Congressional Record, Volume 167 Issue 52 (Friday, March 19, 2021)

[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 52 (Friday, March 19, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H1589-H1601]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PREVENTING PAYGO SEQUESTRATION

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 233, I call up
the bill (H.R. 1868) to prevent across-the-board direct spending cuts,
and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 233, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 1868

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

SECTION 1. PREVENTING PAYGO SEQUESTRATION.

(a) Statutory PAYGO Scorecards.--The budgetary effects of
this Act and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law
117-2) shall not be counted on either PAYGO scorecard
maintained pursuant to section 4(d) of the Statutory Pay-As-
You-Go Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 933(d)).
(b) Senate PAYGO Scorecards.--The budgetary effects of this
Act shall not be counted on any PAYGO scorecard maintained
for purposes of section 4106 of H. Con. Res. 71 (115th
Congress).

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF MEDICARE
SEQUESTRATION.

(a) In General.--Section 3709(a) of division A of the CARES
Act (2 U.S.C. 901a note) is amended by striking ``March 31,
2021'' and inserting ``December 31, 2021''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect as if enacted as part of the CARES Act
(Public Law 116-136).

SEC. 3. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

(a) Disregard of Certain Additional Compensation for
Purposes of Medicaid and Chip.--Section 2104(h) of the CARES
Act (15 U.S.C. 9023(h)) is amended by striking ``Federal
pandemic unemployment compensation'' and inserting ``Federal
Pandemic Unemployment Compensation or Mixed Earner
Unemployment Compensation''.
(b) Rural Health Clinic Payments.--
(1) In general.--Section 1833(f)(3) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(f)(3)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in clause (i), by striking subclauses (I) and (II) and
inserting the following:
``(I) with respect to a rural health clinic that had a per
visit payment amount established for services furnished in
2020--

``(aa) the per visit payment amount applicable to such
rural health clinic for rural health clinic services
furnished in 2020, increased by the percentage increase in
the MEI applicable to primary care services furnished as of
the first day of 2021; or
``(bb) the limit described in paragraph (2)(A); and

``(II) with respect to a rural health clinic that did not
have a per visit payment amount established for services
furnished in 2020--

``(aa) the per visit payment amount applicable to such
rural health clinic for rural health clinic services
furnished in 2021; or
``(bb) the limit described in paragraph (2)(A); and''; and

(ii) in clause (ii)(I), by striking ``under clause (i)(I)''
and inserting ``under subclause (I) or (II) of clause (i), as
applicable,''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``2019,
was'' and inserting ``2020'';
(ii) in clause (i), by inserting ``was'' after ``(i)''; and
(iii) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:
``(ii)(I) was enrolled under section 1866(j) (including
temporary enrollment during the emergency period described in
section 1135(g)(1)(B) for such period); or
``(II) submitted an application for enrollment under
section 1866(j) (or requested such a temporary enrollment for
such period) that was received not later than December 31,
2020.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260).
(c) Eligibility for Reemployment Services.--Section 306(a)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 506(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``individuals referred to reemployment
services as described in section 303(j)'' and inserting
``claimants for unemployment compensation, including
claimants referred to reemployment services as described in
section 303(j),''; and
(2) by striking ``such individuals'' and inserting ``such
claimants''.
(d) Additional Amount for Certain Hospitals With High
Disproporationate Share.--Effective as if included in the
enactment of section 203(a) of title II of division CC of
Public Law 116-260, subsection (g) of section 1923 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-4) amended by such
section 203(a) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(3) Additional amount for certain hospitals with high
disproporationate share.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of a hospital with high
disproportionate share (as defined in subparagraph (B))
located in a State referenced in subsection (e) of section
4721 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, a payment adjustment
during a State fiscal year shall be considered consistent
with subsection (c) if the payment adjustment does not exceed
175 percent of the costs of furnishing hospital services
during the year, but only if the Governor of the State
certifies to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the
hospital's applicable minimum amount is used for health
services during the year. In determining the amount that is
used for such services during a year, there shall be excluded
any amounts received under the Public Health Service Act,
title V, title XVIII, or from third party payors (not
including the State plan under this title) that are used for
providing such services during the year.
``(B) Hospital with high disproporationate share defined.--
In subparagraph (A), a hospital is a `hospital with high
disproportionate share' if--

[[Page H1590]]

``(i) the hospital is owned or operated by the State (or by
an instrumentality or a unit of government within the State);
and
``(ii) the hospital--

``(I) meets the requirement described in subparagraphs (A)
or (B) of subsection (b)(1); or
``(II) has the largest number of inpatient days
attributable to individuals entitled to benefits under the
State plan of any hospital in such State for the previous
fiscal year.

``(C) Applicable minimum amount defined.--In subparagraph
(A), the `applicable minimum amount' for a hospital for a
fiscal year is equal to the difference between the amount of
the hospital's payment adjustment for the fiscal year and the
costs to the hospital of furnishing hospital services
described in paragraph (1)(A) during the fiscal year.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour,
equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Budget or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth) and the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Smith) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.

General Leave

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous material into the Record on H.R. 1868.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, because of the American Rescue Plan, relief checks are
already being deposited in Americans' bank accounts, furloughs have
already ended for tens of thousands of workers, and we have averted the
unemployment cliff. But we have a loose end to tie up before our work
is finished, and that is the bill before us.
Enacting COVID relief through budget reconciliation was always plan
B, but the American people could not afford any more delays, and
Congress needed a path forward for the American Rescue Plan and the
transformative support it provides. Because paygo requirements cannot
be changed in reconciliation bills, we knew from the outset that this
additional legislative fix was needed to avert painful and
indiscriminate cuts to Medicare, farm supports, and other programs.
The language of H.R. 1868 should look familiar. Over the past year,
Congress has enacted multiple COVID relief packages to address the
crises facing the American people and our economy. Each time, we
excluded these bills from statutory paygo calculations because of the
dire impact sequestration would have on our Nation's seniors, students,
farmers, and others.
Today's bill will ensure the American Rescue Plan is treated the same
as these previous relief measures and treated the same as the last
reconciliation bill passed by Congress. That was in 2017, when
Republicans used reconciliation to pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Following the bill's passage without Democratic support in either the
House or Senate, Republicans proposed this same legislative fix, albeit
buried in a problematic continuing resolution. Enough House and Senate
Democrats joined Republicans to prevent harmful across-the-board cuts
to critical programs I mentioned, even though we opposed the short-term
CR and the massive tax giveaways to the wealthy.
This time the situation is flipped, but the same nonetheless. House
Republicans opposed the American Rescue Plan. I don't understand their
position. This bill is supported by more than 70 percent of Americans
and will directly benefit far more. But that is the choice they made.
Either way, a statutory legislative fix for paygo is now needed and,
historically, that has been enacted with little dispute.
Even in the wake of contentious legislation, Congress has come
together to prevent sequestration and to protect Medicare, farm support
programs, social services, resources for students and individuals with
disabilities, and other programs Americans rely on. This time should be
no different.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, this week, the President has been traveling across the
country telling Americans how appreciative they should be that
Washington Democrats are spending, or have spent, $1.9 trillion in
borrowed dollars, money they are using to bail out States run by the
President's political buddies and to reward devastating lockdowns that
have destroyed hundreds of thousands of small businesses and kept kids
out of schools; billions on policies that will reduce private-sector
employment in this country; billions on foreign aid.
And out of all the money, less than 9 percent goes towards healthcare
spending to crush the virus and to put vaccinations in people's arms.
The massive debt-inducing spending package also threatens billions in
cuts to seniors on Medicare, including $36 billion starting next year.
My guess is that the President is probably not going to be bragging to
seniors he meets on the road that the bill he signed into law is
cutting billions of dollars from their Medicare, just as I am sure he
won't bother to mention that the economic recovery he wants to take
credit for is already underway; that the economy is steadily projected
to reach the level of real GDP growth we saw prior to the pandemic by
the middle of this year; that we are on track this year, in fact, to
have the largest economic growth in more than 15 years, all without one
dime used from the nearly $2 trillion bailout package that the
Democrats passed in the last week.
In other words, just as President Biden has desperately tried to take
credit for the incredible, truly historic work President Trump did to
ensure that we have vaccines going into the arms to save lives, he is
trying to take credit for an economic recovery put in place by the
policies signed into law by President Trump. Don't listen to the words.
Watch his actions.
In fact, it was under President Trump's leadership that Operation
Warp Speed delivered multiple vaccines in record time with planning to
get those shots in the arms of the American people. Meanwhile, the
Biden administration has spent an inordinate amount of time running
afoul of fact checkers with their shameless rhetoric meant to dismiss
the incredible work done by the previous administration.
Nevertheless, we are here today because Democrats want to fix one of
the many problems caused by President Biden and the House Democrats in
the $1.9 trillion bailout: Those cuts to Medicare. And they want to do
so by erasing almost $2 trillion in spending from the Nation's books;
pretending $2 trillion in spending is not going to happen.

