
think about each and every day.
With all of the sacrifices that Iowa families are making as a result
of the economic downturn and as a result of all of the cuts that are
affecting their communities, Members of Congress also need to find ways
to tighten their belts. Maintaining special benefits for Members of
Congress at a time like this is both intolerable and inexplicable. That
is why my final amendment would also increase the contributions that
Members of Congress make to their pensions by the same amount that the
underlying bill increases them for Federal employees.
This is the final amendment to the bill. It will not kill the bill or
send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill, as amended, would be
immediately voted upon. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to join me in putting the interests of the American people before those
of the lobbyists and special interest groups by supporting my
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for
bringing this to our attention. We just received the legislation about
3 or 4 minutes ago, and there are a couple of observations I want to
make.
Number one, I think this is an intriguing policy with respect to
denying pensions to the Members who become lobbyists. I think the
gentleman should introduce legislation and send it to committee, like
the legislation should be passed, and we should give it proper review
instead of springing it at the last minute.
The second point I would make is on an area where we completely
agree, which is that Members of Congress should bear an even higher
burden than we're asking of other Federal employees. This bill does
that. The underlying bill does that. The underlying bill says:
In addition to Federal employees going from paying .8 percent to
their

[[Page H2632]]

pensions, they go to 5.8 percent from their paychecks to contribute to
their pensions so that they pay half of their pension benefits as is
required through most private sector arrangements. Members of Congress
will pay 9.8 percent to their pensions under this bill. This bill has
an 8.5 percent pay cut to Members of Congress, and it only has a 5
percent pay cut to all other Federal employees.
So we are already incorporating the idea, which we agree with.
Members of Congress, in order to exercise moral authority, are the ones
who should take the biggest pay cuts and have the biggest pension
contributions relative to anybody else. That's why we have it in this
bill already. While I understand the gentleman's interest--I appreciate
it--it is something that we are already accommodating in this bill. As
a result, I would urge a ``no'' vote.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 170,
nays 232, answered ``present'' 11, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 246]

YEAS--170

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NAYS--232

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

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--11

Brown (FL)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Fudge
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Rohrabacher
Rush
Sensenbrenner
Watt
Waxman

NOT VOTING--18

Berman
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Donnelly (IN)
Duncan (SC)
Filner
Flores
Heinrich
Johnson (GA)
Mack
Meeks
Napolitano
Noem
Paul
Paulsen
Sires
Slaughter
Stutzman

{time} 1406

Messrs. GUTHRIE, HUNTER, BENISHEK, KINZINGER of Illinois, HALL,
WOODALL, and LAMBORN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. SCHRADER, Ms. BERKLEY, Ms. TSONGAS, Mr. NEAL, Ms. HOCHUL, Messrs.
CARSON of Indiana, RICHMOND, and Mrs. DAVIS of California changed their
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
Messrs. CLEAVER, JACKSON of Illinois, RUSH, and Ms. BROWN of Florida
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``present.''
Ms. FUDGE, Messrs. WATT, ROHRABACHER, and WAXMAN changed their vote
from ``nay'' to ``present.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 246, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 10th, 2012, I was
absent during rollcall vote No. 246 in order to attend my grandson's
graduation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the
Motion to Recommit with Instructions H.R. 5652, To provide for
reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on
the budget for fiscal year 2013.
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. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218,
noes 199, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 247]

AYES--218

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor

[[Page H2633]]

Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--199

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

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Sensenbrenner

NOT VOTING--13

Berman
Burgess
Donnelly (IN)
Filner
Heinrich
Mack
McIntyre
Napolitano
Noem
Paul
Paulsen
Slaughter
Stutzman

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1415

Mr. RUSH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
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 against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 247, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 10, 2012, I was absent
during rollcall vote No. 247 in order to attend my grandson's
graduation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on final
passage of H.R. 5652, To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section
201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013.

____________________