[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 165 (Thursday, December 20, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H7395-H7412]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SPENDING REDUCTION ACT OF 2012
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 841,
I call up the bill (H.R. 6684) to provide for spending reduction, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 841, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6684
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 ``Spending Reduction 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. ARRA sunset at March 1, 2013.
Sec. 102. Categorical eligibility limited to cash assistance.
Sec. 103. Standard utility allowances based on the receipt of energy
assistance payments.
Sec. 104. Employment and training; workfare.
Sec. 105. End State bonus program for the supplemental nutrition
assistance program.
Sec. 106. Funding of employment and training programs.
Sec. 107. Turn off indexing for nutrition education and obesity
prevention.
Sec. 108. Extension of Authorization of Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.
Sec. 109. Effective date 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--Repeal of the Office of Financial Research
Sec. 341. 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. ARRA SUNSET AT MARCH 1, 2013.
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 ``February 28, 2013''.
SEC. 102. 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. 103. 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. 104. 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. 105. 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. 106. 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. 107. 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. 108. 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. 109. EFFECTIVE DATE AND APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.
This title and the amendments made by this title shall take
effect on the date of enactment of this Act, and shall apply
only with respect to certification periods that begin on or
after such date.
[[Page H7396]]
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 June 1,
2013,'' 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 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:
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--Repeal of the Office of Financial Research
Sec. 341. 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 October 2012, only 840,835 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 $4.34 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 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
[[Page H7397]]
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 2013 and 2014.''; and
(B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (2).
Subtitle D--Repeal of the Office of Financial Research
SEC. 341. 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--
(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
2012''.
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).
[[Page H7398]]
(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 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
[[Page H7399]]
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.--
(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,
[[Page H7400]]
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:
``(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
Spending Reduction 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
[[Page H7401]]
(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).
(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)
[[Page H7402]]
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 January 1, 2013.
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) as
the designee of the majority leader and the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Van Hollen) as the designee of the minority leader each will
control 30 minutes.
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. 6684, the Spending Reduction 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 1 minute.
This is what we should be doing almost every day here--cutting
spending. In particular, this cuts $236 billion over the next 10 years
in net spending cuts to pay for 1 year of the sequester. It sets aside
the sequester on defense and nondefense discretionary spending. It cuts
$218 billion in mandatory spending and $19 billion in discretionary
spending by lowering those caps. The result of this is we believe it's
better to identify specific spending cuts, waste, fraud, and abuse in
the Federal Government in order to prevent the sequester from
occurring. This sets aside this question for 1 year. But in exchange
for that, it has a net spending reduction of $236 billion. We think the
path forward is even lower spending, which is what this achieves.
I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the House Armed Services
Committee, Mr. McKeon.
Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for
his efforts on this bill.
Today, we will send to the Senate a way out of this fiscal crisis.
Rather than react in defense of the President's position, I urge the
other body to treat this package as a good faith effort to protect
America's middle class and small businesses from harmful tax hikes and
to reduce spending to resolve sequestration. We know that the President
is willing to put adjustments to entitlements on the table. This
proposal provides a framework for us to reach bipartisan agreement on
how to do that.
If we fail to act, on January 2 a hammer's strike will fall on
America's Armed Forces. It will be one of the most significant and
damaging blows to our troops and our national security in history.
Without even the stroke of a pen, sequester will do incredible injury
to a military that took generations to build. It will take generations
to fix. And the blow will not come from an enemy, but from our own
inability to fulfill the basic obligations of governance.
We must stop substituting regular order with brinksmanship. We must
not allow impasses of our own doing to harm our Armed Forces. I call on
the President to lead rather than create a new crisis. We cannot stand
idly by while we have American men and women fighting to keep us safe
across the globe. It's a disgrace that the President decided to use
them as pawns in these negotiations, and it's a disgrace that we
haven't managed to rescue them yet.
My leadership made me a promise: sequestration would not happen.
Today, for the sixth time, they are bringing a measure to the floor in
an effort to keep that promise. I thank them for what they have done
and wish we could have done even more. The American people were also
promised that sequestration would not happen. Many times over his
campaign and in the presence of our troops and veterans the Commander
in Chief made that promise: sequestration would not happen. Yet as we
stand here today, days away from the catastrophe, the President of the
United States hasn't lifted a finger to keep that promise.
If the Senate fails to take our offer seriously, we will likely
return to Washington after Christmas. But the 68,000 American troops in
Afghanistan don't have that luxury. We ask them to bear the pain of
combat. I hope we will not ask them to shoulder the weight of
Washington's irresponsibility. Every man and woman who serves in this
Chamber, in the one down the hall, and in the Oval Office down the
street are the stewards of a sacred trust. We have all put our left
hand on a Bible and raised our right hand and made a sacred pledge.
Part of that pledge is to defend the men and women who put their lives
on the line to defend us. If we allow the year to end without resolving
sequestration, we will all be in direct and unforgivable violation of
that trust. I have debated and reasoned with my colleagues, and now I
beg you, do not let the year end without ending sequestration.
I urge passage of this measure.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
At the outset, I just want to say to my friend, the chairman of the
Budget Committee, I have great respect for him. And I hope he won't
take it the wrong way, but I'm glad to have you back, and look forward
to actually working with you next year. I actually hoped that we'd be
able to work in a bipartisan way, starting right now. Unfortunately,
that doesn't appear to be
[[Page H7403]]
the case, and we are engaged here in the House on this floor today in
what has become a ridiculous political stunt which will actually take
us much closer as a country to going over the fiscal cliff. We're
wasting valuable time. The Speaker should be engaged with the President
of the United States in negotiations rather than having walked away
from those negotiations with the President. That walking away is
becoming a bad habit.
The President put on the table a balanced budget plan that calls for
shared responsibility. It calls for $1.2 trillion in additional
revenues from high-income earners over the next 10 years, and $1.2
trillion in additional cuts, if you include the interest savings over
the next 10 years. And by the way, Mr. Speaker, that $1.2 trillion in
cuts comes on top of the over $1 trillion in cuts that have already
been agreed to this year.
And to our colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Armed
Services Committee, when he says that the President hasn't lifted a
finger to remove the sequester on defense, that's just not true. It's
just not true. In fact, the President's proposal to cut the $1.2
trillion would also remove the sequester for at least 1 year--and maybe
for 10. And it's more cuts total than what we're talking about on the
floor here today.
So what we really have, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that too many of our
Republican colleagues still think that compromise is a dirty word. And
that's what brings us to the floor today in this political exercise.
{time} 1650
As has, unfortunately, been the case throughout the year, the
Republican package that we're dealing with today has two objectives.
One objective is to minimize the impact of the budget challenge on
high-income earners and to shift that burden on the middle-income
earners and working people.
The numbers tell the story, Mr. Speaker. Because if we go over the
fiscal cliff, people earning over $1 million will face a significant
income tax hike. But under the Republican Plan B, compared to the
Senate plan that is before this House right now, the House Republican
plan would give those millionaires a $50,000 tax break on average.
But do you know who would pay more under a Republican Plan B? A whole
lot of middle class families. Eleven million families will see an
average of $1,100 tax increase because the Republican Plan B takes away
the tuition tax credit. Twelve million families will lose the enhanced
child tax credit; they will face $800 more burden. EITC, 6 million
families will pay more. The typical U.S. Army private--including those
men and women serving us in Afghanistan today--married with a newborn
infant will see a $453 increase in taxes as a result of Republican Plan
B. On average, 25 million families will pay an average of $1,000 more
so that 402,000 families who make over $1 million can get an average
tax break of $50,000. That's the tax part of Republican Plan B.