That, of course, serves two purposes for our Democrat colleagues.
First, it avoids the immediate cuts, which they caused and they chose
to happen. Second, it gives them a clean slate on which they are
reportedly already planning to add trillions more in spending in the
months to come.
Given all of this, I would ask my colleagues to move forward with a
much better approach, one that stops their Medicare cuts and does so in
a more responsible way. Let's work together to protect seniors and to
cut waste from their bailout bill that the American people clearly
don't want, such as stopping billions in benefits and payments to
prisoners and illegal immigrants--billions in payments to prisoners and
illegal immigrants; stopping funds they recklessly jammed into the
bailout for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National
Endowment for the Humanities; stopping special handouts to Federal
employees; rescinding billions in bailouts that go to State governments
that do not need it, and reward their continued lockdowns.
Mr. Speaker, put people before politics. Put people before politics.
Put seniors ahead of the Democrats' special interests and their
political class. This is the responsible way to address the Medicare
cuts caused by my Democrat colleagues. It is a far better approach than
to simply pretend $1.9 trillion in spending is not happening. It is a
far more honest approach given the fact that the President is traveling
the country bragging about the same nearly $2 trillion in spending.
Mr. Speaker, $1.9 trillion, such a big number, is hard to put in
proper perspective. But this year, when the American people pay their
Federal income taxes, every single penny--every

[[Page H1591]]

single penny of their hard-earned money the IRS collects will total
less than the cost of this $1.9 trillion bailout to their friends,
donors, and political allies.
Let's do the responsible thing: Protect seniors by rolling back some
of the most wasteful and wrong policies embedded in the Democrat's
bailout bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Education and Labor, and also a member of the Budget Committee.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1868.
Since the start of the pandemic, Congress has passed several
emergency COVID-19 response packages to help our communities get back
on their feet. Unfortunately, as the chairman mentioned, due to
technicalities in the reconciliation process, some of that progress
will be wiped away unless we pass this legislation.
So H.R. 1868 is necessary to prevent the automatic, across-the-board
funding cuts that will undermine our recovery. Just as the ranking
member mentioned, that will happen unless we pass this bill. Many of
those cuts will occur within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Education and Labor.
For example, the legislation before us protects student borrowers
from automatic increases and loan origination fees and would increase
the cost of taking out a student loan.
The bill protects TEACH Grants, which help recruit talented
individuals into the classroom.
The proposal preserves funding for many of our colleges struggling to
survive during the pandemic.
Passing this legislation will prevent cuts to grants that go to
students whose parents made the ultimate sacrifice serving our Nation
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Finally, this bill protects Americans' access to affordable
healthcare during the global health emergency.
Mr. Speaker, Congress took bold action to get our country through the
pandemic by enacting the American Rescue Plan. Now we must take this
final step in the reconciliation process to ensure that we do not
undermine critical programs that students and families urgently need.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

{time} 0930

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).
Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking
member from Missouri for yielding this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1868, the
Democrats' attempt to put a Band-Aid on their out-of-control spending,
and this bill tries to remove, as the others speakers have said, the
tough consequences of their continued reckless and irresponsible
spending.
Last week, the Democrats passed their massive $2 trillion blue State
bailout package with the intent to burden future generations of
Americans with yet another layer of crippling debt and inevitably
higher taxes for years to come.
This was yet another effort to further use the COVID virus as an
opportunity to fund their leftist expansion of government, climate
extremism, woke social justice, and radical progressive agenda. At $2
trillion, the Pelosi bailout bill would spend another $6,000 per
American citizen. This $6,000 in debt, per citizen, with the chance for
some to receive a $1,400 check, is a raw deal for Americans. Everybody
gets an IOU for $6,000; some people get a $1,400 check in return.
Only 9 percent of the $2 trillion is even related to COVID relief,
with the bulk of the spending going to fund these Democrat pet
projects. There is no pressure at all on the teachers' unions to even
reopen the schools in return for the additional $130 billion in the
bill, the Democrats rejected those commonsense amendments to require
the schools to reopen. Only 5 percent of that $130 billion for schools
will even be spent this year in 2021, that is how essential it is for
COVID relief.
Now Democrats are finally acknowledging today that their spending is
out of control and unsustainable, but instead of seeking a true remedy
for their problem, they are once again trying to kick the can down the
road and exempt their spending from longstanding paygo rules.
This new legislation would prevent sequestration for mandatory
spending, which was only triggered in response to the reckless spending
bill they passed last week. Their ill-conceived bill failed to cut
funding for the unnecessary projects prioritized by Democrats, but not
by the American people.
The imminent future sequester cuts this new bill is intended to
address came about as a result of the blatantly partisan and
irresponsible bill the Democrats rammed through last week. Our national
debt is now nearing $30 trillion, an inconceivable number. It equates
to about $90,000 per citizen. This amounts to an economic crisis, a
national security crisis, and we can't afford to ignore it any longer.
A day of reckoning is coming.
But the majority is ignoring it. Any semblance of fiscal discipline
would have resulted in a COVID bill that was maybe 10 to 20 percent of
the $2 trillion that was in H.R. 1319, the Pelosi blue State bailout.
But instead, they unilaterally, on a hyperpartisan basis, rammed
through the $2 trillion to satisfy their left wing, and appease poorly
run blue States and Democratic governors.
Our country cannot continue to afford to race toward fiscal
insolvency, and this bill allows the Democrats to put the pedal to the
metal without consequence, as we speed faster toward a fiscal
catastrophe. Rather than truly helping the country, the bill enables
Democrats' fiscal irresponsibility. Actions like this are why Congress
has such a low, abysmal approval rating.
I will continue to tell my folks back home that I am fighting for
them and their hard-earned tax dollars, while the other side wants to
continue to steal those dollars to fund their future pet projects.
Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves today truly in March madness, and the
Democrats are throwing up another air ball with this legislation. I
urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the gentleman from
Virginia that in 2017 when Republicans passed an almost identical
amount of tax cuts, 83 percent of which went to the top 1 percent and
major corporations, Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor:
Sequestration has never happened, will not happen now, and will never
happen. His words were prophetic because it is not going to happen
today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pallone), the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chair of our Budget
Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky. He really makes the point so
well.
Look, regardless of what our ranking member says on the other side,
America is not in great shape, the economy is not good, many people
have lost their jobs, and the reason for the American Rescue Plan was
exactly that. We want to help people. We want to make sure people get
direct cash payments to help them. We want to make sure the State and
local governments get help, because they don't want to be laying people
off and not provide services during the pandemic. We want to help small
businesses.
The contrast between what we, as Democrats, push in the American
Rescue Plan to help people in this economic and health crisis is so
vast compared to what the Republicans did with their tax cut, which
just helped the wealthiest and helped corporate interest. It is that
simple.
So I am just going to ask my colleagues on the other side to put
partisanship aside and vote for this bill. This legislation includes
non-controversial policies that will truly help all of our
constituents. It provides critical support for hospitals and rural
health clinics and prevents cuts to Medicare and other important
programs.
In recent weeks, Republicans have claimed that any cuts to Medicare
would be incredibly harmful. But the only way to make sure that these
cuts don't happen is passing this legislation today. In the past, we
have always been able to come together to prevent these cuts.

[[Page H1592]]

