Congressional Record, Volume 164 Issue 94 (Thursday, June 7, 2018)

[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 94 (Thursday, June 7, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H4871-H4884]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SPENDING CUTS TO EXPIRED AND UNNECESSARY PROGRAMS ACT

General Leave

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 923, I
call up the bill (H.R. 3) to rescind certain budget authority proposed
to be rescinded in special messages transmitted to the Congress by the
President on May 8, 2018, in accordance with title X of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act 1974, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 923, the
amendment printed in part C of House Report 115-712 is adopted, and the
bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 3

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 Cuts to Expired and
Unnecessary Programs Act''.

SEC. 2. RESCISSION OF BUDGET AUTHORITY.

(a) In General.--Pursuant to the special message
transmitted by the President on May 8, 2018, to the House of
Representatives and the Senate proposing the rescission of
budget authority under section 1012 of part B of title X of
the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(2 U.S.C. 682 et seq.), the rescissions described under
subsection (b) shall take effect immediately upon the date of
enactment of this Act.
(b) Rescissions.--The rescissions described in this
subsection are as follows:
(1) Of the unobligated balances identified by the Treasury
Appropriation Fund Symbol 12X1600, $148,000,000 are
permanently rescinded.
(2) Of the unobligated balances identified by the Treasury
Appropriation Fund Symbol 12X1004, the following amounts are
permanently rescinded:
(A) $143,854,263 of amounts made available in section
2601(a)(5) of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-
79).
(B) $146,650,991 of amounts made available in section
2701(d) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
(Public Law 110-246).
(C) $33,261,788 of amounts made available in section
2701(e) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
(Public Law 110-246).
(D) $12,960,988 of amounts made available in section
2701(g) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
(Public Law 110-246).

[[Page H4872]]

(E) $7,447,193 of amounts made available in section 2510 of
the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law
110-246).
(F) $155,332,698 of amounts made available from the
Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out the wetlands
reserve program.
(3) Of the unobligated balances identified by the Treasury
Appropriation Fund Symbol 12X1072, $50,000,000 of amounts
made available under the heading ``Watershed and Flood
Prevention Operations'' in the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2017 (Public Law 115-31) are rescinded.
(4) From amounts made available under the heading
``Department of Agriculture--Rural Housing Service--Rental
Assistance Program'' in the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2017 (Public Law 115-31) that remain available until
September 30, 2018, $40,000,000 are rescinded.
(5) Of the unobligated balances available under the heading
``Department of Agriculture--Rural Housing Service--Rural
Community Facilities Program Account'' in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2017 (Public Law 115-31) and prior Acts,
$2,000,000 are rescinded.
(6) Of the unobligated balances available under the heading
``Department of Agriculture--Rural Business-Cooperative
Service--Rural Cooperative Development Grants'' in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Public Law 115-31) and
prior Acts, $14,705,229 are rescinded.
(7) Of the amounts made available by section 9003 of the
Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-79), $36,410,174 are
rescinded.
(8) Of the unobligated balances available under the heading
``Department of Agriculture--Rural Utilities Service--High
Energy Cost Grants'' in the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2017 (Public Law 115-31) and prior Acts, $13,275,855 are
rescinded.
(9) Of the unobligated balances available under the heading
``Department of Agriculture--Rural Utilities Service--Rural
Water and Waste Disposal Program Account'' in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Public Law 115-31) and
prior Acts, $37,000,000 are rescinded. No amounts may be
rescinded under this paragraph from amounts that were
designated by the Congress as an emergency or disaster relief
requirement pursuant to the concurrent resolution on the
budget or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985.
(10) Of the unobligated balances available under the
heading ``Department of Agriculture--Forest Service--Land
Acquisition'' in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017
(Public Law 115-31) and prior Acts that were derived from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, $16,000,000 are permanently
rescinded.
(11) Of the unobligated balances available under the
heading ``Department of Commerce--Economic Development
Administration--Economic Development Assistance Programs''
from prior year appropriations, $30,000,000 are rescinded.
(12) Any unobligated balances of amounts provided by
section 129 of the Consolidated Security, Disaster
Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public
Law 110-329) for the cost of direct loans as authorized by
section 136(d) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (Public Law 110-140) are rescinded.
(13) Of the unobligated balances made available by section
1425 of the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 112-10) for the cost of
loan guarantees for renewable energy or efficient end-use
energy technologies under section 1703 of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15513), $160,682,760 are rescinded.
(14) Any unobligated balances of amounts made available
under the heading ``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--
Title 17--Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program'' in
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public
Law 111-5) for the cost of guaranteed loans authorized by
section 1705 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 are rescinded.
(15) Of the unobligated balances available from section
301(b)(3) of Public Law 114-10 and pursuant to section
2104(m)(2)(B)(iv) of the Social Security Act, $5,149,512,000
are rescinded.
(16) Of the amounts made available in section
1115A(f)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act, $800,000,000 are
rescinded.
(17) Of the amounts deposited in the Child Enrollment
Contingency Fund for fiscal year 2018 under section
2104(n)(2) of the Social Security Act, $1,865,000,000 are
permanently rescinded.
(18) Of the unobligated balances available in the
Nonrecurring Expenses Fund established in section 223 of
division G of Public Law 110-161, $220,000,000 are rescinded.
(19) Of the unobligated balances available under the
heading ``Department of Housing and Urban Development--Public
Indian Housing Programs--Public Housing Capital Fund'' in the
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015
(Public Law 113-235), $1,192,287 are rescinded.
(20) Of the unobligated balances available under the
heading ``Department of Housing and Urban Development--Public
Indian Housing Programs--Public Housing Capital Fund'' in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114-113),
$5,243,222 are rescinded.
(21) Of the unobligated balances available under the
heading ``Department of Housing and Urban Development--Public
Indian Housing Programs--Public Housing Capital Fund'' in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Public Law 115-31),
$31,980,121 are rescinded.
(22) Of the unobligated balances available until expended
under the heading ``Department of Housing and Urban
Development--Public Indian Housing Programs--Public Housing
Capital Fund'', including from prior year appropriations,
$518,885 are permanently rescinded.
(23) Of the unobligated balances available under the
heading ``Department of Justice--Legal Activities--Asset
Forfeiture Fund'', including from prior year appropriations,
$106,000,000 are permanently rescinded.
(24) Any unobligated balances of amounts made available in
section 1899K(b) of division B of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5) are rescinded.
(25) Of the unobligated balances available under the
heading ``Department of State--Complex Crises Fund'' in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (Public Law 115-31) and
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (114-113),
$30,000,000 are rescinded.
(26) From amounts made available under the heading
``Millennium Challenge Corporation'' in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2017 (Public Law 115-31) and prior Acts,
$52,000,000 are rescinded.
(29) Of the unobligated balances available under the
heading ``Department of Transportation--Federal Highway
Administration--Appalachian Development Highway System'' in
the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law 105-66) or any other
Act, $45,240,246 are rescinded.
(31) Of the unobligated balances available under the
heading ``Department of Transportation--Federal Railroad
Administration--Capital Assistance for High Speed Rail
Corridors and Intercity Passenger Rail Service'' in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-117)
$53,404,128 are rescinded.
(32) Of the unobligated balances available for Transit
Formula Grants from fiscal year 2005 and prior fiscal years,
$46,560,000 are permanently rescinded.
(33) Of the unobligated balances available in the Treasury
Forfeiture Fund established by the Treasury Forfeiture Fund
Act of 1992 (31 U.S.C. 9705), $53,000,000 are permanently
rescinded.
(34) Of the unobligated balances available under the
heading ``Department of the Treasury--Departmental Offices--
Community Development Financial Institution Fund Program''
for the Bank Enterprise Award Program from the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2017 (Public Law 115-31) $22,787,358 are
rescinded.
(35) From amounts made available to the Capital Magnet Fund
for fiscal year 2018 pursuant to sections 1337 and 1339 of
the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 4567
and 4569) $141,716,839 are permanently rescinded.
(37) Of the unobligated balances available in the
``National Service Trust'' established in section 102 of the
National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993,
$150,000,000 are permanently rescinded.
(38) Of the amounts made available in section 9 of the
Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009
(Public Law 111-92), $132,612,397 are rescinded.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the
minority leader or their respective designees.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise today to present H.R. 3, the Spending Cuts to Expired and
Unnecessary Programs Act. This package of rescissions withdraws nearly
$15 billion in funds previously appropriated to various Federal
programs and agencies. These funds are rescinded from programs and
agencies that no longer need or cannot spend the money or from programs
that no longer exist. When such funding goes unused for years, those
funds should be returned to the Federal Treasury, as taxpayers should
expect.
Sweeping up these extra funds will not cause undue harm or hardship
to the essential activities at these Federal agencies. In fact, year
after year, rescissions are included in our regular appropriations
bills, and dozens of such rescissions have previously received
bipartisan support.
The bottom line is that it is not in the interest of the taxpayers to
let outdated, unnecessary dollar balances sit idle, especially when the
Nation is facing such high debt and deficits.
As I have said many times, Congress controls the power of the purse,
and it is up to us to keep our fiscal house in order in order to reduce
wasteful spending, unnecessary spending, whenever possible.