We're here today right now talking about the cutting part of
Republican Plan B. I think all of us recall during the election the
Republican Presidential candidate said:
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the
President no matter what.
And then he went on to say:
And so my job is not to worry about those people.
Well, you know what? The Republican sequester-cutting plan today is
making their nominee's promise come true. It sends a signal that our
Republican colleagues just don't care about the 47 percent. Because you
know who gets hit? Here's what it would do. This is according to the
Congressional Budget Office.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, this is a recycled version. We had virtually
the same bill on the floor last spring; we're just doing it again. That
bill did not get one single Democratic vote, and now it's brought here
under the premise of some kind of bipartisan approach. The reason it
didn't get Democratic support is, while they're providing these tax
breaks to people making over $1 million compared to what it would be if
we went over the fiscal cliff, 22 million children will face reduced or
eliminated food benefits. That's according to the Congressional Budget
Office. 1.8 million Americans will permanently lose their food
assistance, and of those, nearly 300,000 children will lose their
school free or reduced lunch program.
So what this sequester-avoidance plan does is make good on the
promise that Republicans don't care about the 47 percent. That's why it
didn't get any Democratic votes last spring. That's why, Mr. Speaker, I
urge my colleagues to vote against it today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
My friend started off by saying this is a farce, this is not real.
This is what Congress is supposed to do.
Let's review what this legislation is or is not.
Number one, six congressional committees went through their areas of
jurisdiction to look for areas where spending can be reduced--to look
for areas where there was government duplication, to look for areas
where there was government waste and fraud--reported out of those
committees savings, spending cuts, and we package it together here. We
ought to be doing this each and every year.
More to the point, Mr. Speaker, this package of spending cuts are
built on top of the fact that we actually passed a budget to pay off
the debt. We actually passed a budget to make sure that nobody gets a
tax increase. That's a lot more than the President can say.
The President's budget was voted down unanimously in the House and
the Senate. The Senate, they haven't passed a budget in 3 years. We
don't just have a fiscal cliff, we have a fiscal abyss in front of us,
and that is the debt crisis that is on our horizon.
Failure to address this debt crisis means not just 47 percent of
Americans, but every American gets hurt. Every American gets a lower
standard of living. Every American, especially the next generation,
receives a lower standard of living if we don't fix this mess.
So what is this we're doing here today? We're saying we don't think
the crude across-the-board sequester is good policy. We think it will
harm our national security--the first and primary responsibility of the
Federal Government--and we want to replace next year's cuts with even
more spending cuts that we think are smart spending cuts.
The gentleman is talking about all these people who will lose food
stamps and free and reduced lunches. Let me say it really clearly:
Every single person who qualifies for food stamps will get food stamps.
Every single child who qualifies for a free and reduced lunch will get
their free and reduced lunch. What we're saying is you actually have to
qualify for these benefits to get these benefits, and that's not the
case today. We are spending so much money from this government that
people who don't even qualify for these benefits, who make more than
they should to qualify for them, are getting these benefits.
There is a lot of waste. There's a lot of fraud. There's a lot of
abuse in how our Federal tax dollars are being spent, and we're
beginning to rein that in with this down payment of spending cuts.
With respect to taxes, what we are trying to do here is limit the
damage to the taxpayer. There's not a single tax increase that we're
proposing here--not a single. What we're saying is prevent as many tax
increases as possible from hitting anybody in this economy. Because you
know what? It's not a very good economy. Look, elections have
consequences. We understand that. I, of all people, understand that.
The consequence of this election is we have a President who in every
proposal he has given us has called for net spending increases along
with tax increases.
He used to say we ought to cut $3 of spending for every $1 of tax
increases. He's not even doing that. The latest proposals say let's
raise taxes and then raise spending. Mr. Speaker, that's what got us in
trouble in the first place.
With that, I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen)
says that this is political theater, that this is a waste of time.
Well, let me tell you that the Financial Services
[[Page H7404]]
Committee has cut $35 billion of unnecessary wasteful spending. We
started with bailout money, $29 billion that Dodd-Frank said, if a too-
big-to-fail company goes broke, we're going to pay off their creditors
and counterparties. Now, didn't the American people tell us in 2008 and
2009 what they felt about using their money to bail out creditors and
counterparties? People that are making $40,000 and $50,000 a year would
have to help pay $29 billion.
We also do away with the HAMP program. Now, is that a waste of time,
doing away with this program? The special inspector general for TARP,
the Congressional Oversight Panel, and the Government Accounting
Office--the Government Accounting Office, many of those employees are
your constituents in Maryland--even the editorial writers of The New
York Times said--now, this is New York Times. They said HAMP does more
harm than good. It's a wasteful program. Even my Democratic colleagues
on the Financial Services Committee said, It doesn't work, but we can
make it work. Well, let's shut it down.
{time} 1700
$2.8 billion. Is that a waste of our time today?
Third, this legislation saves over $5 billion. Is that
inconsequential? Is that theater? Because it gives real accountability
to a government agency that right now has not, the CFPB. They have
unlimited funds. Then it takes $4.9 billion in savings from just by
making reforms that this Congress, this House, voted by over 400
Members to do; but the Senate, even though this will save $4.9 billion,
they haven't even taken this bill up. 414 of us voted for this bill,
and the Senate hasn't taken it up. But I guess I shouldn't be
surprised. As the budget chairman said, they haven't passed a budget
for 3 years.
My gosh, let's quit talking about this group of Americans or that
group of Americans. Let's talk about America as if it's one country.
Let's don't engage in class warfare. Let's don't pit one income group
or one group against each other.
We're going to take a very small step today, but it's a first step,
and it's not an unimportant step towards cutting the national debt. The
national debt in the last 4 years has gone up 70 percent. That's a
staggering amount.
Now, let me say this. Chairman Bernanke, for 6 years, but
particularly the last 4 years, has come before our committee, and he
said that the national debt is imperiling our economic future. Let me
use his words.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. BACHUS. He said:
Our economic security is at risk if we don't cut down on
the debt.
Mr. McKeon was here speaking. Secretary Bob Gates said that it's
imperiling our national security. Is that theater? Is the national debt
an illusion? Americans don't think so, and today we'll start acting.
We'll start acting. And we'll do something else: We'll cut taxes. We'll
preserve those tax cuts, except for those millionaires, people making
over $1 million, as Mr. Van Hollen said. We're going to let those tax
rates go back up, which is exactly what Nancy Pelosi proposed. We're
going to take her proposal. And, do you know, as Mr. Van Hollen says,
it probably won't get one Democratic vote for something that your
leader proposed 3 months ago.
That's political theater, Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I wish the outgoing chairman of Financial Services would check his
facts.
Ms. Pelosi, the Democratic leader, did not make a tax proposal that
would give people over $1 million a year a $50,000 tax break, which is
exactly what the Republican plan would do, number one.
Number two, the proposal that the President has put on the table has
$1.2 trillion cuts if you include interest savings, which is more than
the cuts here, and will also deal with the sequester.
Number three, the Republican proposal out of Financial Services will
increase the likelihood that taxpayers have to bail out the financial
industry again, not reduce it.