When Republicans passed their $2 trillion tax law for the wealthiest
few, it triggered billions in mandatory cuts, and Congress ultimately
voted to prevent those cuts with Democratic support. If Republicans
truly want to protect Medicare and other programs that support our
farmers, our students, and the Nation's defense, they simply should
vote for this bill today.
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues that in addition to
averting statutory paygo cuts, this bill provides additional relief
specifically to frontline healthcare providers through increased
Medicare payments. This is a policy that Congress supported multiple
times. Please support this bill if you care.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the gentleman from New Jersey that
the folks in southeast Missouri, a family of four who makes less than
$55,000 a year, under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act had zero in tax
liability because of what the Republicans passed.
I don't think a family of four, who makes $55,000 or less, is
considered the wealthy. But apparently maybe someone from New Jersey
might think someone who makes $55,000 for a family of four is wealthy.
It is surely not in southeast Missouri.
I also would like to point out that the gentleman from New Jersey did
not help support in waiving this provision back in 2017.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, this bill is just the first taste of a
bitter brew concocted by those who pushed through $1.9 trillion of pure
deficit spending last week.
Now, this measure involves our paygo rules. You remember paygo. The
current version dates to 2010. In those days everyone was worried about
a $1.3 trillion deficit and $13 trillion of national debt. Isn't that
adorable?
Paygo requires across-the-board spending cuts to offset any bill that
spends money we don't have. And we just spent a lot of money we don't
have. As paygo works, the first installment payment for this Biden
binge is $345 billion of spending cuts every year for the next 5 years,
and that includes $52 billion in paygo and BCA cuts to Medicare, which
is expected to go broke in 2024 as it is. Now, that is just to pay for
the party the Democrats had the other day. So it is time to pay for it.
How do you deal with a bill like that? Well, it is pretty simple:
Just forget about it. Just wipe it off the books and start planning the
next trillion-dollar spending spree. In fairness, that is how both
parties have addressed paygo since we passed it. And the net result is
the deficit has nearly tripled and the debt has more than doubled in
less than a decade.
At least the Republican tax cuts in 2017 helped produce such a strong
economic recovery that our revenues went up. They didn't go down. Now,
that should have reduced our deficit, but our failure to control
spending instead drove that deficit still higher. In short, it is the
spending, stupid.
No nation has ever spent, taxed, and borrowed its way to prosperity,
but many have spent, taxed, and borrowed themselves into bankruptcy and
ruin. History warns us that nations that bankrupt themselves aren't
around very long, because before you can provide for the common defense
and promote the general welfare, you first have to be able to pay for
them.
Excessive debt saps the credit of a nation that is its lifeline in
times of genuine peril. It consumes the future prosperity of the nation
as interest costs swell. It saps the economic vitality of our Nation by
crowding out capital that would otherwise be available to consumers and
home buyers and businesses. It robs the currency of its value,
pilfering the Nation's savings and their pensions. It alienates capital
markets until interest rates rise and interest costs balloon into a
debt spiral. Once this starts, there is no way to stop it until the
whole house of cards crashes down.
Do you know want to know what that looks likes? It looks a lot like
Venezuela.
In the spring of 1945, there was serious concern whether we could
continue the war into 1946. Bond sales were failing miserably, war
taxes, spending, borrowing, and inflation had hollowed out our economy,
and the Nation's credit was nearing exhaustion. Now consider this: we
are carrying a larger percentage of debt today than we were at the very
end of World War II, and I fear how we could respond to a similar
sustained national threat today.
When a colleague told the great economist, Adam Smith, that a British
defeat would be the ruin of the nation, Smith calmly observed: ``Be
assured, my young friend, that there is a great deal of ruin in a
nation.''
But as I look at the unprecedented and unsustainable debt that these
policies are producing, I can't avoid a sense of foreboding that our
Nation is fast running out of ruin, and that a terrible day of
reckoning is coming.

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Ms. Craig), a distinguished member of the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Ms. CRAIG. Mr. Speaker, last week we passed the American Rescue Plan
to help our Nation get through a COVID-19 public health and economic
crisis. This historic legislation is already helping millions of
Americans and hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans.
When I think about this piece of legislation, it is widely, on a
bipartisan basis, supported in a swing district like mine back in
Minnesota. But if Congress fails to take action--and we are not going
to let that happen--to prevent sequestration, countless Federal
programs that our constituents rely on could be impacted.
If we fail to pass H.R. 1868, cuts to programs at USDA could
devastate family farmers who are already reeling after years of trade
instability and stupid trade wars. We must act because we cannot allow
cuts to Medicare, risking seniors' access to care at a time when they
need it the most, in the midst of a deadly global pandemic.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this
crucial legislation to ensure that the Federal Government can meet the
needs of Minnesotans and the American people during a public health
crisis. This body that I joined just over 2 years ago; this body has
come together numerous times to make sure that we do not allow
sequestration to take cuts for worse ideas than helping the American
people through a public health crisis.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to please support this bill today.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup).

{time} 0945

Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Speaker, the pandemic was a problem that led some
healthcare providers to close their doors. In a bipartisan way, in the
previous session of Congress, we made an effort to fix that problem.
Now, because of the Democrats' irresponsible spending bill,
healthcare providers who are struggling will see decreased payments,
which is the last thing they need right now, and it is the last thing
we need right now.
Medicare reimbursement rates are already low, only balanced out by
non-Medicare payments. The better way is to target the funding to those
who need it and are still working to come out of the pandemic. We can
fill the gaps without adding to the deficit.
Wasn't the idea of a rescue to improve access to care? Yet, 9 percent
of the $1.9 trillion really went to address the COVID crisis.
They bailed out failed pension funds without reform and ignored our
doctors and healthcare providers on the front lines of the pandemic.
They cut payments to caregivers. $1.9 trillion, yet cuts to healthcare
providers during a pandemic.
What Democrats are trying to do today is ignore the negative
consequences of the bill they passed earlier this month. The
consequences of the bill passed 2 weeks ago means there will be payment
cuts to providers.
$1.9 trillion? Someone should be helped in this measure, but we can
do better. We can do better, but we weren't talked to for our ideas.
Mr. Speaker, Members should ask themselves: What about all of this
today? Will the next several generations of Americans look to us and
say thank you as they get stuck with paying our bills?

[[Page H1593]]

Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. David Scott), who is the distinguished chairman of the
Agriculture Committee.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important and urgent activity that we are on
this morning. Now, my Republican friends talked about this, but they
did the identical, same thing in 2017 with President Trump's tax cuts.
What is good for my friends is also good for us. That is the way the
rules are.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you how devastating the damage would be if
we do not act. First of all, it will cut $29 billion from badly needed
programs, and no entity will be impacted and devastated like
agriculture. They will cut $29 billion and cut our programs for energy
efficiency and rural development.
We are working on that together. This bill will save our rural
development, research, specialty crop development, and beginning and
veteran farmer development.
Out of the $29 billion, it will take $23 billion out of our Commodity
Credit Corporation, limiting our ability to make payments to our
farmers and food producers at this critical time when we are in a
hunger crisis.
Mr. Speaker, you must understand, we Democrats and Republicans need
to send a powerful message to the Nation on this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Georgia an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, let us move hand in hand
together at this serious time.
Now, when my friends used this, it was for the tax cut, most of which
went to the wealthy. But this $23 billion cut to our CCC will devastate
the American people where it hurts the most: their food, their water,
their shelter, and their clothing. We must not do that.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join us.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the body
that the reason we are here today is because of the reckless behavior.
All of these cuts on Medicare are because House Democrats forced
through a nearly $2 trillion spending bill. The reason we have the
paygo statutory provision is because President Obama signed it into law
and House Democrats passed it. So the cuts are the result today of all
the policies that Democrats have been doing since 2010.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Carter).
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today, we are addressing a
problem that didn't even exist a week ago. It did not even exist last
week.
The Republicans stood on this floor and argued against the $1.9
trillion partisan package last week. There were many reasons to oppose
it, but one of the most significant reasons was the fact that the bill
would trigger cuts to Medicare and other essential programs.
We argued that it would harm all of our constituents. I argued that
it would harm my constituents in Georgia to my friend, my fellow
delegation member. This bill penalized the State of Georgia more than
any State in the United States. More than any State in the Nation,
Georgia was punished. We lost $1.3 billion because of the funding
formula. We didn't shut down our State, and we didn't destroy our
economy, and the funding was based on the unemployment rate and not
population.
Where did that $1.3 billion go? It went to blue States. It went to
California, and it went to New York. Georgian taxpayers' money went to
other States; it went to blue States.
What did it do to Medicare in the State of Georgia? We lost $11.5
billion that would have gone to the seniors on Medicare in the State of
Georgia.
Where did it go? Again, it went to California, and it went to New
York. It went to the blue States. It went to the States that shut down
their businesses and destroyed their economies. Yet, the bill was
pushed forward anyway.
This could have all been avoided altogether. We could have crafted a
bipartisan package that would not have triggered these Medicare cuts.
Instead, those across the aisle resorted to forcing a bill through
reconciliation. In the end, they passed a package filled with political
favors on the back of our seniors.
Again, this could have been avoided. But today, we need to fix this
for our constituents who are recognizing we have a spending problem.
Now that the largest stimulus bill in our history has been signed
into law, our deficit for the year will also break records. We are now
projected to have a Federal deficit of $3.4 trillion, and debt as a
share of our GDP will be at 100 percent for only the second time in our
country's history.
My colleagues have shown little regard for actually paying for this
reckless spending for political favor. That is why I urge my colleagues
to find a way to pay for restoring the cuts to Medicare. The first
place I suggest looking for it is in the over 90 percent of the last
package that will not go to addressing the pandemic.
Mr. Speaker, this is wrong, and my colleagues know it is wrong. Let's
get this fixed.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Panetta), who is a distinguished member of the Ways and
Means Committee.
Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of H.R. 1868 to
prevent these harmful budget cuts to vital agricultural programs that
are relied on by farmers, farmworkers, and food-insecure families in
all of our districts.
If we don't pass this bill today, $29 billion in agricultural funding
would be subject to these sequester cuts. Those types of cuts would
zero out funding for such crucial agricultural programs like EQIP, the
Conservation Stewardship Program, and the Regional Conservation
Partnership Program.
In my district on the mid-central coast of California, many farmers,
ranchers, and forest landowners rely on those types of helpful programs
not just to survive, Mr. Speaker, but to succeed. They use those
programs to harvest their products and to be part of the climate
solution.
The producers in my district understand and appreciate the old adage
called usufruct, which basically says the land they use now must be
kept fresh and fertile, not just for them, but for future generations.
It is these programs that contribute to their current product and, yes,
that type of forward thinking.
Sequester cuts would also prevent the Federal Government from
purchasing and donating food to food banks through section 32
purchases. After the year we had, in which food banks contributed so
much to the food security of so many of my constituents, we should be
doing everything we can to protect and bolster our food programs.
We should also be doing everything we can to protect the production
of food, but sequestration cuts would compromise many parts of the farm
bill, like the specialty crop block grants or the agricultural research
extension programs at public universities.
As the co-chair of the Congressional Agriculture Research Caucus, I
know that these types of ag research programs help our farmers meet the
challenges of 2021 and will allow them to prepare for challenges of the
21st century.
Mr. Speaker, as the Representative from the salad bowl of the world,
it is my job to ensure that my farmers, farmworkers, and food-insecure
families have all the tools that they need to live and lead healthy and
productive lives.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Speaker, as Representatives in Congress for this
Nation, it is all of our jobs to ensure that the programs for those
tools and that food are here not just for today but tomorrow. We can
live up to that responsibility by supporting H.R. 1868.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Kelly), who is the newest member of the
Budget Committee.
Mr. KELLY of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R.
1868, the bill to prevent across-the-board direct spending cuts.