[[Page H4873]]

Such rescissions are not new. Over the past 20 years, there have been
hundreds proposed and approved in both Democratic and Republican
administrations.
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong opposition to this Republican rescission package.
Mr. Speaker, President Trump and congressional Republicans are trying
to take deconstructing government to a new level. They are proposing to
take $15 billion in Federal funds away from the citizenry and
investment in our economy budgeted for the Children's Health Insurance
Program, medical innovation, advanced manufacturing, infrastructure
projects, and the list goes on.
Why?
They are doing so to pay for a tiny fraction of their $1.5 trillion
tax cut for the rich. This is just another example of their
irresponsible governance.
What is on the chopping block?
With this rescission package, the majority would cut the balances in
the Children's Health Insurance Program by $7 billion, simply send them
back to the Treasury. They would cut funding when we should be
investing in critical services for children and families.
They would cut funding that helps workers who have lost their jobs
due to trade access health insurance.
They would cut funding for AmeriCorps and prevent more people from
serving vulnerable populations in their communities.
They would cut funding for critical healthcare infrastructure
projects.
Just a few months ago, we used these funds to replace the Biosafety
Level 4 laboratory at the Centers for Disease Control. This lab is
necessary for handling the most highly pathogenic organisms, such as
Ebola, other hemorrhagic fevers, and smallpox. This is a critical piece
of public health infrastructure. Why do Republicans want to cut its
source of funding?
They would cut funding for programs that rural America depends on,
rural housing programs, rural water programs. For example, it would
rescind $15 million from the Value Added Producer Grant Program, a
vital lifeline for small businesses in rural America.
Well, I want to remind Americans that the President and his House
allies are betraying the promise they made to the American people, Mr.
Speaker.
In March, we agreed to historic and urgently needed funding for our
families. The omnibus funding bill for 2018 made important investments
in health, education, and job programs. It made critical investments
that boost the middle class.
It was not easy. We worked hard to come to an overwhelmingly
bipartisan agreement that benefits the people of this country. And now,
months later, the Trump administration and House Republicans are
violating the spirit of that agreement. It is not a serious way to
govern.
This is money for our children, not for the President to claw back to
placate fervent conservatives who maintain their drumbeat on Twitter
and TV.
And what do Republicans get for breaking their word, going back on
their promises and taking from children?
Well, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Mr. Speaker, the
actual impact of this rescission package would amount to $1 billion
over 10 years. That is less than 1 percent of the Republicans' $1.5
trillion tax scam for the rich. In fact, it is one one-hundredth of a
percent.
If Republicans are so worried about spending, why not rescind the
money from the tax giveaway to corporations that are using it to buy
back stock? They are not raising wages.
Well, they appear to be beholden to the lobbyists and the insiders
who have profited so exorbitantly from that gift. And according to the
Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 83 percent of the tax scam
benefits will go to the top 1 percent.
And those big boosts to paychecks? They have not materialized.
You look at Walmart. They spent $20 billion on stock buybacks for
their shareholders; yet, according to the Roosevelt Institute, had
Walmart instead dedicated that money to workers, they could have raised
wages to more than $16 an hour. They did not.

Mr. Speaker, budgets, spending, appropriations, and rescissions
reflect our values, and it is clearer than ever that President Trump,
Speaker Ryan, and the Republicans in the Congress value corporations
and the wealthy, not people who work for a living or those who are the
most vulnerable. They rig the rules for the rich and rob from the poor
to pay for it.
Congress must reject President Trump's proposal and put forth
policies that work for the middle class and families and for those who
are most vulnerable, not balance the budget on their backs.
The American people would be far better served if Congressional
Republicans joined with Democrats to fund critical investments in
education, healthcare, infrastructure, and protecting our retirement
programs.
When teachers are protesting across the country for fair pay,
Republicans want to go backwards. When Americans are stuck in jobs that
do not pay enough to live on, Republicans want to go backwards. When 40
percent of households cannot afford the basics of a modern, middle
class lifestyle, Republicans want to go backwards.
Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable, and the American people deserve
better.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority whip.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee for yielding.
I rise in strong support of this rescissions package.
I want to commend President Trump for bringing this bill to Congress,
a bill that would, once passed, be the largest rescissions package in
the history of our country. This is a process that has been used by
Republican and Democratic Presidents alike over decades, and it is an
important process to make sure that we keep our fiscal house in order.
Mr. Speaker, I know some of my colleagues on the other side are
feigning concern over the Children's Health Insurance Program, and most
of them, by the way, voted against the funding for the CHIP program in
the first place when that bill was before Congress due to a full
funding. In fact, we overfunded the CHIP program, and so, as that
surplus money was identified, we made sure that that money is going to
be able to be used to help reduce the deficit and go to other things.
This letter from the Congressional Budget Office confirms that not
one child will lose insurance when this bill is passed because we
overfunded the CHIP program.
Mr. Speaker, I include this letter from the Congressional Budget
Office in the Record.
U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, May 8, 2018.
Re Proposed Rescissions for the Children's Health Insurance
Program.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Leader: At your staff's request, the Congressional
Budget Office has reviewed the Administration's proposed
rescissions R18-15 and R18-17 for the Children's Health
Insurance Program (CHIP) that were transmitted to the
Congress on May 8, 2018. The proposals would rescind
approximately $7 billion. Of this, $5.1 billion would be
rescinded from the unobligated balances made available by
section 301(b)(3) of Public Law 114-10, and $1.9 billion
would be rescinded from amounts made available for fiscal
year 2018 under the Child Enrollment Contingency Fund,
section 2104(n)(2) of the Social Security Act.
Specifically, you asked for our assessment of the proposed
rescissions' effect on federal spending and insurance
coverage. Authority to distribute the funds to states made
available under section 301(b)(3) expired in 2017. In
addition, based on information from the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services, CBO projects that the rescission from
the Child Enrollment Contingency Fund would not affect
payments to states over the 2018-2028 period. For these
reasons, CBO estimates that rescinding the unobligated
balances would reduce budget authority by $7 billion, but
would not affect outlays, or the number of individuals with
insurance coverage.
I hope this information is helpful to you.
Sincerely,
Keith Hall,
Director.

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that, as there
was a

[[Page H4874]]

concern about a potential Ebola outbreak, we were able to go back and
work with our OMB Director, Mick Mulvaney, who worked really closely
with us to make sure that this bill was put together properly to
address what the President wanted, while also making sure that we were
able to respond to any potential Ebola crisis.
I especially want to thank my colleagues Jeff Fortenberry and General
Don Bacon from Nebraska for making sure that we will, with this bill's
passage, still be able to respond to any possible Ebola outbreak.
Hopefully, we don't have one, but we will be prepared in that event
thanks to the hard work of Congressmen Fortenberry and Bacon.
So, overall, Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill to help us reduce
the deficit, keep our fiscal house in order, while properly funding
those programs like CHIP that were so important to so many of us who
did vote for it. I am glad that my colleagues who voted against it are
now realizing it is an important program. Maybe they will support it
next time.
But, in the meantime, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for
this bill, and then I further encourage the Senate to take this bill up
quickly because it only requires 51 votes to pass, not 60. I would urge
full passage. Let's get this on the President's desk.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
But the gentleman hasn't told us that the money they take from CHIP
is not going into programs for children. It is going back to the
Treasury, so we will take a look at cuts to Head Start, maternal child
health programs, childhood immunization, newborn screening, child lead
poisoning prevention, and many others. Tell the whole story.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Lowey), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

{time} 1430

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous that we are beginning this
appropriations season by debating President Trump's rescissions bill,
which fails the American people, hurts children and families, and
injects needless partisanship into Congress' important appropriations
work.
First and foremost, this bill fails the American people by
eliminating funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program. Just
months after exploding annual deficits, to the tune of $1.5 trillion,
and lavishing massive tax breaks to big corporations with their tax
scam, Republicans are now proposing to make children and families pay
with a $7 billion cut from CHIP.
Targeting CHIP for a rescission prevents Congress from reinvesting in
other priorities like child and maternal health, early childhood
education, biomedical research, and our community health centers.
Additionally, the nearly $15 billion in rescissions cut numerous
efforts to create jobs, grow our economy, and strengthen our
communities. It cuts funding for the Economic Development
Administration and for community development financial institutions,
both of which create jobs in rural areas and distressed communities.
Treasury was prepared to announce 114 awards from CDFI's Bank
Enterprise Award Program. This isn't merely spring cleaning by sweeping
old funding up under the rug that would never be spent; it is taking
investments away from local communities. It slashes billions of dollars
from Federal loan programs that foster innovation and create clean-
energy jobs.
Eight projects are in the pipeline through the Advanced Technology
Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, two of which would create 2,400
manufacturing jobs and an $890 million investment in Ohio, Indiana, and
Illinois. The Republican raw deal would rescind these funds and prevent
economic growth.
I am also profoundly disappointed that Republicans are willing to
bring forward legislation that undermines 2 years of bipartisan
spending agreements. This bill includes cuts to funding that was
appropriated under the fiscal year 2017 omnibus, which was negotiated
just over a year ago. And it reneges on the bipartisan budget agreement
from February by further restricting CHIP amounts that could be
reinvested in future years. Upending bipartisan agreements poisons the
well and makes future negotiations more difficult.
Finally, I must express my strong objection to the rushed process by
which Republicans have considered this rescissions bill. The White
House submitted its final version of the rescissions bill less than 48
hours ago. We have had no hearings, no markups, or even any debate at
all on this bill in the Appropriations Committee, and we are
considering it with no opportunity to debate the merits of each of
these rescissions on their own.
Mr. Speaker, this is not regular order, and, frankly, it is no way to
make such a consequential decision.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, instead of rubber-stamping President Trump's
rescissions package, Congress should conduct rigorous oversight to
determine why the Trump-Pence administration has not spent these funds,
even as they misspend tax dollars on first-class flights, fountain
pens, and luxury dining sets.
Spending cuts that hurt American families should be carefully
considered, not rushed through to score political points or help the
majority's whip count on other bills. I urge Members to vote ``no.''
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), the chairman of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3,
the Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary Programs Act.
We must always be careful stewards of the taxpayers' hard-earned
money. That is why I was proud to sign on as an original cosponsor of
President Trump's rescission package.
As a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, I
understand more than most that President Trump's proposal rescinding
nearly $15 billion is necessary.
It is common sense that money sitting in Federal coffers and not
being spent should be returned to the Treasury. This bill is a welcome
step to cut wasteful spending and will restore fiscal sanity to
Washington.
Importantly, the rescissions package on the floor today no longer
rescinds Ebola funding. Sadly, that horrible disease has recently
returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It also no longer
rescinds funding for Hurricane Sandy victims.
I hope the Senate will pass this bill as soon as possible so that the
President can sign these historic spending cuts into law. I urge all
Members to support this commonsense proposal.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Bishop), the ranking member of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Agriculture.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the proposed
rescission package, the so-called Spending Cuts to Expired and
Unnecessary Programs Act.
I do not think these are unnecessary programs. They are vital
programs, and our rural communities all across America rely upon them.
For example, the administration is proposing a rescission of $37
million to the Rural Development Water and Waste Disposal Loan and
Grant Program at USDA. This program provides funding for clean and
reliable drinking water systems, sanitary sewage disposal, sanitary
solid waste disposal, and stormwater drainage to households and
businesses in rural areas.
With all due respect, that does not seem unnecessary to me. In fact,
we in Congress provided a special appropriation of $500 million for
this program in fiscal year 2017, in addition to regular program funds,
to begin to address the backlog in this program.

