SEQUESTER REPLACEMENT RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2012
(House of Representatives - May 10, 2012)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

        

[Pages H2583-H2633]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            SEQUESTER REPLACEMENT RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2012

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 648, 
I call up the bill (H.R. 5652) to provide for reconciliation pursuant 
to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
year 2013, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 648, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting 
of the text of Rules Committee Print 112 21 shall be considered as 
adopted, and the bill, as amended, shall be considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 5652

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Sequester Replacement 
     Reconciliation Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

                          TITLE I--AGRICULTURE

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. ARRA sunset at June 30, 2012.
Sec. 103. Categorical eligibility limited to cash assistance.
Sec. 104. Standard utility allowances based on the receipt of energy 
              assistance payments.
Sec. 105. Employment and training; workfare.
Sec. 106. End State bonus program for the supplemental nutrition 
              assistance program.
Sec. 107. Funding of employment and training programs.
Sec. 108. Turn off indexing for nutrition education and obesity 
              prevention.
Sec. 109. Extension of Authorization of Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.
Sec. 110. Effective dates and application of amendments.

               TITLE II--COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

          Subtitle A--Repeal of Certain ACA Funding Provisions

Sec. 201. Repealing mandatory funding to states to establish American 
              Health Benefit Exchanges.
Sec. 202. Repealing Prevention and Public Health Fund.
Sec. 203. Rescinding unobligated balances for CO-OP program.

                          Subtitle B--Medicaid

Sec. 211. Revision of provider tax indirect guarantee threshold.
Sec. 212. Rebasing of State DSH allotments for fiscal year 2022.
Sec. 213. Repeal of Medicaid and CHIP maintenance of effort 
              requirements under PPACA.
Sec. 214. Medicaid payments to territories.
Sec. 215. Repealing bonus payments for enrollment under Medicaid and 
              CHIP.

                     TITLE III--FINANCIAL SERVICES

Sec. 301. Table of contents.

                  Subtitle A--Orderly Liquidation Fund

Sec. 311. Repeal of liquidation authority.

            Subtitle B--Home Affordable Modification Program

Sec. 321. Short title.
Sec. 322. Congressional findings.
Sec. 323. Termination of authority.
Sec. 324. Sense of Congress.

          Subtitle C--Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection

Sec. 331. Bringing the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection into the 
              regular appropriations process.

                   Subtitle D--Flood Insurance Reform

Sec. 341. Short title.
Sec. 342. Extensions.
Sec. 343. Mandatory purchase.
Sec. 344. Reforms of coverage terms.
Sec. 345. Reforms of premium rates.
Sec. 346. Technical Mapping Advisory Council.
Sec. 347. FEMA incorporation of new mapping protocols.
Sec. 348. Treatment of levees.
Sec. 349. Privatization initiatives.
Sec. 350. FEMA annual report on insurance program.
Sec. 351. Mitigation assistance.
Sec. 352. Notification to homeowners regarding mandatory purchase 
              requirement applicability and rate phase-ins.
Sec. 353. Notification to members of congress of flood map revisions 
              and updates.
Sec. 354. Notification and appeal of map changes; notification to 
              communities of establishment of flood elevations.
Sec. 355. Notification to tenants of availability of contents 
              insurance.
Sec. 356. Notification to policy holders regarding direct management of 
              policy by FEMA.
Sec. 357. Notice of availability of flood insurance and escrow in RESPA 
              good faith estimate.
Sec. 358. Reimbursement for costs incurred by homeowners and 
              communities obtaining letters of map amendment or 
              revision.
Sec. 359. Enhanced communication with certain communities during map 
              updating process.
Sec. 360. Notification to residents newly included in flood hazard 
              areas.

[[Page H2584]]

Sec. 361. Treatment of swimming pool enclosures outside of hurricane 
              season.
Sec. 362. Information regarding multiple perils claims.
Sec. 363. FEMA authority to reject transfer of policies.
Sec. 364. Appeals.
Sec. 365. Reserve fund.
Sec. 366. CDBG eligibility for flood insurance outreach activities and 
              community building code administration grants.
Sec. 367. Technical corrections.
Sec. 368. Requiring competition for national flood insurance program 
              policies.
Sec. 369. Studies of voluntary community-based flood insurance options.
Sec. 370. Report on inclusion of building codes in floodplain 
              management criteria.
Sec. 371. Study on graduated risk.
Sec. 372. Report on flood-in-progress determination.
Sec. 373. Study on repaying flood insurance debt.
Sec. 374. No cause of action.
Sec. 375. Authority for the corps of engineers to provide specialized 
              or technical services.

         Subtitle E--Repeal of the Office of Financial Research

Sec. 381. Repeal of the Office of Financial Research.

                  TITLE IV--COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Encouraging speedy resolution of claims.
Sec. 403. Compensating patient injury.
Sec. 404. Maximizing patient recovery.
Sec. 405. Punitive damages.
Sec. 406. Authorization of payment of future damages to claimants in 
              health care lawsuits.
Sec. 407. Definitions.
Sec. 408. Effect on other laws.
Sec. 409. State flexibility and protection of States' rights.
Sec. 410. Applicability; effective date.

         TITLE V--COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Sec. 501. Retirement contributions.
Sec. 502. Annuity supplement.
Sec. 503. Contributions to Thrift Savings Fund of payments for accrued 
              or accumulated leave.

                 TITLE VI--COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

Subtitle A--Recapture of Overpayments Resulting From Certain Federally-
                      subsidized Health Insurance

Sec. 601. Recapture of overpayments resulting from certain federally-
              subsidized health insurance.

  Subtitle B--Social Security Number Required to Claim the Refundable 
                    Portion of the Child Tax Credit

Sec. 611. Social security number required to claim the refundable 
              portion of the child tax credit.

                 Subtitle C--Human Resources Provisions

Sec. 621. Repeal of the program of block grants to States for social 
              services.

                    TITLE VII--SEQUESTER REPLACEMENT

Sec. 701. Short title.
Sec. 702. Protecting veterans programs from sequester.
Sec. 703. Achieving $19 billion in discretionary savings.
Sec. 704. Conforming amendments to section 314 of the Congressional 
              Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
Sec. 705. Treatment for PAYGO purposes.
Sec. 706. Elimination of the fiscal year 2013 sequestration for defense 
              direct spending.

                          TITLE I--AGRICULTURE

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Agricultural 
     Reconciliation Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 102. ARRA SUNSET AT JUNE 30, 2012.

       Section 101(a)(2) of division A of the American Recovery 
     and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111 5; 123 Stat. 
     120) is amended by striking ``October 31, 2013'' and 
     inserting ``June 30, 2012''.

     SEC. 103. CATEGORICAL ELIGIBILITY LIMITED TO CASH ASSISTANCE.

       Section 5 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     2014) is amended--
       (1) in the 2d sentence of subsection (a) by striking 
     ``households in which each member receives benefits'' and 
     inserting ``households in which each member receives cash 
     assistance'', and
       (2) in subsection (j) by striking ``or who receives 
     benefits under a State program'' and inserting ``or who 
     receives cash assistance under a State program''.

     SEC. 104. STANDARD UTILITY ALLOWANCES BASED ON THE RECEIPT OF 
                   ENERGY ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS.

       (a) Standard Utility Allowance.--Section 5 of the Food and 
     Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e)(6)(C) by striking clause (iv), and
       (2) in subsection (k) by striking paragraph (4) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(4) Third party energy assistance payments.--For purposes 
     of subsection (d)(1), a payment made under a State law (other 
     than a law referred to in paragraph (2)(G)) to provide energy 
     assistance to a household shall be considered money payable 
     directly to the household.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 2605(f)(2) of the Low-
     Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 
     8624(f)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and for purposes of determining any 
     excess shelter expense deduction under section 5(e) of the 
     Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014(e))'', and
       (2) in subparagraph (A) by inserting before the semicolon 
     the following: ``, except that such payments or allowances 
     shall not be deemed to be expended for purposes of 
     determining any excess shelter expense deduction under 
     section 5(e)(6) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2014(e)(6))''.

     SEC. 105. EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING; WORKFARE.

       (a) Administrative Cost-sharing for Employment and Training 
     Programs.--
       (1) In general.--Section 16 of the Food and Nutrition Act 
     of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2025) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a) by inserting ``(other than a program 
     carried out under section 6(d)(4) or section 20)'' after 
     ``supplemental nutrition assistance program'' the 1st place 
     it appears, and
       (B) in subsection (h)--
       (i) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3), and
       (ii) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs 
     (2) and (3), respectively.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 17(b)(1)(B)(iv)(III)(hh) of the Food and 
     Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2026(b)(1)(B)(iv)(III)(hh)) 
     is amended by striking ``(g), (h)(2), or (h)(3)'' and 
     inserting ``or (g)''.
       (B) Section 22(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Food and Nutrition Act 
     of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2031(d)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended is amended by 
     striking ``, (g), (h)(2), and (h)(3)'' and inserting ``and 
     (g)''.
       (b) Administrative Cost-sharing and Reimbursements for 
     Workfare.--Section 20 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 
     (7 U.S.C. 2029) is amended by striking subsection (g).

     SEC. 106. END STATE BONUS PROGRAM FOR THE SUPPLEMENTAL 
                   NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       Section 16 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     2025) is amended by striking subsection (d).

     SEC. 107. FUNDING OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMS.

       For purposes of fiscal year 2013, the reference to 
     $90,000,000 in section 16(h)(1)(A) of the Food and Nutrition 
     Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2025(h)(1)(A)) shall be deemed to be a 
     reference to $79,000,000.

     SEC. 108. TURN OFF INDEXING FOR NUTRITION EDUCATION AND 
                   OBESITY PREVENTION.

       Section 28(d) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2037(d)) is amended by striking ``years--'' and all 
     that follows through the period at the end, and inserting 
     ``years, $375,000,000.''.

     SEC. 109. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF FOOD AND NUTRITION 
                   ACT OF 2008.

       Section 18(a)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 
     U.S.C. 2027(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``2012'' and 
     inserting ``2013''.

     SEC. 110. EFFECTIVE DATES AND APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

       (a) General Effective Date.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (b), this title and the amendments made by this 
     title shall take effect on October 1, 2012, and shall apply 
     only with respect to certification periods that begin on or 
     after such date.
       (b) Special Effective Date.--Section 107 and the amendments 
     made by sections 102, 103, 104, and 109 shall take effect on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply only 
     with respect to certification periods that begin on or after 
     such date.

               TITLE II--COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

          Subtitle A--Repeal of Certain ACA Funding Provisions

     SEC. 201. REPEALING MANDATORY FUNDING TO STATES TO ESTABLISH 
                   AMERICAN HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1311(a) of the Patient Protection 
     and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18031(a)) is repealed.
       (b) Rescission of Unobligated Funds.--Of the funds made 
     available under such section 1311(a), the unobligated balance 
     is rescinded.

     SEC. 202. REPEALING PREVENTION AND PUBLIC HEALTH FUND.

       (a) In General.--Section 4002 of the Patient Protection and 
     Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 300u 11) is repealed.
       (b) Rescission of Unobligated Funds.--Of the funds made 
     available by such section 4002, the unobligated balance is 
     rescinded.

     SEC. 203. RESCINDING UNOBLIGATED BALANCES FOR CO-OP PROGRAM.

       Of the funds made available under section 1322(g) of the 
     Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 
     18042(g)), the unobligated balance is rescinded.

                          Subtitle B--Medicaid

     SEC. 211. REVISION OF PROVIDER TAX INDIRECT GUARANTEE 
                   THRESHOLD.

       Section 1903(w)(4)(C)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396b(w)(4)(C)(ii)) is amended by inserting ``and for 
     portions of fiscal years beginning on or after October 1, 
     2012,'' after ``October 1, 2011,''.

     SEC. 212. REBASING OF STATE DSH ALLOTMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                   2022.

       Section 1923(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396r-4(f)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (10);
       (2) in paragraph (3)(A) by striking ``paragraphs (6), (7), 
     and (8)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (6), (7), (8), and 
     (9)''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(9) Rebasing of state dsh allotments for fiscal year 
     2022.--With respect to fiscal 2022, for purposes of applying 
     paragraph (3)(A) to determine the DSH allotment for a State, 
     the amount of the DSH allotment for the State under paragraph 
     (3) for fiscal year 2021 shall be

[[Page H2585]]

     treated as if it were such amount as reduced under paragraph 
     (7).''.

     SEC. 213. REPEAL OF MEDICAID AND CHIP MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT 
                   REQUIREMENTS UNDER PPACA.

       (a) Repeal of PPACA Medicaid MOE.--Section 1902 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a) is amended by striking 
     subsection (gg).
       (b) Repeal of PPACA CHIP MOE.--Section 2105(d)(3) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(d)(3)) is amended--
       (1) by striking subparagraph (A);
       (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; and
       (3) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``Continuation of 
     eligibility standards for children until october 1, 2019'' 
     and inserting ``Continuity of coverage''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 1902(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396a(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (74).
       (2) Effective January 1, 2014, paragraph (14) of section 
     1902(e) (as added by section 2002(a) of Public Law 111 148) 
     is amended by striking the third sentence of subparagraph 
     (A).
       (d) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection 
     (c)(2), the amendments made by this section shall take effect 
     on the date of the enactment of this section.

     SEC. 214. MEDICAID PAYMENTS TO TERRITORIES.

       (a) Limit on Payments.--Section 1108(g) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1308(g)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``paragraphs (3) and (5)''; and
       (B) by inserting ``paragraph (3)'' after ``and subject 
     to'';
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``(3), and'' and all that 
     follows through ``of this subsection'' and inserting ``and 
     (3) of this subsection''; and
       (3) by striking paragraph (5).
       (b) FMAP.--The first sentence of section 1905(b) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)) is amended by 
     striking ``shall be 55 percent'' and inserting ``shall be 50 
     percent''.

     SEC. 215. REPEALING BONUS PAYMENTS FOR ENROLLMENT UNDER 
                   MEDICAID AND CHIP.

       (a) In General.--Paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 2105(a) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(a)) are 
     repealed.
       (b) Rescission of Unobligated Funds.--Of the funds made 
     available by section 2105(a)(3) of the Social Security Act, 
     the unobligated balance is rescinded.
       (c) Conforming Changes.--
       (1) Availability of excess funds for performance bonuses.--
     Section 2104(n)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1397dd(n)(2)) is amended by striking subparagraph (D).
       (2) Outreach or coverage benchmarks.--Section 2111(b)(3) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397kk(b)(3)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) in clause (i), by inserting ``or'' after the semicolon 
     at the end; and
       (ii) by striking clause (ii); and
       (B) by striking subparagraph (C).

                     TITLE III--FINANCIAL SERVICES

     SEC. 301. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this title is as follows:

                     TITLE III--FINANCIAL SERVICES

Sec. 301. Table of contents.

                  Subtitle A--Orderly Liquidation Fund

Sec. 311. Repeal of liquidation authority.

            Subtitle B--Home Affordable Modification Program

Sec. 321. Short title.
Sec. 322. Congressional findings.
Sec. 323. Termination of authority.
Sec. 324. Sense of Congress.

          Subtitle C--Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection

Sec. 331. Bringing the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection into the 
              regular appropriations process.

                   Subtitle D--Flood Insurance Reform

Sec. 341. Short title.
Sec. 342. Extensions.
Sec. 343. Mandatory purchase.
Sec. 344. Reforms of coverage terms.
Sec. 345. Reforms of premium rates.
Sec. 346. Technical Mapping Advisory Council.
Sec. 347. FEMA incorporation of new mapping protocols.
Sec. 348. Treatment of levees.
Sec. 349. Privatization initiatives.
Sec. 350. FEMA annual report on insurance program.
Sec. 351. Mitigation assistance.
Sec. 352. Notification to homeowners regarding mandatory purchase 
              requirement applicability and rate phase-ins.
Sec. 353. Notification to members of congress of flood map revisions 
              and updates.
Sec. 354. Notification and appeal of map changes; notification to 
              communities of establishment of flood elevations.
Sec. 355. Notification to tenants of availability of contents 
              insurance.
Sec. 356. Notification to policy holders regarding direct management of 
              policy by FEMA.
Sec. 357. Notice of availability of flood insurance and escrow in RESPA 
              good faith estimate.
Sec. 358. Reimbursement for costs incurred by homeowners and 
              communities obtaining letters of map amendment or 
              revision.
Sec. 359. Enhanced communication with certain communities during map 
              updating process.
Sec. 360. Notification to residents newly included in flood hazard 
              areas.
Sec. 361. Treatment of swimming pool enclosures outside of hurricane 
              season.
Sec. 362. Information regarding multiple perils claims.
Sec. 363. FEMA authority to reject transfer of policies.
Sec. 364. Appeals.
Sec. 365. Reserve fund.
Sec. 366. CDBG eligibility for flood insurance outreach activities and 
              community building code administration grants.
Sec. 367. Technical corrections.
Sec. 368. Requiring competition for national flood insurance program 
              policies.
Sec. 369. Studies of voluntary community-based flood insurance options.
Sec. 370. Report on inclusion of building codes in floodplain 
              management criteria.
Sec. 371. Study on graduated risk.
Sec. 372. Report on flood-in-progress determination.
Sec. 373. Study on repaying flood insurance debt.
Sec. 374. No cause of action.
Sec. 375. Authority for the corps of engineers to provide specialized 
              or technical services.

         Subtitle E--Repeal of the Office of Financial Research

Sec. 381. Repeal of the Office of Financial Research.

                  Subtitle A--Orderly Liquidation Fund

     SEC. 311. REPEAL OF LIQUIDATION AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 
     Reform and Consumer Protection Act is hereby repealed and any 
     Federal law amended by such title shall, on and after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, be effective as if title II of 
     the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 
     had not been enacted.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Dodd-frank wall street reform and consumer protection 
     act.--The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
     Protection Act is amended--
       (A) in the table of contents for such Act, by striking all 
     items relating to title II;
       (B) in section 165(d)(6), by striking ``, a receiver 
     appointed under title II,'';
       (C) in section 716(g), by striking ``or a covered financial 
     company under title II'';
       (D) in section 1105(e)(5), by striking ``amount of any 
     securities issued under that chapter 31 for such purpose 
     shall be treated in the same manner as securities issued 
     under section 208(n)(5)(E)'' and inserting ``issuances of 
     such securities under that chapter 31 for such purpose shall 
     by treated as public debt transactions of the United States, 
     and the proceeds from the sale of any obligations acquired by 
     the Secretary under this paragraph shall be deposited into 
     the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous 
     receipts''; and
       (E) in section 1106(c)(2), by amending subparagraph (A) to 
     read as follows:
       ``(A) require the company to file a petition for bankruptcy 
     under section 301 of title 11, United States Code; or''.
       (2) Federal deposit insurance act.--Section 10(b)(3) of the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1820(b)(3)) is 
     amended by striking ``, or of such nonbank financial company 
     supervised by the Board of Governors or bank holding company 
     described in section 165(a) of the Financial Stability Act of 
     2010, for the purpose of implementing its authority to 
     provide for orderly liquidation of any such company under 
     title II of that Act''.
       (3) Federal reserve act.--Section 13(3) of the Federal 
     Reserve Act is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) in clause (ii), by striking ``, resolution under title 
     II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
     Protection Act, or'' and inserting ``or is subject to 
     resolution under''; and
       (ii) in clause (iii), by striking ``, resolution under 
     title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
     Protection Act, or'' and inserting ``or resolution under''; 
     and
       (B) by striking subparagraph (E).

            Subtitle B--Home Affordable Modification Program

     SEC. 321. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``HAMP Termination Act of 
     2012''.

     SEC. 322. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) According to the Department of the Treasury--
       (A) the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) is 
     designed to ``help as many as 3 to 4 million financially 
     struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure by modifying loans to 
     a level that is affordable for borrowers now and sustainable 
     over the long term''; and
       (B) as of February 2012, only 782,609 active permanent 
     mortgage modifications were made under HAMP.
       (2) Many homeowners whose HAMP modifications were canceled 
     suffered because they made futile payments and some of those 
     homeowners were even forced into foreclosure.
       (3) The Special Inspector General for TARP reported that 
     HAMP ``benefits only a small portion of distressed 
     homeowners, offers others little more than false hope, and in 
     certain cases causes more harm than good''.
       (4) Approximately $30 billion was obligated by the 
     Department of the Treasury to HAMP, however, approximately 
     only $2.54 billion has been disbursed.
       (5) Terminating HAMP would save American taxpayers 
     approximately $2.84 billion, according to the Congressional 
     Budget Office.

     SEC. 323. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

       Section 120 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 
     2008 (12 U.S.C. 5230) is amended

[[Page H2586]]

     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Termination of Authority To Provide New Assistance 
     Under the Home Affordable Modification Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided under paragraph (2), 
     after the date of the enactment of this subsection the 
     Secretary may not provide any assistance under the Home 
     Affordable Modification Program under the Making Home 
     Affordable initiative of the Secretary, authorized under this 
     Act, on behalf of any homeowner.
       ``(2) Protection of existing obligations on behalf of 
     homeowners already extended an offer to participate in the 
     program.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to 
     assistance provided on behalf of a homeowner who, before the 
     date of the enactment of this subsection, was extended an 
     offer to participate in the Home Affordable Modification 
     Program on a trial or permanent basis.
       ``(3) Deficit reduction.--
       ``(A) Use of unobligated funds.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this title, the amounts described in 
     subparagraph (B) shall not be available after the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection for obligation or expenditure 
     under the Home Affordable Modification Program of the 
     Secretary, but should be covered into the General Fund of the 
     Treasury and should be used only for reducing the budget 
     deficit of the Federal Government.
       ``(B) Identification of unobligated funds.--The amounts 
     described in this subparagraph are any amounts made available 
     under title I of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 
     2008 that--
       ``(i) have been allocated for use, but not yet obligated as 
     of the date of the enactment of this subsection, under the 
     Home Affordable Modification Program of the Secretary; and
       ``(ii) are not necessary for providing assistance under 
     such Program on behalf of homeowners who, pursuant to 
     paragraph (2), may be provided assistance after the date of 
     the enactment of this subsection.
       ``(4) Study of use of program by members of the armed 
     forces, veterans, and gold star recipients.--
       ``(A) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to 
     determine the extent of usage of the Home Affordable 
     Modification Program by, and the impact of such Program on, 
     covered homeowners.
       ``(B) Report.--Not later than the expiration of the 90-day 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall submit to the Congress a 
     report setting forth the results of the study under 
     subparagraph (A) and identifying best practices, derived from 
     studying the Home Affordable Modification Program, that could 
     be applied to existing mortgage assistance programs available 
     to covered homeowners.
       ``(C) Covered homeowner.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term `covered homeowner' means a homeowner who is--
       ``(i) a member of the Armed Forces of the United States on 
     active duty or the spouse or parent of such a member;
       ``(ii) a veteran, as such term is defined in section 101 of 
     title 38, United States Code; or
       ``(iii) eligible to receive a Gold Star lapel pin under 
     section 1126 of title 10, United States Code, as a widow, 
     parent, or next of kin of a member of the Armed Forces person 
     who died in a manner described in subsection (a) of such 
     section.
       ``(5) Publication of member availability for assistance.--
     Not later than 5 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury shall publish to 
     its Website on the World Wide Web in a prominent location, 
     large point font, and boldface type the following statement: 
     `The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) has been 
     terminated. If you are having trouble paying your mortgage 
     and need help contacting your lender or servicer for purposes 
     of negotiating or acquiring a loan modification, please 
     contact your Member of Congress to assist you in contacting 
     your lender or servicer for the purpose of negotiating or 
     acquiring a loan modification.'.
       ``(6) Notification to hamp applicants required.--Not later 
     than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     subsection, the Secretary of the Treasury shall inform each 
     individual who applied for the Home Affordable Modification 
     Program and will not be considered for a modification under 
     such Program due to termination of such Program under this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) that such Program has been terminated;
       ``(B) that loan modifications under such Program are no 
     longer available;
       ``(C) of the name and contact information of such 
     individual's Member of Congress; and
       ``(D) that the individual should contact his or her Member 
     of Congress to assist the individual in contacting the 
     individual's lender or servicer for the purpose of 
     negotiating or acquiring a loan modification.''.

     SEC. 324. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       The Congress encourages banks to work with homeowners to 
     provide loan modifications to those that are eligible. The 
     Congress also encourages banks to work and assist homeowners 
     and prospective homeowners with foreclosure prevention 
     programs and information on loan modifications.

          Subtitle C--Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection

     SEC. 331. BRINGING THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 
                   PROTECTION INTO THE REGULAR APPROPRIATIONS 
                   PROCESS.

       Section 1017 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 
     2010 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by amending the heading of such subsection to read as 
     follows: ``Budget, Financial Management, and Audit.--'';
       (B) by striking paragraphs (1), (2), and (3);
       (C) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5) as paragraphs 
     (1) and (2), respectively; and
       (D) by striking subparagraphs (E) and (F) of paragraph (1), 
     as so redesignated;
       (2) by striking subsections (b), (c), and (d);
       (3) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (b); and
       (4) in subsection (b), as so redesignated--
       (A) by striking paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $200,000,000 to carry out this title for 
     each of fiscal years 2012 and 2013.''; and
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (2).

                   Subtitle D--Flood Insurance Reform

     SEC. 341. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Flood Insurance Reform 
     Act of 2012''.

     SEC. 342. EXTENSIONS.

       (a) Extension of Program.--Section 1319 of the National 
     Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4026) is amended by 
     striking ``the earlier of the date of the enactment into law 
     of an Act that specifically amends the date specified in this 
     section or May 31, 2012'' and inserting ``September 30, 
     2016''.
       (b) Extension of Financing.--Section 1309(a) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)) is amended by striking ``the earlier of 
     the date of the enactment into law of an Act that 
     specifically amends the date specified in this section or May 
     31, 2012'' and inserting ``September 30, 2016''.

     SEC. 343. MANDATORY PURCHASE.