[[Page H1594]]

It should come as no surprise to my Democrat friends. They were told
during what little process we had in the $1.9 trillion spending bill
that it was going to disproportionately hurt seniors and that it was
going to hurt farmers.
My friends were told this, and they ignored that, knowing they would
have to fix it later and drive something just as irresponsible through
now.
A disproportionate share of this $2 trillion goes to urban, poorly
run, Democrat cities and States at the expense of our rural, blue-
collar Americans who feed, clothe, and protect America every day. We
told my friends this weeks ago, and they ignored it.
I am deeply concerned that the Democrats would enact a bill that adds
$1.9 trillion to an American deficit without the support of a single
Republican. Over 200 voting Members of this body had no opportunity for
input into this massively destructive package.
The Biden administration promised the American people bipartisanship
and unity. However, they unilaterally drafted and pushed this bill
through without any Republican support.

Now, the Democrats have hastily put together a bill that jeopardizes
the standing of our seniors and mortgages the future of our children.
My colleague, Ranking Member Smith, reminded the Democrats of the
consequences of such a dramatic increase in mandatory spending: a $36
billion cut to Medicare beginning in 2022. Democrats would rather cut
benefits to American seniors in rural America than give up checks to
illegal immigrants and prisoners.
The Democrats have taken advantage of the need of the American
people. My colleagues are advocating for a more responsible alternative
that would remove the wasteful spending of the Biden bailout bill and
protect the most vulnerable population. We must cut the billions of
liberal State bailouts and be sure money already authorized is spent
responsibly.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the gentleman from
Mississippi, along with all the other Members of this body, that his
citizens will receive, in total, $900 million from just the $1,400
checks. That is the average that every congressional district is going
to receive, and I hope that at some point they will realize the
benefits of that injection of capital into an economy that is
struggling.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Courtney), who is a distinguished member of the Education and Labor
Committee.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Budget
Committee for his and his committee staff's steady hand over the last
couple of months to make sure that the American Rescue Plan was enacted
last week.
Mr. Speaker, in that week's time up to today, the American people
have had a chance to listen to the debate and evaluate for themselves
what they think of the American Rescue Plan. A Morning Consult poll
that came out yesterday showed 72 percent support for the plan, 44
percent among Republicans across the country.
Why not? Ninety million Americans on Wednesday received $1,400 checks
totaling $242 billion. For those Americans who are not connected
digitally to the IRS, they are going to get their checks through the
mail.

{time} 1000

For those Americans who are filing their 2020 tax returns, whose
income now qualifies them for the economic impact payments, they are
going to receive their checks.
On Monday, people who were on unemployment got an extension because
of the American Rescue Plan. These are working people in the service
sectors, in the commercial real estate sector, in most parts of the
economy that are still hurting out there.
Every ``no'' vote was a ``no'' vote in terms of people getting that
critical economic help.
Another vote of confidence happened on Wednesday, which is, the
Federal Reserve Board met and voted to keep their key benchmark rate at
zero, not just for a couple of weeks or a couple of months, but for the
balance of 2021, for all of 2022, and into 2023.
So for all of the historical arguments that we are overheating the
economy and inflation is going to go up, Jerome Powell, Donald Trump's
nominee as chair of the Federal Reserve, took questions for over an
hour on this inflation issue, argued, accurately, with a battalion of
economists that they have at the Federal Reserve that there is still
slack in this economy and 10 million folks on unemployment need to get
this type of fiscal relief that the American Rescue Plan responsibly
targeted, which is going to make sure that this country recovers as
soon as possible.
This is a routine bill today. We have done it over and over again in
the last 10 years. Vote ``yes'' and make sure that this economy, as the
Chairman of the Federal Reserve advised us, gets the help it needs.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), one of the leading doctors of the
Republican Conference and a great member of the Budget Committee.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak in opposition to H.R. 1868, but I
also feel obligated to point out that you may say that the inflation
rate is zero, but if you bought a gallon of gas, purchased a two-by-
four at Home Depot, or bought a sack of Quikrete at Lowe's, you would
know that inflation is a real phenomenon.
But I do rise in opposition to H.R. 1868. There was no effort made on
the part of the majority party to work with Republicans on what should
be a bipartisan priority, and that is provider relief.
I have heard from physicians and I have heard from hospitals in Texas
that struggled financially throughout the pandemic. But the bill we
have before us today is simply an excuse to wipe out the scorecard of
the fiscal impact of this $1.9 trillion partisan package passed last
week.
Last week, Republicans warned that this would threaten cuts to
Medicare, but those warnings were repeatedly ignored. If the House
majority really cared, if the House Democrats really cared about
meaningful healthcare provider relief, they would have worked to gain
Republican support, worked with us to build a bill from the ground up.
Instead, this bill is coming toward us as a Hail Mary pass right before
the Medicare sequester cuts go into effect in April.
As a physician, I have deep empathy for those whose medical practices
have been impacted and are now struggling to stay open. I know I have
helped many doctors, many clinics, navigate the Provider Relief Fund
over this past year. We need targeted relief for the providers who are
hurting, and some are hurting more than others.
I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1999, which is an alternative approach that
adds over $12 billion to the Provider Relief Fund and ensures that
dollars would flow to those doctors who have experienced lost revenue
or increased cost.
This type of financial relief has already been proven successful. We
passed the CARES Act on March 27 of last year. We know it's successful.
Additionally, this alternative bill ensures that the 4 percent cut to
Medicare providers that was included in last week's reconciliation bill
as a result of statutory paygo does not go into effect in 2022.
The American Rescue Plan Act gifted $350 billion to State and local
governments that simply was not justified. Providers in our State and
local communities are worthy of funding and they should specifically
benefit from those State and local dollars that are not necessary to go
where they are planned to go. That is why we would like to redirect the
State and local funding toward provider relief.
Maintaining a strong healthcare workforce is critical to the health
of this Nation during normal times, and it is especially critical
during a public health emergency.
We should work together on the right policy solution to deliver this
relief to ensure that it stands a chance of actually passing in the
other body, and that should be a starting point for those discussions.
Mr. Speaker, I hope we can come to such a sensible solution.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a distinguished member of
the Budget Committee.

[[Page H1595]]

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to cosponsor H.R. 1868 to
prevent arbitrary cuts to Medicare and to ensure that the American
Rescue Plan is treated in the same way as previous coronavirus bills
have been treated, including the CARES Act.
This legislation, as we all know, this fix is needed to avoid painful
cuts to our mandatory spending programs. And let's remember--the
hypocrisy is overwhelming here--that the Democrats voted with
Republicans in 2017 to avoid Medicare cuts as a result of the
Republican's tax scam, a $2 trillion tax cut, that went mostly to the
wealthy.
Our healthcare workers have been working nonstop for over a year
fighting this pandemic. They do not deserve a cut in Medicare payments
for taking care of seniors and people with disabilities.
By removing the sequester, we can ensure that providers keep their
doors open and they can continue to treat their patients.