Even after the 2017 bill was enacted, the National Rural Water
Association estimated there was a remaining backlog of more than $2
billion. This rescission will only push us back down the hill in our
efforts to address the needs for clean water and wastewater disposal in
rural areas.
This package also takes away nearly $15 million from the Value-Added
Agricultural Product Market Development

[[Page H4875]]

Grant program; $40 million from the Rural Housing Service rental
assistance program; $14.7 million from the Rural Cooperative
Development Grant program; and $147 million from the Farm and Ranch
Lands Protection Program. And that just names a few. There are even
more cuts across agriculture, rural development, energy, and
conservation programs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, in total, the rescission is more
than $15 billion. I cannot emphasize enough how much this bill will
hurt our farmers, our ranchers, and all those who live in rural
America.
I ask my colleagues to join me in standing up for rural communities
by rejecting this unconscionable rescission bill.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the chairman of the Labor,
Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee
on Appropriations.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.
Originally, I have to say, I was skeptical when the administration
raised the idea of rescissions, not because I am against saving money--
I think we need to do a lot more of that around here--but because I
thought this might undo the bipartisan agreement that the
administration and our leadership had negotiated.
Frankly, this bill does nothing of the kind. And I want to compliment
the President and OMB Director Mick Mulvaney, our former colleague, for
using a tool that has not been used in 20 years. They did the right
thing. They did it in the right way.
This is the largest rescission package ever in the history of
Congress. It will save almost $15 billion. But where are those savings
coming from? They are coming from funds that we, frankly, didn't use or
we overappropriated.
My friends talk a lot about CHIP. The authorization for $5 billion of
that money ran out. You can't even legally spend it. Why would you
leave it in the account?
Another $2 billion is taken from an account for when States go beyond
their spending limits. We have never spent more than $350 million of
that money, and we actually left $500 million in the account. Why not
reclaim the savings and return them to the Treasury?
You can go on and on.
There was $4.3 billion for the Advanced Technology Vehicles
Manufacturing Loan Program that nobody has applied for or has not been
used since 2011.
Again, there is example after example. It is a wise thing to reclaim
unused money and spending authority and return it to the Treasury of
the United States.
I am very proud to cosponsor the legislation. I am very supportive of
it and would urge its passage.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Ryan), the ranking member of the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Subcommittee.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman.
I have a lot of respect for my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle. I do wonder sometimes if we are living in the same country,
because when I look at a package like this, I look at the general
philosophy over the course of the last year and a half, with the tax
cuts that will at the end of the day cost our country $2.3 trillion--
that money we are borrowing.
And we are going to borrow a lot of that money from China, Mr.
Speaker. And they are going to get interest on that money, and China is
reinvesting back into their country. They are building islands in the
South China Sea. They are building bases in Africa. They are making
investments in wind, solar, battery-powered cars, AI, additive
manufacturing. They are moving and shaking around the globe.
And we gave a $2.3 trillion tax cut, which we saw just last month
$200 billion of it went for stock buybacks. Apple got it, put $100
billion back into stock buybacks.
Who is investing in this country now? That is the main issue that we
are talking about--yes, battery-powered cars; yes, Economic Development
Administration; yes, rural issues that the gentleman from Georgia just
talked about.
College costs are going up. We need more STEM people graduating from
our colleges. We are not a healthy country. And in this bill we are
going to take kids off of their healthcare, disinvestment in economic
development. And our country is getting left behind the global economy.
You could talk about low unemployment all you want. The anxiety level
in our country has not gone down. You could talk about the stock market
all you want. Sixty-six percent of the people in this country make less
than $40,000 a year.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. RYAN of OHIO. Mr. Speaker, we have 50-some percent of the people
in this country who can't withstand a $500 emergency.
Our pension system is collapsing. Our financial aid system is
collapsing.
We have got to make a decision to reinvest back in this country. And
the Republican leadership here is disinvesting in the United States. We
are seeing it with the stock buybacks, we are seeing it with the tax
cut, and now we are seeing it with the rescissions package.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves), the chairman of the Financial
Services and General Government Subcommittee on Appropriations.
Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the majority
leader, Mr. McCarthy, for his leadership in shepherding the largest
spending-cut package through the House on behalf of President Trump.

{time} 1445

This is a remarkable package.
Getting back to the topic at hand, this is about taking back money,
or rescinding money, that will not be spent, $15 billion of unnecessary
spending. This is an important step to getting our fiscal house in
order.
Now, I note that every dollar in this package either can't or won't
be spent at all. Regardless of what you might hear from the other side
of the aisle, this is money that just will not be spent for the
purposes for which it was originally budgeted.
Now, when I think about where we are today and I think about this
package and I hear the arguments that just preceded mine, I don't
understand why they wouldn't support saving some additional money and
putting a downpayment here on our deficit.
For example, this bill cuts $4.3 billion from the Advanced Technology
Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, which has only made five loans--
that is five--since 2007 and has been untouched since 2011. That is 7
years ago. It is a dormant fund with $4 billion in it, but the other
side rejects taking that back and using it elsewhere.
This is just good government; rescinding these funds is good
government. And it is a signal to the American people that President
Trump and congressional Republicans are serious about getting our house
in order and protecting our kids and our grandkids from this
unsustainable and out-of-control national debt.
To that point, another step we are taking with the President's
example in leadership here today is a fund we have created in the
Financial Services bill, in which I chair. It is a fund for America's
kids and grandkids, and we are putting additional savings in it. We
have put $585 million into this fund. It is a 2\1/2\ percent cut from
our spending level.
We are sending a signal to the American people that just because we
can spend it doesn't mean we have to spend it. So, today, here, with
this $15 billion and what we are doing here in the next couple of
weeks, I look forward to getting my bill across as well and continuing
on the progress we have here today.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the Democratic whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, first, let me say I heard the gentleman from

[[Page H4876]]

Georgia's argument that this money wasn't needed. I heard that argument
a month ago; Ebola money was not needed. Guess what? Ebola money was
needed.
I rise in opposition to this rescission bill, Mr. Speaker, which I
think is a sham, period. It is a shameless attempt by the majority to
gloss over the tremendous deficits that have been incurred by its tax
law.
Republicans are hoping they can fool the American people with a
pretense of phony fiscal responsibility, but the American people can
see right through it. They can see more than $1 trillion a year in
deficits for the next decade and a future for our children and
grandchildren mired in debt. And for what? To give tax breaks to the
wealthiest while raising taxes on many in the middle class.
We have before us, Mr. Speaker, a bill that the majority hopes will
make it appear fiscally responsible. But the CBO says it would just
save over $1 billion. Now, that is a lot of money, but guess what? In
the next bill, without any committee hearing, the majority has added $1
billion. So they have already spent their savings of outlays of $1
billion.
The CBO says that it would save just over that amount, compared to
the $1.8 trillion deficits that Republicans incurred with their tax
laws. I wonder if the majority intends to bring another 1,800 bills to
this floor just like this one, because that is what it would take to
make up for the tax bill they passed without a single hearing and
without any citizens having the opportunity to testify.
In fact, this bill rescinds less funding than Republicans just added,
as I just said, to their Military Construction bill without a single
vote being cast in the full Appropriations Committee, Mr. Speaker.
But this bill is also dangerous and irresponsible for another reason.
It is based on the glib assertion that these funds will never be used
and no one will be hurt if they are taken away. But we have already
seen that to be a false promise.
The previous package, as I just said, cut funding to combat Ebola. I
was told by the majority leader that we don't need those funds, which
Republicans, however, now admit is very necessary to protect public
health.
The same goes for children's health, I would suggest to you. Just
because we haven't used these funds yet does not mean they won't be
needed. It is a contingency to make sure that children aren't left out
in the cold.
Oppose this rescission package.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), who is the chairman of the Budget
Committee.
Mr. WOMACK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this commonsense request from
President Trump to responsibly rein in wasteful government spending.
While the budgetary rescissions tool has not been utilized by the
White House for some time, the President's decision to use this
approach today should be commended. It importantly sheds light on the
need for fiscal responsibility. The amount of this proposed rescission
should also help us scale the challenge that is before us.
Today, Mr. Speaker, the Nation's debt is in excess of $21 trillion.
And that is not a stagnant figure; it is rapidly growing. It has grown
in the short time that I have been at this microphone. This process
helps us in Congress confront wasteful spending and draw back unspent
funds on the discretionary side of our budget.
However, in order to slow down spending and actually have a chance at
paying down any debt, we have to acknowledge what is actually driving
the majority of this spending.

For years, Mr. Speaker, spending on mandatory programs has been on
autopilot. It grows unchecked every year. Unsurprisingly, mandatory
spending, including interest on the national debt, comprises the
largest share of Federal spending.
It might surprise a lot of people who listen to this program or read
these remarks that, in the pie of Federal spending, mandatory spending
accounts for 70 percent of that amount. Without reform, in the next 10
years, it will grow to nearly 80 percent of all Federal spending.
Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker: There is a critical need for mandatory
programs and the benefits they provide for vulnerable people. But
unless we come up with real solutions, safety net programs like Social
Security and Medicare will cease to exist.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Arkansas
an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. WOMACK. So programs like Social Security and Medicare that people
rely on now and those that they will rely on in the future will see
those benefits quickly dwindle, CBO says, as early as 2026.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this modest effort on
the discretionary side, but I caution that a sustainable and prosperous
fiscal future is contingent on addressing the mandatory side of
spending. The longer Congress takes, the more difficult those decisions
will be.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), who is the ranking member of the
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3 today,
particularly because it is incredibly deceptive. The Trump-GOP
rescissions measure manages to have Republicans bundle their most
damaging and misguided budget priorities into one badly flawed bill.
For starters, the deception includes the ludicrous notion that all
the money that is being repealed and pulled back wouldn't be used
otherwise.
This bill eliminates billions of dollars in funding for children's
health insurance, which will prevent Congress from making smart,
compassionate reinvestments in biomedical research and other child and
maternal community health programs, which we could do if this bill were
not here on the floor being forced down our throats.
What is worse is this bill cuts job creation funds while millions of
families in rural and distressed communities struggle to make ends
meet.
But this reckless rescission stunt doesn't stop there. It includes
additional cuts to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation and
cuts badly needed funds for rural water programs.
Just to prove that no sector is spared, it also cuts transportation
improvements in rural Appalachia and national and community service
programs, as well as funding for energy efficiency and advanced
technology loan programs that we know are surefire job creators.
Neglecting these health, energy, and job needs is a policy failure on
all fronts.
This rescissions bill ignores families struggling to put food on the
table tonight. It neglects to make smart reinvestments that would
benefit workers and taxpayers in the coming months and years ahead. And
it shamelessly pretends to put this Nation's fiscal house in order,
while still leaving future generations saddled with crushing debt.
It is rich that Republicans are suggesting that they are protectors
of our deficit when they pushed through into law a tax scam bill that
added more than $1.5 trillion to our annual deficits and that gives
massive handouts to corporations and the wealthy.
Budgets are a financial expression of our values, and this Trump
rescissions bill just confirms that Republicans care more about the
wealthiest among us while the rest of America must fend for itself.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Walden), who is the chairman of the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I was in small business for 21 years. My
wife and I were small-business owners and operators and had to meet a
bottom line and pay the bills and all. I know our Speaker was in the
accounting world. To me, this is basic accounting and a small business
sort of set of principles.
You have money there that can't be spent because it is no longer
authorized to be spent. Much of it is being just accumulated. And then
somebody comes