       (a) Authority To Temporarily Suspend Mandatory Purchase 
     Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--Section 102 of the Flood Disaster 
     Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Authority To Temporarily Suspend Mandatory Purchase 
     Requirement.--
       ``(1) Finding by administrator that area is an eligible 
     area.--For any area, upon a request submitted to the 
     Administrator by a local government authority having 
     jurisdiction over any portion of the area, the Administrator 
     shall make a finding of whether the area is an eligible area 
     under paragraph (3). If the Administrator finds that such 
     area is an eligible area, the Administrator shall, in the 
     discretion of the Administrator, designate a period during 
     which such finding shall be effective, which shall not be 
     longer in duration than 12 months.
       ``(2) Suspension of mandatory purchase requirement.--If the 
     Administrator makes a finding under paragraph (1) that an 
     area is an eligible area under paragraph (3), during the 
     period specified in the finding, the designation of such 
     eligible area as an area having special flood hazards shall 
     not be effective for purposes of subsections (a), (b), and 
     (e) of this section, and section 202(a) of this Act. Nothing 
     in this paragraph may be construed to prevent any lender, 
     servicer, regulated lending institution, Federal agency 
     lender, the Federal National Mortgage Association, or the 
     Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, at the discretion of 
     such entity, from requiring the purchase of flood insurance 
     coverage in connection with the making, increasing, 
     extending, or renewing of a loan secured by improved real 
     estate or a mobile home located or to be located in such 
     eligible area during such period or a lender or servicer from 
     purchasing coverage on behalf of a borrower pursuant to 
     subsection (e).
       ``(3) Eligible areas.--An eligible area under this 
     paragraph is an area that is designated or will, pursuant to 
     any issuance, revision, updating, or other change in flood 
     insurance maps that takes effect on or after the date of the 
     enactment of the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, become 
     designated as an area having special flood hazards and that 
     meets any one of the following 3 requirements:
       ``(A) Areas with no history of special flood hazards.--The 
     area does not include any area that has ever previously been 
     designated as an area having special flood hazards.
       ``(B) Areas with flood protection systems under 
     improvements.--The area was intended to be protected by a 
     flood protection system--
       ``(i) that has been decertified, or is required to be 
     certified, as providing protection for the 100-year frequency 
     flood standard;
       ``(ii) that is being improved, constructed, or 
     reconstructed; and
       ``(iii) for which the Administrator has determined 
     measurable progress toward completion of such improvement, 
     construction, reconstruction is being made and toward 
     securing financial commitments sufficient to fund such 
     completion.
       ``(C) Areas for which appeal has been filed.--An area for 
     which a community has appealed designation of the area as 
     having special flood hazards in a timely manner under section 
     1363.
       ``(4) Extension of delay.--Upon a request submitted by a 
     local government authority having jurisdiction over any 
     portion of the eligible area, the Administrator may extend 
     the period during which a finding under paragraph (1) shall 
     be effective, except that--
       ``(A) each such extension under this paragraph shall not be 
     for a period exceeding 12 months; and
       ``(B) for any area, the cumulative number of such 
     extensions may not exceed 2.
       ``(5) Additional extension for communities making more than 
     adequate progress on flood protection system.--
       ``(A) Extension.--
       ``(i) Authority.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     in the case of an eligible area for which the Administrator 
     has, pursuant to paragraph (4), extended the period of 
     effectiveness of the finding under paragraph (1) for the 
     area, upon a request submitted by a local government

[[Page H2587]]

     authority having jurisdiction over any portion of the 
     eligible area, if the Administrator finds that more than 
     adequate progress has been made on the construction of a 
     flood protection system for such area, as determined in 
     accordance with the last sentence of section 1307(e) of the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4014(e)), the 
     Administrator may, in the discretion of the Administrator, 
     further extend the period during which the finding under 
     paragraph (1) shall be effective for such area for an 
     additional 12 months.
       ``(ii) Limit.-- For any eligible area, the cumulative 
     number of extensions under this subparagraph may not exceed 
     2.
       ``(B) Exclusion for new mortgages.--
       ``(i) Exclusion.--Any extension under subparagraph (A) of 
     this paragraph of a finding under paragraph (1) shall not be 
     effective with respect to any excluded property after the 
     origination, increase, extension, or renewal of the loan 
     referred to in clause (ii)(II) for the property.
       ``(ii) Excluded properties.--For purposes of this 
     subparagraph, the term `excluded property' means any improved 
     real estate or mobile home--

       ``(I) that is located in an eligible area; and
       ``(II) for which, during the period that any extension 
     under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph of a finding under 
     paragraph (1) is otherwise in effect for the eligible area in 
     which such property is located--

       ``(aa) a loan that is secured by the property is 
     originated; or
       ``(bb) any existing loan that is secured by the property is 
     increased, extended, or renewed.
       ``(6) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection may 
     be construed to affect the applicability of a designation of 
     any area as an area having special flood hazards for purposes 
     of the availability of flood insurance coverage, criteria for 
     land management and use, notification of flood hazards, 
     eligibility for mitigation assistance, or any other purpose 
     or provision not specifically referred to in paragraph (2).
       ``(7) Reports.--The Administrator shall, in each annual 
     report submitted pursuant to section 1320, include 
     information identifying each finding under paragraph (1) by 
     the Administrator during the preceding year that an area is 
     an area having special flood hazards, the basis for each such 
     finding, any extensions pursuant to paragraph (4) of the 
     periods of effectiveness of such findings, and the reasons 
     for such extensions.''.
       (2) No refunds.--Nothing in this subsection or the 
     amendments made by this subsection may be construed to 
     authorize or require any payment or refund for flood 
     insurance coverage purchased for any property that covered 
     any period during which such coverage is not required for the 
     property pursuant to the applicability of the amendment made 
     by paragraph (1).
       (b) Termination of Force-Placed Insurance.--Section 102(e) 
     of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 
     4012a(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``insurance.'' and 
     inserting ``insurance, including premiums or fees incurred 
     for coverage beginning on the date on which flood insurance 
     coverage lapsed or did not provide a sufficient coverage 
     amount.'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (5) and 6), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(3) Termination of force-placed insurance.--Within 30 
     days of receipt by the lender or servicer of a confirmation 
     of a borrower's existing flood insurance coverage, the lender 
     or servicer shall--
       ``(A) terminate the force-placed insurance; and
       ``(B) refund to the borrower all force-placed insurance 
     premiums paid by the borrower during any period during which 
     the borrower's flood insurance coverage and the force-placed 
     flood insurance coverage were each in effect, and any related 
     fees charged to the borrower with respect to the force-placed 
     insurance during such period.
       ``(4) Sufficiency of demonstration.--For purposes of 
     confirming a borrower's existing flood insurance coverage, a 
     lender or servicer for a loan shall accept from the borrower 
     an insurance policy declarations page that includes the 
     existing flood insurance policy number and the identity of, 
     and contact information for, the insurance company or 
     agent.''.
       (c) Use of Private Insurance to Satisfy Mandatory Purchase 
     Requirement.--Section 102(b) of the Flood Disaster Protection 
     Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``lending institutions not to make'' and 
     inserting ``lending institutions--
       ``(A) not to make'';
       (B) in subparagraph (A), as designated by subparagraph (A) 
     of this paragraph, by striking ``less.'' and inserting 
     ``less; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) to accept private flood insurance as satisfaction of 
     the flood insurance coverage requirement under subparagraph 
     (A) if the coverage provided by such private flood insurance 
     meets the requirements for coverage under such 
     subparagraph.'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting after ``provided in 
     paragraph (1).'' the following new sentence: ``Each Federal 
     agency lender shall accept private flood insurance as 
     satisfaction of the flood insurance coverage requirement 
     under the preceding sentence if the flood insurance coverage 
     provided by such private flood insurance meets the 
     requirements for coverage under such sentence.'';
       (3) in paragraph (3), in the matter following subparagraph 
     (B), by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The 
     Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home 
     Loan Mortgage Corporation shall accept private flood 
     insurance as satisfaction of the flood insurance coverage 
     requirement under the preceding sentence if the flood 
     insurance coverage provided by such private flood insurance 
     meets the requirements for coverage under such sentence.''; 
     and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Private flood insurance defined.--In this subsection, 
     the term `private flood insurance' means a contract for flood 
     insurance coverage allowed for sale under the laws of any 
     State.''.

     SEC. 344. REFORMS OF COVERAGE TERMS.

       (a) Minimum Deductibles for Claims.--Section 1312 of the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4019) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Director is'' and inserting the 
     following: ``(a) In General.--The Administrator is''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Minimum Annual Deductibles.--
       ``(1) Subsidized rate properties.--For any structure that 
     is covered by flood insurance under this title, and for which 
     the chargeable rate for such coverage is less than the 
     applicable estimated risk premium rate under section 
     1307(a)(1) for the area (or subdivision thereof) in which 
     such structure is located, the minimum annual deductible for 
     damage to or loss of such structure shall be $2,000.
       ``(2) Actuarial rate properties.--For any structure that is 
     covered by flood insurance under this title, for which the 
     chargeable rate for such coverage is not less than the 
     applicable estimated risk premium rate under section 
     1307(a)(1) for the area (or subdivision thereof) in which 
     such structure is located, the minimum annual deductible for 
     damage to or loss of such structure shall be $1,000.''.
       (b) Clarification of Residential and Commercial Coverage 
     Limits.--Section 1306(b) of the National Flood Insurance Act 
     of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4013(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``in the case of any residential property'' 
     and inserting ``in the case of any residential building 
     designed for the occupancy of from one to four families''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``shall be made available to every insured 
     upon renewal and every applicant for insurance so as to 
     enable such insured or applicant to receive coverage up to a 
     total amount (including such limits specified in paragraph 
     (1)(A)(i)) of $250,000'' and inserting ``shall be made 
     available, with respect to any single such building, up to an 
     aggregate liability (including such limits specified in 
     paragraph (1)(A)(i)) of $250,000''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by striking ``in the case of any nonresidential 
     property, including churches,'' and inserting ``in the case 
     of any nonresidential building, including a church,''; and
       (B) by striking ``shall be made available to every insured 
     upon renewal and every applicant for insurance, in respect to 
     any single structure, up to a total amount (including such 
     limit specified in subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1), 
     as applicable) of $500,000 for each structure and $500,000 
     for any contents related to each structure'' and inserting 
     ``shall be made available with respect to any single such 
     building, up to an aggregate liability (including such limits 
     specified in subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1), as 
     applicable) of $500,000, and coverage shall be made available 
     up to a total of $500,000 aggregate liability for contents 
     owned by the building owner and $500,000 aggregate liability 
     for each unit within the building for contents owned by the 
     tenant''.
       (c) Indexing of Maximum Coverage Limits.--Subsection (b) of 
     section 1306 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 4013(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (7); and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) each of the dollar amount limitations under 
     paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) shall be adjusted 
     effective on the date of the enactment of the Flood Insurance 
     Reform Act of 2012, such adjustments shall be calculated 
     using the percentage change, over the period beginning on 
     September 30, 1994, and ending on such date of enactment, in 
     such inflationary index as the Administrator shall, by 
     regulation, specify, and the dollar amount of such adjustment 
     shall be rounded to the next lower dollar; and the 
     Administrator shall cause to be published in the Federal 
     Register the adjustments under this paragraph to such dollar 
     amount limitations; except that in the case of coverage for a 
     property that is made available, pursuant to this paragraph, 
     in an amount that exceeds the limitation otherwise applicable 
     to such coverage as specified in paragraph (2), (3), (4), 
     (5), or (6), the total of such coverage shall be made 
     available only at chargeable rates that are not less than the 
     estimated premium rates for such coverage determined in 
     accordance with section 1307(a)(1).''.
       (d) Optional Coverage for Loss of Use of Personal Residence 
     and Business Interruption.--Subsection (b) of section 1306 of 
     the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4013(b)), 
     as amended by the preceding provisions of this section, is 
     further amended by inserting after paragraph (4) the 
     following new paragraphs:
       ``(5) the Administrator may provide that, in the case of 
     any residential property, each renewal or new contract for 
     flood insurance coverage may provide not more than $5,000 
     aggregate liability per dwelling unit for any necessary 
     increases in living expenses incurred by

[[Page H2588]]

     the insured when losses from a flood make the residence unfit 
     to live in, except that--
       ``(A) purchase of such coverage shall be at the option of 
     the insured;
       ``(B) any such coverage shall be made available only at 
     chargeable rates that are not less than the estimated premium 
     rates for such coverage determined in accordance with section 
     1307(a)(1); and
       ``(C) the Administrator may make such coverage available 
     only if the Administrator makes a determination and causes 
     notice of such determination to be published in the Federal 
     Register that--
       ``(i) a competitive private insurance market for such 
     coverage does not exist; and
       ``(ii) the national flood insurance program has the 
     capacity to make such coverage available without borrowing 
     funds from the Secretary of the Treasury under section 1309 
     or otherwise;
       ``(6) the Administrator may provide that, in the case of 
     any commercial property or other residential property, 
     including multifamily rental property, coverage for losses 
     resulting from any partial or total interruption of the 
     insured's business caused by damage to, or loss of, such 
     property from a flood may be made available to every insured 
     upon renewal and every applicant, up to a total amount of 
     $20,000 per property, except that--
       ``(A) purchase of such coverage shall be at the option of 
     the insured;
       ``(B) any such coverage shall be made available only at 
     chargeable rates that are not less than the estimated premium 
     rates for such coverage determined in accordance with section 
     1307(a)(1); and
       ``(C) the Administrator may make such coverage available 
     only if the Administrator makes a determination and causes 
     notice of such determination to be published in the Federal 
     Register that--
       ``(i) a competitive private insurance market for such 
     coverage does not exist; and
       ``(ii) the national flood insurance program has the 
     capacity to make such coverage available without borrowing 
     funds from the Secretary of the Treasury under section 1309 
     or otherwise;''.
       (e) Payment of Premiums in Installments for Residential 
     Properties.--Section 1306 of the National Flood Insurance Act 
     of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4013) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(d) Payment of Premiums in Installments for Residential 
     Properties.--
       ``(1) Authority.--In addition to any other terms and 
     conditions under subsection (a), such regulations shall 
     provide that, in the case of any residential property, 
     premiums for flood insurance coverage made available under 
     this title for such property may be paid in installments.
       ``(2) Limitations.--In implementing the authority under 
     paragraph (1), the Administrator may establish increased 
     chargeable premium rates and surcharges, and deny coverage 
     and establish such other sanctions, as the Administrator 
     considers necessary to ensure that insureds purchase, pay 
     for, and maintain coverage for the full term of a contract 
     for flood insurance coverage or to prevent insureds from 
     purchasing coverage only for periods during a year when risk 
     of flooding is comparatively higher or canceling coverage for 
     periods when such risk is comparatively lower.''.
       (f) Effective Date of Policies Covering Properties Affected 
     by Floods in Progress.--Paragraph (1) of section 1306(c) of 
     the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4013(c)) 
     is amended by adding after the period at the end the 
     following: ``With respect to any flood that has commenced or 
     is in progress before the expiration of such 30-day period, 
     such flood insurance coverage for a property shall take 
     effect upon the expiration of such 30-day period and shall 
     cover damage to such property occurring after the expiration 
     of such period that results from such flood, but only if the 
     property has not suffered damage or loss as a result of such 
     flood before the expiration of such 30-day period.''.

     SEC. 345. REFORMS OF PREMIUM RATES.

       (a) Increase in Annual Limitation on Premium Increases.--
     Section 1308(e) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 4015(e)) is amended by striking ``10 percent'' and 
     inserting ``20 percent''.
       (b) Phase-In of Rates for Certain Properties in Newly 
     Mapped Areas.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1308 of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by inserting ``or notice'' after ``prescribe by 
     regulation'';
       (B) in subsection (c), by inserting ``and subsection (g)'' 
     before the first comma; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) 5-Year Phase-In of Flood Insurance Rates for Certain 
     Properties in Newly Mapped Areas.--
       ``(1) 5-year phase-in period.--Notwithstanding subsection 
     (c) or any other provision of law relating to chargeable risk 
     premium rates for flood insurance coverage under this title, 
     in the case of any area that was not previously designated as 
     an area having special flood hazards and that, pursuant to 
     any issuance, revision, updating, or other change in flood 
     insurance maps, becomes designated as such an area, during 
     the 5-year period that begins, except as provided in 
     paragraph (2), upon the date that such maps, as issued, 
     revised, updated, or otherwise changed, become effective, the 
     chargeable premium rate for flood insurance under this title 
     with respect to any covered property that is located within 
     such area shall be the rate described in paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Applicability to preferred risk rate areas.--In the 
     case of any area described in paragraph (1) that consists of 
     or includes an area that, as of date of the effectiveness of 
     the flood insurance maps for such area referred to in 
     paragraph (1) as so issued, revised, updated, or changed, is 
     eligible for any reason for preferred risk rate method 
     premiums for flood insurance coverage and was eligible for 
     such premiums as of the enactment of the Flood Insurance 
     Reform Act of 2012, the 5-year period referred to in 
     paragraph (1) for such area eligible for preferred risk rate 
     method premiums shall begin upon the expiration of the period 
     during which such area is eligible for such preferred risk 
     rate method premiums.
       ``(3) Phase-in of full actuarial rates.--With respect to 
     any area described in paragraph (1), the chargeable risk 
     premium rate for flood insurance under this title for a 
     covered property that is located in such area shall be--
       ``(A) for the first year of the 5-year period referred to 
     in paragraph (1), the greater of--
       ``(i) 20 percent of the chargeable risk premium rate 
     otherwise applicable under this title to the property; and
       ``(ii) in the case of any property that, as of the 
     beginning of such first year, is eligible for preferred risk 
     rate method premiums for flood insurance coverage, such 
     preferred risk rate method premium for the property;
       ``(B) for the second year of such 5-year period, 40 percent 
     of the chargeable risk premium rate otherwise applicable 
     under this title to the property;
       ``(C) for the third year of such 5-year period, 60 percent 
     of the chargeable risk premium rate otherwise applicable 
     under this title to the property;
       ``(D) for the fourth year of such 5-year period, 80 percent 
     of the chargeable risk premium rate otherwise applicable 
     under this title to the property; and
       ``(E) for the fifth year of such 5-year period, 100 percent 
     of the chargeable risk premium rate otherwise applicable 
     under this title to the property.
       ``(4) Covered properties.--For purposes of the subsection, 
     the term `covered property' means any residential property 
     occupied by its owner or a bona fide tenant as a primary 
     residence.''.
       (2) Regulation or notice.--The Administrator of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency shall issue an interim final rule 
     or notice to implement this subsection and the amendments 
     made by this subsection as soon as practicable after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Phase-In of Actuarial Rates for Certain Properties.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1308(c) of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015(c)) is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (7); and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(2) Commercial properties.--Any nonresidential property.
       ``(3) Second homes and vacation homes.--Any residential 
     property that is not the primary residence of any individual.
       ``(4) Homes sold to new owners.--Any single family property 
     that--
       ``(A) has been constructed or substantially improved and 
     for which such construction or improvement was started, as 
     determined by the Administrator, before December 31, 1974, or 
     before the effective date of the initial rate map published 
     by the Administrator under paragraph (2) of section 1360(a) 
     for the area in which such property is located, whichever is 
     later; and
       ``(B) is purchased after the effective date of this 
     paragraph, pursuant to section 345(c)(3)(A) of the Flood 
     Insurance Reform Act of 2012.
       ``(5) Homes damaged or improved.--Any property that, on or 
     after the date of the enactment of the Flood Insurance Reform 
     Act of 2012, has experienced or sustained--
       ``(A) substantial flood damage exceeding 50 percent of the 
     fair market value of such property; or
       ``(B) substantial improvement exceeding 30 percent of the 
     fair market value of such property.
       ``(6) Homes with multiple claims.--Any severe repetitive 
     loss property (as such term is defined in section 
     1366(j)).''.
       (2) Technical amendments.--Section 1308 of the National 
     Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (c)--
       (i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``the limitations provided under paragraphs (1) and (2)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (e)''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, except'' and all 
     that follows through ``subsection (e)''; and
       (B) in subsection (e), by striking ``paragraph (2) or (3)'' 
     and inserting ``paragraph (7)''.
       (3) Effective date and transition.--
       (A) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraphs (1) 
     and (2) shall apply beginning upon the expiration of the 12-
     month period that begins on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, except as provided in subparagraph (B) of this 
     paragraph.
       (B) Transition for properties covered by flood insurance 
     upon effective date.--
       (i) Increase of rates over time.--In the case of any 
     property described in paragraph (2), (3), (4), (5), or (6) of 
     section 1308(c) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 
     as amended by paragraph (1) of this subsection, that, as of 
     the effective date under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, 
     is covered under a policy for flood insurance made available 
     under the national flood insurance program for which the 
     chargeable premium rates are less than the applicable 
     estimated risk premium rate under section 1307(a)(1) of such 
     Act for the area in which the property is located, the 
     Administrator of the

[[Page H2589]]

     Federal Emergency Management Agency shall increase the 
     chargeable premium rates for such property over time to such 
     applicable estimated risk premium rate under section 
     1307(a)(1).
       (ii) Amount of annual increase.--Such increase shall be 
     made by increasing the chargeable premium rates for the 
     property (after application of any increase in the premium 
     rates otherwise applicable to such property), once during the 
     12-month period that begins upon the effective date under 
     subparagraph (A) of this paragraph and once every 12 months 
     thereafter until such increase is accomplished, by 20 percent 
     (or such lesser amount as may be necessary so that the 
     chargeable rate does not exceed such applicable estimated 
     risk premium rate or to comply with clause (iii)).
       (iii) Properties subject to phase-in and annual 
     increases.--In the case of any pre-FIRM property (as such 
     term is defined in section 578(b) of the National Flood 
     Insurance Reform Act of 1974), the aggregate increase, during 
     any 12-month period, in the chargeable premium rate for the 
     property that is attributable to this subparagraph or to an 
     increase described in section 1308(e) of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 may not exceed 20 percent.
       (iv) Full actuarial rates.--The provisions of paragraphs 
     (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) of such section 1308(c) shall 
     apply to such a property upon the accomplishment of the 
     increase under this subparagraph and thereafter.
       (d) Prohibition of Extension of Subsidized Rates to Lapsed 
     Policies.--Section 1308 of the National Flood Insurance Act 
     of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015), as amended by the preceding 
     provisions of this subtitle, is further amended--
       (1) in subsection (e), by inserting ``or subsection (h)'' 
     after ``subsection (c)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Prohibition of Extension of Subsidized Rates to 
     Lapsed Policies.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     relating to chargeable risk premium rates for flood insurance 
     coverage under this title, the Administrator shall not 
     provide flood insurance coverage under this title for any 
     property for which a policy for such coverage for the 
     property has previously lapsed in coverage as a result of the 
     deliberate choice of the holder of such policy, at a rate 
     less than the applicable estimated risk premium rates for the 
     area (or subdivision thereof) in which such property is 
     located.''.
       (e) Recognition of State and Local Funding for 
     Construction, Reconstruction, and Improvement of Flood 
     Protection Systems in Determination of Rates.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1307 of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4014) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (e)--
       (i) in the first sentence, by striking ``construction of a 
     flood protection system'' and inserting ``construction, 
     reconstruction, or improvement of a flood protection system 
     (without respect to the level of Federal investment or 
     participation)''; and
       (ii) in the second sentence--

       (I) by striking ``construction of a flood protection 
     system'' and inserting ``construction, reconstruction, or 
     improvement of a flood protection system''; and
       (II) by inserting ``based on the present value of the 
     completed system'' after ``has been expended''; and

       (B) in subsection (f)--
       (i) in the first sentence in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by inserting ``(without respect to the level of Federal 
     investment or participation)'' before the period at the end;
       (ii) in the third sentence in the matter preceding 
     paragraph (1), by inserting ``, whether coastal or 
     riverine,'' after ``special flood hazard''; and
       (iii) in paragraph (1), by striking ``a Federal agency in 
     consultation with the local project sponsor'' and inserting 
     ``the entity or entities that own, operate, maintain, or 
     repair such system''.
       (2) Regulations.--The Administrator of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency shall promulgate regulations to 
     implement this subsection and the amendments made by this 
     subsection as soon as practicable, but not more than 18 
     months after the date of the enactment of this Act. Paragraph 
     (3) may not be construed to annul, alter, affect, authorize 
     any waiver of, or establish any exception to, the requirement 
     under the preceding sentence.

     SEC. 346. TECHNICAL MAPPING ADVISORY COUNCIL.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a council to be 
     known as the Technical Mapping Advisory Council (in this 
     section referred to as the ``Council'').
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The Council shall consist of--
       (A) the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Administrator''), or the designee thereof;
       (B) the Director of the United States Geological Survey of 
     the Department of the Interior, or the designee thereof;
       (C) the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and 
     Atmosphere, or the designee thereof;
       (D) the commanding officer of the United States Army Corps 
     of Engineers, or the designee thereof;
       (E) the chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
     of the Department of Agriculture, or the designee thereof;
       (F) the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service of the Department of the Interior, or the designee 
     thereof;
       (G) the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the 
     Department of Commerce, or the designee thereof; and
       (H) 14 additional members to be appointed by the 
     Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, who 
     shall be--
       (i) an expert in data management;
       (ii) an expert in real estate;
       (iii) an expert in insurance;
       (iv) a member of a recognized regional flood and storm 
     water management organization;
       (v) a representative of a State emergency management agency 
     or association or organization for such agencies;
       (vi) a member of a recognized professional surveying 
     association or organization;
       (vii) a member of a recognized professional mapping 
     association or organization;
       (viii) a member of a recognized professional engineering 
     association or organization;
       (ix) a member of a recognized professional association or 
     organization representing flood hazard determination firms;
       (x) a representative of State national flood insurance 
     coordination offices;
       (xi) representatives of two local governments, at least one 
     of whom is a local levee flood manager or executive, 
     designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as 
     Cooperating Technical Partners; and
       (xii) representatives of two State governments designated 
     by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as Cooperating 
     Technical States.
       (2) Qualifications.--Members of the Council shall be 
     appointed based on their demonstrated knowledge and 
     competence regarding surveying, cartography, remote sensing, 
     geographic information systems, or the technical aspects of 
     preparing and using flood insurance rate maps. In appointing 
     members under paragraph (1)(H), the Administrator shall 
     ensure that the membership of the Council has a balance of 
     Federal, State, local, and private members, and includes an 
     adequate number of representatives from the States with 
     coastline on the Gulf of Mexico and other States containing 
     areas identified by the Administrator of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency as at high-risk for flooding or 
     special flood hazard areas.
       (c) Duties.--
       (1) New mapping standards.--Not later than the expiration 
     of the 12-month period beginning upon the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Council shall develop and submit 
     to the Administrator and the Congress proposed new mapping 
     standards for 100-year flood insurance rate maps used under 
     the national flood insurance program under the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968. In developing such proposed standards 
     the Council shall--
       (A) ensure that the flood insurance rate maps reflect true 
     risk, including graduated risk that better reflects the 
     financial risk to each property; such reflection of risk 
     should be at the smallest geographic level possible (but not 
     necessarily property-by-property) to ensure that communities 
     are mapped in a manner that takes into consideration 
     different risk levels within the community;
       (B) ensure the most efficient generation, display, and 
     distribution of flood risk data, models, and maps where 
     practicable through dynamic digital environments using 
     spatial database technology and the Internet;
       (C) ensure that flood insurance rate maps reflect current 
     hydrologic and hydraulic data, current land use, and 
     topography, incorporating the most current and accurate 
     ground and bathymetric elevation data;
       (D) determine the best ways to include in such flood 
     insurance rate maps levees, decertified levees, and areas 
     located below dams, including determining a methodology for 
     ensuring that decertified levees and other protections are 
     included in flood insurance rate maps and their corresponding 
     flood zones reflect the level of protection conferred;
       (E) consider how to incorporate restored wetlands and other 
     natural buffers into flood insurance rate maps, which may 
     include wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, erosion zones, 
     meander belts, endangered species habitat, barrier islands 
     and shoreline buffer features, riparian forests, and other 
     features;
       (F) consider whether to use vertical positioning (as 
     defined by the Administrator) for flood insurance rate maps;
       (G) ensure that flood insurance rate maps differentiate 
     between a property that is located in a flood zone and a 
     structure located on such property that is not at the same 
     risk level for flooding as such property due to the elevation 
     of the structure;
       (H) ensure that flood insurance rate maps take into 
     consideration the best scientific data and potential future 
     conditions (including projections for sea level rise); and
       (I) consider how to incorporate the new standards proposed 
     pursuant to this paragraph in existing mapping efforts.
       (2) Ongoing duties.--The Council shall, on an ongoing 
     basis, review the mapping protocols developed pursuant to 
     paragraph (1), and make recommendations to the Administrator 
     when the Council determines that mapping protocols should be 
     altered.
       (3) Meetings.--In carrying out its duties under this 
     section, the Council shall consult with stakeholders through 
     at least 4 public meetings annually, and shall seek input of 
     all stakeholder interests including State and local 
     representatives, environmental and conservation 
     organizations, insurance industry representatives, advocacy 
     groups, planning organizations, and mapping organizations.
       (d) Prohibition on Compensation.--Members of the Council 
     shall receive no additional compensation by reason of their 
     service on the Council.
       (e) Chairperson.--The Administrator shall serve as the 
     Chairperson of the Council.
       (f) Staff.--
       (1) FEMA.--Upon the request of the Council, the 
     Administrator may detail, on a nonreimbursable basis, 
     personnel of the Federal Emergency

[[Page H2590]]

     Management Agency to assist the Council in carrying out its 
     duties.
       (2) Other federal agencies.--Upon request of the Council, 
     any other Federal agency that is a member of the Council may 
     detail, on a non-reimbursable basis, personnel to assist the 
     Council in carrying out its duties.
       (g) Powers.--In carrying out this section, the Council may 
     hold hearings, receive evidence and assistance, provide 
     information, and conduct research, as the Council considers 
     appropriate.
       (h) Termination.--The Council shall terminate upon the 
     expiration of the 5-year period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (i) Moratorium on Flood Map Changes.--
       (1) Moratorium.--Except as provided in paragraph (2) and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of this subtitle, the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, or the Flood Disaster 
     Protection Act of 1973, during the period beginning upon the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and ending upon the 
     submission by the Council to the Administrator and the 
     Congress of the proposed new mapping standards required under 
     subsection (c)(1), the Administrator may not make effective 
     any new or updated rate maps for flood insurance coverage 
     under the national flood insurance program that were not in 
     effect for such program as of such date of enactment, or 
     otherwise revise, update, or change the flood insurance rate 
     maps in effect for such program as of such date.
       (2) Letters of map change.--During the period described in 
     paragraph (1), the Administrator may revise, update, and 
     change the flood insurance rate maps in effect for the 
     national flood insurance program only pursuant to a letter of 
     map change (including a letter of map amendment, letter of 
     map revision, and letter of map revision based on fill).