Though Republicans voted against the American Rescue Plan, which they
shouldn't have, I sincerely hope that today they will join us and vote
to protect these programs that enjoy broad bipartisan public support
and ensure that our commitment to our Nation's seniors and people with
disabilities are met during this public health crisis.
Especially now, we need to be working together, as we did for the
Republicans. When the Republicans were giving tax cuts to the
wealthiest Americans, we were not going to let Medicare suffer.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the
gentlewoman from Illinois that actions speak louder than words, and
that the Democrats did not help the folks in 2017, since the
gentlewoman tried to point out the hypocrisy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Arrington).
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, to the gentlewoman's point about working together,
Democrats did not offer a hand of bipartisanship in this ram-and-jam
job on the $2 trillion bailout bill. They even lost Democrats on it. So
they didn't work with us.
It was a pure partisan play, and there is a reason for that. It is
mostly unrelated to COVID. It is bailout galore. It is a wish list of
the liberals in this House, and they just pushed it through and called
it, in disguise, COVID relief.
But the fundamental principle we are talking about today is paygo.
This is a law passed by Democrats, signed by a Democrat President. It
says, fundamentally--and the American people understand this--if you
spend beyond your means, you have got to find a way to pay for it. You
have got to offset it or you go into debt.
Mr. Speaker, the American people, if they don't pay their bills, they
get their water turned off or their electricity turned off. The IRS
will hunt them down and put them in jail if they don't pay their taxes.
They will have their mortgage foreclosed, their cars repossessed. That
is what happens to the American people when they don't pay their bills.
President Obama, when he signed the law, said, You can't spend a
dollar unless you cut a dollar elsewhere. I agree with him.
Ms. Pelosi, our Speaker, gave a speech and she gave glowing points as
she embraced wholeheartedly and full-throatedly this paygo. She said it
is important `` . . . to our fiscal soundness, and to our children and
grandchildren.''
She said: `` . . . who could oppose this great idea?''
She went on to say: `` . . . investments in our children's future . .
. must be paid for, or else we are heaping debt onto our children.''
The national debt is almost $30 trillion and counting.
Who is going to pay for that?
Not us. Not you. Our kids are going to pay for it.
These are Ms. Pelosi's words, Mr. Speaker: ``This pay-as-you-go is
part of a blueprint for fiscal responsibility. . . . ''
She said: `` . . . subjecting spending to the harshest scrutiny.
Every Federal dollar that is spent must be subjected to scrutiny to
make sure taxpayers get his or her money's worth.''
Bailing out union pensions, giving cities and States money that
horribly mismanaged their business prior to COVID, giving people more
money to be on unemployment than they made in their previous jobs,
paying people who are not economically harmed in this COVID disaster,
all of these things are wasteful. There is a litany of wasteful,
irresponsible, and unnecessary spending, hundreds of billions of
dollars.
And the Speaker is saying every dollar is going to be scrutinized. We
are going to stick it to our seniors. We are going to stick it to our
kids. That is a profile in courage, if I ever saw one. Now, that is the
leadership that made this country great, Mr. Speaker. These are Ms.
Pelosi's words, not mine, but I agree with her.
We have an opportunity here to do the right thing by our children, to
offset the spending here in this $2 trillion bailout with the wasteful
spending that is in there. And I gave you a list, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I plead with you and I plead with my colleagues to
offset this and do right by our kids and their future in this country.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains
on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has 11\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Missouri has 1\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a distinguished member of the
Budget Committee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished chairman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, whenever you hear the words of Speaker Pelosi, you know
that the gentlewoman is leading us on the fight to protect our seniors.
I am glad to cosponsor this legislation to be a strong supporter of
being on the front seat of protecting our seniors.
Whenever you hear us being demagogued from those on the other side
using demagoguery, you can be assured that when they pass a tax bill,
it was not having seniors as their priority. But when you hear the word
``Medicare,'' you know that Democrats are standing strong to make sure
that not one dime is taken away from our seniors with Medicare.
My open letter to my seniors in my district--open message to my
seniors is: We will die on the vine to protect your Medicare. That is
what we are doing today on the floor of the House. Not one dime will
come out of your Medicare.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support H.R. 1868, which excludes the
budgetary effects of the American Rescue Plan of 2021 from scorecards
established by the Pay-As-You-Go, or PAYGO Act of 2010, preventing
across-the-board cuts to numerous direct-spending programs. That is
what we are doing here today. We are taking our seniors seriously.
I say to seniors: Have no fear with all of this demagoguery because
we are going to make sure that not one dime comes out of your pocket.
In addition, I say to seniors: You are going to be living in cities
like Houston, where it says that Houston's share of the stimulus
package is $615 million.
That is going to help keep the city services going, the fire, the
police, and trash pickup going. We know that seniors call my office and
these issues are important to them.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Houston Chronicle article
dated March 10, 2021, showing that the city of Houston will receive
$615 million.

[From the Houston Chronicle, Mar. 10, 2021]

Houston's Share of Stimulus Bill Expected To Top $600M, Help Avoid Cuts
to City Services, Officials Say

(By Jasper Scherer)

Houston and Harris County are expected to receive more than
$1.5 billion through the stimulus bill approved by Congress
Wednesday, providing a massive cash injection that city
officials say will help close a budget shortfall widened by
the pandemic for the second year in a row.
The measure provides local governments with their most
generous round of COVID-related funding yet, and it comes
with fewer spending restrictions than last year's aid.
Houston will receive an estimated $615 million, putting the
city at more than $1 billion in direct federal relief during
the pandemic, while Harris County is projected to receive
$914 million--more than double its allotment from the first
round of local aid last March.
``I'm hopeful and optimistic that we will be able to use
this money to, essentially, bail

[[Page H1596]]

the city out of a very dire financial situation,'' said City
Controller Chris Brown, who monitors the spending of
Houston's more than $5 billion city budget.
Many local governments, including Houston, have seen their
sales tax revenues plummet as the pandemic slowed consumer
spending on dining, tourism and other leisure activity. And
while rising appraisal values mean the city is projected to
take in more money from property taxes this year than last,
officials say the pandemic's true toll on property tax
revenue may not be felt until early 2022, when homeowners
make payments for this year's not-yet-certified tax rolls.
Much to the relief of local officials, the latest round of
federal aid allows cities and counties to spend the funds to
replace revenue lost due to the pandemic. Trump
administration rules barred local governments from using the
first round of local COVID relief to plug budget holes,
stipulating it could only cover expenses tied directly to the
pandemic, though Mayor Sylvester Turner's administration
still was able to use the funds to avoid furloughing city
employees.
Marvin Odum, the former Shell executive appointed by the
mayor to oversee the city's COVID recovery, said Wednesday he
is ``very optimistic the funds will be able to be used to
mitigate the city's budget shortfalls resulting from COVID-
19.'' Still, he noted that beyond the broad language in the
bill, federal officials have yet to release specific rules
for how local governments can spend the funds.
``I'll just caution that clarity on the guidelines for
these programs tends to come over time. It's not always
available immediately,'' Odum said.
Republican lawmakers bitterly opposed the local aid,
including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who accused
Democrats of sending ``wheelbarrows of cash to state and
local bureaucrats to bail out mismanagement from before the
pandemic.'' Meanwhile, local officials across the country
have warned they would have to enact deep cuts to city
services, such as fire, police and trash collection, without
federal aid to offset their revenue losses.
``Every mayor, every county judge, every local official
that I visited with since before December, they all need
help,'' said U.S. Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-Houston, a former
Houston controller and county commissioner. ``Every city in
America will get dollars to help with their revenue
shortfalls. And that's huge, because they can keep the
firefighters working, they can keep police departments open,
they can get the garbage picked up.''
Even before the pandemic, Houston officials in recent years
have scrambled to close major city budget gaps, often dipping
into reserves to balance spending and revenue. The city's
public safety costs, which make up more than half of spending
on core services, have steadily increased as the budget
remains capped by a limit on how much property tax revenue
the city can take in each year.
``It's going to solve, in the short term, some of these
problems, but the real challenge is, you cannot solve a
structural problem with one-time financing sources,'' Brown
said. ``You actually have to do the hard work to cut
recurring expenses. And that's the only way you can narrow
that budget gap over time.''
Local governments will receive half their federal aid
within 60 days of Friday, when President Joe Eiden will sign
the bill into law, according to White House press secretary
Jen Psaki. They will receive the second half of the funds at
least a year later.
That means Houston will receive more than $300 million to
offset its revenue losses next fiscal year, along with any
potential shortfall before the current fiscal year ends June
30. Odum said the city finance department is projecting a
budget gap of between $160 and $200 million next year, while
Brown--whose office generates its own estimates separate from
Turner's administration--said he expects the shortfall to be
even higher.
Brown noted that while finance department projections
assume the city will see a less-than-1 percent reduction in
sales tax revenue this year, the actual decrease has been 7
percent.
``The (Turner) administration, I don't think, has properly
evaluated the reductions in sales and property tax,'' Brown
said. ``There's a $40 million variance between us and (the)
finance (department) in sales tax alone.''
Brown estimated city officials will have to lay off about a
dozen city employees for every $1 million trimmed from the
budget, meaning Houston could have been looking at more than
2,000 layoffs without any federal aid.
Instead, Houston's relief will far exceed its budget
deficit. The city also is expected to devote a chunk of the
aid to direct COVID relief, such as testing and vaccinations.
Turner's administration exhausted the previous round of aid,
totaling $405 million, in December. Those funds covered
contact tracing efforts, city workers whose jobs were
consumed by COVID, and relief to renters and small
businesses, among other areas.
Turner, who proposes the annual budget to city council each
year, did not respond to questions Wednesday about how he
intends to spend the new round of relief aid.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me also indicate that seniors'
healthcare will be in a good place with this particular program. Their
grandchildren will be able to go back to school with almost $1 billion
to the Houston Independent School District.
Seniors' stimulus checks are not going to be ignored. They are going
to be able to get stimulus checks directly into their accounts. Their
grandchildren, their children will get $3,600 for a 5-year-old.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, they will get $3,000 for children above 9 years old.
There will be enhanced unemployment for the young people in their lives
who have been unemployed. And then, of course, that local restaurant
will be able--and I fought for this--to be open again with $28 billion.
The issue of public assistance or local government assistance was
something I was allowed to offer a motion to instruct on. It was
something that I thought we could not abandon. We will not abandon
seniors. We will not let them touch one dime of Medicare, as our
friends on the other side have.
Vote for this legislation because we are seniors first.
Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary,
on Homeland Security, on the Budget, and as the Member of Congress for
a congressional district that has experience the worst of the COVID-19
as a public health emergency and economic catastrophe, I rise in strong
support of H.R. 1868, which excludes the budgetary effects of the
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, from the scorecards established by
the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Act of 2010, preventing across-the-
board cuts to numerous direct spending programs.
The legislation also excludes the budgetary effects of this Act from
the Senate PAYGO scorecards.
This legislation is necessary to ensure that that Medicare and other
programs are protected from PAYGO sequestration.
The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act requires across-the-board cuts, known
as ``sequestration,'' to a defined set of programs if certain
legislation affecting mandatory spending or revenues increases net
deficits.
Although legislation that Congress designates as an emergency or
otherwise excludes from the PAYGO scorecard does not trigger
sequestration, this action is necessary because restrictions on the
content of reconciliation bills prevented the American Rescue Plan Act
of 2021 from including a provision to avert sequestration.
The bill before also extends a separate Medicare sequester relief
provision, first enacted in the CARES Act, that expires March 31,
Mr. Speaker, Congress has never permitted sequestration to affect the
Medicare trust fund and it certainly will not allow it now, just when
help is arriving under the American Rescue Plan Act to put shots in
arms, money in pockets, kids in school, and workers back on the job.
It is worthwhile to explain why the American Rescue Plan Act is the
most transformative legislation in more than a half century and easily
justifies exclusion from sequestration.
H.R. 1319, the American Rescue Plan Act, is a landmark, life-saving
legislation that will provide urgently-needed resources to defeat the
virus, put vaccines in people's arms, money into families' pockets,
children safely back into classrooms, and people back to work.
With tens of millions of Americans infected, more than half a million
lives lost, over 18 million Americans unemployed and millions more
hungry and food and housing insecure, thanks to the work of
congressional Democrats in the House and Senate and the Biden
Administration, at long last the people of the United States and my
home state of Texas can be assured that `Help Is On The Way.'
In simple terms this life-saving and life-enhancing legislation puts
vaccines in arms, puts money in people's pockets, puts children safely
back in school, and it will put workers back in jobs.
1. Put Vaccines in Arms: The plan will mount a national vaccination
program that includes setting up community vaccination sites nationwide
and addressing disparities facing communities of color. It will also
take complementary measures to combat the virus, including scaling up
testing and tracing, addressing shortages of personal protective
equipment and other critical supplies, investing in high-quality
treatments, and addressing health care disparities.
2. Put Money in People's Pockets: The plan finishes the job on the
President's promise to provide $2,000 in direct assistance to
households across America with checks of $1,400