And number four, they strip away the independence of the Consumer
Finance Protection Board so that lobbyists can meddle in exactly how
they do their work so that they're looking out for lobbyists' interests
rather than the interests of the American people.
So this whole approach that we're seeing right here is another
example of trying to help the folks at the very top at the expense of
the rest of the country.
And, Mr. Bachus, it wasn't me making the 40 percent comment talking
about dividing America. That was the comment made by the Republican
candidate for President.
With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished lady from New
York, a member of the Appropriations Committee, Ms. Lowey, and I
congratulate her on becoming the new ranking member.
Ms. LOWEY. And I congratulate you on the wisdom which you generously
share with all of us.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill.
Instead of putting forth a serious, comprehensive, and balanced
deficit reduction plan, the Republicans are taking a timeout so the
House can embark on yet another futile effort to pass portions of the
Ryan budget--the same Ryan budget that would end Medicare as we know
it, walk away from the caps on discretionary spending agreed to in the
Budget Control Act, and has no chance of being signed into law.
Our constituents want us to negotiate and agree to a solution to
avoid economic catastrophe. I have concerns with some of the proposals
the President has made in his negotiations with the Speaker, but at
least the President was seeking a workable compromise.
Instead, the majority walked away from the negotiating table and away
from a $2.4 trillion deficit reduction package. Given everything our
country has been through in the last 2 months, from Superstorm Sandy to
the tragedy in Newtown, the last thing Americans need is for
politicians to refuse to compromise while risking market collapse,
credit downgrade, and putting the brakes on economic growth and job
creation.
I urge my colleagues to end the political charade. Let's get back to
the serious task of negotiating a balanced deficit reduction plan.
Let's do it now, today. We can do it.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to add my
congratulations to the fine gentlewoman from New York on becoming the
ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. She has our respect and
our congratulations.
With that, I'd like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority
leader, Mr. Cantor.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, the
chairman of our Budget Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge support for the measures before us
to replace the sequester and reduce the deficit and to extend permanent
tax relief for the middle class and hundreds of thousands of small
business people.
For the past weeks and months, as people have been looking for jobs
and budgeting for their expenses, we've been working to keep taxes from
going up and offering commonsense spending reforms. The Spending
Reduction Act at issue today reduces our deficit and protects our
national security by replacing indiscriminate cuts that are neither
strategic nor balanced.
Mr. Speaker, we all agree that our current spending path is
unsustainable and poses a real threat to the economy, to job creation,
and to our ability to remain competitive in the global economy. We must
address the underlying issue that faces this country, which is the
mounting deficit and load of debt that we are going to leave to this
generation and the next. But the President has been unwilling to
consider serious spending cuts or offer a serious and balanced plan to
avoid the fiscal cliff.
The risks of unchecked spending are grave. The consequences of our
debt crisis will be felt by every student looking for a job that
matches their skills after graduation, by every retiree counting on
Social Security and Medicare, and by every small business owner looking
to expand and hire.
We have passed bills and put forward reforms that would save programs
like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid from certain and
predictable failure, yet we cannot find cooperation,
[[Page H7405]]
Mr. Speaker, from the White House or the other side of the aisle to
help solve these problems.
It is unfortunate that we find ourselves in this place just 11 days
from the new year. For months, we have been ready and willing to work
with the President to prevent the fiscal cliff from impacting small
businesses and hardworking families.
The math shows that the President's push to hike taxes won't reduce
the deficit, and, left unchecked, his government spending will bankrupt
our future. Our plan will protect 740,000 additional small businesses
that would otherwise be hit by the tax hike the President is proposing.
We don't believe taxes should go up on anybody, but if we can prevent
taxes from going up on as many people as possible, on 99.81 percent of
American families and small businesses, we must and need to do so.
Americans are looking for jobs, small businesses are deciding whether
they should hire or invest in growing, and many Americans are
struggling to make ends meet. We are all committed to creating an
economy where everyone has an opportunity to succeed.
House Republicans are offering a plan today similar to one that
received 53 Democratic votes in the U.S. Senate only 2 years ago, and
the Spending Reduction Act is a serious start toward reducing our
deficit and protecting our national security.
{time} 1710
Absent a balanced offer from the President, this is our Nation's best
option, and Senate Democrats should take up both of these measures
immediately.
The President has a choice, Mr. Speaker. He can support these
measures or be responsible for reckless spending and the largest tax
hike in American history.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
What is unbalanced is the Republican package that we see on the floor
today. We already talked about the numbers of the Republican Plan B tax
proposal which compared to going over the fiscal cliff and the Senate
alternative would actually provide millionaires with a $50,000 tax cut
on average while 25 million American families will actually see a tax
increase of $1,000 on average, including, Mr. Speaker, some of our
soldiers on the front line in Afghanistan today.
The majority leader talked about doing the math. Then do the math on
the tax plan, because that's exactly what it shows. What the President
has called for is a balanced plan that asks for the wealthiest to share
the burden of our deficit challenge and make sure that we get our
economy in full gear.
With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished ranking member
of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin.
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. I did not know that I would follow the distinguished
majority leader.
I just want to say, and I mostly want to talk about Plan C, but for
him or anybody else to come on the floor and say that the President
hasn't proposed spending cuts isn't true, and it undercuts the
necessary level of trust to find common ground. That kind of a
statement should not be made.
I sat in the Rules Committee for 3 hours and participated for 2 hours
last night. There was no reference to Plan C, and it came up just a few
minutes secretly before midnight. The purpose of Plan C is to try to
get votes for Plan B within the Republican Conference. What it does is
to undermine the Affordable Care Act by eliminating the true-up
protections, and the joint task committee says it would result in the
loss of health insurance coverage for 420,000 people. It would also
repeal the Social Services Block Grant which provides services for
millions of Americans.
It wasn't many years ago when Chairman Camp wrote:
SSBG has been a key source of flexible funding for critical
social services.
So now in a desperate effort to find votes for Plan B, you turn your
back on that.
Finally, it would harm millions of low-income families and their
kids. The estimate is it would affect 1 million families and more than
3 million kids.
Searching for votes for Plan B with that kind of an approach, I
think, is abominable.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 17\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin has 15\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority needs to do what
Americans do every day in labor negotiations and real estate offices
and other places around this country, and that's to negotiate rather
than simply restate their position.
The President asked for higher tax rates on income above $250,000,
and he compromised and moved it up to $400,000. The President started
with a spending cut number that was $500 billion or $600 billion, and
he moved it up to $1.2 trillion. And he included within that a very
controversial proposal dealing with Social Security increases.
The President has compromised. The Republicans once again are simply
regurgitating their same old position, a tax provision that has a
$50,000-a-year tax cut for millionaires and a tax increase for 25
million working families, including servicemembers and their children,
and a proposal that cuts jobs on transportation projects, daycare
centers, and nursing homes across the country.
We should stop wasting our time on one-sided bills, follow the
President's lead, lift our sights higher, and negotiate. That is the
way out of this conundrum. And I would urge my friends on the majority
side to stop pontificating and start negotiating.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 30 seconds to say, Follow the
President's lead? I wish he were leading.
The gentleman from Michigan said he's offered all these specifics. I
wish it were so. Where are they? We hear numbers, we hear platitudes,
we see budget gimmicks and accounting tricks; but we don't see
specifics. We have yet to see a specific solution from this President
to deal with his debt crisis.