     SEC. 347. FEMA INCORPORATION OF NEW MAPPING PROTOCOLS.

       (a) New Rate Mapping Standards.--Not later than the 
     expiration of the 6-month period beginning upon submission by 
     the Technical Mapping Advisory Council under section 346 of 
     the proposed new mapping standards for flood insurance rate 
     maps used under the national flood insurance program 
     developed by the Council pursuant to section 346(c), the 
     Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (in 
     this section referred to as the ``Administrator'') shall 
     establish new standards for such rate maps based on such 
     proposed new standards and the recommendations of the 
     Council.
       (b) Requirements.--The new standards for flood insurance 
     rate maps established by the Administrator pursuant to 
     subsection (a) shall--
       (1) delineate and include in any such rate maps--
       (A) all areas located within the 100-year flood plain; and
       (B) areas subject to graduated and other risk levels, to 
     the maximum extent possible;
       (2) ensure that any such rate maps--
       (A) include levees, including decertified levees, and the 
     level of protection they confer;
       (B) reflect current land use and topography and incorporate 
     the most current and accurate ground level data;
       (C) take into consideration the impacts and use of fill and 
     the flood risks associated with altered hydrology;
       (D) differentiate between a property that is located in a 
     flood zone and a structure located on such property that is 
     not at the same risk level for flooding as such property due 
     to the elevation of the structure;
       (E) identify and incorporate natural features and their 
     associated flood protection benefits into mapping and rates; 
     and
       (F) identify, analyze, and incorporate the impact of 
     significant changes to building and development throughout 
     any river or costal water system, including all tributaries, 
     which may impact flooding in areas downstream; and
       (3) provide that such rate maps are developed on a 
     watershed basis.
       (c) Report.--If, in establishing new standards for flood 
     insurance rate maps pursuant to subsection (a) of this 
     section, the Administrator does not implement all of the 
     recommendations of the Council made under the proposed new 
     mapping standards developed by the Council pursuant to 
     section 346(c), upon establishment of the new standards the 
     Administrator shall submit a report to the Committee on 
     Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
     Senate specifying which such recommendations were not adopted 
     and explaining the reasons such recommendations were not 
     adopted.
       (d) Implementation.--The Administrator shall, not later 
     than the expiration of the 6-month period beginning upon 
     establishment of the new standards for flood insurance rate 
     maps pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, commence use 
     of the new standards and updating of flood insurance rate 
     maps in accordance with the new standards. Not later than the 
     expiration of the 10-year period beginning upon the 
     establishment of such new standards, the Administrator shall 
     complete updating of all flood insurance rate maps in 
     accordance with the new standards, subject to the 
     availability of sufficient amounts for such activities 
     provided in appropriation Acts.
       (e) Temporary Suspension of Mandatory Purchase Requirement 
     for Certain Properties.--
       (1) Submission of elevation certificate.--Subject to 
     paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection, subsections (a), 
     (b), and (e) of section 102 of the Flood Disaster Protection 
     Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a), and section 202(a) of such 
     Act, shall not apply to a property located in an area 
     designated as having a special flood hazard if the owner of 
     such property submits to the Administrator an elevation 
     certificate for such property showing that the lowest level 
     of the primary residence on such property is at an elevation 
     that is at least three feet higher than the elevation of the 
     100-year flood plain.
       (2) Review of certificate.--The Administrator shall accept 
     as conclusive each elevation certificate submitted under 
     paragraph (1) unless the Administrator conducts a subsequent 
     elevation survey and determines that the lowest level of the 
     primary residence on the property in question is not at an 
     elevation that is at least three feet higher than the 
     elevation of the 100-year flood plain. The Administrator 
     shall provide any such subsequent elevation survey to the 
     owner of such property.
       (3) Determinations for properties on borders of special 
     flood hazard areas.--
       (A) Expedited determination.--In the case of any survey for 
     a property submitted to the Administrator pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) showing that a portion of the property is 
     located within an area having special flood hazards and that 
     a structure located on the property is not located within 
     such area having special flood hazards, the Administrator 
     shall expeditiously process any request made by an owner of 
     the property for a determination pursuant to paragraph (2) or 
     a determination of whether the structure is located within 
     the area having special flood hazards.
       (B) Prohibition of fee.--If the Administrator determines 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A) that the structure on the 
     property is not located within the area having special flood 
     hazards, the Administrator shall not charge a fee for 
     reviewing the flood hazard data and shall not require the 
     owner to provide any additional elevation data.
       (C) Simplification of review process.--The Administrator 
     shall collaborate with private sector flood insurers to 
     simplify the review process for properties described in 
     subparagraph (A) and to ensure that the review process 
     provides for accurate determinations.
       (4) Termination of authority.--This subsection shall cease 
     to apply to a property on the date on which the Administrator 
     updates the flood insurance rate map that applies to such 
     property in accordance with the requirements of subsection 
     (d).

     SEC. 348. TREATMENT OF LEVEES.

       Section 1360 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 4101) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(k) Treatment of Levees.--The Administrator may not issue 
     flood insurance maps, or make effective updated flood 
     insurance maps, that omit or disregard the actual protection 
     afforded by an existing levee, floodwall, pump or other flood 
     protection feature, regardless of the accreditation status of 
     such feature.''.

     SEC. 349. PRIVATIZATION INITIATIVES.

       (a) FEMA and GAO Reports.--Not later than the expiration of 
     the 18-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency and the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall each conduct a separate study to assess a broad 
     range of options, methods, and strategies for privatizing the 
     national flood insurance program and shall each submit a 
     report to the Committee on Financial Services of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs of the Senate with recommendations for the best 
     manner to accomplish such privatization.
       (b) Private Risk-Management Initiatives.--
       (1) Authority.--The Administrator of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency may carry out such private risk-management 
     initiatives under the national flood insurance program as the 
     Administrator considers appropriate to determine the capacity 
     of private insurers, reinsurers, and financial markets to 
     assist communities, on a voluntary basis only, in managing 
     the full range of financial risks associated with flooding.
       (2) Assessment.--Not later than the expiration of the 12-
     month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the Administrator shall assess the capacity of the 
     private reinsurance, capital, and financial markets by 
     seeking proposals to assume a portion of the program's 
     insurance risk and submit to the Congress a report describing 
     the response to such request for proposals and the results of 
     such assessment.
       (3) Protocol for release of data.--The Administrator shall 
     develop a protocol to provide for the release of data 
     sufficient to conduct the assessment required under paragraph 
     (2).
       (c) Reinsurance.--The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     is amended--
       (1) in section 1331(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 4051(a)(2)), by 
     inserting ``, including as reinsurance of insurance coverage 
     provided by the flood insurance program'' before ``, on such 
     terms'';
       (2) in section 1332(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 4052(c)(2)), by 
     inserting ``or reinsurance'' after ``flood insurance 
     coverage'';
       (3) in section 1335(a) (42 U.S.C. 4055(a))--
       (A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) The Administrator is authorized to secure reinsurance 
     coverage of coverage provided by the flood insurance program 
     from private market insurance, reinsurance, and capital 
     market sources at rates and on terms determined by the 
     Administrator to be reasonable and appropriate in an amount 
     sufficient to maintain the ability of the program to pay 
     claims and that minimizes the likelihood that the program 
     will utilize the borrowing authority provided under section 
     1309.'';
       (4) in section 1346(a) (12 U.S.C. 4082(a))--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting ``, 
     or for purposes of securing reinsurance of insurance coverage 
     provided by the program,'' before ``of any or all of'';
       (B) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``estimating'' and inserting 
     ``Estimating''; and

[[Page H2591]]

       (ii) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a 
     period;
       (C) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``receiving'' and inserting ``Receiving''; 
     and
       (ii) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a 
     period;
       (D) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking ``making'' and inserting ``Making''; and
       (ii) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period;
       (E) in paragraph (4)--
       (i) by striking ``otherwise'' and inserting ``Otherwise''; 
     and
       (ii) by redesignating such paragraph as paragraph (5); and
       (F) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4) Placing reinsurance coverage on insurance provided by 
     such program.''; and
       (5) in section 1370(a)(3) (42 U.S.C. 4121(a)(3)), by 
     inserting before the semicolon at the end the following: ``, 
     is subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities 
     Exchange Act of 1934, pursuant to section 13(a) or 15(d) of 
     such Act (15 U.S.C. 78m(a), 78o(d)), or is authorized by the 
     Administrator to assume reinsurance on risks insured by the 
     flood insurance program''.
       (d) Assessment of Claims-Paying Ability.--
       (1) Assessment.--Not later than September 30 of each year, 
     the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     shall conduct an assessment of the claims-paying ability of 
     the national flood insurance program, including the program's 
     utilization of private sector reinsurance and reinsurance 
     equivalents, with and without reliance on borrowing authority 
     under section 1309 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016). In conducting the assessment, the 
     Administrator shall take into consideration regional 
     concentrations of coverage written by the program, peak flood 
     zones, and relevant mitigation measures.
       (2) Report.--The Administrator shall submit a report to the 
     Congress of the results of each such assessment, and make 
     such report available to the public, not later than 30 days 
     after completion of the assessment.

     SEC. 350. FEMA ANNUAL REPORT ON INSURANCE PROGRAM.

       Section 1320 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 4027) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``report to the 
     president'' and inserting ``annual report to congress'';
       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``biennially'';
       (B) by striking ``the President for submission to''; and
       (C) by inserting ``not later than June 30 of each year'' 
     before the period at the end;
       (3) in subsection (b), by striking ``biennial'' and 
     inserting ``annual''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Financial Status of Program.--The report under this 
     section for each year shall include information regarding the 
     financial status of the national flood insurance program 
     under this title, including a description of the financial 
     status of the National Flood Insurance Fund and current and 
     projected levels of claims, premium receipts, expenses, and 
     borrowing under the program.''.

     SEC. 351. MITIGATION ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Mitigation Assistance Grants.--Section 1366 of the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104c) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking the last sentence and 
     inserting the following: ``Such financial assistance shall be 
     made available--
       ``(1) to States and communities in the form of grants under 
     this section for carrying out mitigation activities;
       ``(2) to States and communities in the form of grants under 
     this section for carrying out mitigation activities that 
     reduce flood damage to severe repetitive loss structures; and
       ``(3) to property owners in the form of direct grants under 
     this section for carrying out mitigation activities that 
     reduce flood damage to individual structures for which 2 or 
     more claim payments for losses have been made under flood 
     insurance coverage under this title if the Administrator, 
     after consultation with the State and community, determines 
     that neither the State nor community in which such a 
     structure is located has the capacity to manage such 
     grants.''.
       (2) by striking subsection (b);
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking ``flood risk'' and inserting ``multi-
     hazard'';
       (B) by striking ``provides protection against'' and 
     inserting ``examines reduction of''; and
       (C) by redesignating such subsection as subsection (b);
       (4) by striking subsection (d);
       (5) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking the paragraph designation 
     and all that follows through the end of the first sentence 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Requirement of consistency with approved mitigation 
     plan.--Amounts provided under this section may be used only 
     for mitigation activities that are consistent with mitigation 
     plans that are approved by the Administrator and identified 
     under subparagraph (4).'';
       (B) by striking paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) and inserting 
     the following new paragraphs:
       ``(2) Requirements of technical feasibility, cost 
     effectiveness, and interest of nfif.--The Administrator may 
     approve only mitigation activities that the Administrator 
     determines are technically feasible and cost-effective and in 
     the interest of, and represent savings to, the National Flood 
     Insurance Fund. In making such determinations, the 
     Administrator shall take into consideration recognized 
     benefits that are difficult to quantify.
       ``(3) Priority for mitigation assistance.--In providing 
     grants under this section for mitigation activities, the 
     Administrator shall give priority for funding to activities 
     that the Administrator determines will result in the greatest 
     savings to the National Flood Insurance Fund, including 
     activities for--
       ``(A) severe repetitive loss structures;
       ``(B) repetitive loss structures; and
       ``(C) other subsets of structures as the Administrator may 
     establish.'';
       (C) in paragraph (5)--
       (i) by striking all of the matter that precedes 
     subparagraph (A) and inserting the following:
       ``(4) Eligible activities.--Eligible activities may 
     include--'';
       (ii) by striking subparagraphs (E) and (H);
       (iii) by redesignating subparagraphs (D), (F), and (G) as 
     subparagraphs (E), (G), and (H);
       (iv) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(D) elevation, relocation, and floodproofing of utilities 
     (including equipment that serve structures);'';
       (v) by inserting after subparagraph (E), as so redesignated 
     by clause (iii) of this subparagraph, the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(F) the development or update of State, local, or Indian 
     tribal mitigation plans which meet the planning criteria 
     established by the Administrator, except that the amount from 
     grants under this section that may be used under this 
     subparagraph may not exceed $50,000 for any mitigation plan 
     of a State or $25,000 for any mitigation plan of a local 
     government or Indian tribe;'';
       (vi) in subparagraph (H); as so redesignated by clause 
     (iii) of this subparagraph, by striking ``and'' at the end; 
     and
       (vii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(I) other mitigation activities not described in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (G) or the regulations issued under 
     subparagraph (H), that are described in the mitigation plan 
     of a State, community, or Indian tribe; and
       ``(J) personnel costs for State staff that provide 
     technical assistance to communities to identify eligible 
     activities, to develop grant applications, and to implement 
     grants awarded under this section, not to exceed $50,000 per 
     State in any Federal fiscal year, so long as the State 
     applied for and was awarded at least $1,000,000 in grants 
     available under this section in the prior Federal fiscal 
     year; the requirements of subsections (d)(1) and (d)(2) shall 
     not apply to the activity under this subparagraph.'';
       (D) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Eligibility of demolition and rebuilding of 
     properties.--The Administrator shall consider as an eligible 
     activity the demolition and rebuilding of properties to at 
     least base flood elevation or greater, if required by the 
     Administrator or if required by any State regulation or local 
     ordinance, and in accordance with criteria established by the 
     Administrator.''; and
       (E) by redesignating such subsection as subsection (c);
       (6) by striking subsections (f), (g), and (h) and inserting 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Matching Requirement.--The Administrator may provide 
     grants for eligible mitigation activities as follows:
       ``(1) Severe repetitive loss structures.--In the case of 
     mitigation activities to severe repetitive loss structures, 
     in an amount up to 100 percent of all eligible costs.
       ``(2) Repetitive loss structures.--In the case of 
     mitigation activities to repetitive loss structures, in an 
     amount up to 90 percent of all eligible costs.
       ``(3) Other mitigation activities.-- In the case of all 
     other mitigation activities, in an amount up to 75 percent of 
     all eligible costs.'';
       (7) in subsection (i)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``certified under subsection (g)'' and 
     inserting ``required under subsection (d)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``3 times the amount'' and inserting ``the 
     amount''; and
       (B) by redesignating such subsection as subsection (e);
       (8) in subsection (j)--
       (A) by striking ``Riegle Community Development and 
     Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994'' and inserting ``Flood 
     Insurance Reform Act of 2012'';
       (B) by redesignating such subsection as subsection (f); and
       (9) by striking subsections (k) and (m) and inserting the 
     following new subsections:
       ``(g) Failure to Make Grant Award Within 5 Years.--For any 
     application for a grant under this section for which the 
     Administrator fails to make a grant award within 5 years of 
     the date of application, the grant application shall be 
     considered to be denied and any funding amounts allocated for 
     such grant applications shall remain in the National Flood 
     Mitigation Fund under section 1367 of this title and shall be 
     made available for grants under this section.
       ``(h) Limitation on Funding for Mitigation Activities for 
     Severe Repetitive Loss Structures.--The amount used pursuant 
     to section 1310(a)(8) in any fiscal year may not exceed 
     $40,000,000 and shall remain available until expended.
       ``(i) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       ``(1) Community.--The term `community' means--
       ``(A) a political subdivision that--
       ``(i) has zoning and building code jurisdiction over a 
     particular area having special flood hazards, and
       ``(ii) is participating in the national flood insurance 
     program; or
       ``(B) a political subdivision of a State, or other 
     authority, that is designated by political subdivisions, all 
     of which meet the requirements of subparagraph (A), to 
     administer grants for

[[Page H2592]]

     mitigation activities for such political subdivisions.
       ``(2) Repetitive loss structure.--The term `repetitive loss 
     structure' has the meaning given such term in section 1370.
       ``(3) Severe repetitive loss structure.--The term `severe 
     repetitive loss structure' means a structure that--
       ``(A) is covered under a contract for flood insurance made 
     available under this title; and
       ``(B) has incurred flood-related damage--
       ``(i) for which 4 or more separate claims payments have 
     been made under flood insurance coverage under this title, 
     with the amount of each such claim exceeding $15,000, and 
     with the cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeding 
     $60,000; or
       ``(ii) for which at least 2 separate claims payments have 
     been made under such coverage, with the cumulative amount of 
     such claims exceeding the value of the insured structure.''.
       (b) Elimination of Grants Program for Repetitive Insurance 
     Claims Properties.--Chapter I of the National Flood Insurance 
     Act of 1968 is amended by striking section 1323 (42 U.S.C. 
     4030).
       (c) Elimination of Pilot Program for Mitigation of Severe 
     Repetitive Loss Properties.--Chapter III of the National 
     Flood Insurance Act of 1968 is amended by striking section 
     1361A (42 U.S.C. 4102a).
       (d) National Flood Insurance Fund.--Section 1310(a) of the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4017(a)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (2) by striking paragraphs (8) and (9).
       (e) National Flood Mitigation Fund.--Section 1367 of the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104d) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(1) in each fiscal year, from the National Flood 
     Insurance Fund in amounts not exceeding $90,000,000 to remain 
     available until expended, of which--
       ``(A) not more than $40,000,000 shall be available pursuant 
     to subsection (a) of this section only for assistance 
     described in section 1366(a)(1);
       ``(B) not more than $40,000,000 shall be available pursuant 
     to subsection (a) of this section only for assistance 
     described in section 1366(a)(2); and
       ``(C) not more than $10,000,000 shall be available pursuant 
     to subsection (a) of this section only for assistance 
     described in section 1366(a)(3).''.
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``section 1366(i)'' and 
     inserting ``section 1366(e)'';
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``sections 1366 and 
     1323'' and inserting ``section 1366'';
       (3) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections 
     (f) and (g), respectively; and
       (4) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(d) Prohibition on Offsetting Collections.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, amounts 
     made available pursuant to this section shall not be subject 
     to offsetting collections through premium rates for flood 
     insurance coverage under this title.
       ``(e) Continued Availability and Reallocation.--Any amounts 
     made available pursuant to subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of 
     subsection (b)(1) that are not used in any fiscal year shall 
     continue to be available for the purposes specified in such 
     subparagraph of subsection (b)(1) pursuant to which such 
     amounts were made available, unless the Administrator 
     determines that reallocation of such unused amounts to meet 
     demonstrated need for other mitigation activities under 
     section 1366 is in the best interest of the National Flood 
     Insurance Fund.''.
       (f) Increased Cost of Compliance Coverage.--Section 
     1304(b)(4) of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 4011(b)(4)) is amended--
       (1) by striking subparagraph (B); and
       (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) as 
     subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D), respectively.

     SEC. 352. NOTIFICATION TO HOMEOWNERS REGARDING MANDATORY 
                   PURCHASE REQUIREMENT APPLICABILITY AND RATE 
                   PHASE-INS.

       Section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 
     (42 U.S.C. 4105) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(f) Annual Notification.--The Administrator, in 
     consultation with affected communities, shall establish and 
     carry out a plan to notify residents of areas having special 
     flood hazards, on an annual basis--
       ``(1) that they reside in such an area;
       ``(2) of the geographical boundaries of such area;
       ``(3) of whether section 1308(g) of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 applies to properties within such area;
       ``(4) of the provisions of section 102 requiring purchase 
     of flood insurance coverage for properties located in such an 
     area, including the date on which such provisions apply with 
     respect to such area, taking into consideration section 
     102(i); and
       ``(5) of a general estimate of what similar homeowners in 
     similar areas typically pay for flood insurance coverage, 
     taking into consideration section 1308(g) of the National 
     Flood Insurance Act of 1968.''.

     SEC. 353. NOTIFICATION TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS OF FLOOD MAP 
                   REVISIONS AND UPDATES.

       Section 1360 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 4101), as amended by the preceding provisions of 
     this subtitle, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(l) Notification to Members of Congress of Map 
     Modernization.--Upon any revision or update of any floodplain 
     area or flood-risk zone pursuant to subsection (f), any 
     decision pursuant to subsection (f)(1) that such revision or 
     update is necessary, any issuance of preliminary maps for 
     such revision or updating, or any other significant action 
     relating to any such revision or update, the Administrator 
     shall notify the Senators for each State affected, and each 
     Member of the House of Representatives for each congressional 
     district affected, by such revision or update in writing of 
     the action taken.''.

     SEC. 354. NOTIFICATION AND APPEAL OF MAP CHANGES; 
                   NOTIFICATION TO COMMUNITIES OF ESTABLISHMENT OF 
                   FLOOD ELEVATIONS.

       Section 1363 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 4104) is amended by striking the section 
     designation and all that follows through the end of 
     subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``Sec. 1363. (a) In establishing projected flood elevations 
     for land use purposes with respect to any community pursuant 
     to section 1361, the Administrator shall first propose such 
     determinations--
       ``(1) by providing the chief executive officer of each 
     community affected by the proposed elevations, by certified 
     mail, with a return receipt requested, notice of the 
     elevations, including a copy of the maps for the elevations 
     for such community and a statement explaining the process 
     under this section to appeal for changes in such elevations;
       ``(2) by causing notice of such elevations to be published 
     in the Federal Register, which notice shall include 
     information sufficient to identify the elevation 
     determinations and the communities affected, information 
     explaining how to obtain copies of the elevations, and a 
     statement explaining the process under this section to appeal 
     for changes in the elevations;
       ``(3) by publishing in a prominent local newspaper the 
     elevations, a description of the appeals process for flood 
     determinations, and the mailing address and telephone number 
     of a person the owner may contact for more information or to 
     initiate an appeal;
       ``(4) by providing written notification, by first class 
     mail, to each owner of real property affected by the proposed 
     elevations of--
       ``(A) the status of such property, both prior to and after 
     the effective date of the proposed determination, with 
     respect to flood zone and flood insurance requirements under 
     this Act and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973;
       ``(B) the process under this section to appeal a flood 
     elevation determination; and
       ``(C) the mailing address and phone number of a person the 
     owner may contact for more information or to initiate an 
     appeal; and''.

     SEC. 355. NOTIFICATION TO TENANTS OF AVAILABILITY OF CONTENTS 
                   INSURANCE.

       The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 is amended by 
     inserting after section 1308 (42 U.S.C. 4015) the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 1308A. NOTIFICATION TO TENANTS OF AVAILABILITY OF 
                   CONTENTS INSURANCE.

       ``(a) In General.--The Administrator shall, upon entering 
     into a contract for flood insurance coverage under this title 
     for any property--
       ``(1) provide to the insured sufficient copies of the 
     notice developed pursuant to subsection (b); and
       ``(2) require the insured to provide a copy of the notice, 
     or otherwise provide notification of the information under 
     subsection (b) in the manner that the manager or landlord 
     deems most appropriate, to each such tenant and to each new 
     tenant upon commencement of such a tenancy.
       ``(b) Notice.--Notice to a tenant of a property in 
     accordance with this subsection is written notice that 
     clearly informs a tenant--
       ``(1) whether the property is located in an area having 
     special flood hazards;
       ``(2) that flood insurance coverage is available under the 
     national flood insurance program under this title for 
     contents of the unit or structure leased by the tenant;
       ``(3) of the maximum amount of such coverage for contents 
     available under this title at that time; and
       ``(4) of where to obtain information regarding how to 
     obtain such coverage, including a telephone number, mailing 
     address, and Internet site of the Administrator where such 
     information is available.''.

     SEC. 356. NOTIFICATION TO POLICY HOLDERS REGARDING DIRECT 
                   MANAGEMENT OF POLICY BY FEMA.

       Part C of chapter II of the National Flood Insurance Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 4081 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new section:

     ``SEC. 1349. NOTIFICATION TO POLICY HOLDERS REGARDING DIRECT 
                   MANAGEMENT OF POLICY BY FEMA.

       ``(a) Notification.--Not later than 60 days before the date 
     on which a transferred flood insurance policy expires, and 
     annually thereafter until such time as the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency is no longer directly administering such 
     policy, the Administrator shall notify the holder of such 
     policy that--
       ``(1) the Federal Emergency Management Agency is directly 
     administering the policy;
       ``(2) such holder may purchase flood insurance that is 
     directly administered by an insurance company; and
       ``(3) purchasing flood insurance offered under the National 
     Flood Insurance Program that is directly administered by an 
     insurance company will not alter the coverage provided or the 
     premiums charged to such holder that otherwise would be 
     provided or charged if the policy was directly administered 
     by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
       ``(b) Definition.--In this section, the term `transferred 
     flood insurance policy' means a flood insurance policy that--
       ``(1) was directly administered by an insurance company at 
     the time the policy was originally purchased by the policy 
     holder; and

[[Page H2593]]

       ``(2) at the time of renewal of the policy, direct 
     administration of the policy was or will be transferred to 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency.''.

     SEC. 357. NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF FLOOD INSURANCE AND 
                   ESCROW IN RESPA GOOD FAITH ESTIMATE.

       Subsection (c) of section 5 of the Real Estate Settlement 
     Procedures Act of 1974 (12 U.S.C. 2604(c)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new sentence: ``Each such 
     good faith estimate shall include the following conspicuous 
     statements and information: (1) that flood insurance coverage 
     for residential real estate is generally available under the 
     national flood insurance program whether or not the real 
     estate is located in an area having special flood hazards and 
     that, to obtain such coverage, a home owner or purchaser 
     should contact the national flood insurance program; (2) a 
     telephone number and a location on the Internet by which a 
     home owner or purchaser can contact the national flood 
     insurance program; and (3) that the escrowing of flood 
     insurance payments is required for many loans under section 
     102(d) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, and may 
     be a convenient and available option with respect to other 
     loans.''.