[[Page H4877]]

in the backdoor and maybe tries to grab a little here and there and
spend it on things it is not authorized for or whatever.
But the long and the short of it is that I can speak specifically to
the Children's Health Insurance Program, because I have been a big
advocate for it. I have voted for it every time it has been up.
As chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I led the effort to
not only fully fund children's health insurance for 5 years, but then
we were able to do it for 6 years. And, at the end, the package that
was sent down to President Trump that he signed into law fully funded
children's health insurance for 10 years. That is double the length of
time that had ever been done before.
In my own State, that is 122,700 children and moms who are going to
get coverage for health insurance. There is now certainty in this
program, more than in its entire history--double the certainty.
So that resulted in some funds that were left behind that have been
used when we get up against these cliffs and States maybe had
overpayments here or there. They needed all this sort of emergency
funding, and then there were some other programs, none of which is
needed now because we brought certainty to the Children's Health
Insurance Program, the longest extension in its history--10 years.
So the authority to use some of these funds expired last year. The
authority expired last year. You can't spend it. The remainder of these
funds simply aren't necessary, and they sit unused in a contingency
fund that has an ample balance.

There has been a question about would this affect enrollment, would
this affect beneficiaries. We asked the nonpartisan Congressional
Budget Office that question, and they said, ``CBO estimates that
rescinding the unobligated balances would reduce the budget authority
by $7 billion but would not affect outlays or the number of individuals
with insurance coverage.''
They also say that it does not affect what happens with the States.
That is because we did our work. We did our work. Republicans led on
this issue time and again. And it is now law. So the Children's Health
Insurance Program is fully funded, and kids will have access to
insurance and other coverage that extends 10 years.
So what we are doing here is taking surplus money that can't be spent
on these programs anymore and is not authorized to be spent on these
programs anymore and applying it toward deficit reduction. The lifeline
remains strong under this rescissions program. This is just good
business practices, and I think it is really important to do.
By the way, the other Republican proposals we have passed in this
House have resulted in one of the strongest economies in modern history
and 1 million new jobs since the tax cuts took effect.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good process. This is fiscally responsible. I
urge passage.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), who is a member of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the cuts to programs for
working families that House Republicans seek to pass today.
Earlier this year, Congress did something responsible when it
rejected President Trump's budget request to make devastating cuts to
programs on which many Americans rely. Congress came together to make
an investment in American communities and solve some pressing issues
with an agreement by Democrats and Republicans.
However, these cuts today suddenly go back on that agreement, with a
rescissions package that will hurt working families--all because they
are saying that government is spending too much money.
Republicans caused that problem last year when they were grossly
irresponsible and passed the GOP tax scam, a multitrillion-dollar
giveaway to their donors, billionaires, and big corporations that they
falsely sold as middle-class tax relief.
The majority's decision to blow a hole in the deficit and balloon our
Nation's debt did very little to benefit working families, with 83
percent of the benefits going to the top 1 percent.

{time} 1500

The Republican rescissions package will hurt the American people and
make $7 billion in cuts to children's health insurance, $800 million in
cuts to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, and $40
million to rural housing programs, just to name a few.
While GOP donors, millionaires, billionaires, big corporations, and
members of Mar-a-Lago still get their gift of tax cuts in the GOP tax
scam, Republicans are committed to taking away what little they gave
hardworking American families. That is apparently the priority of the
majority Republican Party today. With actions like this, they will
likely be the minority party of tomorrow.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader of the House.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
We are approaching the end of spring, but there is still enough time
for a good spring cleaning. For families, that may mean doing yard
work, cleaning out a closet, or maybe even giving unused items to
charity. For Congress, it means tackling long-overdue budgetary spring
cleaning.
There are billions and billions of taxpayer dollars originally set up
to fund different programs and projects that cannot or will not be used
for their intended purpose. Tonight, the House will do something about
it. We will take a first step in cleaning up the Federal Government's
accounts by voting on the Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary
Programs Act.
We aren't talking about taking spare change here. We are talking
about something more than just that. Tonight, we have the opportunity
to return $15 billion, with a B, to the Treasury.
As Members, we are charged with being good stewards of taxpayer
money. Mr. Speaker, it is a responsibility we all have and claimed on
this floor many times. It shouldn't be a partisan exercise.
Historically, it hasn't been.
Mr. Speaker, you can look at many Members who have been here for
quite some time. Congress accepted 214 of Ronald Reagan's rescissions.
The majority party on the floor was different than it is today. It
accepted 111 of Bill Clinton's rescissions.
President Trump's spending cut request is a straightforward and smart
way to trim a bloated Federal budget.
So, where do these savings come from, I know many of you might ask.
Have you ever heard of the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing
Loan Program? It is an Obama-era subsidy program to green-car companies
like Fisker Automotive, which defaulted on its $192 million loan. Just
think Solyndra, but for luxury cars. This failed subsidy program hasn't
issued a loan since 2011. Mr. Speaker, that is 7 years ago. Yet, it has
$4.33 billion sitting unused in an account.
Can any Member think of a good reason why that money should continue
sitting in that account, where it cannot and will not be used or just
be wasted on another non-related government program?
I would really love to hear the reason, but I doubt one will be
coming.
So, what else does this bill clean up?
It also brings back expired funds from CHIP. Before anyone claims
Republicans are cutting CHIP funding, which is children's health
insurance, Mr. Speaker, we debated this on the floor many times this
year where one side of the aisle, the majority, passed it. Not only did
they pass it while the other side in the minority, Mr. Speaker, voted
against it, we passed it and made history.
How did we make history?
We signed the longest reauthorization of CHIP, guaranteeing its
funding for 10 years, a full decade. A full decade, Mr. Speaker,
Members of this floor had the opportunity to vote for it.
Unfortunately, it wasn't one time, Mr. Speaker, that the other side
voted no, and it wasn't just two times.
But, thankfully, Mr. Speaker, for all the children across America
that use this program, Republicans were able to reauthorize it for 10
years--a decade--the longest ever. Republicans have made sure that CHIP
isn't going anywhere. We have removed any uncertainty about the
stability of the funding of that program.

[[Page H4878]]

The funds we are rescinding tonight were appropriated long ago and
will not be used for their intended purpose now. In fact, Mr. Speaker,
Democrats voted to rescind those exact CHIP funds just 2 months ago.
They know they can't be used for their intended purpose.
I would like to remind my colleagues that the minority whip said he
would not oppose ``money laying in an account that has not been spent
for 1, 2, 3 years.'' He even called it ``a reasonable thing to do.''
So instead of partisan rhetoric and doomsday speeches, let's see this
bill for what it really is: a smart approach to cleaning up unused
accounts in the Federal budget, which has been done many times before
under President Clinton and President Reagan.
Before tonight's vote, each and every Member of the House should
consider this question: If this body cannot be trusted to reclaim money
that will not or cannot be used for its intended purpose, can we really
be trusted to save money anywhere else?
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of
opposition from First Focus Campaign for Children, the National
Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Committee for Education Funding,
National Housing Conference, Service Employees International Union,
faith organizations, and other national organizations.