[[Page H1597]]

per person, following the $600 down payment enacted in December. The
plan will also provide direct housing assistance, nutrition assistance
for 40 million Americans, expand access to safe and reliable child care
and affordable health care, extend unemployment insurance so that 18
million American workers can pay their bills and support 27 million
children with an expanded Child Tax Credit and more than 17 million
low-wage workers through an improved Earned Income Tax Credit.
3. Put Children Safely Back in School: The plan delivers $170 billion
for education and $45 billion for childcare providers. This includes a
$130 billion investment in K-12 school re-opening and making up for
lost time in the classroom, with funds that can be used for such things
as reducing class sizes, modifying spaces so that students and teachers
can socially distance, improving ventilation, implementing more
mitigation measures, providing personal protective equipment and
providing summer school or other support for students that help make up
lost learning time this year. The plan also provides more than $40
billion for higher education.

Here is what the American Rescue Plan Act means for the State of
Texas, Houston, and Harris County.
An estimated $16.7 billion will come to the State of Texas.
The lion's share of $3.3 billion will come directly to the City of
Houston, and Harris County will receive a similar share of $5.667
billion, thanks to a provision in the law I helped secure that created
the Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund and appropriated $45.57
billion.
$1.4 billion in direct payments is allocated to smaller jurisdiction
like Jacinto City.
Houston Independent School District can expect to receive close to
$100 million ($993,198 million to be more precise).
The law specifically allows this funding to be used:
1. To respond to the pandemic or its negative economic impacts,
including assistance to households, small businesses, and nonprofits,
or aid to impacted industries such as tourism, travel, and hospitality;
2. For premium pay to eligible workers performing essential work (as
determined by each recipient government) during the pandemic, providing
up to $13 per hour above regular wages;
3. For the provision of government services to the extent of the
reduction in revenue due to the pandemic (relative to revenues
collected in the most recent full fiscal year); and
4. To make necessary investments in water, sewer, or broadband
infrastructure.
In addition to these funds, Texas will receive $100 million out of
the newly created $10 billion Coronavirus Capital Projects Fund for
``critical capital projects directly enabling work, education, and
health monitoring, including remote options, in response to the public
health emergency with respect to the Coronavirus Disease.
Now all that is well and good but let me tell you what the American
Rescue Plan Act means for a hard-working and hard-pressed single mother
of two children making a modest income:
Stimulus checks: $1,400 3 = $4,200
Child tax credit: $3,600 (5-year-old) + $3,000 (9-year-old) = $6,600.
Half of that amount will be paid out periodically from late July
through December; the rest will come as a check with next year's taxes.
Enhanced unemployment: If the parent becomes unemployed in March, she
will be eligible for $300 in aid every week through the last week of
August.
Total: $10,800 from stimulus and tax credits, plus another $7,500
from 25-weeks of enhanced unemployment aid. This individual would also
receive $318 per week in state unemployment aid and thousands more from
the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Restaurants

Finally, let me discuss briefly the good things for the restaurant
industry that are in the American Rescue Plan Act.
The law allocates $28 billion in funds to devastated food service
establishments, including bars, and food trucks, and vendors.
Unlike the Paycheck Protection Program, which saddled restaurants
with burdensome loans if the bulk of the funds were not spent on
payroll, these restaurant relief dollars are grants, plain and simple.
Grant sizes will generally be determined by subtracting lower 2020
pandemic-era receipts from higher 2019 gross receipts.
Over $5 billion will be set aside for smaller venues whose annual
gross receipts were below $500,000, leaving $23.6 billion for everyone
else.
Grants will be capped at $10 million for restaurant groups and $5
million for individual venues.
Publicly traded companies or restaurants with more than 20 locations
will not be eligible to participate in this funding.
And, for the first 21 days, establishments owned by women, veterans,
or economically and socially disadvantaged groups will be prioritized.
This transformative legislation will also provide direct housing
assistance, nutrition assistance for 40 million Americans, expand
access to safe and reliable child care and affordable health care,
extend unemployment insurance so that 18 million American workers can
pay their bills and support 27 million children with an expanded Child
Tax Credit and more than 17 million low-wage childless workers through
an improved Earned Income Tax Credit, which will reduce the number of
children living in poverty in America by 50 percent.
I want to commend my colleagues and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for
her leadership and President Biden for signing into law the American
Rescue Plan Act of 2021, and I urge all Members to join me in voting to
pass H.R. 1868, which excludes the budgetary effects of the American
Rescue Plan Act from the scorecards established by the Statutory Pay-
As-You-Go (PAYGO) Act of 2010, and thus precludes the implementation of
direct across the board cuts in spending.