     SEC. 358. REIMBURSEMENT FOR COSTS INCURRED BY HOMEOWNERS AND 
                   COMMUNITIES OBTAINING LETTERS OF MAP AMENDMENT 
                   OR REVISION.

       (a) In General.--Section 1360 of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4101), as amended by the 
     preceding provisions of this subtitle, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(m) Reimbursement.--
       ``(1) Requirement upon bona fide error.--If an owner of any 
     property located in an area described in section 102(i)(3) of 
     the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, or a community in 
     which such a property is located, obtains a letter of map 
     amendment, or a letter of map revision, due to a bona fide 
     error on the part of the Administrator of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency, the Administrator shall 
     reimburse such owner, or such entity or jurisdiction acting 
     on such owner's behalf, or such community, as applicable, for 
     any reasonable costs incurred in obtaining such letter.
       ``(2) Reasonable costs.--The Administrator shall, by 
     regulation or notice, determine a reasonable amount of costs 
     to be reimbursed under paragraph (1), except that such costs 
     shall not include legal or attorneys fees. In determining the 
     reasonableness of costs, the Administrator shall only 
     consider the actual costs to the owner or community, as 
     applicable, of utilizing the services of an engineer, 
     surveyor, or similar services.''.
       (b) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency shall issue the regulations or 
     notice required under section 1360(m)(2) of the National 
     Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as added by the amendment made 
     by subsection (a) of this section.

     SEC. 359. ENHANCED COMMUNICATION WITH CERTAIN COMMUNITIES 
                   DURING MAP UPDATING PROCESS.

       Section 1360 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 4101), as amended by the preceding provisions of 
     this subtitle, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(n) Enhanced Communication With Certain Communities 
     During Map Updating Process.--In updating flood insurance 
     maps under this section, the Administrator shall communicate 
     with communities located in areas where flood insurance rate 
     maps have not been updated in 20 years or more and the 
     appropriate State emergency agencies to resolve outstanding 
     issues, provide technical assistance, and disseminate all 
     necessary information to reduce the prevalence of outdated 
     maps in flood-prone areas.''.

     SEC. 360. NOTIFICATION TO RESIDENTS NEWLY INCLUDED IN FLOOD 
                   HAZARD AREAS.

       Section 1360 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 4101), as amended by the preceding provisions of 
     this subtitle, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(o) Notification to Residents Newly Included in Flood 
     Hazard Area.--In revising or updating any areas having 
     special flood hazards, the Administrator shall provide to 
     each owner of a property to be newly included in such a 
     special flood hazard area, at the time of issuance of such 
     proposed revised or updated flood insurance maps, a copy of 
     the proposed revised or updated flood insurance maps together 
     with information regarding the appeals process under section 
     1363 (42 U.S.C. 4104).''.

     SEC. 361. TREATMENT OF SWIMMING POOL ENCLOSURES OUTSIDE OF 
                   HURRICANE SEASON.

       Chapter I of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 4001 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 1325. TREATMENT OF SWIMMING POOL ENCLOSURES OUTSIDE OF 
                   HURRICANE SEASON.

       ``In the case of any property that is otherwise in 
     compliance with the coverage and building requirements of the 
     national flood insurance program, the presence of an enclosed 
     swimming pool located at ground level or in the space below 
     the lowest floor of a building after November 30 and before 
     June 1 of any year shall have no effect on the terms of 
     coverage or the ability to receive coverage for such building 
     under the national flood insurance program established 
     pursuant to this title, if the pool is enclosed with non-
     supporting breakaway walls.''.

     SEC. 362. INFORMATION REGARDING MULTIPLE PERILS CLAIMS.

       Section 1345 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 4081) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(d) Information Regarding Multiple Perils Claims.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), if an insured 
     having flood insurance coverage under a policy issued under 
     the program under this title by the Administrator or a 
     company, insurer, or entity offering flood insurance coverage 
     under such program (in this subsection referred to as a 
     `participating company') has wind or other homeowners 
     coverage from any company, insurer, or other entity covering 
     property covered by such flood insurance, in the case of 
     damage to such property that may have been caused by flood or 
     by wind, the Administrator and the participating company, 
     upon the request of the insured, shall provide to the 
     insured, within 30 days of such request--
       ``(A) a copy of the estimate of structure damage;
       ``(B) proofs of loss;
       ``(C) any expert or engineering reports or documents 
     commissioned by or relied upon by the Administrator or 
     participating company in determining whether the damage was 
     caused by flood or any other peril; and
       ``(D) the Administrator's or the participating company's 
     final determination on the claim.
       ``(2) Timing.--Paragraph (1) shall apply only with respect 
     to a request described in such paragraph made by an insured 
     after the Administrator or the participating company, or 
     both, as applicable, have issued a final decision on the 
     flood claim involved and resolution of all appeals with 
     respect to such claim.''.

     SEC. 363. FEMA AUTHORITY TO REJECT TRANSFER OF POLICIES.

       Section 1345 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 
     (42 U.S.C. 4081) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(e) FEMA Authority to Reject Transfer of Policies.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     Administrator may, at the discretion of the Administrator, 
     refuse to accept the transfer of the administration of 
     policies for coverage under the flood insurance program under 
     this title that are written and administered by any insurance 
     company or other insurer, or any insurance agent or 
     broker.''.

     SEC. 364. APPEALS.

       (a) Television and Radio Announcement.--Section 1363 of the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4104), as 
     amended by the preceding provisions of this subtitle, is 
     further amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(5) by notifying a local television and radio station,''; 
     and
       (2) in the first sentence of subsection (b), by inserting 
     before the period at the end the following: ``and shall 
     notify a local television and radio station at least once 
     during the same 10-day period''.
       (b) Extension of Appeals Period.--Subsection (b) of section 
     1363 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     4104(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(b) The Director'' and inserting ``(b)(1) 
     The Administrator''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) The Administrator shall grant an extension of the 90-
     day period for appeals referred to in paragraph (1) for 90 
     additional days if an affected community certifies to the 
     Administrator, after the expiration of at least 60 days of 
     such period, that the community--
       ``(A) believes there are property owners or lessees in the 
     community who are unaware of such period for appeals; and
       ``(B) will utilize the extension under this paragraph to 
     notify property owners or lessees who are affected by the 
     proposed flood elevation determinations of the period for 
     appeals and the opportunity to appeal the determinations 
     proposed by the Administrator.''.
       (c) Applicability.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall apply with respect to any flood elevation 
     determination for any area in a community that has not, as of 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, been issued a Letter 
     of Final Determination for such determination under the flood 
     insurance map modernization process.

     SEC. 365. RESERVE FUND.

       (a) Establishment.--Chapter I of the National Flood 
     Insurance Act of 1968 is amended by inserting after section 
     1310 (42 U.S.C. 4017) the following new section:

     ``SEC. 1310A. RESERVE FUND.

       ``(a) Establishment of Reserve Fund.--In carrying out the 
     flood insurance program authorized by this title, the 
     Administrator shall establish in the Treasury of the United 
     States a National Flood Insurance Reserve Fund (in this 
     section referred to as the `Reserve Fund') which shall--
       ``(1) be an account separate from any other accounts or 
     funds available to the Administrator; and
       ``(2) be available for meeting the expected future 
     obligations of the flood insurance program.
       ``(b) Reserve Ratio.--Subject to the phase-in requirements 
     under subsection (d), the Reserve Fund shall maintain a 
     balance equal to--
       ``(1) 1 percent of the sum of the total potential loss 
     exposure of all outstanding flood insurance policies in force 
     in the prior fiscal year; or
       ``(2) such higher percentage as the Administrator 
     determines to be appropriate, taking into consideration any 
     circumstance that may raise a significant risk of substantial 
     future losses to the Reserve Fund.
       ``(c) Maintenance of Reserve Ratio.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall have the 
     authority to establish, increase, or decrease the amount of 
     aggregate annual insurance premiums to be collected for any 
     fiscal year necessary--
       ``(A) to maintain the reserve ratio required under 
     subsection (b); and

[[Page H2594]]

       ``(B) to achieve such reserve ratio, if the actual balance 
     of such reserve is below the amount required under subsection 
     (b).
       ``(2) Considerations.--In exercising the authority under 
     paragraph (1), the Administrator shall consider--
       ``(A) the expected operating expenses of the Reserve Fund;
       ``(B) the insurance loss expenditures under the flood 
     insurance program;
       ``(C) any investment income generated under the flood 
     insurance program; and
       ``(D) any other factor that the Administrator determines 
     appropriate.
       ``(3) Limitations.--In exercising the authority under 
     paragraph (1), the Administrator shall be subject to all 
     other provisions of this Act, including any provisions 
     relating to chargeable premium rates and annual increases of 
     such rates.
       ``(d) Phase-in Requirements.--The phase-in requirements 
     under this subsection are as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--Beginning in fiscal year 2012 and not 
     ending until the fiscal year in which the ratio required 
     under subsection (b) is achieved, in each such fiscal year 
     the Administrator shall place in the Reserve Fund an amount 
     equal to not less than 7.5 percent of the reserve ratio 
     required under subsection (b).
       ``(2) Amount satisfied.--As soon as the ratio required 
     under subsection (b) is achieved, and except as provided in 
     paragraph (3), the Administrator shall not be required to set 
     aside any amounts for the Reserve Fund.
       ``(3) Exception.--If at any time after the ratio required 
     under subsection (b) is achieved, the Reserve Fund falls 
     below the required ratio under subsection (b), the 
     Administrator shall place in the Reserve Fund for that fiscal 
     year an amount equal to not less than 7.5 percent of the 
     reserve ratio required under subsection (b).
       ``(e) Limitation on Reserve Ratio.--In any given fiscal 
     year, if the Administrator determines that the reserve ratio 
     required under subsection (b) cannot be achieved, the 
     Administrator shall submit a report to the Congress that--
       ``(1) describes and details the specific concerns of the 
     Administrator regarding such consequences;
       ``(2) demonstrates how such consequences would harm the 
     long-term financial soundness of the flood insurance program; 
     and
       ``(3) indicates the maximum attainable reserve ratio for 
     that particular fiscal year.
       ``(f) Availability of Amounts.--The reserve ratio 
     requirements under subsection (b) and the phase-in 
     requirements under subsection (d) shall be subject to the 
     availability of amounts in the National Flood Insurance Fund 
     for transfer under section 1310(a)(10), as provided in 
     section 1310(f).''.
       (b) Funding.--Subsection (a) of section 1310 of the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4017(a)), as 
     amended by the preceding provisions of this Act, is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(10) for transfers to the National Flood Insurance 
     Reserve Fund under section 1310A, in accordance with such 
     section.''.

     SEC. 366. CDBG ELIGIBILITY FOR FLOOD INSURANCE OUTREACH 
                   ACTIVITIES AND COMMUNITY BUILDING CODE 
                   ADMINISTRATION GRANTS.

       Section 105(a) of the Housing and Community Development Act 
     of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (24), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (25), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(26) supplementing existing State or local funding for 
     administration of building code enforcement by local building 
     code enforcement departments, including for increasing 
     staffing, providing staff training, increasing staff 
     competence and professional qualifications, and supporting 
     individual certification or departmental accreditation, and 
     for capital expenditures specifically dedicated to the 
     administration of the building code enforcement department, 
     except that, to be eligible to use amounts as provided in 
     this paragraph--
       ``(A) a building code enforcement department shall provide 
     matching, non-Federal funds to be used in conjunction with 
     amounts used under this paragraph in an amount--
       ``(i) in the case of a building code enforcement department 
     serving an area with a population of more than 50,000, equal 
     to not less than 50 percent of the total amount of any funds 
     made available under this title that are used under this 
     paragraph;
       ``(ii) in the case of a building code enforcement 
     department serving an area with a population of between 
     20,001 and 50,000, equal to not less than 25 percent of the 
     total amount of any funds made available under this title 
     that are used under this paragraph; and
       ``(iii) in the case of a building code enforcement 
     department serving an area with a population of less than 
     20,000, equal to not less than 12.5 percent of the total 
     amount of any funds made available under this title that are 
     used under this paragraph,

     except that the Secretary may waive the matching fund 
     requirements under this subparagraph, in whole or in part, 
     based upon the level of economic distress of the jurisdiction 
     in which is located the local building code enforcement 
     department that is using amounts for purposes under this 
     paragraph, and shall waive such matching fund requirements in 
     whole for any recipient jurisdiction that has dedicated all 
     building code permitting fees to the conduct of local 
     building code enforcement; and
       ``(B) any building code enforcement department using funds 
     made available under this title for purposes under this 
     paragraph shall empanel a code administration and enforcement 
     team consisting of at least 1 full-time building code 
     enforcement officer, a city planner, and a health planner or 
     similar officer; and
       ``(27) provision of assistance to local governmental 
     agencies responsible for floodplain management activities 
     (including such agencies of Indians tribes, as such term is 
     defined in section 4 of the Native American Housing 
     Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 
     4103)) in communities that participate in the national flood 
     insurance program under the National Flood Insurance Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), only for carrying out outreach 
     activities to encourage and facilitate the purchase of flood 
     insurance protection under such Act by owners and renters of 
     properties in such communities and to promote educational 
     activities that increase awareness of flood risk reduction; 
     except that--
       ``(A) amounts used as provided under this paragraph shall 
     be used only for activities designed to--
       ``(i) identify owners and renters of properties in 
     communities that participate in the national flood insurance 
     program, including owners of residential and commercial 
     properties;
       ``(ii) notify such owners and renters when their properties 
     become included in, or when they are excluded from, an area 
     having special flood hazards and the effect of such inclusion 
     or exclusion on the applicability of the mandatory flood 
     insurance purchase requirement under section 102 of the Flood 
     Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a) to such 
     properties;
       ``(iii) educate such owners and renters regarding the flood 
     risk and reduction of this risk in their community, including 
     the continued flood risks to areas that are no longer subject 
     to the flood insurance mandatory purchase requirement;
       ``(iv) educate such owners and renters regarding the 
     benefits and costs of maintaining or acquiring flood 
     insurance, including, where applicable, lower-cost preferred 
     risk policies under this title for such properties and the 
     contents of such properties;
       ``(v) encourage such owners and renters to maintain or 
     acquire such coverage;
       ``(vi) notify such owners of where to obtain information 
     regarding how to obtain such coverage, including a telephone 
     number, mailing address, and Internet site of the 
     Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (in 
     this paragraph referred to as the `Administrator') where such 
     information is available; and
       ``(vii) educate local real estate agents in communities 
     participating in the national flood insurance program 
     regarding the program and the availability of coverage under 
     the program for owners and renters of properties in such 
     communities, and establish coordination and liaisons with 
     such real estate agents to facilitate purchase of coverage 
     under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and increase 
     awareness of flood risk reduction;
       ``(B) in any fiscal year, a local governmental agency may 
     not use an amount under this paragraph that exceeds 3 times 
     the amount that the agency certifies, as the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Administrator, shall require, that the 
     agency will contribute from non-Federal funds to be used with 
     such amounts used under this paragraph only for carrying out 
     activities described in subparagraph (A); and for purposes of 
     this subparagraph, the term `non-Federal funds' includes 
     State or local government agency amounts, in-kind 
     contributions, any salary paid to staff to carry out the 
     eligible activities of the local governmental agency 
     involved, the value of the time and services contributed by 
     volunteers to carry out such services (at a rate determined 
     by the Secretary), and the value of any donated material or 
     building and the value of any lease on a building;
       ``(C) a local governmental agency that uses amounts as 
     provided under this paragraph may coordinate or contract with 
     other agencies and entities having particular capacities, 
     specialties, or experience with respect to certain 
     populations or constituencies, including elderly or disabled 
     families or persons, to carry out activities described in 
     subparagraph (A) with respect to such populations or 
     constituencies; and
       ``(D) each local government agency that uses amounts as 
     provided under this paragraph shall submit a report to the 
     Secretary and the Administrator, not later than 12 months 
     after such amounts are first received, which shall include 
     such information as the Secretary and the Administrator 
     jointly consider appropriate to describe the activities 
     conducted using such amounts and the effect of such 
     activities on the retention or acquisition of flood insurance 
     coverage.''.

     SEC. 367. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

       (a) Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973.--The Flood 
     Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4002 et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``Director'' each place such term appears, 
     except in section 102(f)(3) (42 U.S.C. 4012a(f)(3)), and 
     inserting ``Administrator''; and
       (2) in section 201(b) (42 U.S.C. 4105(b)), by striking 
     ``Director's'' and inserting ``Administrator's''.
       (b) National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.--The National 
     Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``Director'' each place such term appears 
     and inserting ``Administrator''; and
       (2) in section 1363 (42 U.S.C. 4104), by striking 
     ``Director's'' each place such term appears and inserting 
     ``Administrator's''.
       (c) Federal Flood Insurance Act of 1956.--Section 15(e) of 
     the Federal Flood Insurance Act of 1956 (42 U.S.C. 2414(e)) 
     is amended by striking ``Director'' each place such term 
     appears and inserting ``Administrator''.

[[Page H2595]]

     SEC. 368. REQUIRING COMPETITION FOR NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE 
                   PROGRAM POLICIES.

       (a) Report.--Not later than the expiration of the 90-day 
     period beginning upon the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 
     in consultation with insurance companies, insurance agents 
     and other organizations with which the Administrator has 
     contracted, shall submit to the Congress a report describing 
     procedures and policies that the Administrator shall 
     implement to limit the percentage of policies for flood 
     insurance coverage under the national flood insurance program 
     that are directly managed by the Agency to not more than 10 
     percent of the aggregate number of flood insurance policies 
     in force under such program.
       (b) Implementation.--Upon submission of the report under 
     subsection (a) to the Congress, the Administrator shall 
     implement the policies and procedures described in the 
     report. The Administrator shall, not later than the 
     expiration of the 12-month period beginning upon submission 
     of such report, reduce the number of policies for flood 
     insurance coverage that are directly managed by the Agency, 
     or by the Agency's direct servicing contractor that is not an 
     insurer, to not more than 10 percent of the aggregate number 
     of flood insurance policies in force as of the expiration of 
     such 12-month period.
       (c) Continuation of Current Agent Relationships.--In 
     carrying out subsection (b), the Administrator shall ensure 
     that--
       (1) agents selling or servicing policies described in such 
     subsection are not prevented from continuing to sell or 
     service such policies; and
       (2) insurance companies are not prevented from waiving any 
     limitation such companies could otherwise enforce to limit 
     any such activity.

     SEC. 369. STUDIES OF VOLUNTARY COMMUNITY-BASED FLOOD 
                   INSURANCE OPTIONS.

       (a) Studies.--The Administrator of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency and the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall each conduct a separate study to assess options, 
     methods, and strategies for offering voluntary community-
     based flood insurance policy options and incorporating such 
     options into the national flood insurance program. Such 
     studies shall take into consideration and analyze how the 
     policy options would affect communities having varying 
     economic bases, geographic locations, flood hazard 
     characteristics or classifications, and flood management 
     approaches.
       (b) Reports.--Not later than the expiration of the 18-month 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     and the Comptroller General of the United States shall each 
     submit a report to the Committee on Financial Services of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate on the results and 
     conclusions of the study such agency conducted under 
     subsection (a), and each such report shall include 
     recommendations for the best manner to incorporate voluntary 
     community-based flood insurance options into the national 
     flood insurance program and for a strategy to implement such 
     options that would encourage communities to undertake flood 
     mitigation activities.

     SEC. 370. REPORT ON INCLUSION OF BUILDING CODES IN FLOODPLAIN 
                   MANAGEMENT CRITERIA.

       Not later than the expiration of the 6-month period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     shall conduct a study and submit a report to the Committee on 
     Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
     Senate regarding the impact, effectiveness, and feasibility 
     of amending section 1361 of the National Flood Insurance Act 
     of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4102) to include widely used and 
     nationally recognized building codes as part of the 
     floodplain management criteria developed under such section, 
     and shall determine--
       (1) the regulatory, financial, and economic impacts of such 
     a building code requirement on homeowners, States and local 
     communities, local land use policies, and the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency;
       (2) the resources required of State and local communities 
     to administer and enforce such a building code requirement;
       (3) the effectiveness of such a building code requirement 
     in reducing flood-related damage to buildings and contents;
       (4) the impact of such a building code requirement on the 
     actuarial soundness of the National Flood Insurance Program;
       (5) the effectiveness of nationally recognized codes in 
     allowing innovative materials and systems for flood-resistant 
     construction;
       (6) the feasibility and effectiveness of providing an 
     incentive in lower premium rates for flood insurance coverage 
     under such Act for structures meeting whichever of such 
     widely used and nationally recognized building code or any 
     applicable local building code provides greater protection 
     from flood damage;
       (7) the impact of such a building code requirement on rural 
     communities with different building code challenges than more 
     urban environments; and
       (8) the impact of such a building code requirement on 
     Indian reservations.

     SEC. 371. STUDY ON GRADUATED RISK.

       (a) Study.--The National Academy of Sciences shall conduct 
     a study exploring methods for understanding graduated risk 
     behind levees and the associated land development, insurance, 
     and risk communication dimensions, which shall--
       (1) research, review, and recommend current best practices 
     for estimating direct annualized flood losses behind levees 
     for residential and commercial structures;
       (2) rank such practices based on their best value, 
     balancing cost, scientific integrity, and the inherent 
     uncertainties associated with all aspects of the loss 
     estimate, including geotechnical engineering, flood frequency 
     estimates, economic value, and direct damages;
       (3) research, review, and identify current best floodplain 
     management and land use practices behind levees that 
     effectively balance social, economic, and environmental 
     considerations as part of an overall flood risk management 
     strategy;
       (4) identify examples where such practices have proven 
     effective and recommend methods and processes by which they 
     could be applied more broadly across the United States, given 
     the variety of different flood risks, State and local legal 
     frameworks, and evolving judicial opinions;
       (5) research, review, and identify a variety of flood 
     insurance pricing options for flood hazards behind levees 
     which are actuarially sound and based on the flood risk data 
     developed using the top three best value approaches 
     identified pursuant to paragraph (1);
       (6) evaluate and recommend methods to reduce insurance 
     costs through creative arrangements between insureds and 
     insurers while keeping a clear accounting of how much 
     financial risk is being borne by various parties such that 
     the entire risk is accounted for, including establishment of 
     explicit limits on disaster aid or other assistance in the 
     event of a flood; and
       (7) taking into consideration the recommendations pursuant 
     to paragraphs (1) through (3), recommend approaches to 
     communicating the associated risks to community officials, 
     homeowners, and other residents.
       (b) Report.--Not later than the expiration of the 12-month 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the National Academy of Sciences shall submit a report to the 
     Committees on Financial Services and Science, Space, and 
     Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committees 
     on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and Commerce, Science 
     and Transportation of the Senate on the study under 
     subsection (a) including the information and recommendations 
     required under such subsection.

     SEC. 372. REPORT ON FLOOD-IN-PROGRESS DETERMINATION.

       The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency shall review the processes and procedures for 
     determining that a flood event has commenced or is in 
     progress for purposes of flood insurance coverage made 
     available under the national flood insurance program under 
     the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and for providing 
     public notification that such an event has commenced or is in 
     progress. In such review, the Administrator shall take into 
     consideration the effects and implications that weather 
     conditions, such as rainfall, snowfall, projected snowmelt, 
     existing water levels, and other conditions have on the 
     determination that a flood event has commenced or is in 
     progress. Not later than the expiration of the 6-month period 
     beginning upon the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Administrator shall submit a report to the Congress setting 
     forth the results and conclusions of the review undertaken 
     pursuant to this section and any actions undertaken or 
     proposed actions to be taken to provide for a more precise 
     and technical determination that a flooding event has 
     commenced or is in progress.

     SEC. 373. STUDY ON REPAYING FLOOD INSURANCE DEBT.

       Not later than the expiration of the 6-month period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     shall submit a report to the Congress setting forth a plan 
     for repaying within 10 years all amounts, including any 
     amounts previously borrowed but not yet repaid, owed pursuant 
     to clause (2) of subsection (a) of section 1309 of the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4016(a)(2)).

     SEC. 374. NO CAUSE OF ACTION.

       No cause of action shall exist and no claim may be brought 
     against the United States for violation of any notification 
     requirement imposed upon the United States by this subtitle 
     or any amendment made by this subtitle.

     SEC. 375. AUTHORITY FOR THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO PROVIDE 
                   SPECIALIZED OR TECHNICAL SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, upon the request of a State or local government, the 
     Secretary of the Army may evaluate a levee system that was 
     designed or constructed by the Secretary for the purposes of 
     the National Flood Insurance Program established under 
     chapter 1 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 4011 et seq.).
       (b) Requirements.--A levee system evaluation under 
     subsection (a) shall--
       (1) comply with applicable regulations related to areas 
     protected by a levee system;
       (2) be carried out in accordance with such procedures as 
     the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency, may establish; and
       (3) be carried out only if the State or local government 
     agrees to reimburse the Secretary for all cost associated 
     with the performance of the activities.

         Subtitle E--Repeal of the Office of Financial Research

     SEC. 381. REPEAL OF THE OFFICE OF FINANCIAL RESEARCH.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle B of title I of the Dodd-Frank 
     Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is hereby 
     repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendments to the Dodd-Frank Act.--The Dodd-
     Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is 
     amended--

[[Page H2596]]

       (1) in section 102(a), by striking paragraph (5);
       (2) in section 111--
       (A) in subsection (b)(2)--
       (i) by striking subparagraph (A); and
       (ii) by redesignating subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), and (E) 
     as subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D), respectively;
       (B) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``subparagraphs (C), 
     (D), and (E)'' and inserting ``subparagraphs (B), (C), and 
     (D)'';
       (3) in section 112--
       (A) in subsection (a)(2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``direct the Office of 
     Financial Research to'';
       (ii) by striking subparagraph (B); and
       (iii) by redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), (E), (F), 
     (G), (H), (I), (J), (K), (L), (M), and (N) as subparagraphs 
     (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (I), (J), (K), (L), and 
     (M), respectively; and
       (B) in subsection (d)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``the Office of Financial 
     Research, member agencies, and'' and inserting ``member 
     agencies and'';
       (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``the Office of 
     Financial Research, any member agency, and'' and inserting 
     ``any member agency and'';
       (iii) in paragraph (3)--

       (I) by striking ``, acting through the Office of Financial 
     Research,'' each place it appears; and
       (II) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``the Office of 
     Financial Research or''; and

       (iv) in paragraph (5)(A), by striking ``, the Office of 
     Financial Research,'';
       (4) in section 116, by striking ``, acting through the 
     Office of Financial Research,'' each place it appears; and
       (5) by striking section 118.
       (c) Conforming Amendment to the Paperwork Reduction Act.--
     Effective as of the date specified in section 1100H of the 
     Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 
     section 1100D(a) of such Act is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Designation as an Independent Agency.--Section 
     3502(5) of subchapter I of chapter 35 of title 44, United 
     States Code (commonly known as the Paperwork Reduction Act) 
     is amended by inserting `the Bureau of Consumer Financial 
     Protection,' after `the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission,'.''.
       (d) Technical Amendments.--The table of contents for the 
     Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking the item relating to section 118; and
       (2) by striking the items relating to subtitle B of title 
     I.

                  TITLE IV--COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

     SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Help Efficient, 
     Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 
     2011''.

     SEC. 402. ENCOURAGING SPEEDY RESOLUTION OF CLAIMS.