First Focus Campaign for Children,

Washington, DC, June 7, 2018.
Dear Representative: I am writing on behalf of First Focus
Campaign for Children, a bipartisan national organization
dedicated to improving the health and well-being of our
nation's children, to express our strong opposition to H.R.
3, the so-called ``Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary
Programs Act.''
Unfortunately, the proposed rescission of $15 billion in
spending authority included in H.R. 3 targets children in
about half of all the cuts. Moreover, of all the thousands of
programs in hundreds of departments and agencies across the
federal government, the Children's Health Insurance Program
(CHIP), which just went through a nearly two-year
reauthorization process that was finally passed more than
four months past its expiration date, is targeted for more
than $7 billion of the proposed cuts.
Over the two-decade history of CHIP, it has--in tandem with
Medicaid and private health insurance--cut the uninsured rate
for children by more than two-thirds. During this recent
reauthorization process, a nationwide poll conducted by the
Kaiser Family Foundation found that 88 percent of Americans
felt that Congress should make the extension of CHIP funding
a top priority. The program has always had strong bipartisan
support, as it did this year.
CHIP is financed as a block grant, which means that its
funding is arbitrarily capped and fails to adjust to changes
in unforeseen or unanticipated need, such as economic
recessions, epidemics, changes in funding to the program to
improve access to care, or natural disasters. Consequently,
in the early years of CHIP, the program faced some difficult
moments whereby some states imposed waiting lists and
enrollment freezes when federal funding failed to meet the
needs of children. Those indefinite waiting lists and
enrollment freezes were imposed without regard to disability
or need, including children with cancer, cystic fibrosis,
severe asthma, and other life-threatening or severe
conditions.
In recognition of the fact that waiting periods and
enrollment freezes were threatening the lives and well-being
of children, Congress revamped CHIP's financing in a number
of ways, including the creation of CHIP's Child Enrollment
Contingency Fund in 2009. The CHIP contingency fund is set at
20 percent of overall CHIP spending and acts as a critically
important backstop that protects against unforeseen or
unanticipated federal funding shortfalls that threaten the
health of children.
During the lengthy two-year most recent bipartisan
reauthorization of CHIP that culminated in a six-year
extension and a subsequent addition of four more years for a
total of 10 years, there was no discussion or debate about
changing the CHIP Child Enrollment Contingency Fund, as it
has worked to protect the health of children. And yet, the
Administration is now proposing and Congress is considering
H.R. 3, which would slash the CHIP contingency fund by $1.9
billion, or nearly 80 percent, and undermine its very
purpose.
In making this proposal that targets CHIP for the bulk of
its proposed cuts, the Administration argues that the
contingency fund ``will likely not be spent'' and points to
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score that the cut
doesn't save any money as confirmation that it probably won't
be harmful to children. And yet, during the lengthy CHIP
reauthorization process, the Administration never proposed
slashing the Child Enrollment Contingency Fund from 20
percent of the allotments to just 3-4 percent, as the
rescission would do.
Even worse, the proposed rescission of the contingency fund
fundamentally fails to understand the very purpose of a
contingency that, by definition, is ``a future event or
circumstance that is possible but cannot be predicted with
certainty.'' Neither the Administration nor CBO can guarantee
that there will not be an economic recession, a health
epidemic like Zika, or a natural disaster, which are all more
likely during the forthcoming summer months. In fact, CBO
doesn't ``score'' such events for that very reason.
As a result, the proposed rescission or raid of the CHIP
contingency fund by $1.9 billion, or 80 percent, undermines
the very reason for the fund, which is to protect the health
coverage of children against unanticipated or unforeseen
circumstances, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, or even
Hawaii's currently unanticipated erupting volcano.
Another critically important point to make is that the
proposed rescission to the CHIP Child Enrollment Contingency
Fund would not save money. The contingency fund is set at 20
percent of the overall CHIP allotment each year, so any money
raided from the fund this year is automatically restored in
the following year. In other words, over a two-year period,
this proposed rescission would not save a single penny
because any money raided from the contingency fund this year
would be restored in the following year.
Consequently, the only effect of the proposed $1.9 billion
rescission the CHIP contingency fund would be to needlessly
put the health and well-being of our nation's children at
risk. In other words, H.R. 3 unnecessarily gambles with the
health of our children under the guise that there probably
won't be unanticipated or unforeseen events that might cause
a state or states to need to tap into the contingency fund.
It is also important to point out that the CHIP extensions,
including the CHIP contingency fund, that were passed just a
few months ago were fully paid for. In fact, according to
CBO, the CHIP reauthorization saved billions of dollars.
Therefore, CHIP should not be the target of a rescission
package, and yet, it shockingly accounts for 46 percent or
almost half of all the proposed reductions in H.R. 3.
For these reasons, we stand with more than 500 other
national, state, and local organizations from across the
country that wrote a letter to Congress in opposition to the
CHIP cuts proposed in H.R. 3. As the letter reads, ``The nine
million children and families who depend on CHIP have already
faced months of uncertainty, when its funding expired before
Congress took long-overdue action to extend CHIP funding for
ten years. After breathing a short sigh of relief, however,
the long-term stability and protection these families fought
to ensure is once again in jeopardy. Our organizations urge
you to protect children and families, and to reject any
proposed cuts to the Children's Health Insurance Program.''
Sincerely,
Bruce Lesley,
President.
____

Oppose Attempt to Raid the Farm Bill Through Rescissions

Dear Christian: With the introduction of rescission
legislation in both the House and Senate, the National
Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) urges your office to
oppose any effort to bring rescission legislation to a vote,
and to vote no if such a vote occurs.
If the rescission package were to become law it would
devastate farm bill conservation and rural development
programs. The package, as proposed, would eliminate
previously appropriated funding for the Value Added Producer
Grant (VAPG) program and cut over $650 million from farm bill
conservation programs.
The rescissions proposal would strip funding from three
different conservation assistance areas: the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Wetlands Reserve Program
(WRP), and emergency watershed and flood protection programs,
preventing USDA from entering into contracts to support
farmer conservation efforts. Cuts to these programs would
mean fewer voluntary conservation opportunities for farmers
and ranchers who are seeking to improve their operations and
be stewards of the land. Farm, conservation, and wildlife
organizations across the country voiced strong opposition to
the proposed conservation cuts.
The proposal to eliminate $15 million from the VAPG program
would mean that USDA is able to fund just a fraction of the
379 currently pending applications for business planning and
development grants. A recent Economic Research Service report
found that VAPG is facilitating job creation and long-term
business survivability in rural America. Cuts to the program
would mean less economic growth and fewer enterprise
development opportunities for farmers and ranchers around the
country.
For more information on how farmers and rural communities
would be impacted by this rescission package, please see our
recent blog on the topic.
Sincerely,

Greg Fogel,

Policy Director,
National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

[[Page H4879]]

____
Committee for

Education Funding,

Washington, DC, May 14, 2018.
Hon. Richard Shelby,
Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Rodney Frelinghuysen,
Chairman, House Appropriations Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairmen Shelby and Frelinghuysen: On behalf of the
110 national education organizations and institutions that
are members of the Committee for Education Funding (CEF), we
write to urge you to reject the Administration's proposal to
rescind $15.4 billion that Congress has already approved. The
rescission package will cut $7 billion that would otherwise
be available for education programs and other services funded
through the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2019. The rescission package also rescinds
funding for educational awards for AmeriCorps volunteers who
have completed their terms of service. CEF is also very
concerned that the Administration has announced its intention
to submit additional proposals to rescind funding Congress
just enacted for fiscal year 2018, undermining bipartisan
support to make and keep its agreement to raise the level of
non-defense discretionary funding.
Congress and the Administration approved increases in the spending
caps for fiscal years 2018 and 2019 with the understanding of the needs
facing the nation and with the intention to use the available resources
to meet them. Congress regularly rescinds funding that is not
ultimately needed for the programs it has enacted, and then reinvests
the savings in other programs serving similar needs in the same funding
bill. Enacting large rescissions outside of the regular appropriations
process--one that is well underway already for fiscal year 2019--not
only reduces the resources available to appropriators but also reduces
flexibility to reprogram funding as needed.
CEF, the nation's oldest and largest education coalition, is a non-
partisan organization reflecting the entire continuum of the education
community. Our long-term ``5 cents Makes Sense'' campaign supports the
goal of increasing education investments from the current two percent
of the federal budget to five cents on the federal dollar. CEF urges
Congress to reject proposals to rescind funding provided through
bipartisan negotiations, and to instead continue efforts to wisely
invest resources where they are most needed, including for education
programs, which are still below the fiscal year 2011 level when
adjusted for inflation.
Sincerely,
Jeff Carter,
President.
Sheryl Cohen,
Executive Director.
____

National Housing Conference,

Washington, DC, May 21, 2018.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles Schumer,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer,
Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: The National Housing
Conference and the undersigned organizations write to you to
express our strong opposition to the rescission proposal from
the White House and Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The package requests over $234 million in rescissions from
housing and community development programs including the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Public
Housing Capital Fund, the U.S. Department of the Treasury's
(Treasury) Capital Magnet Fund and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) Rental Assistance program and Rural
Community Facilities program.
According to a recent HUD study, the public housing capital
backlog reached $26 billion in 2010 and has grown by
approximately $3.4 billion per year. Assuming a continued
growth of $3.4 billion per year, the current estimated
capital backlog is over $50 billion. Public housing capital
funds are awarded slowly as contracts are negotiated and work
is completed. Public housing agencies are able to save their
capital funds over three years in order to pay for more
expensive projects like new roofs that they would otherwise
not be able to afford from a single year's allocation. The
rescission would also impact funding for Resident
Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency grants and the Jobs-Plus
grants, including a complete elimination of all Jobs-Plus
grants for FY 2017. These are critical grant programs that
allow residents of public housing to work toward increased
self-sufficiency, something in which the administration has
expressed great interest. Rescinding over $31 million from a
program with such dire needs jeopardizes the initial
investment made by taxpayers to build public housing as well
as the residents who live in public housing. Ultimately, it
is ``penny-wise, pound-foolish.''
Treasury's Capital Magnet Fund has a proven track record of
success. The 2010 awardees of the Capital Magnet Fund
leveraged over $20 for every $1 of public funding to create
more than 13,300 affordable homes, far beyond the required
10.1 leverage ratio. The Capital Magnet Fund is funded
through a fee assessed on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
business, not taxpayer dollars. The $151 million proposed for
rescission was only made available to the Treasury on May 1,
2018, and will most likely be spent before the end of the
calendar year, providing it is not rescinded. The Capital
Magnet Fund has created thousands of jobs and provides much-
needed affordable housing throughout the country.
USDA's Rental Assistance and Rural Community Facilities
programs provide access to housing and essential community
facilities such as police stations and medical clinics.
Combined, the administration proposes rescinding $31 million
from these accounts. Through a public-private partnership
with landlords, USDA's rental assistance funding ensures that
low-income renters in rural America have access to an
affordable home. The FY 2017 spending bill specifically
appropriated $40 million to be spent in FY 2018. The
patchwork of continuing resolutions that Congress has passed
to fund the federal government has made it difficult for USDA
to renew contracts with private landlords in the rental
assistance program. In response, Congress has decided to
future fund the account to help alleviate the contract
renewal process. OMB cites the fact that as of the beginning
of FY 2018 on October 1, 2017, there was $40 million left in
the account. It is premature, at best to determine as of
October 1, 2017, that those funds have gone unspent and are
therefore unneeded.
The proposed rescissions will do little to reduce the
national debt while doing significant damage to people and
communities throughout America. We ask that you reject the
proposed rescissions from these programs and to do so in a
timely manner so that the agencies can continue to manage
their budgets responsibly. If Congress does not vote to
reject the rescissions, these accounts will be frozen for 45
legislative days, which will create damaging disruptions well
into the fall.
Sincerely,
AHC, Inc.; American Association of Service Coordinators;
Atlanta Neighborhood Development Partnership, Inc.; Bodaken &
Associates; Charleston Housing Authority; Cinnaire; Citizen
Potawatomi Community Development Corporation; Citizens'
Housing and Planning Association; Clarksville Housing
Authority, Arkansas; Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in
Ohio; Consumer Mortgage Coalition; Cook County, Illinois;
County of Butler, Pennsylvania; Crowell Housing Authority,
Texas; Curtis + Ginsberg Architects LLP; Dover Housing
Authority, Arkansas; Economic Mobility Pathways, Inc.;
Enterprise Community Partners; Habitat for Humanity
International; Habitat for Humanity of Champaign County,
Illinois.
HAI Group; Housing Development Corporation MidAtlantic;
Housing Assistance Council; Housing Authority of Cook County,
Illinois; Housing Authority of Indiana County, Pennsylvania;
Housing Authority of St. Mary's County, Maryland; Housing
Authority of the City of Brownsville, Texas; Housing
Authority of the City of Columbia, Missouri; Housing
Authority of the County of Beaver, Pennsylvania; Housing
Authority of the County of Warren, Pennsylvania; Housing
Merit; Housing Partnership Network; IDP Housing, LP; Janis
Smith Executive Communications, LLC; Jo Daviess County
Housing Authority, Illinois; Lemle & Wolff, Inc.; Leviticus
Fund; LINC Housing Corporation; Local Initiatives Support
Corporation; Make Room.
National Affordable Housing Management Association;
National Association of Affordable Housing Lenders; National
Development Council; National Housing Conference; National
Housing and Rehabilitation Association; National Housing
Trust; Network for Oregon Affordable Housing; New York
Housing Conference; New York State Rural Housing Coalition,
Inc.; Opportunity Finance Network; Pennsylvania Association
of Housing & Redevelopment Agencies; Piedmont Housing
Alliance; Prosperity Indiana; Public And Affordable Housing
Research Corporation; Public Housing Authorities Directors
Association.
Philadelphia Housing Authority; Preservation of Affordable
Housing, Inc.; Rebuilding Together, Inc.; Redevelopment
Authority of Somerset County, Pennsylvania; Rural Ulster
Preservation Company; Seasoned Partners; Selfhelp Community
Services; Somerset Development Company; Springfield Housing
Authority, Illinois; Stewards of Affordable Housing for the
Future; The Community Builders; University Neighborhood
Housing Program; Wilkes-Barre Housing Authority,
Pennsylvania; York Housing Authority, Pennsylvania.