He's claimed he wants to cut $3 of spending for every $1 of tax
increase. We've seen a lot of specific tax increase proposals come from
the President, but we haven't seen a specific spending cut proposal
from the President. That's the problem.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the
Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.
It's no secret we're facing a severe debt crisis right now. We're at
the $16 trillion mark in debt piled up. If we don't act quickly, we'll
be passing a crushing burden along to our children and grandchildren.
Reducing government spending is never an easy task. We face difficult
choices, but House Republicans have lived up to our responsibilities to
find ways to cut our costs so that we can once again live within our
means.
The Agriculture Committee did its part by finding $33 billion in
savings over 10 years. We did this by making credible, commonsense
reforms to the supplemental assistance program, SNAP--food stamps if
you want to call it that. These provisions reduce waste and abuse and
close program loopholes.
I'd like to make it absolutely clear that none of these
recommendations will prevent families that qualify for assistance under
SNAP from receiving those benefits. Think about that. All they have to
do is demonstrate their income level, demonstrate their asset level,
fill out their paperwork, qualify, and they will receive their
benefits. We're working hard to better target the program and improve
its integrity so that families in need can continue to receive
nutrition assistance.
Every one of these provisions represents common sense and good
government in times of fiscal restraint. I would also like to note that
the policies included in this bill are not the
[[Page H7406]]
only changes that the House Agriculture Committee has passed that would
cause deficit reduction. In July, the Ag Committee passed a
comprehensive farm bill by a strong bipartisan vote, a majority of
Republicans and a majority of Democrats. The bill will save $35 billion
in the agricultural baseline. Our bill makes reforms to commodity
programs, conservation programs, as well as significant reforms to the
food stamp program.
My committee is doing everything it can to provide a variety of
options for all sides and all parties to consider. We've made workable
reforms to all programs within our jurisdiction, saving taxpayers
billions of dollars. We want to be a part of the solution. We have
proven time and time again we're willing to do our part.
Again, I urge my colleagues to adopt these reforms. Yes, it means
you'll have to apply. Yes, it means you'll have to demonstrate your
assets and your income. But if you're qualified, you will receive the
help you need. You just have to demonstrate you need the help. Is that
unreasonable?
{time} 1720
With a $16 trillion deficit--is that unreasonable?--and with a $1
trillion annual spending deficit? Demonstrate you need the help and
we'll help you. That's not unreasonable.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, a couple of points here.
First, the chairman of the Budget Committee said that the President
hadn't put any specific spending cuts on the table. That's just not
true. His proposal has been available to the public for well over a
year now. As to just one specific proposal, the President has said we
should get rid of excessive agriculture subsidies. He has called for
$30 billion on that item alone.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I meant ``net.''
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. In reclaiming my time, that also is not true, and on
that, we will have a longer discussion.
The reality is ag subsidies are one very concrete example.
Interestingly, this bill that our Republican colleagues have brought to
the floor, again, while cutting deeply into the food and nutrition
programs, doesn't take one penny from ag subsidies for agrabusinesses.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it's also important to correct another statement
that has been made by both the chairman of the Budget Committee and the
chairman of the Ag Committee with respect to the food program. I think
the chairman knows that the SNAP statute provides in statute two routes
for people to be eligible for food and nutrition assistance--one is the
specific income and asset test, or they can become eligible under the
SNAP statute based on participation in other programs in which they
have to show income-based need.
Nobody wants fraud. We should find every dollar of wasted money and
get rid of it, but don't pretend that people who qualify under the
statute are engaged in fraud. What you're proposing to do in this
Republican bill is to deny millions of those people on nutrition
programs their legal support, and we do not think we should be doing
that. At the same time, we are giving millionaires a $50,000 average
tax cut.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. I thank my colleague from Maryland.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans are, once again, trying to undermine the
recovery of the American middle class. House Republicans have rejected
a balanced approach to addressing our deficits and, instead, have opted
for draconian cuts to the people who can afford them the least in an
effort to protect the wealthy. The Republican plan may as well be
called the ``reverse Robin Hood agenda,'' by which they take from the
poor to give to the rich:
It starts by literally taking food out of the mouths of children by
cutting the critical Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP;
Next, they move on to one of their favorite pastimes--trying to
repeal the Affordable Care Act, specifically the provisions that help
make health care more affordable for women, children, seniors, and the
poor; 300,000 low-income children will lose access to health care
thanks to cuts to Medicaid and to the Children's Health Insurance
Program. Women will lose access to critical health services covered in
the ACA, like cancer screenings and immunizations;
Finally, the last step is to go after another favorite GOP target,
and that's Social Security.
Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have only one constituency to protect,
and that's the wealthiest Americans. It couldn't be more obvious.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman
of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Upton).
Mr. UPTON. Today, we take a stand for future generations as we work
to get our $16 trillion national debt under control and as we put
ourselves on a path towards a more sound fiscal future.
In the Spending Reduction Act of 2012, we identified key areas to
sensibly reduce spending in the effort to replace the blunt instrument
known as the ``sequester.'' Without this thoughtful, balanced package
of savings, in 2 weeks the sequester is going to cut discretionary
spending indiscriminantly while shielding the lion's share of the
government's budget from reductions.
Critical priorities, such as important cancer research at the NIH and
FDA review and inspection budgets to help keep foods and medicines
safe, are on the chopping block because we have failed to engage in a
substantive discussion on reforming entitlement programs that, in fact,
threaten to derail the long-term solvency of the U.S.
I am proud of the work of our committee. It has identified over $100
billion in savings over the next decade, and we accomplished it in a
sensible, responsible manner. We say enough is enough to the litany of
slush funds tucked into ObamaCare, slush funds that we discovered,
through aggressive oversight, to be blank checks given to HHS that are
going to cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
We made commonsense changes to Medicaid that are going to put
important programs on firmer ground. Among other reforms, we eliminated
the Medicaid maintenance-of-effort requirement. This Federal mandate
impedes a State's ability to implement program integrity measures, and
it actually weakens the safety net by making it more difficult for
States to target resources to the most vulnerable Americans. We
achieved significant savings, as well, in something that was noticeably
absent in the President's health care law, that being tort reform. The
President declared in his 2011 State of the Union Message:
I am willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs,
including one that Republicans suggested last year--medical
malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits.
After 2 years of empty promises, now is the time for the President to
fulfill that pledge and to finally put doctors, patients, and taxpayers
first. That's in this bill.
The House passed a budget and now legislation again that truly cuts
spending to offset the automatic spending cuts, or sequester. Our debt
grows by nearly $4 billion a day, and it's our kids and our grandkids
who are going to pay the price if we stand by and do nothing. Without
action, a $20 trillion debt could soon be a reality.
So, if not us, who is going to do it? If not now, when is it going to
happen? Our work is not easy, but it's necessary. It's time to make the
tough choices to get this deficit down. Let's vote for this bill.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlelady from California (Ms. Waters), and I congratulate her on
becoming the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.
Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much.
While it is clear that the Republican majority's H.R. 6684 is an
attempt to generate votes for Speaker Boehner's Plan B, when it comes
to protecting the American middle class from another taxpayer bailout,
H.R. 6684 gets a failing grade:
First, the plan repeals our financial regulators' existing authority,
which was created in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, to end the
era of too-big-to-fail institutions;
H.R. 6684 would also tie the hands of the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, an agency we formed under Dodd-
[[Page H7407]]
Frank to make sure financial institutions play by the rules when it
comes to mortgage and student loans, credit cards, and payday lenders.