       The time for the commencement of a health care lawsuit 
     shall be 3 years after the date of manifestation of injury or 
     1 year after the claimant discovers, or through the use of 
     reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury, 
     whichever occurs first. In no event shall the time for 
     commencement of a health care lawsuit exceed 3 years after 
     the date of manifestation of injury unless tolled for any of 
     the following--
       (1) upon proof of fraud;
       (2) intentional concealment; or
       (3) the presence of a foreign body, which has no 
     therapeutic or diagnostic purpose or effect, in the person of 
     the injured person.
     Actions by a minor shall be commenced within 3 years from the 
     date of the alleged manifestation of injury except that 
     actions by a minor under the full age of 6 years shall be 
     commenced within 3 years of manifestation of injury or prior 
     to the minor's 8th birthday, whichever provides a longer 
     period. Such time limitation shall be tolled for minors for 
     any period during which a parent or guardian and a health 
     care provider or health care organization have committed 
     fraud or collusion in the failure to bring an action on 
     behalf of the injured minor.

     SEC. 403. COMPENSATING PATIENT INJURY.

       (a) Unlimited Amount of Damages for Actual Economic Losses 
     in Health Care Lawsuits.--In any health care lawsuit, nothing 
     in this title shall limit a claimant's recovery of the full 
     amount of the available economic damages, notwithstanding the 
     limitation in subsection (b).
       (b) Additional Noneconomic Damages.--In any health care 
     lawsuit, the amount of noneconomic damages, if available, may 
     be as much as $250,000, regardless of the number of parties 
     against whom the action is brought or the number of separate 
     claims or actions brought with respect to the same injury.
       (c) No Discount of Award for Noneconomic Damages.--For 
     purposes of applying the limitation in subsection (b), future 
     noneconomic damages shall not be discounted to present value. 
     The jury shall not be informed about the maximum award for 
     noneconomic damages. An award for noneconomic damages in 
     excess of $250,000 shall be reduced either before the entry 
     of judgment, or by amendment of the judgment after entry of 
     judgment, and such reduction shall be made before accounting 
     for any other reduction in damages required by law. If 
     separate awards are rendered for past and future noneconomic 
     damages and the combined awards exceed $250,000, the future 
     noneconomic damages shall be reduced first.
       (d) Fair Share Rule.--In any health care lawsuit, each 
     party shall be liable for that party's several share of any 
     damages only and not for the share of any other person. Each 
     party shall be liable only for the amount of damages 
     allocated to such party in direct proportion to such party's 
     percentage of responsibility. Whenever a judgment of 
     liability is rendered as to any party, a separate judgment 
     shall be rendered against each such party for the amount 
     allocated to such party. For purposes of this section, the 
     trier of fact shall determine the proportion of 
     responsibility of each party for the claimant's harm.

     SEC. 404. MAXIMIZING PATIENT RECOVERY.

       (a) Court Supervision of Share of Damages Actually Paid to 
     Claimants.--In any health care lawsuit, the court shall 
     supervise the arrangements for payment of damages to protect 
     against conflicts of interest that may have the effect of 
     reducing the amount of damages awarded that are actually paid 
     to claimants. In particular, in any health care lawsuit in 
     which the attorney for a party claims a financial stake in 
     the outcome by virtue of a contingent fee, the court shall 
     have the power to restrict the payment of a claimant's damage 
     recovery to such attorney, and to redirect such damages to 
     the claimant based upon the interests of justice and 
     principles of equity. In no event shall the total of all 
     contingent fees for representing all claimants in a health 
     care lawsuit exceed the following limits:
       (1) Forty percent of the first $50,000 recovered by the 
     claimant(s).
       (2) Thirty-three and one-third percent of the next $50,000 
     recovered by the claimant(s).
       (3) Twenty-five percent of the next $500,000 recovered by 
     the claimant(s).
       (4) Fifteen percent of any amount by which the recovery by 
     the claimant(s) is in excess of $600,000.
       (b) Applicability.--The limitations in this section shall 
     apply whether the recovery is by judgment, settlement, 
     mediation, arbitration, or any other form of alternative 
     dispute resolution. In a health care lawsuit involving a 
     minor or incompetent person, a court retains the authority to 
     authorize or approve a fee that is less than the maximum 
     permitted under this section. The requirement for court 
     supervision in the first two sentences of subsection (a) 
     applies only in civil actions.

     SEC. 405. PUNITIVE DAMAGES.

       (a) In General.--Punitive damages may, if otherwise 
     permitted by applicable State or Federal law, be awarded 
     against any person in a health care lawsuit only if it is 
     proven by clear and convincing evidence that such person 
     acted with malicious intent to injure the claimant, or that 
     such person deliberately failed to avoid unnecessary injury 
     that such person knew the claimant was substantially certain 
     to suffer. In any health care lawsuit where no judgment for 
     compensatory damages is rendered against such person, no 
     punitive damages may be awarded with respect to the claim in 
     such lawsuit. No demand for punitive damages shall be 
     included in a health care lawsuit as initially filed. A court 
     may allow a claimant to file an amended pleading for punitive 
     damages only upon a motion by the claimant and after a 
     finding by the court, upon review of supporting and opposing 
     affidavits or after a hearing, after weighing the evidence, 
     that the claimant has established by a substantial 
     probability that the claimant will prevail on the claim for 
     punitive damages. At the request of any party in a health 
     care lawsuit, the trier of fact shall consider in a separate 
     proceeding--
       (1) whether punitive damages are to be awarded and the 
     amount of such award; and
       (2) the amount of punitive damages following a 
     determination of punitive liability.
     If a separate proceeding is requested, evidence relevant only 
     to the claim for punitive damages, as determined by 
     applicable State law, shall be inadmissible in any proceeding 
     to determine whether compensatory damages are to be awarded.
       (b) Determining Amount of Punitive Damages.--
       (1) Factors considered.--In determining the amount of 
     punitive damages, if awarded, in a health care lawsuit, the 
     trier of fact shall consider only the following--
       (A) the severity of the harm caused by the conduct of such 
     party;
       (B) the duration of the conduct or any concealment of it by 
     such party;
       (C) the profitability of the conduct to such party;
       (D) the number of products sold or medical procedures 
     rendered for compensation, as the case may be, by such party, 
     of the kind causing the harm complained of by the claimant;
       (E) any criminal penalties imposed on such party, as a 
     result of the conduct complained of by the claimant; and
       (F) the amount of any civil fines assessed against such 
     party as a result of the conduct complained of by the 
     claimant.
       (2) Maximum award.--The amount of punitive damages, if 
     awarded, in a health care lawsuit may be as much as $250,000 
     or as much as two times the amount of economic damages 
     awarded, whichever is greater. The jury shall not be informed 
     of this limitation.
       (c) No Punitive Damages for Products That Comply With FDA 
     Standards.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) No punitive damages may be awarded against the 
     manufacturer or distributor of a medical product, or a 
     supplier of any component or raw material of such medical 
     product, based on a claim that such product caused the 
     claimant's harm where--
       (i)(I) such medical product was subject to premarket 
     approval, clearance, or licensure by the Food and Drug 
     Administration with respect to the safety of the formulation 
     or performance of the aspect of such medical product which 
     caused the claimant's harm or the adequacy of the packaging 
     or labeling of such medical product; and
       (II) such medical product was so approved, cleared, or 
     licensed; or
       (ii) such medical product is generally recognized among 
     qualified experts as safe and effective pursuant to 
     conditions established by the Food and Drug Administration 
     and applicable

[[Page H2597]]

     Food and Drug Administration regulations, including without 
     limitation those related to packaging and labeling, unless 
     the Food and Drug Administration has determined that such 
     medical product was not manufactured or distributed in 
     substantial compliance with applicable Food and Drug 
     Administration statutes and regulations.
       (B) Rule of construction.--Subparagraph (A) may not be 
     construed as establishing the obligation of the Food and Drug 
     Administration to demonstrate affirmatively that a 
     manufacturer, distributor, or supplier referred to in such 
     subparagraph meets any of the conditions described in such 
     subparagraph.
       (2) Liability of health care providers.--A health care 
     provider who prescribes, or who dispenses pursuant to a 
     prescription, a medical product approved, licensed, or 
     cleared by the Food and Drug Administration shall not be 
     named as a party to a product liability lawsuit involving 
     such product and shall not be liable to a claimant in a class 
     action lawsuit against the manufacturer, distributor, or 
     seller of such product. Nothing in this paragraph prevents a 
     court from consolidating cases involving health care 
     providers and cases involving products liability claims 
     against the manufacturer, distributor, or product seller of 
     such medical product.
       (3) Packaging.--In a health care lawsuit for harm which is 
     alleged to relate to the adequacy of the packaging or 
     labeling of a drug which is required to have tamper-resistant 
     packaging under regulations of the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services (including labeling regulations related to 
     such packaging), the manufacturer or product seller of the 
     drug shall not be held liable for punitive damages unless 
     such packaging or labeling is found by the trier of fact by 
     clear and convincing evidence to be substantially out of 
     compliance with such regulations.
       (4) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply in any health 
     care lawsuit in which--
       (A) a person, before or after premarket approval, 
     clearance, or licensure of such medical product, knowingly 
     misrepresented to or withheld from the Food and Drug 
     Administration information that is required to be submitted 
     under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 
     et seq.) or section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 262) that is material and is causally related to the 
     harm which the claimant allegedly suffered
       (B) a person made an illegal payment to an official of the 
     Food and Drug Administration for the purpose of either 
     securing or maintaining approval, clearance, or licensure of 
     such medical product; or
       (C) the defendant caused the medical product which caused 
     the claimant's harm to be misbranded or adulterated (as such 
     terms are used in chapter V of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351 et seq.)).

     SEC. 406. AUTHORIZATION OF PAYMENT OF FUTURE DAMAGES TO 
                   CLAIMANTS IN HEALTH CARE LAWSUITS.

       (a) In General.--In any health care lawsuit, if an award of 
     future damages, without reduction to present value, equaling 
     or exceeding $50,000 is made against a party with sufficient 
     insurance or other assets to fund a periodic payment of such 
     a judgment, the court shall, at the request of any party, 
     enter a judgment ordering that the future damages be paid by 
     periodic payments, in accordance with the Uniform Periodic 
     Payment of Judgments Act promulgated by the National 
     Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.
       (b) Applicability.--This section applies to all actions 
     which have not been first set for trial or retrial before the 
     effective date of this title.

     SEC. 407. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Alternative dispute resolution system; adr.--The term 
     ``alternative dispute resolution system'' or ``ADR'' means a 
     system that provides for the resolution of health care 
     lawsuits in a manner other than through a civil action 
     brought in a State or Federal court.
       (2) Claimant.--The term ``claimant'' means any person who 
     brings a health care lawsuit, including a person who asserts 
     or claims a right to legal or equitable contribution, 
     indemnity, or subrogation, arising out of a health care 
     liability claim or action, and any person on whose behalf 
     such a claim is asserted or such an action is brought, 
     whether deceased, incompetent, or a minor.
       (3) Compensatory damages.--The term ``compensatory 
     damages'' means objectively verifiable monetary losses 
     incurred as a result of the provision of, use of, or payment 
     for (or failure to provide, use, or pay for) health care 
     services or medical products, such as past and future medical 
     expenses, loss of past and future earnings, cost of obtaining 
     domestic services, loss of employment, and loss of business 
     or employment opportunities, damages for physical and 
     emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical 
     impairment, mental anguish, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment 
     of life, loss of society and companionship, loss of 
     consortium (other than loss of domestic service), hedonic 
     damages, injury to reputation, and all other nonpecuniary 
     losses of any kind or nature. The term ``compensatory 
     damages'' includes economic damages and noneconomic damages, 
     as such terms are defined in this section.
       (4) Contingent fee.--The term ``contingent fee'' includes 
     all compensation to any person or persons which is payable 
     only if a recovery is effected on behalf of one or more 
     claimants.
       (5) Economic damages.--The term ``economic damages'' means 
     objectively verifiable monetary losses incurred as a result 
     of the provision of, use of, or payment for (or failure to 
     provide, use, or pay for) health care services or medical 
     products, such as past and future medical expenses, loss of 
     past and future earnings, cost of obtaining domestic 
     services, loss of employment, and loss of business or 
     employment opportunities.
       (6) Health care lawsuit.--The term ``health care lawsuit'' 
     means any health care liability claim concerning the 
     provision of health care goods or services or any medical 
     product affecting interstate commerce, or any health care 
     liability action concerning the provision of health care 
     goods or services or any medical product affecting interstate 
     commerce, brought in a State or Federal court or pursuant to 
     an alternative dispute resolution system, against a health 
     care provider, a health care organization, or the 
     manufacturer, distributor, supplier, marketer, promoter, or 
     seller of a medical product, regardless of the theory of 
     liability on which the claim is based, or the number of 
     claimants, plaintiffs, defendants, or other parties, or the 
     number of claims or causes of action, in which the claimant 
     alleges a health care liability claim. Such term does not 
     include a claim or action which is based on criminal 
     liability; which seeks civil fines or penalties paid to 
     Federal, State, or local government; or which is grounded in 
     antitrust.
       (7) Health care liability action.--The term ``health care 
     liability action'' means a civil action brought in a State or 
     Federal court or pursuant to an alternative dispute 
     resolution system, against a health care provider, a health 
     care organization, or the manufacturer, distributor, 
     supplier, marketer, promoter, or seller of a medical product, 
     regardless of the theory of liability on which the claim is 
     based, or the number of plaintiffs, defendants, or other 
     parties, or the number of causes of action, in which the 
     claimant alleges a health care liability claim.
       (8) Health care liability claim.--The term ``health care 
     liability claim'' means a demand by any person, whether or 
     not pursuant to ADR, against a health care provider, health 
     care organization, or the manufacturer, distributor, 
     supplier, marketer, promoter, or seller of a medical product, 
     including, but not limited to, third-party claims, cross-
     claims, counter-claims, or contribution claims, which are 
     based upon the provision of, use of, or payment for (or the 
     failure to provide, use, or pay for) health care services or 
     medical products, regardless of the theory of liability on 
     which the claim is based, or the number of plaintiffs, 
     defendants, or other parties, or the number of causes of 
     action.
       (9) Health care organization.--The term ``health care 
     organization'' means any person or entity which is obligated 
     to provide or pay for health benefits under any health plan, 
     including any person or entity acting under a contract or 
     arrangement with a health care organization to provide or 
     administer any health benefit.
       (10) Health care provider.--The term ``health care 
     provider'' means any person or entity required by State or 
     Federal laws or regulations to be licensed, registered, or 
     certified to provide health care services, and being either 
     so licensed, registered, or certified, or exempted from such 
     requirement by other statute or regulation.
       (11) Health care goods or services.--The term ``health care 
     goods or services'' means any goods or services provided by a 
     health care organization, provider, or by any individual 
     working under the supervision of a health care provider, that 
     relates to the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of any 
     human disease or impairment, or the assessment or care of the 
     health of human beings.
       (12) Malicious intent to injure.--The term ``malicious 
     intent to injure'' means intentionally causing or attempting 
     to cause physical injury other than providing health care 
     goods or services.
       (13) Medical product.--The term ``medical product'' means a 
     drug, device, or biological product intended for humans, and 
     the terms ``drug'', ``device'', and ``biological product'' 
     have the meanings given such terms in sections 201(g)(1) and 
     201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
     321(g)(1) and (h)) and section 351(a) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262(a)), respectively, including any 
     component or raw material used therein, but excluding health 
     care services.
       (14) Noneconomic damages.--The term ``noneconomic damages'' 
     means damages for physical and emotional pain, suffering, 
     inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish, 
     disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of society and 
     companionship, loss of consortium (other than loss of 
     domestic service), hedonic damages, injury to reputation, and 
     all other nonpecuniary losses of any kind or nature.
       (15) Punitive damages.--The term ``punitive damages'' means 
     damages awarded, for the purpose of punishment or deterrence, 
     and not solely for compensatory purposes, against a health 
     care provider, health care organization, or a manufacturer, 
     distributor, or supplier of a medical product. Punitive 
     damages are neither economic nor noneconomic damages.
       (16) Recovery.--The term ``recovery'' means the net sum 
     recovered after deducting any disbursements or costs incurred 
     in connection with prosecution or settlement of the claim, 
     including all costs paid or advanced by any person. Costs of 
     health care incurred by the plaintiff and the attorneys' 
     office overhead costs or charges for legal services are not 
     deductible disbursements or costs for such purpose.
       (17) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern 
     Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, 
     and any other territory or possession of the United States, 
     or any political subdivision thereof.

     SEC. 408. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.

       (a) Vaccine Injury.--

[[Page H2598]]

       (1) To the extent that title XXI of the Public Health 
     Service Act establishes a Federal rule of law applicable to a 
     civil action brought for a vaccine-related injury or death--
       (A) this title does not affect the application of the rule 
     of law to such an action; and
       (B) any rule of law prescribed by this title in conflict 
     with a rule of law of such title XXI shall not apply to such 
     action.
       (2) If there is an aspect of a civil action brought for a 
     vaccine-related injury or death to which a Federal rule of 
     law under title XXI of the Public Health Service Act does not 
     apply, then this title or otherwise applicable law (as 
     determined under this title) will apply to such aspect of 
     such action.
       (b) Other Federal Law.--Except as provided in this section, 
     nothing in this title shall be deemed to affect any defense 
     available to a defendant in a health care lawsuit or action 
     under any other provision of Federal law.

     SEC. 409. STATE FLEXIBILITY AND PROTECTION OF STATES' RIGHTS.

       (a) Health Care Lawsuits.--The provisions governing health 
     care lawsuits set forth in this title preempt, subject to 
     subsections (b) and (c), State law to the extent that State 
     law prevents the application of any provisions of law 
     established by or under this title. The provisions governing 
     health care lawsuits set forth in this title supersede 
     chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, to the extent 
     that such chapter--
       (1) provides for a greater amount of damages or contingent 
     fees, a longer period in which a health care lawsuit may be 
     commenced, or a reduced applicability or scope of periodic 
     payment of future damages, than provided in this title; or
       (2) prohibits the introduction of evidence regarding 
     collateral source benefits, or mandates or permits 
     subrogation or a lien on collateral source benefits.
       (b) Protection of States' Rights and Other Laws.--(1) Any 
     issue that is not governed by any provision of law 
     established by or under this title (including State standards 
     of negligence) shall be governed by otherwise applicable 
     State or Federal law.
       (2) This title shall not preempt or supersede any State or 
     Federal law that imposes greater procedural or substantive 
     protections for health care providers and health care 
     organizations from liability, loss, or damages than those 
     provided by this title or create a cause of action.
       (c) State Flexibility.--No provision of this title shall be 
     construed to preempt--
       (1) any State law (whether effective before, on, or after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act) that specifies a 
     particular monetary amount of compensatory or punitive 
     damages (or the total amount of damages) that may be awarded 
     in a health care lawsuit, regardless of whether such monetary 
     amount is greater or lesser than is provided for under this 
     title, notwithstanding section 303(a); or
       (2) any defense available to a party in a health care 
     lawsuit under any other provision of State or Federal law.

     SEC. 410. APPLICABILITY; EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title shall apply to any health care lawsuit brought 
     in a Federal or State court, or subject to an alternative 
     dispute resolution system, that is initiated on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, except that any health 
     care lawsuit arising from an injury occurring prior to the 
     date of the enactment of this Act shall be governed by the 
     applicable statute of limitations provisions in effect at the 
     time the injury occurred.

         TITLE V--COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

     SEC. 501. RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS.

       (a) Civil Service Retirement System.--
       (1) Individual contributions.--Section 8334(c) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(c) Each'' and inserting ``(c)(1) Each''; 
     and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     subsection, the applicable percentage of basic pay under this 
     subsection shall--
       ``(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B) or (C), for 
     purposes of computing an amount--
       ``(i) for a period in calendar year 2013, be equal to the 
     applicable percentage under this subsection for calendar year 
     2012, plus an additional 1.5 percentage points;
       ``(ii) for a period in calendar year 2014, be equal to the 
     applicable percentage under this subsection for calendar year 
     2013 (as determined under clause (i)), plus an additional 0.5 
     percentage point;
       ``(iii) for a period in calendar year 2015, 2016, or 2017, 
     be equal to the applicable percentage under this subsection 
     for the preceding calendar year (as determined under clause 
     (ii) or this clause, as the case may be), plus an additional 
     1.0 percentage point; and
       ``(iv) for a period in any calendar year after 2017, be 
     equal to the applicable percentage under this subsection for 
     calendar year 2017 (as determined under clause (iii));
       ``(B) for purposes of computing an amount with respect to a 
     Member for Member service--
       ``(i) for a period in calendar year 2013, be equal to the 
     applicable percentage under this subsection for calendar year 
     2012, plus an additional 2.5 percentage points;
       ``(ii) for a period in calendar year 2014, 2015, 2016, or 
     2017, be equal to the applicable percentage under this 
     subsection for the preceding calendar year (as determined 
     under clause (i) or this clause, as the case may be), plus an 
     additional 1.5 percentage points; and
       ``(iii) for a period in any calendar year after 2017, be 
     equal to the applicable percentage under this subsection for 
     calendar year 2017 (as determined under clause (ii)); and
       ``(C) for purposes of computing an amount with respect to a 
     Member or employee for Congressional employee service--
       ``(i) for a period in calendar year 2013, be equal to the 
     applicable percentage under this subsection for calendar year 
     2012, plus an additional 2.5 percentage points;
       ``(ii) for a period in calendar year 2014, 2015, 2016, or 
     2017, be equal to the applicable percentage under this 
     subsection for the preceding calendar year (as determined 
     under clause (i) or this clause, as the case may be), plus an 
     additional 1.5 percentage points; and
       ``(iii) for a period in any calendar year after 2017, be 
     equal to the applicable percentage under this subsection for 
     calendar year 2017 (as determined under clause (ii)).
       ``(3)(A) Notwithstanding subsection (a)(2), any excess 
     contributions under subsection (a)(1)(A) (including the 
     portion of any deposit under this subsection allocable to 
     excess contributions) shall, if made by an employee of the 
     United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory 
     Commission, be deposited to the credit of the Postal Service 
     Fund under section 2003 of title 39, rather than the Civil 
     Service Retirement and Disability Fund.
       ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `excess 
     contributions', as used with respect to contributions made 
     under subsection (a)(1)(A) by an employee of the United 
     States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, 
     means the amount by which--
       ``(i) deductions from basic pay of such employee which are 
     made under subsection (a)(1)(A), exceed
       ``(ii) deductions from basic pay of such employee which 
     would have been so made if paragraph (2) had not been 
     enacted.''.
       (2) Government contributions.--Section 8334(a)(1)(B) of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in clause (i), by striking ``Except as provided in 
     clause (ii),'' and inserting ``Except as provided in clause 
     (ii) or (iii),''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) The amount to be contributed under clause (i) 
     shall, with respect to a period in any year beginning after 
     December 31, 2012, be equal to--
       ``(I) the amount which would otherwise apply under clause 
     (i) with respect to such period, reduced by
       ``(II) the amount by which, with respect to such period, 
     the withholding under subparagraph (A) exceeds the amount 
     which would otherwise have been withheld from the basic pay 
     of the employee or elected official involved under 
     subparagraph (A) based on the percentage applicable under 
     subsection (c) for calendar year 2012.''.
       (b) Federal Employees' Retirement System.--
       (1) Individual contributions.--Section 8422(a)(3) of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
       (B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     paragraph, the applicable percentage under this paragraph for 
     civilian service by employees or Members other than revised 
     annuity employees shall--
       ``(i) except as provided in clause (ii) or (iii), for 
     purposes of computing an amount--
       ``(I) for a period in calendar year 2013, be equal to the 
     applicable percentage under this paragraph for calendar year 
     2012, plus an additional 1.5 percentage points;
       ``(II) for a period in calendar year 2014, be equal to the 
     applicable percentage under this paragraph for calendar year 
     2013 (as determined under subclause (I)), plus an additional 
     0.5 percentage point;
       ``(III) for a period in calendar year 2015, 2016, or 2017, 
     be equal to the applicable percentage under this paragraph 
     for the preceding calendar year (as determined under 
     subclause (II) or this subclause, as the case may be), plus 
     an additional 1.0 percentage point; and
       ``(IV) for a period in any calendar year after 2017, be 
     equal to the applicable percentage under this paragraph for 
     calendar year 2017 (as determined under subclause (III));
       ``(ii) for purposes of computing an amount with respect to 
     a Member--
       ``(I) for a period in calendar year 2013, be equal to the 
     applicable percentage under this paragraph for calendar year 
     2012, plus an additional 2.5 percentage points;
       ``(II) for a period in calendar year 2014, 2015, 2016, or 
     2017, be equal to the applicable percentage under this 
     paragraph for the preceding calendar year (as determined 
     under subclause (I) or this subclause, as the case may be), 
     plus an additional 1.5 percentage points; and
       ``(III) for a period in any calendar year after 2017, be 
     equal to the applicable percentage under this paragraph for 
     calendar year 2017 (as determined under subclause (II)); and
       ``(iii) for purposes of computing an amount with respect to 
     a Congressional employee--
       ``(I) for a period in calendar year 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 
     or 2017, be equal to the applicable percentage under this 
     paragraph for the preceding calendar year (including as 
     increased under this subclause, if applicable), plus an 
     additional 1.5 percentage points; and
       ``(II) for a period in any calendar year after 2017, be 
     equal to the applicable percentage under this paragraph for 
     calendar year 2017 (as determined under subclause (I)).''; 
     and
       (C) in subparagraph (C) (as so redesignated by subparagraph 
     (A))--
       (i) by striking ``9.3'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``12''; and
       (ii) by striking ``9.8'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``12.5''.
       (2) Government contributions.--Section 8423(a)(2) of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(2)'' and inserting ``(2)(A)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:

[[Page H2599]]

       ``(B)(i) Subject to clauses (ii) and (iii), for purposes of 
     any period in any year beginning after December 31, 2012, the 
     normal-cost percentage under this subsection shall be 
     determined and applied as if section 501(b)(1) of the 
     Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012 had not been 
     enacted.
       ``(ii) Any contributions under this subsection in excess of 
     the amounts which (but for clause (i)) would otherwise have 
     been payable shall be applied toward reducing the unfunded 
     liability of the Civil Service Retirement System.
       ``(iii) After the unfunded liability of the Civil Service 
     Retirement System has been eliminated, as determined by the 
     Office, Government contributions under this subsection shall 
     be determined and made disregarding this subparagraph.
       ``(iv) The preceding provisions of this subparagraph shall 
     be disregarded for purposes of determining the contributions 
     payable by the United States Postal Service and the Postal 
     Regulatory Commission.''.

     SEC. 502. ANNUITY SUPPLEMENT.

       Section 8421(a) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (3)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraphs (3) and (4)'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``paragraph (3)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraphs (3) and (4)''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), no annuity 
     supplement under this section shall be payable in the case of 
     an individual who first becomes subject to this chapter after 
     December 31, 2012.
       ``(B) Nothing in this paragraph applies in the case of an 
     individual separating under subsection (d) or (e) of section 
     8412.''.

     SEC. 503. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THRIFT SAVINGS FUND OF PAYMENTS 
                   FOR ACCRUED OR ACCUMULATED LEAVE.

