[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to be rescinded in special messages transmitted to the Congress by the 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     permanently rescinded.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     permanently rescinded: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.

                          ____________________