H.R. 6684 would eliminate that independent funding and, instead, tie
their hands by making the Bureau basically have to go through the
appropriations process;
The plan likewise eliminates the Office of Financial Research, an
Agency tasked with collecting information on the health of our
financial markets and conducting research on financial stability
issues;
Finally, H.R. 6684 would just kill the Home Affordable Modification
Program. We need to improve our ability to do loan modifications, not
kill it.
It is unfortunate that, at the end of another session of Congress,
the Republicans are again playing with the U.S. economy when they
should be working in a bipartisan manner with the House Democrats in
order to avert the fiscal cliff.
Ladies and gentlemen, I know that many of you didn't know that all of
this was in this bill; but we have this plan, this orderly way, of
dissolving these financial institutions when they put our economy at
risk. So vote ``no'' on this particular bill.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. May I inquire as to how much time remains on both
sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 11\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin has 9 minutes
remaining.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I will just say a few words again about
the priorities reflected in this Republican package.
If you look at Plan B, the tax part, you're giving people who earn
over $1 million a year on average a $50,000 tax cut compared to what it
would be under the Senate proposal. At the same time, under this
proposal that we're talking about here on the floor of the House,
you're talking about eliminating important support in food and
nutrition programs for millions of Americans, including for 300,000
kids who would no longer be on school lunch programs.
{time} 1730
What this boils down to once again, Mr. Speaker, is a question of
priorities. We've got to reduce our deficit, and we've got to get the
economy moving again. But we have to deal with the deficit in a
balanced way, not in a way that provides additional tax breaks to the
wealthiest Americans at the expense of the rest of the country.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
The food stamp program has grown over the last 10 years by 270
percent. That's far in excess of the recession. With these kinds of
reforms, it will have grown by 260 percent. Hardly the kind of
draconian cuts the gentleman seems to suggest. What we're saying with
these programs is that you need to be eligible for the actual benefit
to receive the benefit. That's not asking too much. If we can't put
commonsense reforms like this in place, we'll never get anywhere in
dealing with this debt crisis.
The gentlelady from the Financial Services Committee says it's just
wrong to submit the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau agency to the
appropriations process. I find that an amazing critique.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself another 30 seconds.
This is an agency that gets its money from the Federal Reserve
without ever having to go through Congress. When we uphold the
Constitution to take office, let's never forget that the power of the
purse lies in the legislative branch. All of these executive agencies
should have to go through the appropriations process. That's not
gutting a program; that's bringing accountability to a program.
With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
underlying bill, H.R. 6684, the Spending Reduction Act of 2012, because
as Chairman Ryan said, we are not only facing a fiscal cliff, but as he
put it, we're facing a fiscal abyss. Indeed, if you will, a fiscal
Grand Canyon.
I want to address my remarks to title IV of the bill, which was just
referenced by the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the
gentleman from Michigan. That's the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-
cost, Timely Healthcare Act of 2012, or the HEALTH Act, to implement
reasonable, comprehensive, and effective health care liability reforms;
indeed, exactly what the President has been calling for for the last 5
years, even in the first election when he was campaigning and speaking
to the American Medical Association in Chicago.
As a physician for over 30 years, I fully understand the importance
of finding balance in medical liability by keeping doctors and
hospitals accountable for their actions while limiting the frivolous
lawsuits that contribute to inflated health care costs and rising
insurance premiums. We need to reform the system so that patients who
have been duly wronged receive a deserved settlement but, at the same
time, protect our Nation's physicians who work hard every day to ensure
that their patients receive quality care.
Therefore, I once again introduced the HEALTH Act in this 112th
Congress to ensure that those who have valid liability claims are
supported while, at the same time, discouraging the practice of jackpot
justice.
If enacted, this title in H.R. 6684 would make health care delivery
more accessible and cost effective in the United States by limiting the
amount of patient awards that are available for plaintiff attorney's
fees. Among other things, the legislation would ensure that all
settlements against medical providers are proportional to their
responsibility for the patient's injury.
Mr. Speaker, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has stated
that if the HEALTH Act were enacted, the Federal Government alone would
save $48 billion over the next 10 years. Other studies have shown the
savings to be much higher, some as high as $200 billion annually over
all of health care, which indeed constitutes, as my colleagues know,
nearly one-fifth of our entire economy.
Tort reform will also help end the practice of defensive medicine,
which is one of the largest cost drivers of health care. When
physicians are forced to order these excessive tests simply to avoid
malpractice suits, health care costs go up and patient safety goes
down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. I thank the gentleman.
I wholeheartedly believe that the HEALTH Act takes an important step
to improve health care delivery in this country. This is the kind of
commonsense, market-based reform that a health care system requires.
Mr. Speaker, I fully support H.R. 6684 and, more specifically, the
immense benefits that the HEALTH Act will not only have on the Federal
budget but on the health of our Nation.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. Let's talk a little bit about what this Republican package
will and will not do with respect to health issues.
First of all, while their bill would replace much of the sequester,
they leave in place the 2 percent across-the-board Medicare cut. Let me
say that again. Despite all the talk we're hearing today on the floor
about their efforts to replace these across-the-board cuts, they leave
them in place for Medicare, which will hit providers and have an impact
on the Medicare system.
Second, with respect to children's health, they cut about $20 billion
from Medicaid and the Children's Health program over the next 10 years,
even though those programs are protected from the sequester. So if we
were to go over the fiscal cliff--which apparently is the way our
Republican colleagues want to take us right now because we're not down
talking with the President but we're here on the floor. If we go over
the fiscal cliff, those children's health care is protected. But if we
adopt the Republican proposal, those children will actually see less
health security. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office,
in 2015, there will be 300,000 children who no longer have coverage
under the Children's
[[Page H7408]]
Health Insurance Program. That's what they're proposing here, even as
their tax Plan B provides millionaires with an average tax break of
$50,000 compared to the Senate plan, and even though their tax plan,
while providing millionaires that average rate compared to the Senate
plan, is going to increase the tax burden on 25 million families. So an
average tax cut for millionaires of $50,000 compared to the Senate
plan, and at the same time a sequester proposal that would result in
300,000 kids in the year 2015 losing their Children's Health Insurance
coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
There you have, Mr. Speaker, the priorities in the Republican plan.
That's not balance.
Look, the reason we're here is because our Republican colleagues
refuse to compromise. They bring this bill to the floor in the name of
a productive contribution to compromise when this virtually identical
bill did not get a single Democratic vote last spring--not one. And
that's compromise?
The Senate has already said it's not going to take up this bill. That
old bill has been sitting over there, and the President has said he
would veto it. We are wasting the people's time, Mr. Speaker. It's time
for the Speaker of this House to negotiate with the President.
Now, we know what the problem is. There's this book, Mr. Speaker,
which is very aptly titled, ``It's Even Worse Than It Looks.'' This
book was written by two scholars of the Congress, one person in a
Democratic-leaning think tank and the other in a Republican-leaning
think tank. Here's what they say, and they say it with great regret.
They say:
The problem is that in the House today, we have a
Republican Party that's become an insurgent outlier,
ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited social
and economic policy regime, and scornful of compromise.
That's from two independent, nonpartisan scholars. And, Mr. Speaker,
that's exactly the problem we've got here today.