       (a) Amendments Relating to CSRS.--Section 8351(b) of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (2)(A) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2)(A) An employee or Member may contribute to the Thrift 
     Savings Fund in any pay period any amount of such employee's 
     or Member's basic pay for such pay period, and may contribute 
     (by direct transfer to the Fund) any part of any payment that 
     the employee or Member receives for accumulated and accrued 
     annual or vacation leave under section 5551 or 5552. 
     Notwithstanding section 2105(e), in this paragraph the term 
     `employee' includes an employee of the United States Postal 
     Service or of the Postal Regulatory Commission.'';
       (2) by striking subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2); and
       (3) by redesignating subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) as 
     subparagraph (B).
       (b) Amendments Relating to FERS.--Section 8432(a) of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking all that precedes paragraph (3) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(a)(1) An employee or Member--
       ``(A) may contribute to the Thrift Savings Fund in any pay 
     period, pursuant to an election under subsection (b), any 
     amount of such employee's or Member's basic pay for such pay 
     period; and
       ``(B) may contribute (by direct transfer to the Fund) any 
     part of any payment that the employee or Member receives for 
     accumulated and accrued annual or vacation leave under 
     section 5551 or 5552.
       ``(2) Contributions made under paragraph (1)(A) pursuant to 
     an election under subsection (b) shall, with respect to each 
     pay period for which such election remains in effect, be made 
     in accordance with a program of regular contributions 
     provided in regulations prescribed by the Executive 
     Director.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Notwithstanding section 2105(e), in this subsection 
     the term `employee' includes an employee of the United States 
     Postal Service or of the Postal Regulatory Commission.''.
       (c) Regulations.--The Executive Director of the Federal 
     Retirement Thrift Investment Board shall promulgate 
     regulations to carry out the amendments made by this section.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a) 
     and (b) shall take effect 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

                 TITLE VI--COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

Subtitle A--Recapture of Overpayments Resulting From Certain Federally-
                      subsidized Health Insurance

     SEC. 601. RECAPTURE OF OVERPAYMENTS RESULTING FROM CERTAIN 
                   FEDERALLY-SUBSIDIZED HEALTH INSURANCE.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 36B(f) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
     subparagraph (B).
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--So much of paragraph (2) of 
     section 36B(f) of such Code, as amended by subsection (a), as 
     precedes ``advance payments'' is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Excess advance payments.--If the''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2013.

  Subtitle B--Social Security Number Required to Claim the Refundable 
                    Portion of the Child Tax Credit

     SEC. 611. SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER REQUIRED TO CLAIM THE 
                   REFUNDABLE PORTION OF THE CHILD TAX CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 24 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Identification requirement with respect to 
     taxpayer.--
       ``(A) In general.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any 
     taxpayer for any taxable year unless the taxpayer includes 
     the taxpayer's Social Security number on the return of tax 
     for such taxable year.
       ``(B) Joint returns.--In the case of a joint return, the 
     requirement of subparagraph (A) shall be treated as met if 
     the Social Security number of either spouse is included on 
     such return.
       ``(C) Limitation.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the 
     extent the tentative minimum tax (as defined in section 
     55(b)(1)(A)) exceeds the credit allowed under section 32.''.
       (b) Omission Treated as Mathematical or Clerical Error.--
     Subparagraph (I) of section 6213(g)(2) of such Code is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(I) an omission of a correct Social Security number 
     required under section 24(d)(5) (relating to refundable 
     portion of child tax credit), or a correct TIN under section 
     24(e) (relating to child tax credit), to be included on a 
     return,''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (e) of section 24 of 
     such Code is amended by inserting ``With Respect to 
     Qualifying Children'' after ``Identification Requirement'' in 
     the heading thereof.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

                 Subtitle C--Human Resources Provisions

     SEC. 621. REPEAL OF THE PROGRAM OF BLOCK GRANTS TO STATES FOR 
                   SOCIAL SERVICES.

       (a) Repeals.--Sections 2001 through 2007 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397 1397f) are repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 404(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     604(d)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``any or all of the 
     following provisions of law:'' and all that follows through 
     ``The'' and inserting ``the'';
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking ``rules'' and all that follows through 
     ``any amount paid'' and inserting ``rules.--Any amount 
     paid'';
       (ii) by striking ``a provision of law specified in 
     paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``the Child Care and 
     Development Block Grant Act of 1990''; and
       (iii) by striking subparagraph (B); and
       (C) by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph 
     (3) as paragraph (2).
       (2) Section 422(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     622(b)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(A)--
       (i) by striking ``administers or supervises'' and inserting 
     ``administered or supervised''; and
       (ii) by striking ``subtitle 1 of title XX'' and inserting 
     ``subtitle A of title XX (as in effect before the repeal of 
     such subtitle)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``under subtitle 1 of 
     title XX,''.
       (3) Section 471(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     671(a)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``, under subtitle 1 of 
     title XX of this Act,''; and
       (B) in paragraph (8), by striking ``XIX, or XX'' and 
     inserting ``or XIX''.
       (4) Section 472(h)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     672(h)(1)) is amended by striking the 2nd sentence.
       (5) Section 473(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     673(b)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(3)'' and inserting 
     ``(2)'';
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``paragraphs (1) and 
     (2)'' and inserting ``paragraph (1)''; and
       (C) by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraphs 
     (3) and (4) as paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively.
       (6) Section 504(b)(6) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     704(b)(6)) is amended in each of subparagraphs (A) and (B) by 
     striking ``XIX, or XX'' and inserting ``or XIX''.
       (7) Section 1101(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1301(a)(1)) is amended by striking the penultimate 
     sentence.
       (8) Section 1128(h) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1320a-7(h)) is amended--
       (A) by adding ``or'' at the end of paragraph (2); and
       (B) by striking paragraph (3) and redesignating paragraph 
     (4) as paragraph (3).
       (9) Section 1128A(i)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1320a-7a(i)(1)) is amended by striking ``or subtitle 1 
     of title XX''.
       (10) Section 1132(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1320b-2(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``XIX, or XX'' 
     and inserting ``or XIX''.
       (11) Section 1902(e)(13)(F)(iii) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396a(e)(13)(F)(iii)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Exclusions'' and inserting ``Exclusion''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``an agency that determines eligibility for 
     a program established under the Social Services Block Grant 
     established under title XX or''.
       (12) The heading for title XX of the Social Security Act is 
     amended by striking ``BLOCK GRANTS TO STATES FOR SOCIAL 
     SERVICES'' and inserting ``HEALTH PROFESSIONS DEMONSTRATIONS 
     AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CONDITION DETECTION''.
       (13) The heading for subtitle A of title XX of the Social 
     Security Act is amended by striking ``Block Grants to States 
     for Social Services'' and inserting ``Health Professions 
     Demonstrations and Environmental Health Condition 
     Detection''.
       (14) Section 16(k)(5)(B)(i) of the Food and Nutrition Act 
     of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2025(k)(5)(B)(i)) is amended by striking 
     ``, or title XX,''.
       (15) Section 402(b)(3) of the Personal Responsibility and 
     Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1612(b)(3)) is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and 
     redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B).

[[Page H2600]]

       (16) Section 245A(h)(4)(I) of the Immigration Reform and 
     Control Act of 1986 (8 U.S.C. 1255a(h)(4)(I)) is amended by 
     striking ``, XVI, and XX'' and inserting ``and XVI''.
       (17) Section 17 of the Richard B. Russell National School 
     Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) by striking ``--'' and all that follows through 
     ``(i)'';
       (II) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i); and
       (III) by striking clause (ii); and

       (ii) in subparagraph (D)(ii), by striking ``or title XX''; 
     and
       (B) in subsection (o)(2)(B)--
       (i) by striking ``or title XX'' each place it appears; and
       (ii) by striking ``or XX''.
       (18) Section 201(b) of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 
     (25 U.S.C. 1931(b)) is amended by striking ``titles IV B and 
     XX'' each place it appears and inserting ``part B of title 
     IV''.
       (19) Section 3803(c)(2)(C) of title 31, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking clause (vi) and redesignating clauses 
     (vii) through (xvi) as clauses (vi) through (xv), 
     respectively.
       (20) Section 14502(d)(3) of title 40, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and title XX''; and
       (B) by striking ``, 1397 et seq.''.
       (21) Section 2006(a)(15) of the Public Health Service Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 300z-5(a)(15)) is amended by striking ``and title 
     XX''.
       (22) Section 203(b)(3) of the Older Americans Act of 1965 
     (42 U.S.C. 3013(b)(3)) is amended by striking ``XIX, and XX'' 
     and inserting ``and XIX''.
       (23) Section 213 of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 
     U.S.C. 3020d) is amended by striking ``or title XX''.
       (24) Section 306(d) of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 
     U.S.C. 3026(d)) is amended in each of paragraphs (1) and (2) 
     by striking ``titles XIX and XX'' and inserting ``title 
     XIX''.
       (25) Section 2605 of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
     Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8624) is amended in each of 
     subsections (b)(4) and (j) by striking ``under title XX of 
     the Social Security Act,''.
       (26) Section 602 of the Child Development Associate 
     Scholarship Assistance Act of 1985 (42 U.S.C. 10901) is 
     repealed.
       (27) Section 3(d)(1) of the Assisted Suicide Funding 
     Restriction Act of 1997 (42 U.S.C. 14402(d)(1)) is amended by 
     striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating subparagraphs (D) 
     through (K) as subparagraphs (C) through (J), respectively.
       (c) Effective Date.--The repeals and amendments made by 
     this section shall take effect on October 1, 2012.

                    TITLE VII--SEQUESTER REPLACEMENT

     SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Sequester Replacement Act 
     of 2012''.

     SEC. 702. PROTECTING VETERANS PROGRAMS FROM SEQUESTER.

       Section 256(e)(2)(E) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 is repealed.

     SEC. 703. ACHIEVING $19 BILLION IN DISCRETIONARY SAVINGS.

       (a) Revised 2013 Discretionary Spending Limit.--Paragraph 
     (2) of section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) with respect to fiscal year 2013, for the 
     discretionary category, $1,047,000,000,000 in new budget 
     authority;''.
       (b) Discretionary Savings.--Section 251A(7)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) Fiscal year 2013.--
       ``(i) Fiscal year 2013 adjustment.--On January 2, 2013, the 
     discretionary category set forth in section 251(c)(2) shall 
     be decreased by $19,104,000,000 in budget authority.
       ``(ii) Supplemental sequestration order.--On January 15, 
     2013, OMB shall issue a supplemental sequestration report for 
     fiscal year 2013 and take the form of a final sequestration 
     report as set forth in section 254(f)(2) and using the 
     procedures set forth in section 253(f), to eliminate any 
     discretionary spending breach of the spending limit set forth 
     in section 251(c)(2) as adjusted by clause (i), and the 
     President shall order a sequestration, if any, as required by 
     such report.''.

     SEC. 704. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 314 OF THE 
                   CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET AND IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL 
                   ACT OF 1974.

       Section 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Adjustments.--
       ``(1) In general.--The chair of the Committee on the Budget 
     of the House of Representatives or the Senate may make 
     adjustments as set forth in paragraph (2) for a bill or joint 
     resolution, amendment thereto or conference report thereon, 
     by the amount of new budget authority and outlays flowing 
     therefrom in the same amount as required by section 251(b) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985.
       ``(2) Matters to be adjusted.--The chair of the Committee 
     on the Budget of the House of Representatives or the Senate 
     may make the adjustments referred to in paragraph (1) to--
       ``(A) the allocations made pursuant to the appropriate 
     concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to section 
     302(a);
       ``(B) the budgetary aggregates as set forth in the 
     appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget; and
       ``(C) the discretionary spending limits, if any, set forth 
     in the appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget.''.

     SEC. 705. TREATMENT FOR PAYGO PURPOSES.

       The budgetary effects of this Act and any amendment made by 
     it shall not be entered on either PAYGO scorecard maintained 
     pursuant to section 4(d) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 
     of 2010.

     SEC. 706. ELIMINATION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 SEQUESTRATION 
                   FOR DEFENSE DIRECT SPENDING.

       Any sequestration order issued by the President under the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to 
     carry out reductions to direct spending for the defense 
     function (050) for fiscal year 2013 pursuant to section 251A 
     of such Act shall have no force or effect.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) each will control 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H.R. 5652, the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind everybody for a minute as to how 
we got here. Why are we doing this? What's going on?
  When the President was requesting an increase in the debt limit last 
year, he wanted a blank check. Just increase the debt limit. Borrowing 
unchecked. Then when that wasn't going to happen, he asked for a big 
tax increase. That didn't occur.

                              {time}  1100

  What occurred out of that was the Budget Control Act. You've got to 
cut at least a dollar's worth of spending for every dollar of debt-
limit increase that occurs.
  So Congress passed the Budget Control Act with no tax increases, 
spending cuts. Half of it, approximately, were the caps on 
discretionary spending netting about $1 trillion in savings--$917 
billion, to be specific. The other half, the $1.2 trillion, was the 
Select Committee--people call this the supercommittee. That committee 
failed to produce a result. As a result of that, a sequester occurs. 
And the sequester, according to people on a bipartisan basis, is not 
good government. The sequester, according to the Secretary of Defense, 
the President himself, would hollow out our military when it kicks in 
on January 2 next year. The sequester will take nondefense 
discretionary spending down 8 percent and defense down 10 percent.
  We believe the purpose of the sequester was to replace the fact that 
Congress isn't governing. Well, let's have Congress govern. That's why 
we're doing this. What we're doing is we're bringing a bill to the 
floor to cut 405 percent of the spending cuts that are in the sequester 
in the first year. A net deficit reduction of $242.8 billion to set 
aside the sequester under discretionary for 1 year of $78 billion, we 
think that's a good tradeoff.
  More to the point, we need to get in the habit of doing 
reconciliation because 61 percent of the Federal budget is off limits, 
it's autopilot, it's not touched. Congress doesn't deal with it. So we 
should look at this part of our government that is not being dealt 
with.
  The last time we used reconciliation for its intended purpose--to cut 
spending, to reduce deficits--was 2005. So rather than just having 
annual discretionary spending bouts and debates, we should look at the 
other parts of government that are on autopilot.
  Take a look at what we're doing. We basically are doing five things. 
We're stopping the abuse by ensuring individuals are actually eligible 
for the taxpayer benefits they receive--novel idea, I know. We're 
eliminating government slush funds to stop bailouts. We're controlling 
runaway, unchecked spending. We're putting restraints on government 
spending by bureaucracies. And we're getting rid of duplicative 
spending.
  I can go through each program, and we will do this in this debate, 
but what we're simply saying is people should actually be eligible for 
the benefits that they receive, whether it's a tax credit, whether it's 
a SNAP benefit, whatever it is. When we take a look at why we're 
cutting spending, we are

[[Page H2601]]

doing this with the guise of the fact that we have a spending-driven 
debt crisis on the horizon. If taxes go back to where they've been for 
the last 40 years, which is what they are projected to do, there's no 
way you can fix this problem by raising taxes.
  We have a spending-driven debt crisis, and the debt crisis is one in 
which we have a tidal wave of debt coming to this country just like 
Europe is experiencing. If we don't get our spending under control and 
we don't get our deficit under control, the people who need government 
the most--the poor, the elderly--they're the ones who get hurt the 
first and the worst.
  We need to get spending and, therefore, deficits under control to 
prevent a debt crisis. That's what this does. It's a downpayment. 
Instead of saving hundreds of billions of dollars like this bill does, 
we need to get into the practice of actually saving trillions of 
dollars, which is what our budget does, in order to prevent a debt 
crisis from ruining the American Dream for Americans.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there's agreement here on two things: one, we need to 
reduce our long-term deficits--the question is not whether we need to 
do that, but how; second, we agree that the automatic, indiscriminate, 
meat-ax cuts scheduled to begin next January are the wrong way to 
reduce the deficit. We need a responsible alternative.
  Now, the House Democrats put forward a budget, as did the President, 
that deals with this issue over 10 years in a balanced way, building on 
the more than $1 trillion of cuts we already made on a bipartisan basis 
last August, and including additional cuts, but also cutting tax 
loopholes that benefit special interests, and asking people who make 
more than $1 million per year to help a little bit more toward deficit 
reduction. That is the kind of bipartisan approach that's been 
recommended by bipartisan groups like Simpson-Bowles and Rivlin-
Domenici. Unfortunately, the Republican approach to the budget--and now 
to the sequester issue--takes this lopsided approach.
  Now, let's remember, 98 percent of our House Republican colleagues, 
while they come down here and talk about how we have this big deficit 
and debt problem, they have signed a pledge that says we're not going 
to ask for one penny of additional contribution from people making more 
than $1 million a year to help reduce our deficit, not one penny. We 
won't take one penny of taxpayer subsidies away from the big oil 
companies to help reduce the deficit.
  And the math is pretty simple after that. If you say from the 
beginning you're not going to ask people making $1 million a year to 
help do a little more to reduce our common deficit, if you say you're 
not going to ask companies that have these tax loopholes that actually 
incentivize them to ship jobs overseas to pay a little bit more, what 
do you do? Your budget has to whack everyone else, and that's what it 
did. That's why their budget ended the Medicare guarantee. That's why 
they cut $800 billion from Medicaid--two-thirds of Medicaid spending 
goes to help seniors and disabled people in nursing homes. That's why 
they slash vital investments in education, research, infrastructure, 
things that had been bipartisan investments to help our economy grow. 
That's what they did then.
  And now on this sequester proposal, what do they do? The chairman 
talks about eligibility. These are people who are eligible to get food 
and nutrition assistance because they're struggling. The nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office, which is our referee around here, has told 
us what the real-world consequences of their proposal before us today 
would be. Over 22 million households with kids would see their food and 
nutrition support reduced; 300,000 kids knocked off the school lunch 
program; 300,000 kids knocked off the Children's Health Insurance 
Program. Those are the kinds of choices they make because they refuse 
to take a balanced approach to this deficit issue.
  Now, I want to say one word about defense spending. Last August, as 
part of the bipartisan Budget Control Act, our Republican colleagues 
deliberately chose to expose defense spending to deep additional cuts 
rather than ask millionaires and big corporations to share a greater 
responsibility for paying for our national security. Now our Republican 
colleagues are on the floor today saying these defense cuts would 
devastate our national security; but they still, even today, apparently 
aren't concerned enough about the impact of those cuts on national 
security to ask millionaires to pay a little bit more for our common 
defense. That's the same kind of mentality that led us to put two 
wars--Iraq and Afghanistan--on our national credit card. Even as we 
asked our soldiers to sacrifice, we said we're just going to put that 
on our national credit card.
  So there's a fundamental question here: If you're so concerned about 
those cuts to defense, why is it you won't close one special interest 
tax loophole to help pay for them?
  We, the Democrats, had a substitute amendment that we would have been 
able to debate and vote on right here today. We took an alternative 
approach. We also prevented those defense cuts. You know how we did it? 
We said we don't need to make these big agricultural subsidies in 
direct payments. We also don't think we should have taxpayer subsidies 
for the big oil companies. We did it in a different way. Apparently, 
our Republican colleagues are kind of worried about what we were going 
to propose because they brought a closed rule to the floor, meaning 
Democrats didn't have an opportunity to get a vote on our alternative.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 1 minute to say, Mr. Speaker, 
that the gentleman's substitute raises taxes $85 billion and raises 
spending $55 billion on the net to achieve simply $30 billion in 
deficit reduction. This bill achieves $243 billion in deficit reduction 
without raising taxes.
  The ratio of tax increases to spending cuts gross 3 to 1. That's what 
they think balance is.

                              {time}  1110

  Let's look at food stamps. Food stamps went up 270 percent over the 
last decade. If this passes, it will have gone up 260 percent.
  Let's talk about Medicaid and SCHIP. This program has gone up 50 
percent over the last 10 years. It's projected to grow 125 percent over 
the next 10 years. If this passes, it will grow 123 percent over the 
next 10 years.
  If we can't have a civil debate about how to slow the growth of 
spending around here then we'll never get this under control. Medicaid 
alone made $15.8 billion in overpayments in 2011 alone. If we can't 
deal with this waste, if we can't deal with this overspending, we can't 
fix this problem.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes of my time to Mr. 
Hensarling of the Financial Services Committee, and ask unanimous 
consent that he be allowed to yield time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hensarling) will control the time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
chairman of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, the Financial Committee's work on this 
reconciliation package saves more than $35 billion. But more 
importantly, it does what 2,300 pages of Dodd-Frank, 400 new 
regulations, over 2,000 newly hired Federal regulators, many them 
living in my Maryland colleague's district, and more than $24 million 
worth of compliance work required of America's companies, at the cost 
of $100 billion, don't: it ends the bailouts.
  A bailout fund doesn't end the bailout; it guarantees them. We're 
telling the big banks what my Democratic colleagues didn't want to tell 
them: if they make risky bets and make bad decisions, they're on the 
hook, not the taxpayers. No more privatizing the profits, no more 
socializing the losses. In short, no more bailouts, period.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank Ranking Member Van Hollen.
  Well, here we are again. America is still recovering from the worst 
economic downturn since the Great Depression, and the Republicans don't

[[Page H2602]]

seem to understand that we need to focus on job creation.

  Our economy has been producing private sector jobs each month for the 
last 2 years, in stark contrast to the Bush years. But today we're not 
debating job growth to balance the budget. We aren't considering a 
transportation bill today. No, that would create the most new jobs, 
making real investments in America by putting people back to work and 
growing our economy.
  Today we are debating nothing more than the latest political talking 
points for the Republican Party. We all know that this strategy is 
going nowhere in the Senate. So instead of focusing on economic growth 
and job creation, the Republicans have decided to protect their rich 
friends and slash the programs that the most needy in our country 
depend upon.
  While protecting the well-heeled, here's what the Republican bill 
does to ordinary families:
  Cuts health coverage for the least among us, 300,000 low-income 
children.
  The Republican bill slashes food and nutrition support for the 
unemployed and for struggling children and families.
  The Republican bill eliminates Social Services Block Grants, which 
give States and local communities flexibility to target funding for 
essential services like Meals on Wheels, preventing child abuse and 
neglect, and providing child care for working parents.
  The Republican bill wants to repeal the Prevention and Public Health 
Fund established under the Affordable Care Act. And what does that do? 
It supports cancer screenings, including for breast and cervical 
cancer, immunizations, education, research, and prevention, which, in 
the end, saves the most money. Prevention saves money.
  If the Republicans were serious about putting our fiscal house in 
order, they would put forward a serious proposal that grows our economy 
and creates jobs to balance the budget and involves shared sacrifice. 
That's how you balance budgets--you grow the economy.
  I look forward to that day.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, a lot of discussion here this morning 
about who we're protecting. Well, really the reason we're here today is 
to protect the future of America.
  They're throwing around a lot of large numbers here, but I think what 
we need to do is put in perspective what we're talking about here 
today. I want to talk to you about a little family that's making 
$24,000 a year. Unfortunately, this family is spending $37,000 a year, 
so they're spending $13,000 more a year than they're making.

  And they just got their credit card statement the other day, Mr. 
Speaker, and they found out they owe $157,000 on their credit card. And 
people out there would say, that's a family that doesn't have a future.
  Unfortunately, the family that I'm just talking about here, Mr. 
Speaker, is the United States of America, because I took the eight 
zeros off of the front of these numbers that we're kicking around 
today.
  So I think the American people ought to be excited that we're here 
today making a start. And let me point out, this is just a start to 
addressing a very large problem. And so when we go into some of the 
programs out there like the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau 
basically that was tucked inside the Fed, has no accountability, that 
was the reason I was pleased to introduce H.R. 1355 to bring 
accountability to that.
  The American people deserve accountability, and they also deserve for 
this body to come together and work on this very large problem because, 
as has been pointed out, a lot of the things that we actually vote on, 
in fact, this $13,000 deficit, if we eliminated the part of spending 
that we are talking about voting on in these appropriation bills, it 
would only eliminate $11,000 of that deficit. And so this family would 
still have a $2,000 budget deficit, even after we eliminate all of the 
programs that we vote on.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the business that we are supposed to be about. 
Let's work together and protect the future of our children and our 
grandchildren so that they will have a future, they will have an 
opportunity to have jobs and opportunities in America.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to respond to the 
chairman of the Budget Committee in terms of the ratio of cuts to 
revenue. I think the gentleman will recall that one of the 
recommendations that the bipartisan commission made was the trillion 
dollars in cuts that we made as part of the Budget Control Act, that 
was 100 percent cuts. If you take that into account, the reality is 
what we've done so far with our proposal is 92 percent cuts, 8 percent 
revenue, and with that revenue generated by closing those tax loopholes 
I talked about earlier.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act, the second phase in the 
Republicans' Pathway to Poverty plan.
  This bill, once again, fails to reach any measure of fairness and 
shared responsibility. All of us agree that the implementation of 
sequestration would be a damaging, harmful approach to take in an 
effort to achieve deficit reduction.
  The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that, instead of 
taking a balanced approach, the Republicans would replace sequestration 
with tax breaks to millionaires and special interests while ending the 
Medicare guarantee, slashing investments that strengthen our economy, 
and shredding the social safety net. Not surprisingly, important 
provisions of the Affordable Care Act are in their sights.
  The Prevention and Public Health Fund was an unprecedented investment 
in our Nation's health and well-being, particularly the health of 
America's women and children. By providing funding for vital cancer and 
infection screenings, modernizing vaccine systems, and the fight 
against epidemics like obesity and diabetes, this fund truly invests in 
our Nation's health, and it will provide savings down the line by 
helping to catch afflictions early.
  By seeking to undermine the Affordable Care Act, the Republican 
reconciliation bill would eliminate funding for hundreds of thousands 
of lifesaving screenings, all to score political points with their 
extreme base.
  Mr. Speaker, just a few years ago, when I was 41 years old, I found a 
lump in my breast, which was confirmed to be cancer in a series of 
screenings, including a clinical screening just like the ones that this 
fund provides. These screenings saved my life.
  But this bill would prevent 326,000 women from having access to the 
same lifesaving screenings that I did. It will prevent an estimated 
10,300 women from being diagnosed with breast and cervical cancer in 
its early stages, and it may cost them their lives.
  Furthermore, this bill slashes funding for screening for birth 
defects, developmental disabilities, and hearing loss in children.
  How can any of us, in good conscience, cut funding by cutting 
investments in children's health?
  Frankly, as a mom of three young kids, I'm stunned because I think 
it's just common sense that you don't pay down a deficit our children 
didn't create by compromising their health.
  Our constituents deserve a balanced approach to deficit reduction. 
The Republicans' approach would deny women like me access to screenings 
that save lives and deny children the screenings they need so we can 
keep them healthy. It's unacceptable, and I ask colleagues with a 
conscience to vote down this terrible bill.