[[Page H4880]]

SEIU,

Washington, DC, June 7, 2018.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 2 million members of
the Service Employees International Union (``SEIU''), I write
to oppose H.R. 3, the legislation that would violate the bi-
partisan funding agreement and compromise reached as part of
the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018. In what appears to be a
continuing escalation of a war on families and children by
the Administration and Congressional Republicans, H.R. 3 will
result in cuts in investments in health, housing, job, and
other supportive services that are vital to our communities
around the country. Perhaps most disturbing is that this
package raids funding that could be used to provide health
and other essentials for working families and children in the
name of so-called ``fiscal responsibility,'' even though
those supporting these cuts passed a $1.5 trillion tax cut
that mostly benefits corporations and the wealthy.
A significant portion of the cuts included in H.R. 3 are
from the Children's Health Insurance Program (``CHIP''),
which helps kids get the healthcare they need. Some of these
funds make sure that states have enough resources to provide
care in case of emergencies that may create increased CHIP
enrollment; for example, natural disasters--like hurricanes,
wildfires, and volcanic eruptions--economic downturns, public
health epidemics or other unexpected events. In addition, the
funding in question also supports investments in other
services and programs that are vital to our local
communities' economies and social infrastructure.
Furthermore, H.R. 3 eliminates $800 million from the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (``CMMI''), which is
tasked with developing models that improve the quality of
care for Americans, undermining efforts to improve systematic
efficiencies without harming patients.
Unfortunately, it is not surprising that a Congress and
Administration so intent on sabotaging US healthcare is now
trying to use money designated for health and other supports
for our communities to offset the windfall for corporations
included in the tax bill. In addition, this bill breaks the
agreement reached in the Bi-partisan Budget Act. If those in
Congress cannot trust the promises and agreements they make
to each other and break the commitments that they make to
Americans, it is no wonder that the public has such low
confidence in the institution. Americans have been demanding
that Congress work together across party lines, and after
passing a landmark budget agreement with both Republican and
Democratic support, some have retreated to partisan-driven
policy making. H.R. 3 demonstrates that the Administration
and congressional leadership are unable to negotiate in good
faith, putting at risk future deal making and potentially
bringing our legislative system to a standstill at the
expense of our futures.
For these reasons, we urge you to oppose H.R. 3. We may add
votes on this legislation to our legislative scorecard.
Sincerely,
John Gray,
Legislative Director.
____

June 6, 2018.
Dear Representative DeLauro: We, the undersigned 18
organizations, representing various religious denominations,
urge you to vote NO on H.R. 3, the Spending Cuts to Expired
and Unnecessary Programs Act. As currently written, this
measure contains a harmful provision that would rescind $7
billion in funding for the Children's Health Insurance
Program (``CHIP''). As people of faith we believe that
healthcare is a human right and that care for children is a
sacred responsibility. If enacted, this rescission to CHIP
would threaten the health and well-being of the 9 million
children who utilize the program every year.
We are especially concerned with the $2 billion in cut, to
the CHIP contingency fund. This fund has consistently been
used in times of economic downturn, natural disaster, and
other uncertain times to ensure that children can have access
to healthcare. More recently, the fund was used when Congress
was unable to pass a CHIP funding bill before individual
state funding for the program ran out. If this fund was not
available during the reauthorization process last year,
thousands of children would have lost healthcare while
Congress failed to act. Congress should not take away this
vital security measure for the health of our children.
Recent Congressional action to pass a 10-year extension of
CHIP was a major success for the 115th Congress, but this
risky rescission could undercut the program and undermine
this success. CHIP, as it is currently funded, is projected
to decrease the deficit by $6 billion over 10 years. The
health of our children is too important to be used as
additional means to pay down the deficit. It is especially
relevant to protect our children from additional cuts after
the passage of the tax bill provided enormous benefits to the
wealthy and large corporations while adding over $1.7
trillion to the deficit. Children must not pay for the
enrichment of the wealthiest in our nation.
CHIP has enjoyed bipartisan support and success for more
than 20 years. It has proven to be an effective investment in
the health of our children and should be protected and
supported. Our faith traditions teach us to protect the most
vulnerable people, especially children. We believe that a
rescissions package that threatens to take healthcare away
from children does not live up to our moral obligation. We
urge you reject and refuse a vote on H.R. 3, until and unless
these harmful CHIP cuts are removed.
Sincerely,
American Muslim Health Professionals; Congregation of Our
Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, US Provinces;
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Faith in Public Life;
Franciscan Action Network; Hadassah, The Women's Zionist
Organization of America, Inc.; Interfaith Worker Justice;
National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd;
National Council of Churches; National Council of Jewish
Women; NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice; Poligon
Education Fund; Religious Institute; Union for Reform
Judaism; Unitarian Universalist Association; Unitarian
Universalists for Social Justice; Unitarian Universalist
Women's Federation; United Methodist Church--General Board of
Church and Society.

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on Education
and the Workforce.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 6 months ago, Congress passed a
tax cut that cost almost $2 trillion that overwhelmingly benefited
corporations and the wealthy. Today, the Republicans are asking
struggling children and families to foot the bill.
Nearly half of the $15 billion in cuts in the Trump-GOP recessions
package targets the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. While
$7 billion may be a rounding error in the corporate tax cut,
eliminating this funding from CHIP will jeopardize its ability to
ensure access to healthcare for the children and families who depend on
the program every year.
The bill contains an 80 percent cut to the CHIP contingency fund.
That is particularly shortsighted and dangerous. The need for
healthcare assistance is greatest when our Nation experiences
unexpected challenges, including recessions, public health emergencies,
and national disasters. Hopefully, that money will not be needed, but
we should not be stealing from the fund that provides vital care for
children and families when their communities are confronted by these
unforeseen but inevitable challenges.
In addition, the bill also includes cuts to the Corporation for
National and Community Service, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid
Innovation, health infrastructure, rural water programs, and many other
small but important programs that protect our citizens, create jobs,
and grow the economy.
In an attempt to give taxpayers the illusion of fiscal
responsibility, my colleagues have once again revealed their misguided
priorities. We should not be paying for the irresponsible tax cuts by
making even more reckless cuts to the investments in our future.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), chairman of the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Agriculture Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, it is a bit disconcerting to hear a lot of
my friends on the other side of the aisle say that any funds left over
in the executive branch account should not be returned to the U.S.
Treasury, which would reduce Federal borrowing; but instead, Congress
should find some way to spend that money.
This really, I think, is an indication of the serious problem of
overspending that we have here in Washington, a problem that I think so
many of our constituents sent us here to address.
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government is running an annual deficit. I
think people know that. These repeated annual deficits have combined to
create a staggering national debt, which currently stands at more than
$21 trillion. These deficits are not free, but costly, because of the
interest our country has to pay on these borrowed dollars.
Today, with this legislation, we mark a return to a legislative tool
that both Republicans and Democrats alike have utilized to clean up
accounts that went underutilized. The rescission tool that is being
used in this legislation was commonly used in the 1970s, when it was
established, all the way through the 1980s and 1990s, as a way to
return unused, unobligated tax dollars to the U.S. Treasury.

[[Page H4881]]

To recap, the rescission bill we have before us today returns unspent
dollars to the Treasury. Every dollar returned is a dollar that we
don't have to borrow. Every dollar that does not need to be borrowed
does not incur interest payments.
While I understand there is no perfect bill, this bill is an
important step in restoring a measure of fiscal restraint. I am proud
to stand with the President to clean up some old accounts and prevent
waste as well as abuse.
Let me add that some of these accounts are worthwhile, but this is
not a debate about individual accounts. This is about doing the
necessary steps to clean up the executive branch's balance sheets.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mitchell). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional
30 seconds.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions about whether
this line item or that line item might be something to rescind or not.
To them, I would point out that we are in the middle of an
appropriations process. We can work on these issues and we can address
them. It doesn't mean that they are left off the table.
So I stand ready to continue to work with my colleagues as we face
the challenges facing this Nation as we continue working on the
Appropriations Committee, and I welcome the input of my colleagues as
we continue on for FY 2019.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader said a couple of moments
ago that $15 billion was spare change.
Let me tell you what he apparently means by spare change. It means
cutting food assistance for working families and taking $7 billion from
the Children's Health Insurance Program. I guess that is spare change.
The previous speaker just said he was alarmed at the prospect that on
the precipice of borrowing we were now going to cut back on our
borrowing capacity as it relates to savings. After the same political
party borrowed $2.3 trillion over 10 years to pay for a tax cut for
people at the top, the strongest in America.
Those are the priorities. The priority is: Let's cut taxes for the
strongest and the wealthiest. And let's pay for it by taking money from
people who need it most in America.
We have seen time and again they are more focused on the needs of the
wealthiest and the well-connected. We should be addressing the
challenges of the middle clas in this session and making sure that they
have ample assistance.