{time} 1740
It's time for the Speaker to actually follow the good counsel of many
members of his caucus. Either take up the Senate bill and pass it, or
let's get serious and negotiate with the President, who's put forward a
balanced plan, a plan, as many of my colleagues have said, that a lot
of Democrats don't like.
In fact, there are going to be Democrats who don't vote for even the
proposals the President's put forward already. Many are still reserving
judgment.
That's the test of compromise, not a bill that comes to the floor
that's never had a single Democratic vote. That's not compromise.
The American people want us to work together. Let's stop playing
these political games, Mr. Speaker. Let's not bring to the floor of the
House bills that have never gotten a Democratic vote before, and which
the President has already indicated he will veto because they fail the
important test of balance.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, over the past
decade Medicaid spending increased by 150 percent. Over the next decade
it's projected to increase by 225 percent, and an effort to slow the
increase is called a cut. That's our problem.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Issa), the chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, shame on this body. We have a $10 trillion
hole in the difference between our spending and our revenue, and we
can't find a way to compromise?
The gentleman from Maryland said that it didn't receive a single
Democratic vote. This is the most humble and minimal proposal I could
imagine. The chairman of the Budget Committee, himself, would recognize
that we're not getting close to a balanced budget with this. We're
simply making a down payment on it.
My committee marked up one of the largest portions of these
improvements, which aligns the Federal workforce's compensation,
including Members of Congress and their staffs, a little closer to the
rest of the workforce, a little closer to the rest of hardworking
Americans, and yet we can't get a single Democratic vote.
I say to the Democrats, quite frankly, shame on you for not being
able to make a down payment on a $10 trillion shortfall. And to my
colleagues on the Republican side, this isn't enough. This isn't nearly
enough, but at least we're showing that we don't have a partner in the
White House and we don't have a partner in this body that will work
with us to begin a down payment on $10 trillion worth of shortfall.
In closing, even if, in fact, the President got his original wish,
that we were going to go over the cliff and raise $538 billion in new
revenue, we would still have $500 billion worth of excess spending that
has built up since Bill Clinton left office.
I hope the American people are watching. I hope they'll demand that
we do more than just make a small down payment and then argue about it;
that, in fact, we need to address $10 trillion over 10 years--$1
trillion a year--and we're not even beginning to do that.
I hope that this will pass, because, in fact, we need the Democrats
to realize this is only the beginning of what will be a much tougher,
tougher effort on behalf of the American people.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it's true that our Republican colleagues
are not going to have a partner for a totally lopsided, unbalanced
approach, that, once again, minimizes the responsibility of the
wealthiest of the country at the expense of everybody else.
I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank), the ranking member on the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The previous speaker complained about not
being willing to make cuts. That's right after the House is apparently
about to vote on a defense bill in which Members boasted about how they
were putting weapons systems into play that the Pentagon didn't want,
far more expensive than the kinds of things I've been concerned about.
What troubles me most about this, and it's a tough choice, is the
attack on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Now, I know my
Republican colleagues hated the idea of an independent bureau
responsive to consumers and not financial institutions. We created an
independent one. They didn't have the votes to stop it. They don't have
the willingness to take it on head-on.
This buries in this large bill, which isn't subject to amendment, a
provision that would take away the independence of the consumer bureau.
It would say that they are now going to be subject to annual
appropriations.
Oh, but I'm told that's a matter of principle. But it's apparently
not a matter of principle for a financial regulatory institution that
the bankers like.
I offered a motion in committee to subject the Federal Reserve System
to annual appropriations. That was voted down by the Republicans.
Oh, the consumer bureau, that's dangerous. There they go getting
people refunds on credit cards. But the Federal Reserve, oh no, they
can stay autonomous. The controller of the currency, the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation. So this strong principle my Republican
colleagues discovered only came to light when we try to protect
consumers. And with regard to every other financial institution, they
say it's okay.
They also would abolish the Office of Financial Research, a
nonpartisan entity that's just to get information. There was a wide
consensus that we had a problem in the first part of the century when
we didn't know what has happening. The Republicans want us to vote for
continued ignorance.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. May I inquire as to how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 2 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Maryland has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I'll reserve the balance of my time since we
have no more speakers for closing, and leave it to the gentleman from
Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. Let me thank the Speaker for the service that he's given
to the Congress.
[[Page H7409]]
Some day someone may review our conduct here in the House, and one of
the speakers on the other side, I guess he's gone, but he said shame on
the Congress. I just wanted to join with him on that.
But I also want history to record that they may ask what the heck was
Rangel doing down there when this was going on? What happened?
And I hope the Record is abundantly clear that this was outlined in a
campaign. It was a Presidential campaign. And the President said that
as a result of America getting into wars and not paying for it, and as
a result of wrongdoing in Wall Street, and the result of a whole lot of
people getting out of work, that we had to have a program to raise the
money and to pay down on the deficit by cutting back programs.
It seems as though what has happened here is that the Republican
Party missed something. Maybe it was election night. Maybe it was a
small group of the Republican Party. But they really didn't believe, or
don't believe that the President won.
And this whole idea of protecting 2 percent of the population
actually was on a vote. The people voted, and the President said he was
going to protect 98 percent of the taxpayers. And so somehow this is
not being understood.
Further from that, if you have to have more savings, and I agree that
we do, why would you go, of all places, to the most vulnerable?
My friend from Wisconsin often tells me how fast food stamps have
arisen in the last 2, 4, 6 years. I wonder whether he's ever taken time
to find out whether there's any relationship between the increase in
unemployment and increase in food stamps.
So I just want to be recorded, Mr. Speaker, this ain't for real.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
ranking member from California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, we've seen this business
all over and over again from the Republicans. Plan B, Plan C. Let's
work on a bipartisan agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff.
But what they presented to us today would slash Medicaid, which will
hurt hundreds of thousands of people, including cutting off 300,000
children from health insurance, hurting some of our most vulnerable
citizens. It would impede implementation of the health reform law
that's already benefiting millions of Americans.
It fails to protect Medicare from billions of dollars in cuts under
the sequestration. It establishes a Federal medical malpractice system
trampling on the rights of States. It undermines our future health by
cutting today's prevention and public health investments.
This is so unacceptable. We have nothing to solve the looming
physician payment cuts.
These are exactly the same Republican proposals that were rejected by
the American people. They don't want more tax breaks for the
millionaires and billionaires and big corporations paid for by cuts to
our poorest Americans.
{time} 1750
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Fattah).
Mr. FATTAH. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
I know that people may be confused by some of this debate, so I just
want to bring some common sense to it.
In every instance, A is the preferable option. Whether you get your
ticket to heaven or you get to go free or you get the present you want
under the Christmas tree, when somebody suggests to you option B, it's
something less than the best.
We have the very best country on the face of the Earth. We're the
wealthiest, strongest, most powerful nation in the world. And what
they're asking us to do is to choose, rather than a grand bargain to
put our fiscal house in order, they want us to go with Plan B.
I hope that the House would reject Plan B. Doing something less than
our best as a Nation is not worthy of this House. It's not even worthy
of the majority to bring this here today, because they know it's not
going anywhere. We know it's not going anywhere. And if we want to move
our country forward, which is what the American people voted for on the
last Election Day, we need to choose the A option rather than Plan B.
Plan B is not the way to go unless we're trying to get in second
place to countries like China and others. If we want to stay in the
lead, we need to get our fiscal House in order and reject this Plan B.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time on the Democratic side has expired.