{time} 1015

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Doggett), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, 55 years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson
overcame sustained Republican opposition to enact Medicare. It has been
a literal lifeline for millions. Those who suffered without healthcare
before Medicare now have access to a family physician and hospital care
when they need it.
Former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich, in this very room, plotted
to let Medicare wither on the vine. Millions of Americans would have
withered had he been successful. Yet, generations of Republicans have
sought to privatize it, cut it, or weaken it. Surely, some of the
strongest evidence of the success of Medicare, through all of these
times, is the claim by today's Republicans that after so many failed
attempts to weaken Medicare, they are here, quite amazingly, claiming
to be its new protectors.
Of course, this comes following their understandable desperation to
justify their inexplicable efforts to deny the relief that was offered
by the American Rescue Plan: the survivor benefits; the unemployment;
the small business and rental assistance so vitally needed; the support
for getting our students back in school, the funding to keep State and
local employees doing their jobs. Republicans have resisted that rescue
plan with the same fervor that they resisted Medicare in the first
place. So determined are these folks to oppose anything that President
Biden advances, they have come out here and claimed that the rescue
plan means Medicare cuts, which certainly it does not.
Most of Medicare falls within the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means
Health Subcommittee, which I chair. We do need to strengthen Medicare.
The latest financial report suggests that additional revenues will be
needed to sustain Medicare beginning in 2026. Some of the changes that
are needed are largely accounting adjustments, and others will require
additional revenue.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, what our colleagues should be doing is
coming together to work with us to ensure the permanent security of
Medicare.
Medicare works, but after 55 years, it needs some updates. It has not
provided adequate protection against pharmaceutical price gouging; it
does not cover most of dental, hearing, and vision care; and, of
course, too many Americans are just too young to benefit from Medicare.
I believe we need to be working together to make Medicare better and
more widely available to more Americans, because health security is
American security.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Mrs. Bustos), a distinguished member of the Committee on
Agriculture and Committee on Appropriations.
Mrs. BUSTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 1868. I know
we

[[Page H1598]]

have talked this morning about the importance of the bill protecting
Medicare. I want to talk with you for a couple of minutes here about
its protection of farm supports and other direct spending as it
pertains to our family farmers.
As chair of the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk
Management, this bill will protect critical resources like the
Commodity Credit Corporation, resources that our family farmers depend
on now more than ever.
There are nearly 2 million farmers across our Nation. In the district
that I serve, we have close to 10,000 family farms. But throughout our
Nation, there is no farm that isn't touched by the Commodity Credit
Corporation, not one American farmer who wouldn't be impacted by these
cuts. In the district I serve, those close to 10,000 family farmers
would have fewer resources if this were to happen and would face
challenges as they try to pay their bills and put food on the table.
The truth is, our family farmers have seen an onslaught of challenges
for years, each year worse than the one before it: extreme weather
conditions; devastated crops; unstable and uncertain trade markets that
held back exports and economic growth; and throughout the past year, a
global pandemic that has left many of our farmers ravaged, even as they
kept fighting for fellow Americans, to keep them fed.
COVID-19 has impacted all of us. But, thankfully, we have never truly
seen empty store shelves. We have our American farmers to thank for
that. We have our American farmers to thank for the stable food supply
and for the certainty that, even after years of challenges, even at the
height of this worldwide crisis, our American farmers have had our
backs. Now, it is time for us to have theirs.
A vote against this bill is a vote to cut farm funding. I urge my
colleagues to vote to protect our family farmers and vote ``yes'' on
this critical bill.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am
prepared to close.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I have introduced an alternative, a
more responsible approach that protects our seniors and rolls back some
of the most wasteful and absurd parts of the Democratic bailout bill.
I would encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to put
America's seniors ahead of their special interest allies. Join us in
finding a solution that protects and respects America's seniors and the
working class. We will offer such a solution as a motion to recommit.
If adopted, it will instruct the Budget Committee to consider an
amendment to make the sensible cuts in waste offered in H.R. 1999, the
Protect Seniors and Cut Waste Act.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, let's put the healthcare of our
seniors ahead of prisoners, illegal immigrants, and the political
class.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the last couple of months have been an incredibly busy
time. The work that was done on the American Rescue Plan, from start to
finish, was extraordinary, and we owe our staffs an enormous debt of
gratitude, and not just the Budget Committee staff, but the staff of
the 12 committees that also contributed to the drafting of the American
Rescue Plan.
I would like to take this time to read the names of the Budget
Committee staff who pulled all-nighters, all-weekenders, and went way
beyond the call of duty in doing the work on the American Rescue Plan:
Erika Appel, Ellen Balis, Samantha Carter, Edward Etzkorn, Jose
Guillen, Jocelyn Harris, Emily King, Sarah Lee, Sheila McDowell, Diana
Meredith, Leyla Mocan, Kimberly Overbeek, Barbara Pike, Katie Raymond,
Scott Russell, Laura Santos, Raquel Spencer, Greg Waring, Alexandra
Weinroth, Christie Wentworth, Jennifer Wheelock, Sam Wice, Ted Zegers,
and Grady Stevens. I want to thank all of them personally for their
work on behalf of the House.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say this: You know, we have
heard a lot of newly found concern about the deficit and the debt
today. We heard it during the debates. This is the same party that
drove up the deficit 3 years ago, 4 years ago now, with a $2 trillion
tax cut, most of which benefitted the wealthiest Americans, and,
according to virtually everyone who has looked at it, didn't even come
close to paying for itself.
What we have done in the American Rescue Plan is give an incredible
boost to the American people, the American people who need the boost
most. Not one dollar in the American Rescue Plan goes to the top 1
percent of Americans. The vast majority goes to middle- and lower-
income people struggling to get by.
I am kind of amused when people talk about their States being
cheated. The gentleman from Georgia talked about how Georgia was
cheated. Under the American Rescue Plan, Georgia gets over $8 billion,
twice as much as Georgia got under the CARES Act. That doesn't even
count all of the money that is going to the Georgia citizens.
As I said, in every congressional district in this country, on
average, the people, the citizens we represent, will get $900 million,
every congressional district.
My friend from Missouri talked about his family of four. I know his
math is better than this, but a family of four doesn't get $1,400, as
he mentioned. A family of four gets $1,400 times four, which is $5,600,
and then two children, depending on their ages, get at least $3,000
each. So that family of four is going to get $11,000 out of this bill.

The talk about future generations, I love that. You know, I am sure
that when the national debt reached $1 billion under Abraham Lincoln,
there were people saying: ``Wow, we are laying an incredible burden on
our grandchildren.'' When it reached $1 trillion under Ronald Reagan, I
am sure there were people saying the same thing. And when it gets to
$50 trillion, as it probably will in the next couple of decades, people
will be saying the same thing.
We have been accumulating debt for our entire history, and yet no one
has ever been asked to pay for that debt, and no one ever will.
So all in all, we are very proud of the American Rescue Plan. The
American people love the American Rescue Plan. This fix, which we ask
for today, is something that, again, is just what the Republicans asked
to do in 2017. It is a routine measure. Nobody wants to cut Medicare to
providers and certainly benefits to our citizens. I am sure we will
have a bipartisan vote on this today, and I urge all of my colleagues
to support H.R. 1868.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 233, the
previous question is ordered on the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and the third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at
the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Smith of Missouri moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 1868
to the Committee on the Budget.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Smith of Missouri is as
follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Protect Seniors and Cut
Waste Act''.

SEC. 2. PAYGO ACT SEQUESTER.

The budgetary effects of the American Rescue Plan Act of
2021 shall not be counted for purposes of determining whether
a sequester occurs under the report issued after Congress
adjourns to end the 1st session of the 117th Congress and
during January 2022 under section 5 of the Statutory Pay-As-
You-Go Act of 2010.

SEC. 3. SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND
SOCIAL SERVICES EMERGENCY FUND.

(a) Supplemental Appropriation.--There is appropriated, out
of any amounts in the

[[Page H1599]]

Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for an additional amount
for ``Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund' '',
$12,300,000,000, to remain available until expended, to
prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus,
domestically or internationally, which shall be for necessary
expenses to reimburse, through grants or other mechanisms,
eligible health care providers for health care related
expenses or lost revenues that are attributable to
coronavirus.
(b) Conditions.--The following conditions shall apply with
respect to funds appropriated by subsection (a):
(1) Such funds may not be used to reimburse expenses or
losses that have been reimbursed from other sources or that
other sources are obligated to reimburse.
(2) Recipients of payments under this section shall submit
reports and maintain documentation as the Secretary of Health
and Human Services determines are needed to ensure compliance
with conditions that are imposed by this subsection for such
payments, and such reports and documentation shall be in such
form, with such content, and in such time as the Secretary
may prescribe for such purpose.
(3) The term ``eligible health care providers'' means
public entities, Medicare or Medicaid enrolled suppliers and
providers, and such for-profit entities and not-for-profit
entities not otherwise described in this paragraph as the
Secretary may specify, within the United States (including
territories), that provide diagnoses, testing, or care for
individuals with possible or actual cases of COVID-19.
(4) The Secretary shall, on a rolling basis, review
applications and make payments under this section.
(5) Funds appropriated under this section shall be
available for building or construction of temporary
structures, leasing of properties, medical supplies and
equipment including personal protective equipment and testing
supplies, increased workforce and trainings, emergency
operation centers, retrofitting facilities, and surge
capacity.
(6) In this section, the term ``payment'' means a pre-
payment, prospective payment, or retrospective payment, as
determined appropriate by the Secretary.
(7) Payments under this section shall be made in
consideration of the most efficient payment systems
practicable to provide emergency payment.
(8) To be eligible for a payment under this section, an
eligible health care provider shall submit to the Secretary
an application that includes a statement justifying the need
of the provider for the payment and the eligible health care
provider shall have a valid tax identification number.
(9) For any reimbursement by the Secretary from the
Provider Relief Fund to an eligible health care provider that
is a subsidiary of a parent organization, the parent
organization may, allocate (through transfers or otherwise)
all or any portion of such reimbursement among the subsidiary
eligible health care providers of the parent organization,
including reimbursements referred to by the Secretary as
``Targeted Distribution'' payments, among subsidiary eligible
health care providers of the parent organization, except that
responsibility for reporting the reallocated reimbursement
shall remain with the original recipient of such
reimbursement.
(10) For any reimbursement from the Provider Relief Fund to
an eligible health care provider for health care related
expenses or lost revenues that are attributable to
coronavirus (including reimbursements made before the date of
the enactment of this Act), such provider may calculate such
lost revenues using the Frequently Asked Questions guidance
released by the Department of Health and Human Services in
June 2020, including the difference between such provider's
budgeted and actual revenue budget if such budget had been
established and approved prior to March 27, 2020.
(11) Of the amount made available in the third paragraph
under the heading ``Department of Health and Human Services--
Office of the Secretary--Public Health and Social Services
Emergency Fund'' in Public Law 116-136, not less than 85
percent of the unobligated balances available as of the date
of enactment of this Act and of any funds recovered from
health care providers after the date of enactment of this Act
shall be for any successor to the Phase 3 General
Distribution allocation to make payments to eligible health
care providers based on applications that consider financial
losses and changes in operating expenses occurring in fiscal
year 2021 that are attributable to coronavirus.
(12) Not later than 3 years after final payments are made
under this section, the Office of Inspector General of the
Department of Health and Human Services shall transmit a
final report on audit findings with respect to this program
to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate.
(13) Nothing in this section limits the authority of the
Inspector General or the Comptroller General to conduct
audits of interim payments at an earlier date.
(14) Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
provide a report to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate on the obligation of
funds, including obligations to such eligible health care
providers, summarized by State of the payment receipt. Such
report shall be updated and submitted to such Committees
every 60 days until funds are expended.
(c) Emergency Designations.--
(1) Amounts repurposed in subsection (b) that were
previously designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 are designated by the Congress as
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985.
(2) The amount appropriated by subsection (a) is designated
by the Congress as being for an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
(3) Each amount designated in this Act by the Congress as
an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985 shall be available only if the President subsequently so
designates all such amounts and transmits such designations
to the Congress.
(d) Application of Provisions.--Amounts appropriated
pursuant to this section and pursuant to title II of Public
Law 117-2 shall be subject to the requirements contained in
Public Law 116-260 for funds for programs authorized under
sections 330 through 340 of the Public Health Service Act.