Now they are after healthcare for children. Now they want to propose
$7 billion for their healthcare plan. Let's be clear: that priority, as
long as I have been in this Congress, has been taking care of the
strongest and the most powerful at the very top.
On January 19, 2001, when Bill Clinton said good-bye to the country,
there was a $5.6 trillion surplus. They cut taxes by $1.3 in 2001. They
cut taxes again by another $1 trillion in 2003.
So there was $2.3 million worth of tax cuts, two wars, a million and
half new veterans. The answer to that, of course, was: let's have more
tax cuts. That is precisely what they did with their tax cut plan.
There was $2.3 trillion borrowed to provide for a tax cut for people at
the very top.
They call themselves conservatives. They pronounce that they are
disciples of balanced budgets. It has been reckless spending that we
have watched them embrace time and again, and this is but another
example of that endeavor.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. Estes).
Mr. ESTES of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3,
the Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary Programs Act.
These spending cuts, or rescissions, address the desire by President
Trump and many in Congress to begin the long overdue process of
reigning in government spending. This package is important because, as
an engineer, businessman, and former State treasurer, I know you can't
build a strong economy on debt and borrowed money.
Spending money we don't have on things we don't need increases our
unsustainable $21 trillion national debt and mortgages the future for
our kids and grandkids. But reducing the size and scope of government
isn't about budget number, it is about returning freedom and liberty to
the American people. It is also common sense.
Kansas families have to live within their means. Our Federal
Government should be no different. H.R. 3 is a great first step.

{time} 1515

Today's spending cuts will save the taxpayers $15 billion, the
largest rescission package since the tool was adopted in 1974, which
comes from programs that have expired or can no longer be used.
If we don't pass this rescission bill, it is like leaving cash lying
around the kitchen table, the silverware drawer, or in the corner. It
may leave the money available for use, but it is a poor way to manage
the taxpayers' dollars. Returning the money to our treasury allows us
to make investments in other needed areas without raising taxes or
spending money we don't have.
Over the past 2 years, Republicans in Congress have jump-started our
economy through the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and slashing government red
tape and regulation. This has helped our economy reach the lowest
unemployment rate in nearly 20 years. However, now is the time we need
to get serious about cutting spending, and today's vote is a great
first step.
I look forward to passage of H.R. 3 and to identifying even more ways
to cut spending, as well as reforming entitlements and quasi-
entitlements and growing our economy in the future.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley), the chair of the Democratic Caucus.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Spending
Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary Programs Act.
This bill strips $7 billion from the Children's Health Insurance
Program, CHIP. Mr. Speaker, $7 billion for sick kids.
It is really unbelievable if you stop and consider it. Republicans
are asking children to pay for their tax break to the rich.
This is just another illustration of the GOP's convoluted priorities.
Mr. Speaker, $1.5 trillion goes to corporations and special interests;
and when the budget comes up short, Republicans dip into healthcare for
children to make up for their recklessness.
It doesn't have to be this way. CHIP was, for decades, a bipartisan
piece of legislation because, despite any policy differences we may
have or may have had, Democrats and Republicans were always able to
come together and agree that CHIP is a fundamentally important program
for our Nation.
What changed? Where did your consciences go?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the Republicans want to talk about spending. Let's talk
about the Republican tax cut. It was rigged for the rich. It gave 83
percent of the tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent. They raised taxes
on 86 million middle class families. It cost $1.5 trillion.
We have a staggering national debt. They want to reduce that deficit.
Well, then why don't they go ahead and rescind the money from the tax
giveaways to the corporations? The corporations are just using it to
buy back stocks and not to raise any wages.
What we ought to be doing is reinvesting: create jobs; help children
and families, not millionaires and billionaires.
If they wanted to do something about the CHIP program, they would
have made it permanent or they would take that money and reinvest it in
programs that have to do with children, not send it back to the
treasury. What they ought to do is to find those resources from their
rich donors and others and put them back into where they belong, to the
American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support H.R. 3, and
I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H4882]]

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Lowey for yielding and
for her tireless leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this shameful bill--H.R.
3--that would cut vital life-saving programs and hurt the American
people.
Just months after the ink is dry on our nation's largest tax scam in
history--Republicans are balancing their $1.5 trillion deficit on the
backs of struggling families.
This is a disgrace.
This shameful bill eliminates funding for the Children's Health
Insurance Program (CHIP) by $7 billion.
Mr. Speaker, this bill literally steals health care from the most
vulnerable children in America.
H.R. 3 also deeply cuts funds for programs that create jobs, help the
grow the economy, and lift more families out of poverty, like the
Community Development Financial Institution.
And, this bill continues Republicans' assault on the climate change
and green energy. By slashing billions of dollars from Energy
Efficiency Programs, Republicans are not only hurting our environment,
they're also hurting our economy.
I thought Republicans wanted to create jobs, Mr. Speaker? Then why
are we voting on a bill that will take jobs away?
Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better. Instead of pulling
the rug out from under from the most vulnerable, we should be creating
jobs, boosting our economy and lifting more families out of poverty.
But this bill does just the opposite. So, I urge my colleagues to
vote `no' on this cruel and mean-spirited bill.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as the founder and chair of the
Congressional Children's Caucus and as a mother, I rise in strong
opposition to H.R. 3, the ``Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary
Programs Act.''
I oppose this legislation because it would eliminate $7 billion for
children's health insurance without allowing for Congress to reinvest
the funds into healthcare services for families and children.
I also oppose this bill because it undermines the Bipartisan Budget
Agreement we only just passed last year.
Instead of wasting time on their partisan agenda, House Republicans
should be bringing to the floor legislation that addresses the real
challenges facing the American people such as: (1) tax reform; (2) DACA
and immigration; (3) restoring the Voting Rights Act; (4) healthcare;
(5) and education.
Yet here we are rushing through another piece of legislation that
will do harm to millions of Americans, mostly children and working
families, without proper discussion or deliberation.
It is very clear that H.R. 3 has been pushed to the floor today
without debate in the Appropriations Committee because of all the harm
it will inflict on the American people.
H.R. 3 undermines our nation's ability to improve and promote health,
safety and environmental standards and provide much-needed protections
for the American people.
But perhaps most deceitful of all are the cuts in funding for the
Children's Health Insurance Program, a program which plays such a
critical role in our nation's health care system.
Together, CHIP and Medicaid cover 39 percent of children in the
United States.
This is over 9 billion children, whose lives the opposition has
decided to quit investing in.
When CHIP was first passed in Congress over two decades ago, this was
a bipartisan movement that not only strengthened the ties between the
parties, but also ensured coverage for so many lower income families
who do not qualify for Medicaid.
Without such a vital program, the number of children covered, and the
number of treatments they would be covered for, would vastly decrease,
in a most harmful and debilitating way.
Not only this, but if the funds were to be rescinded, Congress could
be prevented from reallocating those funds into early childhood
education, health-related research, and other initiatives that only
improve the quality of life for our constituents.
Given that we have experienced multiple health and safety disasters
in communities across the country in recent years, it is the wrong time
to thwart the progress of programs that are beneficial to so many
Americans.
It is no wonder that leading children's organizations such as First
Focus, along with 500 national, state, and local organizations across
the country, are urging Congress to reject any cuts to the Children's
Health Insurance Program.
The value of the contingent funding is in its ability to protect
children's health coverage in the event of unforeseen circumstances or
unexpected disasters, such as Hawaii's overwhelming volcano eruption or
Hurricane Harvey, which devastated the state of Texas just last year.
The Administration and CBO cannot guarantee that there will not be an
economic recession or health epidemic for which contingency funding
would be necessary and yet they are still willing to gamble with our
children's lives.
It is time for the Trump Administration and House Republicans to
abandon their crusade to balance the budget on the backs of the poor
and vulnerable.
We should be investing in our children's futures, not risking their
chances of having one at all.
I urge my colleagues to vote NO on this reckless, irresponsible, and
cruel measure.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that the government has a
spending problem. We have a moral responsibility to take every
opportunity to help right the ship. In recent years, rescissions have
been used as budget gimmicks to hide higher spending in appropriations
bills. Today, the rescissions of unspent funds will instead be used for
deficit reduction for the American taxpayers.
At the Republican Study Committee, we have been working with the
Office of Management and Budget on these spending cuts since last Fall.
I am glad that those conversations led to something tangible in the
form of the largest rescissions package in American history.
I commend President Trump, Director Mulvaney, and House Leadership
for their efforts in developing this package and securing the votes to
bring this across the finish line.
True, today's package is just a drop in the barrel of our total debt
but this should be just the first of many rescissions packages. The
members of the Republican Study Committee hope that this is true and
that as we pass several rescissions packages, we can begin to bend the
trajectory of our spending curve in the right direction.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following
letters in opposition to H.R. 3:

May 22, 2018.
Dear Representative: The undersigned 151 national
organizations strongly urge you to reject the $15.3 billion
rescissions package proposed by the Trump Administration as
well as other rescissions messages that may be subsequently
offered. These cuts would violate the agreement enacted in
the Bipartisan Budget Act, by eliminating funds that make
fairer levels of domestic appropriations possible, so that
unmet needs in public health, education, job training,
housing, and other essential areas may be addressed.
The Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is targeted
for nearly half the cuts in the rescissions package. Nearly
$2 billion of the rescinded funds could reduce CHIP's
capacity to respond if enrollment unexpectedly rises, as in
the aftermath of a disaster, large layoffs due to plant
closures, or an overall economic slowdown. Congress just
enacted a long-overdue 10-year reauthorization of CHIP; it
should not undermine that bipartisan agreement either by
tampering with CHIP in this package. Another $5 billion would
renege on the two-year Bipartisan Budget Act agreement, which
in part counted on the availability of unspent CHIP funds to
pay for needed increases in other services of importance to
children and families.
The rescissions package also includes an $800 million cut
to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, a program
which according to the Congressional Budget Office will save
$3 for every $1 spent between 2017 and 2026. It makes no
sense to end such a cost-effective investment. Nor does it
make sense to describe this package of cuts as putting ``. .
. our Nation on a sustainable fiscal path'' when the recently
enacted tax cuts, mainly for the wealthy and corporations,
impose a $2 trillion cost.
Congress made important progress in the FY 2018 Omnibus
appropriations bill because its bipartisan agreement allowed
for increases in child care, opioid treatment, and other
services. Congress should now turn its attention to building
on this progress in FY 2019. Reneging on the hard-won
bipartisan agreement now will make further gains extremely
difficult. With the limited number of legislative days before
you, please do not be distracted by undoing past progress.
We cannot emphasize enough that basic needs programs have
lost ground after years of reductions, making it extremely
important that you do not undermine the agreement to start to
reverse these downward trends. Adult and youth job training
has been cut nearly 15 percent since FY 2010, adjusted for
inflation. If we are serious about helping people to get good
jobs, we must undo these cuts. Many other services need
rebuilding, such as home heating and cooling assistance (cut
nearly 38 percent since FY 2010), juvenile justice programs
(cut more than 40 percent), maternal and child health