The gentleman from Wisconsin has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, let's take a step back to remind
us where we are.
On January 1, if we do nothing, every American taxpayer will see a
massive tax increase. That will dramatically hurt our economy and
families. Then, on the next day, we'll face a 10 percent cut in our
defense budget.
Americans chose divided government, whether it was intended or not.
The President won. The House is still a Republican House. We're going
to have to find a way to make this work. This is what we're attempting
to do today. We want to avert this crisis, this cliff, but that means
to begin to get spending under control, that means to prevent as many
tax increases from hitting Americans as possible.
My friend--and I mean this sincerely--my friend from Maryland says we
need a balanced approach. The President, in all of his latest
proposals, says more taxes and even more net spending. Hardly a
balanced approach.
Here's the problem: Our problem is not balanced. Even if all the
current tax rates are extended, those taxes still go up. The problem is
spending goes way up. Spending is our problem.
The size of our government will double over the course of this
generation as a share of the economy. The President has shown no
leadership on dealing with the drivers of our debt. We have. We have
passed our budget. We put the specifics out there.
Let's avert a fiscal cliff and let's get on to the business of
preventing the fiscal abyss, which is the coming debt crisis that will
not be resolved until we have real leadership; and that, unfortunately,
is sorely lacking.
With that, I urge passage of this. Let's prevent taxpayers from tax
increases, get a down payment on spending cuts, and let's pass this
bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
H.R. 6684, the Spending Reduction Act of 2012. This bill is essential
in stopping the devastating across-the-board sequestration cuts set to
take place across the entire federal government in just a few weeks.
Half of those cuts would come from the Department of Defense and our
national security programs.
The Department of Defense, industry, and the Congressional Defense
Committees, have repeatedly and consistently warned of the consequences
of letting sequestration take place. If allowed to happen, the impact
to the Department of Defense would be a reduction of 8.2 percent or
$54.6 billion from the fiscal year 2013 budget. The total sequestration
reduction for Defense through fiscal year 2021 amounts to roughly $492
billion--almost half a trillion dollars.
With military pay and personnel costs exempt from the cuts, the
actual cut to all other accounts increases to 9.4 percent. Even though
the Department of Defense has some limited flexibility to allocate
sequestration cuts in the operating accounts, a computer will cut all
procurement and research accounts proportionally--which will directly
impact more than 2,500 programs and projects. The impact on our
national security and readiness will be severe.
Base operating budgets will be cut, negatively impacting readiness.
Training could be significantly reduced, resulting in unprepared troops
and higher risk to those who deploy. Civilian personnel will certainly
be affected, possibly resulting in hiring freezes and unpaid furloughs.
Fewer weapon systems will be bought, which starts a vicious circle of
rises in unit prices for the remaining weapons. Other major weapon
systems will be reduced or terminated, and current contracts may have
to be terminated or renegotiated, resulting in additional costs to the
government and a loss of favorable contract terms in some cases.
Procurement and Depot Maintenance schedules will be severely impacted,
which is enormously disruptive, especially in shipbuilding and
maintenance when future deployments rely on maintaining schedules.
Earlier this year, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta testified that
the impact of sequestration on the Department of Defense alone would
drive up our nation's unemployment rate by a full percent. Jobs will be
lost but more importantly, infrastructure and manufacturing
capabilities critical to our national security will be lost. Already
prime contractors have
[[Page H7410]]
notified their suppliers and subcontractors that programs are on hold.
This has left thousands of small businesses with no choice but to close
their doors and lay off workers as work orders have dried up.
Our nation's manufacturing base relies upon these workers and their
special skills. We rely on these small businesses to supply critical
components for important weapons systems and platforms.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the impact of sequestration is very real
and is very imminent. Just consider that if sequestration remains in
place for its full nine years, our nation will be left with the
smallest ground force since 1940, the smallest number of ships since
1915, and the smallest Air Force in history.
When we talk about the impending cliff, these across-the-board cuts
to our defense budget will result in not only an economic fiscal cliff,
but of greatest concern to me, a cliff off which our national security
will fall. This will impact our readiness, our ability to defend our
nation, and our ability to ensure the safety of our all volunteer force
as they operate around the world.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend you for keeping the impact
sequestration will have on our nation's security at the forefront of
your negotiations with President Obama. We cannot, and we must not, let
these devastating cuts happen. Unfortunately, only the House has acted
to do anything about it, passing a bill on May 10 and considering this
bill today. I urge my colleagues in the House to approve this
legislation today and for the Senate to follow suit quickly to ensure
that sequestration does not become a stark reality just 13 short days
from now. Failing to take action will cause irreversible harm to our
nation's security and violate our Constitutional responsibility to
``provide for the common defense.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 841, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
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. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I am opposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Van Hollen moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6684 to the
Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
TITLE VIII--DISCLOSURE OF HIGHER BENEFICIARY COSTS AND PROVIDER CUTS
UNDER MEDICARE, MEDICAID, AND CHIP CUTS
SEC. 801. DISCLOSURE OF HIGHER BENEFICIARY COSTS AND PROVIDER
CUTS UNDER MEDICARE, MEDICAID, AND CHIP CUTS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall publish, on the
public Internet Web site of the Department of Health and
Human Services, the information described in subsection (b)
with regard to each congressional district in the United
States (including the District of Columbia and each of the
territories of the United States).
(b) Required Information.--The information described in
this subsection, with respect to a congressional district,
is--
(1) the number of Medicare beneficiaries in such district,
the number of Medicaid beneficiaries in such district, and
the number of Children's Health Insurance Program
beneficiaries in such district, who, at any time during the
ten-year period beginning on the first day of the first
fiscal year that begins after the date of the enactment of
this Act, will--
(A) lose coverage under the Medicare program under title
XVIII of the Social Security Act, under a State plan or
waiver under the Medicaid program under title XIX of such
Act, or under a State child health plan under the Children's
Health Insurance Program under title XXI of such Act,
respectively, as a result of the implementation of this Act;
or
(B) experience an increase in premiums, cost-sharing, or
other out-of-pocket costs under such respective program as a
result of the implementation of this Act; and
(2) the name and location of each hospital and nursing
facility that would experience a reduction in payments under
the Medicare program, a State plan or waiver under the
Medicaid program, or a State child health plan under the
Children's Health Insurance Program as a result of the
implementation of this Act.
TITLE IX--END TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES FOR BIG OIL
SEC. 901. DEDUCTION FOR INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO DOMESTIC
PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES NOT ALLOWED WITH RESPECT
TO OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES OF MAJOR INTEGRATED
OIL COMPANIES.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 199(d)(9) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting
``(9 percent in the case of any major integrated oil company
(as defined in section 167(h)(5)(B)))'' after ``3 percent''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2012.
SEC. 902. PROHIBITION ON USING LAST-IN, FIRST-OUT ACCOUNTING
FOR MAJOR INTEGRATED OIL COMPANIES.
(a) In General.--Section 472 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(h) Major Integrated Oil Companies.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this section, a major integrated oil
company (as defined in section 167(h)(5)(B)) may not use the
method provided in subsection (b) in inventorying of any
goods.''.
(b) Effective Date and Special Rule.--
(1) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012.