SEC. 4. CORONAVIRUS STATE FISCAL RECOVERY FUND ADJUSTMENT.

(a) In General.--Section 602 of the Social Security Act is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``$219,800,000,000''
and inserting ``$79,800,000,000''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``$195,300,000,000''
and inserting ``$55,300,000,000''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.

SEC. 5. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

(a) Rural Health Clinic Payments.--
(1) In general.--Section 1833(f)(3) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(f)(3)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in clause (i), by striking subclauses (I) and (II) and
inserting the following:
``(I) with respect to a rural health clinic that had a per
visit payment amount established for services furnished in
2020--

``(II) with respect to a rural health clinic that did not
have a per visit payment amount established for services
furnished in 2020--

``(aa) the per visit payment amount applicable to such
rural health clinic for rural health clinic services
furnished in 2021; or
``(bb) the limit described in paragraph (2)(A); and''; and

(ii) in clause (ii)(I), by striking ``under clause (i)(I)''
and inserting ``under subclause (I) or (II) of clause (i), as
applicable,''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``2019,
was'' and inserting ``2020'';
(ii) in clause (i), by inserting ``was'' after ``(i)''; and
(iii) by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following:
``(ii)(I) was enrolled under section 1866(j) (including
temporary enrollment during the emergency period described in
section 1135(g)(1)(B) for such period); or
``(II) submitted an application for enrollment under
section 1866(j) (or requested such a temporary enrollment for
such period) that was received not later than December 31,
2020.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260).
(b) Additional Amount for Certain Hospitals With High
Disproporationate Share.--Effective as if included in the
enactment of section 203(a) of title II of division CC of
Public Law 116-260, subsection (g) of section 1923 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-4) amended by such
section 203(a) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(3) Additional amount for certain hospitals with high
disproporationate share.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of a hospital with high
disproportionate share (as defined in subparagraph (B))
located in a State referenced in subsection (e) of section
4721 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, a payment adjustment
during a State fiscal year shall be considered consistent
with subsection (c) if the payment adjustment does not exceed
175 percent of the costs of furnishing hospital services
during the year, but only if the Governor of the State
certifies to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the
hospital's applicable minimum amount is used for health
services during the year. In determining the amount that is
used for such services during a year, there shall be excluded
any amounts received under the Public Health Service Act,
title V, title XVIII, or from third party payors (not
including the State plan under this title) that are used for
providing such services during the year.

[[Page H1600]]

``(B) Hospital with high disproporationate share defined.--
In subparagraph (A), a hospital is a `hospital with high
disproportionate share' if--
``(i) the hospital is owned or operated by the State (or by
an instrumentality or a unit of government within the State);
and
``(ii) the hospital--

SEC. 6. INDIVIDUALS NOT LAWFULLY PRESENT IN UNITED STATES
PRECLUDED FROM 2021 RECOVERY REBATES.

(a) In General.--Section 6428B(c) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as added by the American Rescue Plan Act of
2021, is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph
(2), by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4), and by
inserting after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:
``(3) any individual who was not lawfully present in the
United States as of the date of the enactment of the American
Rescue Plan Act of 2021, and''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section
9601 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.

SEC. 7. INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS PRECLUDED FROM 2021 RECOVERY
REBATES.

(a) In General.--Section 6428B(c) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as added by the American Rescue Plan Act of
2021 and amended by the preceding provisions of this Act, is
amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3), by
redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5), and by
inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph:
``(4) any individual who was incarcerated on the date of
the enactment of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, and''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section
9601 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.

SEC. 8. REQUIRING A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER TO RECEIVE COBRA
CONTINUATION COVERAGE.

(a) In General.--Section 9501(a)(3) of the American Rescue
Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law 117-2) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking at the end ``and'';
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) has been issued a social security number (as defined
in section 24(h)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) by
the Social Security Administration.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section
9501 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.

SEC. 9. RESCISSIONS OF AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT OF 2021
FUNDS.

Of the funds appropriated by the American Rescue Plan Act
of 2021 (Public Law 117-2), all unobligated funds available
under the following provisions of such Act are hereby
rescinded:
(1) Section 2021 (relating to the National Endowment for
the Arts).
(2) Section 2022 (relating to the National Endowment for
the Humanities).
(3) Section 4001 (relating to the Emergency Federal
Employee Leave Fund).

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 202,
nays 216, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 95]

YEAS--202

Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wittman
Womack
Zeldin

NAYS--216

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--11

Brady
Gohmert
Gonzalez, Vicente
Hoyer
Kinzinger
Lucas
McHenry
Nunes
Roy
Wilson (SC)
Young

{time} 1114

Messrs. O'HALLERAN, LEVIN of Michigan, CARSON, and Ms. BASS changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. CARL and STIVERS changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page H1601]]

MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS

Allred (Davids (KS))
Axne (Stevens)
Barragan (Beyer)
Bera (Aguilar)
Bishop (GA) (Butterfield)
Blumenauer (Beyer)
Bourdeaux (Clark (MA))
Boyle, Brendan F. (Jeffries)
Buchanan (Gimenez)
Bucshon (Walorski)
Bush (Clark (MA))
Cardenas (Gomez)
Cleaver (Davids (KS))
DeSaulnier (Matsui)
DesJarlais (Fleischmann)
Gaetz (Waltz)
Garbarino (Joyce (OH))
Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
Hastings (Butterfield)
Kahele (Mrvan)
Kim (NJ) (Davids (KS))
Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
Langevin (Lynch)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
Lieu (Beyer)
Lowenthal (Beyer)
McEachin (Wexton)
Meng (Clark (MA))
Mfume (Brown)
Moore (WI) (Beyer)
Moulton (Underwood)
Napolitano (Correa)
Payne (Pallone)
Peters (Kildee)
Pingree (Cicilline)
Porter (Wexton)
Rodgers (WA) (Joyce (PA))
Rush (Underwood)
Schneider (Aguilar)
Sires (Pallone)
Slotkin (Stevens)
Smith (WA) (Courtney)
Timmons (Steube)
Vargas (Correa)
Wasserman Schultz (Soto)
Watson Coleman (Pallone)
Williams (GA) (Jacobs (CA))
Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
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 noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 246,
nays 175, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 96]

YEAS--246

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Bacon
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Bergman
Beyer
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown
Brownley
Buchanan
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davidson
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Dunn
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gimenez
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jacobs (NY)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (CA)
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Malliotakis
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Miller-Meeks
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newhouse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Rogers (KY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Salazar
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stauber
Stefanik
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Tenney
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NAYS--175

Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brooks
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gibbs
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Norman
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spartz
Steel
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wittman
Womack
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--8

Brady
Gohmert
Hoyer
Kinzinger
McHenry
Nunes
Wilson (SC)
Young

{time} 1200

Mrs. MURPHY of Florida changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS

____________________