                              {time}  1120

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  It is important for us to remember why we are here. We are here 
because the President's policies have failed--a trillion-dollar 
deficit, a second trillion-dollar deficit, a third trillion-dollar 
deficit, and now a fourth trillion-dollar deficit--putting the Nation 
on the road to bankruptcy. That's why we have a reconciliation bill 
before us.
  I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about deep 
cuts. The deepest cuts that are happening in America today are to the 
family budgets of breadwinners who are either unemployed or 
underemployed due to the

[[Page H2603]]

economic policies of this administration. We just got the news last 
month: the third month in a row where job growth is down. We're not 
even keeping pace. We have the lowest labor force participation rate in 
30 years because, Mr. Speaker, people have given up on the Obama 
economy. Those are the deep cuts that truly count.
  Republicans have a plan for America's job creators. We want to get 
this economy going; and as we do, as people go back to work, they will 
get off of the welfare checks and onto the paychecks. That's what 
counts. So Republicans have brought forth a reconciliation plan that 
says, You know what? Maybe we ought to quit spending money we don't 
have, and maybe this will help provide part of the confidence that job 
creators need to put America back to work.
  I am very proud of the work that was done on the Financial Services 
Committee, among other things, to end the perpetual Wall Street bailout 
fund that was put in by the Democrats in the Dodd-Frank bill, because 
if you lose your ability to fail in America, you lose your ability to 
succeed, and the American people are tired of the bailouts.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, before I turn to one of my colleagues, 
let me say in response to my friend Mr. Hensarling that the American 
people are well aware of what was happening to the economy the very day 
the President was sworn in as President of the United States: losing 
800,000 jobs every month, the economy in free fall, almost 9 percent in 
negative economic growth. People's retirement savings had dropped by 
one-third compared to where they were in 2007. That's the economy the 
President inherited.
  As a result of the extraordinary measures taken by the President, by 
the previous Congress and, most importantly, with the fortitude of the 
American people, what we see is this. After the day the President was 
sworn in and when the economy was in free fall--those were jobs lost--
we began to lift ourselves slowly out. We have now had 25 consecutive 
months of positive private sector job growth.
  Is it enough? No. Of course, we had no help from our Republican 
colleagues in working on the turnaround. The President's jobs bill that 
he submitted to this House last September is still sitting here. 
Fortunately, we finally did a piece of it with the payroll tax cut.
  My Republican colleagues say they have an answer. Their answer is 
back to the old trickle-down economics: another round of tax breaks for 
the folks at the very top, and somehow that's going to trickle down and 
lift everybody up.
  Do you know what? We tried it. It didn't work. It was called 8 years 
of the Bush administration. We had two back-to-back tax cuts at the end 
of the 8 years, a net job loss in the private sector after those 8 
years, and we had big deficits. The last time we had a balanced budget 
here was in 2001, which was before those policies. So it is important 
for us to get the history of the past right in order to make sure we 
know how to move forward properly in the future.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting 
me to speak on this just as I appreciate his setting the stage in terms 
of why we're here, in terms of what President Obama inherited when he 
was elected to office.
  But another reason we're here is that the Republican leadership 
doesn't want to work with us in a balanced and reasonable way to reduce 
the deficit and get us on a sustainable path. Nothing is a greater 
illustration of this than the response to an amendment that I offered 
in the Budget Committee. On Monday, when we were dealing with this, I 
offered up to my colleagues:
  Instead of eliminating food stamp benefits for 2 million people, 
cutting benefits early to 20 months, reducing benefits for 44 million 
people in total, school lunches for 280,000 children, I said, Wait a 
minute. Why don't we work together on something that we agree on?
  I've worked with the chairman of the Budget Committee in the past to 
try and reform agriculture subsidies. We got reconciliation instruction 
from the Ag Committee that takes it all out of the nutrition for poor 
people, for children, for struggling families. I said, Why don't we go 
to where we agree: crop insurance wastes billions, and direct payments 
go to farmers who don't need them and don't deserve them.
  We have an opportunity to put reasonable limits on the amount that 
goes to the wealthiest agribusiness interests. We've worked on that 
together. A majority of the Budget Committee, I'm sure, agrees. It 
would pass on the floor, and we could meet this objective and more 
without assaulting the well-being of 44 million struggling Americans. 
I've looked at those people in my community, and I can't imagine my 
colleagues who are proposing this have worked with the food kitchens, 
have worked with the food stamp recipients.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. The answer, in part, was that we can't do this. We do 
agree on some farm reform, but we have to do it when we reform the farm 
bill. That's coming up for reauthorization later. You'll have to do it 
in the farm bill. That's where we deal with direct payments. That's 
where we deal with crop insurance.
  Hello? Where are food stamps authorized? They're in the exact same 
farm bill, and the Republicans have decided they're going to ignore 
this opportunity for a bipartisan compromise that will save more money 
and protect families. Instead, they're going to protect agribusiness 
and avoid an opportunity for everybody to win on the floor. It's 
shameful and should be rejected.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Canseco).
  Mr. CANSECO. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the Financial Services Committee has responsibly 
contributed, roughly, $35 billion in deficit reduction measures to this 
bill, and I am happy that one of these measures that I sponsored--a 
repeal of the Office of Financial Research--was adopted by voice vote 
in our committee. This agency, which was created by the Dodd-Frank, is 
a threat to the privacy of every American citizen, and it has no place 
in a system of checks and balances such as ours. Repealing the OFR will 
save $270 million over 10 years, and Americans will be better off for 
it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  The American people know that after the Nation's first, second, 
third, and now fourth trillion-dollar deficit--the American people know 
after the worst employment record in 30 years--that the problem is with 
the President's economic policies. Ultimately, the debate comes down to 
this: Do we have a debt crisis because Washington spends too much or 
because the American people are undertaxed?
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say a nation can tax its 
way into economic growth, that it can tax its way into economic 
prosperity. They want to impose taxes on 40 percent of the income on 
small businesses, and they somehow think they will create more jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, if you gave them every job-harming tax increase that 
they have asked for, it would be roughly 16 percent of the additional 
$11 trillion of debt that the President wants to put on this economy, 
our children and our grandchildren. The American people know we can do 
better. It is time to quit spending money we don't have for jobs the 
stimulus program never creates.

                              {time}  1130

  I'm proud to be a part of this reconciliation package which will save 
the draconian cuts that are aimed at our warfighters and their families 
and be able to begin the process of ensuring that a great Nation lives 
within its means and that we can give the next generation greater hope, 
greater opportunity, greater economic growth.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this reconciliation bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office

[[Page H2604]]

has stated that as a result of the economic recovery bill and the 
extraordinary actions that were taken, over 4 million jobs were created 
or saved. That means a lot to the people who didn't lose their jobs and 
to the people who were losing their jobs at the rate of 800,000 per 
month when the President was sworn in. Are we where we want to be? Of 
course not. Are we a lot better off than we were? We're pulling 
ourselves up. The last thing we want to do is go back to where we were.
  Nobody on the Democratic side has said we can deal with this on the 
tax side alone. I keep hearing that. It's just not true. We just voted 
on a bipartisan basis in August for a trillion dollars in cuts. What we 
propose is what every bipartisan group that has looked at this 
challenge has said: you have to do this through a combination of cuts, 
but you also have to get rid of all that pork-barrel stuff in the Tax 
Code and use some of that to reduce our deficit. Ask the folks who have 
been making over a million dollars a year to help pay more for our 
common defense. That is just common sense.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, normally when we think of reconciliation, 
we think of a coming together, of finding common ground. This is not 
such a reconciliation. Rather, this is a bill that provides more tax 
breaks to the few and more pain to the many. It is, in fact, a wreck, 
as in a train- or auto-wreck--``wreckonciliation.''
  There is legitimate concern that we must address our budget 
difficulties to avoid a long-term budget wreck, but I am concerned 
about the wreck that this legislation under consideration today poses 
to the lives of so many Americans. It is a wreck for educational 
opportunity. The failure of this Budget Committee to address the needs 
of our youngest Americans with Head Start and early learning, the 
failure to extend the More Education tuition tax credit that I authored 
for more opportunity at the Alamo Colleges, at Texas State and 
institutions across this country.
  It is a wreck for our most vulnerable neighbors, the Texas seniors, 
who rely on one hot meal a day from Meals on Wheels. Their director 
says it will be ``devastating'' to eliminate the Social Services Block 
Grant, a wreck for those seniors. It is a wreck for those who are 
relying on food security, like the 74-year-old who gave me this paper 
plate at the food bank in San Antonio:

       ``My Social Security check doesn't give me enough to buy 
     any groceries, just my rent and utilities. Without the food 
     bank, I would starve.''

  Those are the kinds of people for whom this bill is a wreck right 
now.
  We had a President once who realized the need for shared sacrifice. 
He had almost half of his budget from new revenue. What he said was 
that ``closing off special interest loopholes'' was just ``a matter of 
simple fairness.'' His name was Ronald Reagan. I think we might follow 
that example.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.
  Mr. DOGGETT. We would contrast that example with those Republican 
Presidential candidates who said they wouldn't support $1 of additional 
revenue for $10 of spending cuts to get our budget in balance.
  This is a ``wreckonciliation'' bill that asks nothing of Mr. Exxon, 
that asks nothing more of hedge fund managers, but asks those who are 
most vulnerable in our society to share more pain.
  I think we must reject this reconciliation bill which is a wreck for 
so many American families.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to 
just address a few of these.
  If you're eligible for food stamps today, you'll be eligible for food 
stamps tomorrow under this bill. We're simply saying you have to be 
eligible for this benefit to actually get the benefit.
  The slush fund, which is called the Preventive Services Fund, doesn't 
fund cervical and breast cancer research. It funded things such as the 
Pitt County, North Carolina, funds for signage to promote recreational 
destinations, including public parks, bike lanes, and more. The city of 
Boston received a $1 million grant for urban gardening. The New York 
Department of Health used a $3 million taxpayer-funded grant from this 
fund to lobby for a soda-tax initiative. The Cascade Bicycle Club 
Education Foundation granted $3 million to the Seattle and King County 
Public Health Facility to use taxpayer dollars to ``improve the walking 
and biking environment.'' This is where our taxpayer dollars are going.
  With regard to the child tax credit, one investigation in Indiana 
said an illegal immigrant is claiming $29,608 as a tax credit for 20 
children who live in Mexico and have never visited the United States 
before.
  What we're saying is government spending on these programs should go 
to the people who they are intended for, not to people who are not 
eligible and are not intended for. If we're going to do prevention for 
health care, then do cancer screenings, do cancer research. Don't fund 
signs for bike paths.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California, the chairman of the House Armed Services 
Committee, Mr. McKeon.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5652.
  Fifty percent of the savings that we have already generated this year 
have come from the military cuts, and we're talking about adding 
another $500 billion to $600 billion on top of that next January with 
sequestration. That's over a trillion dollars a year coming out of the 
military over the next 10 years, while defense spending only accounts 
for less than 20 percent of our budget and while we're fighting a war 
in Afghanistan and facing other uncertainties around the world.
  Let me remind everyone here of the major consequences of 
sequestration. There will be 200,000 troops taken out of the Army and 
the Marines, bringing our force level down below pre-9/11 levels. The 
ability to respond to contingencies in North Korea and Iran and other 
hot spots around the world will be put in jeopardy. We will have a 
fleet of fewer than 230 ships for a Navy that has protected the sea 
lanes around the world and our commerce. Ninety-five percent of our 
commerce travels on the sea. They've protected that since World War II. 
They'll be taken down to pre-World War I levels.
  We'll have a smaller Air Force than at any time since the Air Force 
was created and two rounds of base closures. That's why Secretary 
Panetta has said, It's not shooting ourselves in our foot with 
sequestration; it's shooting ourselves in the head. That's why 31 
organizations representing more than 5\1/2\ million American troops and 
veterans have called on Congress to act immediately to prevent these 
catastrophic cuts to our military.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support our troops, support our 
national security, and support this bill.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I also urge all our colleagues to 
support our troops and support our military, and the Democratic 
substitute that we offered would have made sure that the sequester on 
defense spending did not take place.
  I have great respect for the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, Mr. McKeon, who just spoke. Here's what he said not long 
ago. He said:

       We need to address our budget problems comprehensively, 
     through smarter spending and increased revenue.

  He also said:

       If it came that I only had two choices, one was a tax 
     increase and one was a cut in defense over and above where we 
     already are, I would go to strengthen defense.

  In our Democratic substitute, we said let's close some of those tax 
loopholes to generate a little more revenue to help pay for defense; 
let's ask people who are making over a million dollars a year to get 
rid of some of their tax breaks to help pay for our common defense so 
that we don't have to have a budget that whacks everybody else in the 
country. That's what the chairman of the Armed Services Committee said. 
I agree with him. He got beaten down by many in the Republican Party 
after he made those comments with them saying, oh, you violated that 
pledge that says we're not going to raise one more penny of revenue to 
reduce the deficit. But he was candid.

                              {time}  1140

  Unfortunately, neither he nor any one of us are going to have a 
chance to vote on the Democratic substitute that makes sure that we 
don't have the defense sequestration. We just do it in a

[[Page H2605]]

balanced way, through cuts as well as closing some of these tax 
loopholes.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I thank the ranking member.
  Mr. Speaker, two of the most prominent independent scholars on 
Congress, Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein, recently completed a detailed 
research initiative. They've never been shy in criticizing either side 
of the aisle. But their latest research concluded that the Republican 
Party has become ``ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; 
unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and 
science.'' And they said:

       When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes 
     it nearly impossible for the political system to deal 
     constructively with the Nation's challenges.

  The Republican budget is a perfect example of that. The Republican 
budget shields special interests from participating in deficit 
reduction, and instead says, We want to end Medicare as we know it. We 
target children and our older neighbors and middle class families for 
the overwhelming burden of deficit reduction.
  If a political party wanted to undermine the health and economic 
security of millions of American families, well, then, this is the way 
to do it. And it's too bad, because I believe Democrats and Republicans 
agree on the need for deficit reduction, but we have starkly different 
visions on how to get there. Others have called this Republican budget 
extreme, reverse Robin Hood, destructive, and a threat to middle class 
security.
  And here's an example. In the Budget Committee, I offered an 
amendment to say, It's time. We don't have the luxury to be giving big 
oil companies tax breaks any longer. Instead, let's make sure that 
children across America can see a doctor, can get the immunizations 
that they need. But what was the vote? The Republicans rejected that 
commonsense amendment. It was paid for by eliminating these Big Oil 
subsidies.
  This is what Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein mean by they are 
``ideologically extreme.'' It's not in keeping with our values, as 
Americans. And I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Republican 
budget and sequestration plan.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to make 
three points.
  That line the gentlelady used about Medicare was rated the ``lie of 
the year'' in 2011 by PolitiFact. Number two, the reason the Democratic 
substitute is not being considered is because it violates the House 
rules. What's interesting about that is, it would have violated the 
House rules that the Democrats had when they were in the majority. The 
third point is, when it comes to tax loopholes, we're proposing to 
close those tax loopholes in order to lower tax rates for American 
families and businesses to create jobs. They want to do it to prevent 
spending cuts; $3 of tax increases for $1 of spending cuts is the math 
and the logic that the other side chooses to use. When you have a 
spending problem, you've got to cut spending.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, and 
ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.
  It's no secret that we're facing a severe debt crisis right now. We 
have almost $16 trillion in debt piled up. And if we don't act quickly, 
we will be passing a crushing burden on to our children and 
grandchildren.
  Reducing government spending, though, is never an easy task. We face 
difficult choices, but House Republicans have lived up to our 
responsibility to find ways to cut our costs so that we can once again 
live within our means.
  The House Agriculture Committee has been asked to do its part by 
finding $33 billion in savings over 10 years. We did that by making 
credible, commonsense reforms to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program, or SNAP. These provisions reduce waste and abuse and close 
program loopholes.
  SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, comprises almost 80 percent of 
the Agriculture Committee's mandatory spending. Over the past 10 years, 
the cost of SNAP has nearly tripled, increasing by 270 percent. The 
changes that we're proposing today cut only 4 percent over the next 10 
years.
  I would like to make it absolutely clear. None of these 
recommendations will prevent families that qualify for assistance under 
SNAP from receiving their benefits. We are working to better target the 
program and improve its integrity so that families in need can continue 
to receive nutritional assistance.
  Opponents of this legislation would have you believe that we are 
decimating the nutritional safety net and that hungry children and 
seniors will be left to fend for themselves. That is a false and 
misleading scare tactic. It's important to remember that many of the 
very people opposing these cuts proposed and voted for similar measures 
during the last Congress when they were in control of this body. Not 
once, but twice my colleagues on the left voted to cut a temporary 
increase in SNAP benefits under the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act. One of those cuts was to pay for the bailout of a union. And now 
that House Republicans are advocating that same policy, those across 
the aisle are crying foul.
  By ending the artificial increase in SNAP benefits, we can save $5.9 
billion over 10 years, and we won't be turning that into more 
government spending. It will go towards deficit reduction.
  This legislation also ends bonuses that have been awarded to States 
on the taxpayer dime. States are responsible for administering SNAP, 
and it's their duty to make sure the program is operating in the most 
efficient and effective fashion. We save nearly $500 million by ending 
bonuses that are given to States for merely doing their job. We also 
find savings by closing loopholes that allow States to game the system 
when administering SNAP.
  First, we'll stop States from abusing the Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program, LIHEAP, to inflate SNAP benefits. States are 
exploiting the interaction between LIHEAP and SNAP by sending a token 
check to households which can trigger hundreds of dollars in increased 
SNAP benefits. LIHEAP is a valuable program for households in need of 
assistance with heating and energy costs. It shouldn't be abused in 
this fashion.
  In New York City, a $1 LIHEAP check triggers an additional $131 in 
SNAP benefits per month for nearly 90,000 households. In Washington 
State, a $1 LIHEAP check triggers an additional $43 million in SNAP 
benefits. That's egregious, and taxpayers know it. These token checks 
not only undermine the integrity of both SNAP and LIHEAP, but they also 
cost taxpayers billions of dollars in overpayments. Closing this 
loophole saves $14.3 billion over 10 years and ensures that both LIHEAP 
and SNAP are targeted to the families who truly need the assistance.
  Another loophole we've closed is called categorical eligibility, 
which allows any household that receives a benefit from certain low-
income assistance programs to become automatically eligible for SNAP. 
Some of these benefits can be as simple as providing a household with a 
pamphlet or access to a 1 800 number hotline. When States implement 
categorical eligibility, these households do not need to meet SNAP or 
gross income tests. That's how lottery winners slip through the cracks 
and continue to receive nutrition assistance. When someone is 
categorically eligible for SNAP, States don't have to verify assets, 
like lottery winnings.
  And it isn't just lottery winners that are unfairly collecting 
benefits either. The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that one woman 
collecting $500 per month in SNAP benefits had $80,000 in savings, a 
paid-for home valued at about $300,000, and a Mercedes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. LUCAS. So let me repeat what I said earlier: These provisions do 
not decimate the program and leave struggling families to fend for 
themselves. What they do is restore program integrity. They reserve 
taxpayer dollars for families that are in need of assistance.

[[Page H2606]]

Every one of these provisions represents common sense and good 
government in a time of fiscal restraint.
  There's no denying that SNAP provides important support to many 
Americans.

                              {time}  1150

  That's why it's important that we ensure the integrity of the 
program. Those who qualify for SNAP under the law will continue to 
receive benefits.
  By voting for this package, we're not only doing our part to reduce 
the debt, we're improving the implementation of this important program 
while continuing to meet the nutritional needs of our fellow Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to put aside the rhetoric and vote for these 
reforms.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First, I would just like to respond to the chairman of the Budget 
Committee and point out that the Rules Committee waived three rules to 
bring the Republican legislation to the floor. It couldn't waive one 
rule to allow a Democratic substitute to have an up-or-down vote. And 
the one rule you wouldn't waive is the one that rigs the process 
against closing special interest tax loopholes.
  To the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I think everybody needs 
to know that the Ag Committee didn't reduce one subsidy to ag 
businesses--not one. Even though the overall Republican budget says it 
should be $30 billion, there's a bipartisan bill that would do that, 
but not one. Instead, they took $33 billion out of food and nutrition 
programs.
  Now, we should be very clear on this. People say that they're going 
to make sure that everyone who's eligible to get food stamps will. And 
then they say, under SNAP, suggesting that there are a lot of people 
who are getting it who are cheating. That's not true. All those other 
people are eligible. They're eligible.
  And it's not Democratic scare tactics saying all these people are 
going to lose their access to food and nutrition programs. It's the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the referee here, that was 
never contested by our Republican colleagues in the Budget Committee. 
They say 22 million American households with children will see their 
food and nutrition support reduced; 2 million Americans, approximately, 
will lose all access to the food and nutrition programs through SNAP; 
300,000 kids will lose the school lunch program. Those aren't our 
facts. That's what the Congressional Budget Office says.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Oregon (Ms. 
Bonamici).
  Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Ranking Member Van Hollen.
  I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 5652, the Sequester 
Replacement Reconciliation Act.
  Not long ago, we were here debating a very misguided budget 
resolution. And today, with H.R. 5652, the leadership has decided to 
double down on the draconian cuts that were contained in that budget.
  We should be able to come together and have a frank discussion about 
deficit reduction. That is what the American people expect, and that's 
what the American people deserve. But instead, here we are today 
considering another bill, and here we are today with another missed 
opportunity. There's not even the ability to consider a balanced 
alternative today. This is of particular concern because of what is 
actually in this bill.
  Instead of cutting back generous agriculture subsidies, this bill is 
cutting food stamps, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. 
This means a reduction in benefits for an estimated 47 million people 
and a loss of benefits for almost 2 million people.
  Instead of closing loopholes for oil companies, this bill eliminates 
the Social Services Block Grant--not reduces, not tweaks, eliminates 
the Social Services Block Grant--which are grants that assist States in 
providing a wide range of services, from support to Meals on Wheels, to 
foster care. These are programs that feed struggling seniors and 
protect abused children. These are just two examples.

  Now, we have a moral responsibility to get this right, Mr. Speaker. 
This bill, yet again, attempts to balance the budget on the backs of 
the most vulnerable--our seniors, our children, those who are 
struggling--while not asking the most fortunate in our society to 
contribute anything more.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this latest misguided effort by voting 
against H.R. 5652.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds simply 
to say that the Social Services Block Grant, according to the 
Government Accountability Office, is a textbook example of overlap and 
duplication of Federal programs. It's one of 69 programs to fund early 
education; it's one of 200 programs serving Americans with 
disabilities; and it's one of 49 programs providing education and 
training services. The program demands no accountability for results 
and provides no means to measure the impact of the programs.
  Mr. Speaker, we've got to end duplication and waste in government. 
We're saying also, on the tax side, close loopholes for tax reform, not 
to fuel more spending.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts), a member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The reconciliation package we bring to the floor today sensibly 
reduces spending so that we can continue to adequately defend our 
Nation.
  The first responsibility of the Federal Government is to keep our 
Nation safe from foreign threats. By cutting wasteful spending and 
reforming programs, we can continue to maintain a military that keeps 
us secure at home and makes the world a more peaceful place.
  I am proud to report that the Energy and Commerce Committee exceeded 
the budget instructions by $17 billion to save a total of $114 billion 
over 10 years. In three titles, we cut wasteful programs created by 
ObamaCare, reform the Medicaid program, and reform our broken medical 
liability system.
  With the Nation struggling with trillion-dollar deficits, the 
President chose to increase government spending by more than another $1 
trillion with his health care law. This wasn't reform; it was a 
government takeover of one-sixth of the U.S. economy that will increase 
dependency and bankrupt the Nation. We continue to push for full 
repeal, but also do everything we can to stop wasteful and unwise 
spending immediately.
  The Prevention and Public Health Fund is a classic example of how 
government bureaucrats fail to spend public funds wisely. The health 
care law provided an advance appropriation of $16 billion and called 
for a permanent annual allotment of $2 billion per year for this fund. 
That's $2 billion a year in perpetuity. So, in 2036, 2037, and 2057, 
the Secretary of HHS has complete authority over this $2 billion to 
spend on whatever he or she wishes without coming back for 
appropriations authorization from Congress. Let's call this what it is: 
It's a slush fund for the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
  Almost any program can make a claim that it is preventative. The 
Secretary has the sole role of control of the fund and, so far, has 
found some quite interesting ways to spend it. For example:
  In Pitt County, North Carolina, a recipient used the money to fund 
signage for parks and bike lanes;
  In Boston, they spent $1 million on urban gardening;
  One of the vaunted successes of the program was getting the city of 
Baldwin Park, California, to put a 9-month moratorium on construction 
of fast food restaurants. Government should be encouraging job 
creation, not finding ways to stop it for a few months;
  New York spent $3 million to lobby for a soda tax issue;
  Philadelphia spent money to push for higher State cigarette excise 
taxes. Why on Earth is the Federal Government paying for campaigns to 
lobby State governments?
  These are all examples from just the last 2 years. Who knows what 
projects will get money in the future.
  We have numerous public health and prevention funds that can be 
managed through the yearly appropriations process. A permanent slush 
fund with

[[Page H2607]]

limited oversight guarantees that money will be wasted every year.
  We also repealed the unlimited authority to fund the implementation 
of State health insurance exchanges. ObamaCare gave the Secretary a 
credit card with no limit, a bottomless direct appropriation. This is 
unprecedented and unwise. Again, we need oversight in order to make 
sure that the public's money is being wisely spent. Congress never 
should have abdicated its authority in this area, and now we need to 
reclaim it.
  We defund the CO-OP program before billions of public dollars can be 
lost. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that a significant 
portion of the funds given to unproven CO-OPs would never be returned 
to the Treasury. We would stop this funding before HHS creates its own 
Solyndra.

                              {time}  1200

  The President's health care law places a dramatically increased 
burden on State Medicaid programs. The maintenance of effort provisions 
restrict States from making commonsense reforms to stop fraud and 
abuse. We know that Medicaid is rife with fraudulent claims. In 2011, 
there were $15 billion in improper payments. We need to give States the 
flexibility to run these programs efficiently and to help the truly 
needy.
  We also repeal an unwise bonus program that encourages States to 
undermine the integrity of the program. We should not place unnecessary 
barriers to qualifying for Medicaid, but neither should we encourage 
States to oversimplify reviews of eligibility. We do not have unlimited 
funds. Again, Medicaid coverage needs to be open only to the truly 
needy.
  Finally, we include real medical liability reform in this 
reconciliation package. The President's health care law gave a pitiful 
$50 million for liability reform demonstration projects.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. PITTS. This is paying lip service to a $200 billion problem.
  I recently heard from a doctor who has been practicing in my district 
for decades. He bemoaned defensive medicine but was even more concerned 
that doctors being trained in today's climate don't even realize that 
they are prescribing unnecessary tests.
  Defensive medicine is simply becoming the norm. Medical liability 
reform means saving for consumers, for doctors, and for the government.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the job we've done in the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the reconciliation package.
  I would now yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
has again expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I rise today to engage in a colloquy with my friend from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Pitts), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I am clearly no fan of ObamaCare, and I know that you 
are not as well, Mr. Pitts. You and your committee have done some 
excellent work in the reconciliation process in eliminating some of the 
major spending abuses in this law. I do have a concern, however, with 
one of the provisions that would affect Puerto Rico and what they 
receive in Medicaid funding.
  The fact of the matter is the question regarding Medicaid funding for 
the territories was separate and has been separate from many issues 
that many of us on this side of the aisle find so objectionable in 
ObamaCare--for example, like the individual mandate and the raid on 
Medicare and the slew of job-killing new taxes and regulations. They 
are at least partially responsible for the unacceptable unemployment 
situation, including 10 percent unemployment among Hispanics in the 
United States.
  As you know, the bill before us returns the Medicaid funding cap and 
Federal match to pre-ObamaCare levels for the U.S. territories.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
has again expired.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. If I may have an additional 30 seconds, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. An additional 30 seconds. I've got three other 
committees that are coming.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I thank the gentleman.
  For years, the territories have expressed concern with the funding 
levels, and I believe that PPACA was a vehicle to try to alleviate some 
of those concerns. My hope is that we can work together, along with 
Governor Fortuno, who has been the most fiscally responsible Governor 
in Puerto Rico, looking into the funding levels in Medicaid so that we 
can properly address the needs of the millions of U.S. citizens in the 
territories.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the gentleman's 
concerns and want to assure him that these issues deserve the attention 
of my Health Subcommittee. And as we continue the legislative process, 
I will gladly work with the gentleman and Governor Fortuno to address 
the needs of our most vulnerable citizens in the territories.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I know it makes our Republican colleagues feel better when they 
pretend that these cuts don't harm real people, but the reality is they 
do harm real people, and the cuts that were made in Energy and Commerce 
will mean that 300,000 children will no longer get health care 
throughout the Children's Health Insurance Program. That's not my fact. 
That's from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
  We have heard a lot about the fact that cuts to the prevention fund 
to help provide for healthier starts, that won't have any impact. We 
hear these stories coming up. I would just like to put in the Record 
information from the Centers for Disease Control that refutes this 
urban legend that somehow these funds were used to spay or neuter dogs. 
These things just aren't true.
  The reality is that it will mean 326,000 women will not get breast 
cancer screenings and 284,000 will not get cervical cancer screenings. 
That's what happens when you zero out the prevention fund.