(2) Change in method of accounting.--In the case of any
taxpayer required by the amendment made by this section to
change its method of accounting for its first taxable year
beginning after December 31, 2012--
(A) such change shall be treated as initiated by the
taxpayer,
(B) such change shall be treated as made with the consent
of the Secretary of the Treasury, and
(C) the net amount of the adjustments required to be taken
into account by the taxpayer under section 481 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be taken into account
ratably over a period (not greater than 8 taxable years)
beginning with such first taxable year.
SEC. 903. LIMITATION ON DEDUCTION FOR INTANGIBLE DRILLING AND
DEVELOPMENT COSTS OF MAJOR INTEGRATED OIL
COMPANIES.
(a) In General.--Section 263(c) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following
new sentence: ``This subsection shall not apply to amounts
paid or incurred by a taxpayer in any taxable year in which
such taxpayer is a major integrated oil company (as defined
in section 167(h)(5)(B)).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2012.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The chairman of the Budget Committee began his closing remarks by
saying, ``Let's take a step back.'' Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that's
exactly what this package of bills does for the country; it takes us
many steps back. And the reason it takes us back is because the Speaker
of this House has backed out of negotiations with the President for a
balanced approach to dealing with our deficit and making sure that we
accelerate economic growth and job creation in this country.
The issue has never been whether or not to reduce our long-term
deficit. The question has always been: How? And how you do it reflects
your priorities. The President has made clear his priority is not to
give higher income individuals another tax break relative to what would
happen if we went over the fiscal cliff, and yet that's exactly what
this package of proposals would do.
{time} 1800
I've used this chart a couple of times, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to use
it again, and with good reason, because no one has or can dispute the
facts in this chart.
The reality is, while folks who earn more than $1 million a year,
about 402 families in this country--and God bless them, we want people
to keep making more money; the issue here is shared responsibility for
reducing our deficit--under the Republican plan relative to the Senate
bill, they're going to get a $50,000 average tax break, while over 25
million Americans will see an increase in their tax obligation compared
with where we are today. We don't think that's balanced. That's not
even balanced within their tax plan.
At the same time, they bring to the floor today a bill, a
sequestration bill
[[Page H7411]]
that, by the way, leaves in place the cuts to Medicare and then cuts
support for kids on food stamps and children under the health insurance
bill, groups that, frankly, would be protected if we went over the
fiscal cliff under current law.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is a question of priorities. So what this
motion to recommit does is say, you know what, we think it's time that
we end the taxpayer giveaways and subsidies to the Big Oil companies.
My goodness, why should all of us be providing them one more round of
tax breaks? Gas prices are high, their profits are going through the
roof, taxpayers should not be subsidizing that. And we certainly
shouldn't be subsidizing that when we have before us a bill that
removes about 300,000 kids from the school lunch program and removes
about 300,000 kids from the Children's Health Insurance Program in the
year 2015, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
So, again, this is about priorities. What this very simple motion to
recommit does, in addition to asking that oil companies no longer keep
getting taxpayer subsidies, is just to disclose to the public what the
impact of these cuts will be on citizens throughout this country. It
says, tell us what the impact of the Medicare and Medicaid and
Children's Health Insurance Program cuts will be on kids and others in
our congressional districts.
At the very least, we should know what we're doing. The Congressional
Budget Office had told us, but anybody who thinks that that
independent, nonpartisan group has its projections wrong, we'll get a
real world check. So this is simple accountability. This is
understanding what the impact of your vote will be. So I would hope
that our colleagues would recognize that at this time, when oil
companies are doing just great, they don't need welfare from the U.S.
Government.
We should also understand very clearly what the impact of these cuts
will be because the projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget
Office are that it's going to have a very serious negative impact on
kids' health, as well as in terms of the support under the preventive
health fund for women around the country. So, for example, with the $10
billion cut to the prevention fund, 326,000 women would not get breast
cancer screenings; 284,000 women would not get cervical cancer
screenings they are slated to receive in 2013.
These cuts have real impact. So the question is not whether to make
cuts--we have to make cuts. The President has put $1.2 trillion in
additional cuts forward on top of the $1 trillion. We're just asking
for balance. We're asking for common sense in our priorities. I urge
people to support the motion to recommit.
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 (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). The gentleman
from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I enjoy this. It's good reading.
It has a very rich irony, ``Title VIII. Disclosure of higher
beneficiary costs from provider cuts under Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP
cuts.'' Where was this when they passed ObamaCare? Where was this need
for disclosure on the beneficiaries of Medicare when they took $716
billion from Medicare to spend on ObamaCare? Where was this concern
when they raised $1 trillion in taxes to pay for ObamaCare? Where was
all of this need for disclosure when they were hitting providers and
beneficiaries in Medicare to pay for their vaunted ObamaCare program?
The gentleman talks about cuts to food stamps and Medicaid. Food
stamps will have grown by 260 percent instead of 270 percent under this
bill. Medicaid has grown by 150 percent over the last decade, and it is
projected to grow by 225 percent over the next decade. Slowing the
growth of spending isn't a cut, it's slowing the growth of spending.
This is our problem, Mr. Speaker. If we lambaste these commonsense
ideas as draconian cuts, we're never going to fix this problem. If we
keep this kind of language and definition, heaven help us.
The other part on oil companies, all these taxes. Look, I've been a
member of the Ways and Means Committee for 12 years. A number of years
ago we put in place a policy that says: We want more manufacturing in
America. We want to reward manufacturing jobs. So if you manufacture
something in America, you will pay effectively lower tax rates than if
you make something overseas. The idea would be more U.S. manufacturing
jobs. Here's what they do. They say ah, ah, ah, not if you're in the
oil industry. So, if you're working in the oil fields in North Dakota
or the Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania or the Woodford in Texas, we
don't want your jobs, because if you manufacture oil in America, we're
raising your taxes. We're not going to raise your taxes if you
manufacture oil overseas, but if you create American-made energy jobs,
this raises your taxes. Not only does it raise our taxes and costs
American energy jobs, it raises our gas prices. How is that good for
consumers and families?
So, it's an anti-American energy job, pro-high gas tax bill that all
of a sudden calls for the kind of disclosure that they weren't willing
to disclose when they jammed ObamaCare through. This is not serious and
I reject this motion.
I urge all Members to vote against the motion to recommit.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on passage of H.R. 6684, if ordered; adoption of the
conference report on H.R. 4310; and suspension of the rules with regard
to 3197, if ordered; H.R. 6443, if ordered; and S. 925, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 179,
nays 243, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 643]
YEAS--179
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Curson (MI)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Johnson (GA)
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
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
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
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NAYS--243
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
[[Page H7412]]
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
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
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
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.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
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
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Speier
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
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)
NOT VOTING--9
Buerkle
Culberson
Johnson, Sam
Nunnelee
Olver
Pelosi
Reyes
Rivera
Stark
{time} 1828
Mr. HALL, Mrs. BACHMANN, Messrs. CANTOR, COFFMAN of Colorado, GARY G.
MILLER of California, SMITH of Texas, GARRETT, REED, BACHUS, and
BILIRAKIS changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Messrs. LEVIN and POLIS changed their vote
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
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.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215,
nays 209, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 644]
YEAS--215
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
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
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
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
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--209
Ackerman
Altmire
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Curson (MI)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
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)
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Labrador
Landry
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Woolsey
Yarmuth
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Bishop (UT)
NOT VOTING--6
Costello
Culberson
Johnson, Sam
Reyes
Rivera
Stark
{time} 1836
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________