[[Page H4883]]

programs (cut 14 percent), and special education funding (cut
between 7-11 percent since FY 2010). In an analysis of more
than 180 human needs programs, the Coalition on Human Needs
found that nearly 70 percent are still at lower levels than
in FY 2010.
Please reject this rescissions package, and turn instead to
your real responsibility: to provide adequate resource to
address the unmet needs for education and training, child
care, housing, health care, and other essential services.
Sincerely,
Action on Smoking and Health; ADAP Advocacy Association;
Advance CTE; African American Health Alliance; AFSCME; AIDS
United; Allied Progress; American Association of People with
Disabilities; American Association on Health and Disability;
American Federation of Teachers; Americans for Democratic
Action (ADA); Asian Americans Advancing Justice--AAJC;
Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges;
Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs; Autism
Society of America; Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Bend the
Arc Jewish Action CAEAR Coalition; Campaign for Youth
Justice; Center for Community Change Action; Center for
Employment Opportunities (CEO).
Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP); Center for
Popular Democracy Action; Center for Public Representation;
Ceres Policy Research; Child Care Aware of America; Child
Welfare League of America; Children's Defense Fund;
Children's Leadership Council; Children's Advocacy Institute;
Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation; Coalition for Health
Funding; Coalition for Juvenile Justice; Coalition on Human
Needs; Community Access National Network (CANN); Congregation
of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, US Provinces;
Council on Social Work Education; Disciples Center for Public
Witness; Dominican Sisters Conference; Dominican Sisters of
Peace; Ecumenical Poverty Initiative.
Equal Rights Advocates; Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America; Every Child Matters; Faith in Public Life; Families
USA; Family Focused Treatment Association Food & Water Watch;
Food Research & Action Center (FRAC); Forum for Youth
Investment; Friends Committee on National Legislation;
Friends of the Earth--US Girls Inc.; Grounded Solutions
Network; Health Care for America Now; Healthy Teen Network
HEAR US Inc.; Hispanic Federation; HIV Medicine Association;
Holy Spirit Missionary Sisters, USA-JPIC Housing Works, Inc.;
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW; Justice in
Aging; Lakeshore Foundation; Leadership Conference of Women
Religious.
League of Women Voters of the United States; LIFT; Main
Street Alliance; Mom2Mom Global; MomsRising; NAACP; NARAL
Pro-Choice America; National Action Network; National
Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National
Alliance of HUD Tenants; National Association of Councils on
Developmental Disabilities; National Association of Counsel
for Children; National Association of Regional Councils;
National Association of Social Workers; National Association
of State Head Injury Administrators; National Association for
Bilingual Education; National Black Justice Coalition;
National Coalition for the Homeless; National Coalition of
STD Directors; National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its
low income clients).
National Council of Jewish Women; National Crittenton;
National Disability Institute; National Domestic Workers
Alliance; National Education Association; National Employment
Law Project; National Employment Lawyers Association;
National Housing Trust; National Indian Education
Association; National Juvenile Justice Network; National Low
Income Housing Coalition; National Network for Youth;
National Network to End Domestic Violence; National
Organization for Women; National Urban League; National WIC
Association; National Women's Health Network; National
Women's Law Center; New Progressive Alliance; North American
Passionists, JPIC; People Demanding Action; People For the
American Way.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Poligon Education
Fund; Provincial Council Clerics of St. Viator (Viatorians);
Public Advocacy for Kids; Public Citizen; Rachel Carson
Council; Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities Coalition;
Raising Women's Voices for the Health Care We Need; RESULTS;
Ryan White Medical Providers Coalition; Safer Foundation;
School Social Work Association of America; Service Employees
International Union; Sinsinawa Dominicans; Sisters of Charity
of Nazareth Western Province Leadership; Sisters of Charity
of the Blessed Virgin Mary; Sisters of Mercy South Central
Community; SocioEnergetics Foundation; Somerset Development
Company; SparkAction; StoptheDrugWar.org; Strategies for
Youth, Inc.
Students or Sensible Drug Policy; The Arc of the United
States; The Children's Partnership; The John Leary
Organization; The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights; The United Methodist Church--General Board of Church
and Society; Transporation Learning Center; Treatment Action
Group; Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance; UnidosUS; United Church
of Christ; United Methodist Women; Voices for Progress; W.
Haywood Burns Institute; WildWest Institute; Woodhull Freedom
Foundation; Woodstock Institute; Workplace Fairness; Young
Invincibles; Youth Service America; YWCA USA; ZERO TO THREE.
____

May 21, 2018.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Majority Leader, Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles Schumer,
Minority Leader, Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer,
Speaker Ryan, & Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of the 68
undersigned organizations, we are writing to express our
opposition to the Administration's proposal in its fiscal
year (FY) 2018 rescission package to recapture $151 million
in funding for the Capital Magnet Fund (CMF).
We respectfully request that Congress promptly reject this
rescission to enable the Community Develpment Financial
Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund) at the Department of Treasury
to distribute the next round of funding of this highly
successful program as soon as possible. Organizations are
deploying these funds to address the housing affordability
crisis among our nation's seniors, veterans, persons with
disabilities, and families.
The origin and intent of the rescission mechanism in the
Congressional Budget Impoundment and Control Act is well-
established. Namely, it was designed and has uniformly been
used to return unspent funds in appropriated accounts from
prior fiscal years to taxpayers, typically for programs that
are poorly performing or have been eliminated entirely. The
Administration's effort to claw back CMF funding by means of
rescission flies in the face of this practice.
First, CMF is not an appropriated program. Rather, it was
created by Congress through the bipartisan Housing and
Economic Recovery Act (HERA) of 2008, an early federal
response to the nation's growing housing and financial
crisis. HERA funded the CMF through a small fee on total new
business purchases of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
(collectively, the Government-Sponsored Enterprises or GSEs)
to create an enduring program to generate new investment in
affordable housing and other economic development projects in
underserved communities across our nation through the housing
finance system and not be reliant entirely on the annual
Congressional appropriations process.
Second, CMF funds have not been sitting unspent at the CDFI
Fund. Rather, these funds were not released to the Treasury
Department by the GSEs until May 1, 2018, and if prior year
CMF rounds are predictive, the entire amount of funds will be
obligated to awardees before the end of calendar year 2018.
Finally, one would be hard pressed to find a program where
taxpayers are getting more ``bang for the buck'' than the
CMF. The innovation at the heart of CMF is that it provides
direct, entity-level investments in high capacity CDFIs,
nonprofit housing developers, banks and public sector
agencies.
This structure is designed to attract private capital and
maximize return on investment. Organizations that receive the
grants are required to leverage their funding 10:1 with other
sources of capital. The CMF multiplies the impact of awards
many times over because grant recipients are also required to
redeploy CMF-supported loans in new projects throughout the
grant term.
By any measure, CMF has succeeded. Earlier this year, the
CDFI Fund released new data that illustrates the powerful
impact of the FY 2010 funding round of CMF. The 23 awardees
from 2010 have used the $80 million in grants to attract $1.8
billion in other investment by the public and private sector,
a 22:1 ratio; have produced 13,325 affordable homes and have
created or retained 16,000 jobs across America.
The CMF is poised to continue its strong track record. The
2017 award round of $120 million will enable 40 grantees to
serve 41 states and the District of Columbia. Collectively,
awardees are projected to create approximately 17,000
additional jobs, produce 21,000 affordable homes and attract
more than $3.2 billion in additional investment, with 78%
($2.5 billion) expected to come from the private sector.
The need for affordable housing--and for CMF funding--is
greater today than ever before. Although the economy has
improved since 2008, the number of renter households that pay
more than half of their income in rent is near an all-time
high of 11.4 million families, 3.7 million more than in 2001
and one in four of all renters in the United States.
The CMF has proven to be a highly cost-effective resource
for creating affordable housing and improving communities. In
2017, the CDFI Fund received applications for more than 3.5
times the amount awarded. The nation would be better served
if the Administration deployed the $151 million in available
CMF funds as quickly as possible to meet the demand for this
flexible, effective program rather than targeting it for
rescission.
We urge Congress to reject this rescission request.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter,
Abode Communities; ACTION-Housing, Inc.; Atlanta
Neighborhood Development Partnership, Inc.; Better Housing
Coalition; Capital Impact Partners; Capitol Hill Housing;
Century Housing Corporation; Chicago

[[Page H4884]]

Community Loan Fund; Chicanos Por La Causa; Cinnaire;
Clearinghouse Community Development Financial Institution;
Coastal Enterprises, Inc.; Community Development Corporation
of Utah; Community Development Financial Institution
Coalition; Community Housing Partners; Corporation for
Supportive Housing; EAH Housing; Eden Housing; Enterprise
Community Partners; Fahe.
Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation; Grounded
Solutions Network; Habitat for Humanity; Homeport; Homes for
America; Homewise, Inc.; Housing Channel; Housing Development
Fund; Housing Partnership Network; Idaho-Nevada CDFI; IFF;
Indianapolis Neighborhood Housing Partnership; Leviticus
25:23 Alternative Fund, Inc.; Local Initiatives Support
Corporation (LISC); Low Income Investment Fund; Maine
Affordable Housing Coalition; Mercy Housing, Inc.; Mercy Loan
Fund; Mission First Housing Group; Montgomery Housing
Partnership.
National Affordable Housing Management Association;
National Association for Latino Community Asset Builders;
National Association of Affordable Housing Lenders; National
Coalition for the Homeless; National Council of State Housing
Agencies; National Development Council; National Housing
Conference; National Housing Resource Center; National
Housing Trust; National Low Income Housing Coalition;
National NeighborWorks Association; National Stabilization
Trust; New Community Corporation; New Jersey Community
Capital; NHS of Chicago; NYC Housing Partnership; Ohio
Capital Finance Corporation; Opportunity Finance Network;
Preservation of Affordable Housing, Inc. (POAH); Project for
Pride in Living.
Prospera Housing Community Services; Reinvestment Fund;
Self-Help Ventures Fund; Southwest Minnesota Housing
Partnership; St. Ambrose Housing Aid Center; Stewards of
Affordable Housing for the Future; The Community Builders,
Inc.; Volunteers of America.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 923, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
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.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________