[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.

                          ____________________