  CDC Analysis: Energy & Commerce Committee's Press Release Regarding 
                 Communities Putting Prevention to Work


                               Background

       CDC carefully monitors grantee activity for appropriate use 
     of Federal funds, and to ensure that investments are directed 
     to evidence-based interventions that make a difference in 
     health.
       CDC continues to review all reported allegations regarding 
     grantee activities.
       CDC has not found among these examples any instance in 
     which the anti-lobbying prohibitions have been violated. Many 
     allegations relate to activities that were performed by 
     outside organizations not using federal funds, or activities 
     that actually took place before CDC funding was even awarded 
     to the grantee. Other activities are, in fact, permissible 
     under the restrictions, such as educating the public on 
     health risks.
       See below for information on CDC's Communities Putting 
     Prevention to Work program, which was primarily funded in FY 
     2009 with funding from the Recovery Act.
       See below for additional information on how CDC implements 
     restrictions on grantee lobbying with Federal funding.


                CDC Analysis of Press Release Statements

       On May 2, the Energy and Commerce Committee issued a press 
     release including references to activities of specific CDC 
     grantees. Below is CDC's analysis of each statement and 
     further information relevant to the work being done within 
     these CPPW communities.


             PITT COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, NORTH CAROLINA

       Energy and Commerce Press Release Statement: ``Pitt County, 
     North Carolina, a recipient of a CPPW grant funded by health 
     care law, used these federal taxpayer funds to place `signage 
     to promote recreational destinations including public parks, 
     bike lanes, and more.''
     CDC Analysis
       Improving physical activity by placing signage about parks, 
     bike lanes and safe routes to school is an effective, 
     evidence-based activity that can increase physical activity.
       CPPW staff in Pitt County, North Carolina has been working 
     to implement a wide range of interventions to address obesity 
     prevention within their community.
       One of the ten approved objectives included in Pitt 
     County's workplan is to evaluate county planning and include 
     comprehensive land use plans, transportation plans, and other 
     plans that set community standards for biking, walking, and 
     zoning restrictions.

[[Page H2608]]

       Elements included incorporating elements to improve 
     infrastructure for biking and walking, improve 
     interconnectivity of existing and proposed mobility networks, 
     and make it easier to establish access to healthy food. Among 
     the steps was the implementation of bike racks, signage, and 
     crosswalks once changes to planning documents were 
     implemented.
       According to Pitt County, approximately $66,000 of their 
     $1.6 million in CPPW funding supported activities to 
     implement bike racks and signage for cross walks, safe routes 
     to schools, and other directional signs.
       This project is the only one of those in the Energy and 
     Commerce release that is funded by PPHF.


  NASHVILLE/DAVIDSON COUNTY METRO PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT, TENNESSEE

       Energy and Commerce Press Release Statement: The City of 
     Nashville, which received a $7.5 million ``Communities 
     Putting Prevention to Work'' grant, provided free pet spaying 
     and neutering.
     CDC Analysis
       No CPPW funds were used to pay for spaying or neutering 
     dogs. Rather, a grant from PetSmart paid for the veterinary 
     neutering services.
       A published report in The Hill on May 3, 2012 includes a 
     direct account from the grantee that non-Federal funds were 
     used. (http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-
implementation/225367
-official-no-taxpayer-funds-went-to-neuter
-tenn-dogs).
       The Nashville/Davidson County CPPW project has been working 
     on a range of strategies to promote safe and accessible 
     opportunities for physical activity.
       As part of the effort to increase outdoor physical activity 
     in low income areas, CPPW has worked with other groups on a 
     variety of activities to make parks safe. These include 
     enforcement of an existing leash law and other pet 
     ordinances, increased community awareness of responsible dog 
     ownership, and publicizing referrals to spay/neuter services 
     supported by other funding sources.
       The Nashville/Davidson County CPPW project has been 
     involved in promoting safe parks because the large number of 
     loose/stray dogs was identified by the community as a safety 
     risk and environmental barrier to increasing outdoor physical 
     activity in low income areas.
       The Nashville/Davidson County CPPW project has been working 
     on a range of strategies to promote safe and accessible 
     opportunities for physical activity and improve nutrition--
     two modifiable risk factors to prevent obesity.
       The Community Guide for Preventive Services includes 
     evidence-based recommendations that creation of or enhanced 
     access to places for physical activity combined with 
     informational outreach activities is effective in increasing 
     levels of physical activity, as measured by an increase in 
     the percentage of people engaging in physical activity or 
     other measures of physical activity.
       Early data indicate that the public education campaign has 
     been successful.
       This project was funded in 2009 by the Recovery Act, not by 
     the PPHF.


             BOSTON PUBLIC HEALTH COMMISSION, MASSACHUSETTS

       Energy and Commerce Press Release Statement: ``The City of 
     Boston received $1 million for `urban gardening.' ''
     CDC Analysis
       This project tackles two evidence-based strategies for 
     addressing obesity: increasing physical activity, and 
     improving the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables to 
     underserved areas.
       The CPPW project in Boston has supported a range of 
     evidence-based strategies to increase opportunities for 
     physical activity and supported four evidence-based projects 
     to improve nutrition among low-income residents in Boston--
     two modifiable risk factors to prevent obesity. Boston has 
     focused on improving access to fresh fruits and vegetables in 
     neighborhoods that have limited access.
       Up to 360,000 Bostonians now have increased access to fresh 
     fruits and vegetables as a result of this CPPW investment.
       CPPW funds are being used to improve access to affordable 
     produce in Roxbury, Mattapan, and Dorchester, which have 
     higher rates of obesity--at 40 percent, 33 percent, and 31 
     percent, respectively--and chronic disease than the city as a 
     whole.
       The project includes hiring and training up to 250 youths 
     to work with The Food Project to build 400 backyard gardens 
     in the three neighborhoods; transforming a vacant 10,000-
     square foot greenhouse in the heart of Roxbury into a 
     community growing and education center; doubling the number 
     of community garden plots in Dorchester, and expanding the 
     Nightingale Garden in Dorchester by 65,000 square feet, so 
     that it stretches across 1.5 acres.
       To ensure the sustainability of these urban gardening 
     gains, Boston has enacted city-wide changes regarding use of 
     open city land to encourage temporary or permanent land 
     utilization for community gardens and other agricultural use.
       An evaluation of a large urban gardening project found that 
     gardeners reported a higher consumption of specific 
     vegetables and a lower consumption of sweet foods and drinks 
     than non-gardeners. Focus groups conducted with inner-city 
     youth revealed that those involved in garden programs 
     reported more willingness to eat healthy food and try 
     unfamiliar food, than those not involved in a program.
       This project was funded in 2009 by the Recovery Act, not by 
     the PPHF.


                  NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

       Energy and Commerce Press Release Statement: ``The New York 
     Department of Health used a $3 million taxpayer-funded grant 
     to lobby for a soda tax initiative.''
     CDC Analysis
       The press release mischaracterizes the program, which is 
     not one that used CDC funding.
       CDC has been in contact with the grantee and the grantee 
     reports that no CPPW funds were used by the New York State 
     Department of Health (NYSDOH) to lobby the New York State 
     Legislature for a soda tax.
       The actual use of CPPW funding by NYSDOH is to implement 
     strategies to increase access to healthy food choices.
       CDC worked with NYSDOH at the beginning of the project 
     period to ensure that activities were both appropriate and in 
     compliance with applicable anti-lobbying provisions. CDC has 
     monitored the use of funds throughout project implementation.
       As background, prior to CPPW funds being awarded, the 
     Governor's office initiated and put forth a soda tax 
     proposal. However, the Governor did not pursue implementing a 
     tax and withdrew his proposal, and the grantee has stated no 
     CPPW dollars were used to pursue this.
       This project was funded in 2009 by the Recovery Act, not by 
     the PPHF.


     COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, CALIFORNIA

       Energy and Commerce Press Release Statement: `` . . . 
     moratorium on fast food construction in Baldwin Park, 
     California . . .''
     CDC Analysis
       No Los Angeles County CPPW funds were used to lobby for a 
     moratorium on fast food restaurants. The presentation 
     referenced in the press release referred to a city-led and 
     funded initiative supported by the California Center for 
     Public Health Advocacy, an independent organization, and was 
     not supported by CPPW funding.
       Los Angeles County work on a moratorium predated the 
     inception of the CPPW program. These efforts were documented 
     to have started in 2008 by this independent organization.
       This independent organization has provided education and 
     community-driven feedback to the City Planning Department in 
     Baldwin Park, California. Los Angeles County reports that no 
     CPPW funds were used to support lobbying activities.
       CDC staff regularly interact with grantees to ensure that 
     they are implementing the activities and strategies set forth 
     in the grantee's work plan and that grantees are adhering to 
     administrative requirements, including adhering to provisions 
     relating to lobbying.
       This project was funded by the Recovery Act, not the PPHF.


     SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

       Energy and Commerce Press Release Statement: ``. . . 
     increased cigarette taxes in South Carolina.''
     CDC Analysis
       The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental 
     Control reports that no CPPW funds supported lobbying for the 
     South Carolina Cigarette Tax.
       CPPW funds were used for public education efforts on the 
     science of health effects of second hand smoke exposure. 
     Activities included developing fact sheets for the public 
     that provided scientific data.
       CDC staff regularly interact with grantees to ensure that 
     they are implementing the activities and strategies set forth 
     in the grantee's work plan and that grantees are adhering to 
     administrative requirements, including adhering to provisions 
     relating to lobbying.
       This project was funded in 2009 by the Recovery Act, not by 
     the PPHF.


         PHILADELPHIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, PENNSYLVANIA

       Energy and Commerce Press Release Statement: ``The 
     Philadelphia Department of Public Health used their taxpayer-
     funded grant to push for higher state cigarette excise tax 
     rates.''
     CDC Analysis
       No CPPW funds are being used by PDPH for lobbying or for 
     any other activities in support of a state cigarette excise 
     tax.
       Philadelphia Department of Public Health (PDPH) has been 
     researching potential opportunities for a higher cigarette 
     excise tax at the local level, but this does not fall within 
     the scope of CPPW activity and is not being paid for by CPPW 
     funds.
       This project was funded in 2009 by the Recovery Act, not by 
     the PPHF.


           SEATTLE AND KING COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH, WASHINGTON

       Energy and Commerce Press Release Statement: ``The Cascade 
     Bicycle Club Education Foundation received a portion of the 
     $3 million grant awarded to Seattle and King County Public 
     Health and used the taxpayer dollars to `improve the walking 
     and biking environment.' ''
     CDC Analysis
       CPPW project in Seattle/King County has been working to 
     implement a wide range of

[[Page H2609]]

     evidence-based strategies to address obesity prevention.
       One of the seventeen approved objectives included within 
     Seattle and King County's CPPW obesity workplan is to 
     increase opportunities for physical activity through changes 
     made to local transportation plans and other planning tools.
       Evidence-based infrastructure changes to support bicycling 
     and walking are interventions that aim to increase physical 
     activity as means to combat obesity, and are working in 
     Seattle/King County where 327,000 residents already benefit 
     from sustainable changes made in their neighborhoods.
       Sustainable changes have come from technical assistance 
     from the project that led to improvements in approaches to 
     new and reconstructed roadways in the area meet safety and 
     mobility needs of all travelers, including pedestrians and 
     bicyclists and also community members who have visual or 
     mobility impairments.
       This project was funded in 2009 by the Recovery Act, not by 
     the PPHF.


  Background: CDC's Communities Putting Prevention to Work initiative

       Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW) is primarily 
     a Recovery Act funded program that provides states and 
     localities with resources to support locally designed efforts 
     to create healthy environments for their residents.
       The preponderance of work under the CPPW program has been 
     completed; most were one-time awards made in FY 2009.
       Only one community listed in the press release, Pitt County 
     North Carolina, is funded by the Prevention and Public Health 
     Fund (PPHF).
       Each CPPW community selected strategies from evidence-based 
     interventions based on local context, priorities, and 
     capacity. CDC provided support to these communities through a 
     competitive process. Awardees then developed a locally 
     relevant workplan, which allowed CDC to monitor progress on 
     an ongoing basis.
       CPPW programs are funded under a 2-year cooperative 
     agreement to implement evidence- and practice-based 
     strategies, with overarching goals, such as increasing 
     availability of healthy foods and beverages, improving access 
     to safe places for physical activity, discouraging tobacco 
     use, and encouraging smoke-free environments.
       Each workplan represents a multi-pronged approach to 
     address obesity and/or tobacco prevention. All objectives and 
     activities included within the workplan must comply with 
     federal lobbying restrictions.
       CDC does not allow funding to be used for lobbying at the 
     Federal, state, or local level. Awards include specific 
     language to this effect; grantees are educated on this 
     requirement; and CDC monitors the use of grant funds by 
     grantees and their sub-recipients to ensure compliance.
     What problem was CPPW designed to address?
       CPPW provides a significant investment in the prevention of 
     chronic diseases.
       Obesity and tobacco are two leading causes of preventable 
     death and disability.
       CPPW aims to address poor nutrition, lack of physical 
     activity and tobacco use to make an impact on preventing 
     serious health problems such as heart disease, stroke, type 2 
     diabetes, and cancer.
       Annually obesity-related medical spending costs our nation 
     $147 billion.
       Annually, tobacco use costs our nation $96 billion in 
     direct medical expenses.
       Seven out of ten deaths among Americans each year are from 
     chronic diseases.


     Background: CDC Steps to Prevent Lobbying with Federal Funding

       CDC is committed to ensuring the proper use of appropriated 
     funds, and to ensuring awardees' compliance with all 
     applicable regulations and statutes related to lobbying 
     activities. CDC's policy prohibits lobbying at the federal, 
     state, and local levels. These restrictions apply to CDC 
     grants, including the CPPW and CTG programs.
       CDC awardees, including those in the CPPW and the CTG 
     programs, are informed about the federal laws relating to use 
     of federal funds, including applicable anti-lobbying 
     provisions. Included within funding opportunity announcements 
     is specific language restricting lobbying, including ``any 
     activity designed to influence action in regard to a 
     particular piece of pending legislation.'' This lobbying 
     prohibition was also included within the terms and conditions 
     to which each grantee agreed prior to receiving federal 
     funds. In addition, CDC staffs has conducted trainings for 
     CPPW and CTG awardees on these prohibitions.
       Applicable lobbying restrictions do not prohibit awardees 
     from interacting with policymakers. Federal law allows many 
     activities that are not considered lobbying and that 
     community awardees may decide to pursue. For example, 
     awardees may use funds to disseminate information about 
     public health problems and science-based solutions and to 
     implement specific programs, such as evidence-based 
     educational materials and media on the health effects of 
     increasing physical activity or decreasing exposure to 
     secondhand smoke.
       We take our responsibility as stewards of taxpayer dollars 
     very seriously. CDC staff interact with awardees regularly to 
     monitor implementation of the activities and strategies set 
     forth in awardees' work plans and compliance with 
     administrative requirements, including provisions related to 
     lobbying. In addition, CDC staff monitors the use of federal 
     funds by awardees using tools such as on-site review and risk 
     mitigation plans.
       CDC continues to review all reported allegations regarding 
     grantee activities. Thus far, we have not found among these 
     examples any instance in which the anti-lobbying prohibitions 
     have been violated. Many allegations relate to activities 
     that were performed by outside organizations not using 
     federal funds, or activities that actually took place before 
     CDC funding was even awarded to the grantee. Other activities 
     are, in fact, permissible under the restrictions, such as 
     educating the public on health risks.

  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania (Ms. 
Schwartz), a member of the Budget Committee, who has focused very 
clearly on these health issues.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ranking member's comments 
and his good work and important work on the plan, the Republican plan 
and the Democratic alternative.
  Let me start by saying very clearly, once again, House Republicans 
are taking a shortsighted approach to deficit reduction and economic 
growth in this country. The Federal budget is a statement of our 
priorities and our values as a Nation, and Republicans have made their 
priorities and their values very clear. The Federal budget is about 
choices: the choice to protect seniors; the choice to grow our middle 
class; the choice to make smart investments in our economy. Or not.
  The Republicans have made their choice very clear. They are choosing 
to cut prevention and public health efforts, immunizations and flu 
vaccines, screenings for birth defects, developmental disabilities, and 
hearing loss in children. They are hurting mothers who need prenatal 
care, children who need hearing and eye exams, women who need 
screenings for cancer and heart disease, and our frailest, sickest 
seniors who need nursing home and in-home care.
  Republicans are choosing to eliminate essential health services that 
save dollars and save lives. This choice will hurt millions of American 
women, children, and seniors. Instead, Republicans are choosing to 
protect tax breaks for the largest oil and gas companies and tax breaks 
for companies that ship American jobs overseas.
  There is a better way. The Democratic budget takes a balanced 
approach to deficit reduction and makes spending cuts and targeted 
investments to grow our economy, and it meets our obligations to our 
Nation. The Republican plan rejects this balanced approach. It rejects 
efforts to grow our economy. It rejects protections for our seniors, 
our children, and our future. It is the wrong choice for the American 
people, and we must reject this plan.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5652, to 
stop sequestration of our Nation's defense. We need certainty in the 
future of our national defense.
  We need certainty in the industry that serves our national defense. 
We can't wait until January to make decisions about sequestration, what 
the funding is going to be. The Pentagon will begin in the next month 
to prepare industry to begin stopping contracts, not issuing contracts, 
basically putting small suppliers out of business, putting small 
contractors out of business.
  It is important for the readiness of our Nation, to defend our 
Nation, that we avoid sequestration at all costs. There is much more to 
be said about this. This is serious. When we talk about sequestration 
regarding our national defense, this, my colleagues, is serious. We've 
got to take this first step so, before the deadline, we can complete 
this job.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5652, the Sequester 
Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012. It is the first step we must 
take if we are to avert sequestration and prevent the dismantling of 
our national security.
  Contrary to what some would say, this is not just a political 
exercise today. This is a very real action that we must take for our 
nation to avoid the threat to our national security and our nation's 
economic security if we do not stop sequestration from taking place 
next January.
  The Secretary of Defense and our nation's senior military leadership 
have all warned of the severe consequences we face if automatic 
sequestration takes effect next year. We are a nation at war in 
Afghanistan, we face multiple threats around the globe, our troops are 
stretched thin from multiple deployments, and our equipment is wearing 
out.

[[Page H2610]]

  These situations will only grow worse with sequestration as we are 
forced to further draw down our forces and significantly scale back--if 
not stop altogether--the repair and replacement of our vehicles, 
aircraft, and ships. And the prospect of a hollow force would be an 
almost certainty as training and maintenance would be delayed and 
canceled.
  As the Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on National 
Defense, I know that we have already made a number of difficult 
spending decisions--$39 billion of cuts last year and any major 
reductions as required by sequestration will affect the readiness of 
our troops. I also know that any decision we are going to make about 
averting sequestration cannot wait until the eleventh hour, as so many 
other decisions are made before recess.
  Our service chiefs tell me that planning will have to begin this 
summer on how to respond to sequestration. Industry leaders are already 
hearing the award of contracts will be delayed and that the advance 
procurement of material and equipment will be postponed. This will not 
only affect the large defense contractors, but will impact thousands of 
small businesses in every part of our nation who provide unique 
components for some of our most critical defense systems.
  At a time when our national security remains at risk from emerging 
threats abroad and from ongoing terrorist operations, our nation's 
economy also remains at risk from a softening job market that will only 
worsen with the closure of small defense suppliers and layoffs at 
larger defense contractors.
  The Secretary of Defense has already warned that sequestration could 
add a full one percent to our nation's unemployment rate--many of these 
as a direct result of civilian furloughs and military personnel draw 
downs, but also from the companies and small businesses back home who 
are second and third-tier suppliers for contracts that will be 
abrogated or canceled.
  Mr. Speaker, this cannot be an issue on which we act then sit and 
wait for our colleagues in the Senate to respond. This is an issue on 
which we must work together, in an expedient manner, to send a message 
to our nation's military leadership and to the leadership of industry 
that we are serious about averting this crisis and that we are 
committed to working in a bipartisan manner to do it sooner rather than 
later.
  Our military leadership wants certainty. They want certainty for our 
troops in the field and for their families at home. The leaders of 
business and industry want certainty so they can make the investments 
they need to make to help us rebuild our worn out force. And small 
business suppliers want certainty that they will be able to continue 
providing the critiical components for systems that are in many cases 
their only line of work.
  Mr. Speaker, the specter of sequestration is a serious national 
security issue and it is a serious national economic issue. This is not 
an issue that will be solved by talking at one another. This is an 
issue that will only be solved by working together in the best 
traditions of this House and the Senate. We have risen to the challenge 
before and we can do so again. The legislation we consider today is a 
first step in this process. We can't wait or we will face the most 
severe and in my opinion irreversible consequences for the security of 
our nation.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it is serious, and the Democratic 
substitute proposal would have prevented those cuts from going across 
the board in defense, as well as the non-defense part of the budget. 
Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues don't think it is serious 
enough to ask oil companies to do without taxpayer subsidies to help 
cover the cost. They apparently don't think it is serious enough to ask 
people making $1 million a year to help with our deficit reduction to 
pay for the military that we have.
  I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Financial Services 
Committee, Mr. Frank, to talk about some of the impact of this on 
taxpayers.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the Republican approach does 
some cutting, but it does even more shifting. I agreed with The Wall 
Street Journal editorial of a few weeks ago, which praised the 
gentleman from Wisconsin because he was shielding the military from any 
significant cuts and, instead, was making it up from Medicare and 
Medicaid. That's The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Murdoch, thanking the 
gentleman from Wisconsin for cutting Medicare and Medicaid, not to 
balance the budget or reduce the deficit, but to pump up military 
spending.
  Similarly, this claim that they are saving $20-some-odd billion in 
dealing with the liquidation authority is exactly wrong. What the 
Republican approach says, and we have a roll call vote in our committee 
which did this, it continues their position that the large financial 
institutions, financial institutions with more than $50 billion in 
assets, should pay nothing--nothing--for the costs of cleaning up the 
mess.

                              {time}  1210

  In our original bill in 2010, we met CBO's requirement that there be 
a $20 billion cost by assessing the large financial institutions. To 
get cloture in the Senate, three Republicans managed to back off. In 
our committee this year, the Republicans said, We don't like this, and 
it's going to cost $20 billion. CBO, by the way, says that it costs $20 
billion only within the 10-year window. CBO said the $20 billion will 
be paid out, and it will be repaid by the large financial institutions. 
I will submit another article from The Wall Street Journal making that 
point.
  But here's what the Republicans did: they said, Let's not have the 
financial institutions be vulnerable. We looked at what CBO said, and 
we said, okay, CBO says the $20 billion from the financial institutions 
will come at the end of the 10 years rather than the beginning. So we 
had an amendment to assess the large financial institutions $20 
billion--$29 billion, the CBO said it would cost--at the beginning of 
the period. The Republicans said the banks were being overtaxed and 
voted it down on a party-line vote.

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 18, 2012]

   Would Repeal of Key Dodd-Frank Provision Really Save $22 Billion?

       A House committee later today will vote on a bill being 
     pushed by Republicans to repeal a central plank of the 2010 
     Dodd-Frank financial law, claiming it would save taxpayers 
     $22 billion over 10 years.
       The figure triggered some head-scratching around 
     Washington. ``It's tough to understand where the $22 billion 
     comes from--it's a wild assumption since there are currently 
     no cash flows involved with this part of Dodd-Frank,'' Brian 
     Gardner, a Washington analyst with investment bank Keefe, 
     Bruyefte & Woods, in a note to clients. (He's a former GOP 
     Hill aide). ``Republicans on the committee would only 
     eliminate the possibility that the government might have to 
     spend money on liquidating a distress financial firm in the 
     future,'' he wrote, adding that investors shouldn't waste any 
     time thinking about the issue since the GOP bill ``has 
     virtually no shot at passing'' the Senate.
       The provision in question is the so-called ``orderly 
     liquidation authority'' that gives regulators broad new 
     powers to take control of faltering megafirms and wind them 
     down in an orderly way so that their failure doesn't wreak 
     havoc on the broader economy a la 2008. The provision does 
     allow the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to borrow money 
     from the Treasury to finance the process--but that money, by 
     law, has to be paid back to Treasury. If the FDIC can't 
     recoup enough by selling off assets of the failed firm, then 
     regulators will levy a fee on the big financial firms left 
     standing over a five-year period.
       House Republicans say they got the $22 billion figure from 
     the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Looking at that 
     office's 2011 cost estimate for the whole Dodd-Frank bill 
     shows how the CBO came up with the number--and the budget 
     quirks behind it that make it far from a tangible boost to 
     government coffers.
       First, the CBO assumes regulators have to step in and use 
     their new powers to deal with a teetering financial giant 
     during the next 10 years. That's a pretty big if. 
     Nonetheless, as CBO puts it, while the likelihood of the feds 
     having to use this new process in any year ``is small, the 
     potential costs of liquidating a systemically important firm 
     could be large.'' And experts do say there will be another 
     financial crisis sooner or later.
       Even so, the CBO's approach of only looking at 10 years at 
     a time is another quirk at play here. As the agency explained 
     in its 2011 document, ``[A] snapshot of cash flows in any 
     given 10-year budget window is unlikely to net to zero 
     because the spending to liquidate a firm would occur before 
     the income was received to cover those costs.''
       In other words, the CBO is assuming that the FDIC won't be 
     able to get all the money it needs to pay back Treasury 
     within the 10-year period--but that doesn't mean that the 
     FDIC won't ever get that money. If the law works as it is 
     supposed to, in the end the total cost to taxpayers would be 
     zero--not $22 billion.
       Of course, there are lots of critics who say that this new 
     resolution authority won't work and either regulators or 
     Congress will decide to bailout financial firms when the next 
     crisis strikes, in which case taxpayers would be on the hook. 
     But the CBO is assuming the law works like it's supposed to.

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Medicaid is projected to grow at 125 percent over the next decade; 
under this bill, it will grow 123 percent. Food

[[Page H2611]]

stamps grew 270 percent; under this bill, they would have grown 260 
percent. Only in Washington is this considered draconian cuts. Slowing 
the growth of spending is not cutting; it's slowing the growth of 
spending.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Franks), a member of the Judiciary Committee, and ask 
unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Arizona will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I certainly thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe it's important, first of all, in this 
challenge that we have with our Federal budget, to realize that all 
budgets, whether they are personal budgets or business budgets or 
budgets by governments, all of them eventually and inevitably come to 
balance. They either do so by wise fiscal policy or by catastrophic 
failure.
  The fact is that this administration has spent us into the stone age 
and added to our deficit approximately $1 trillion a year since they 
came into office. Mr. Speaker, the result is that we have more people 
living in poverty under this administration than ever before. So there 
is something wrong with the equation.
  Now, having listened to the debate over this reconciliation bill, 
it's clear to me that Republicans and Democrats have a very 
fundamental, philosophical difference over whether or not we should 
take steps to reduce the Federal deficit and avoid the arbitrary and 
inflexible automatic spending cuts that are set to go into effect next 
year.
  Republicans propose to reduce the deficit and avoid the automatic 
sequestration by eliminating wasteful programs, wasteful government 
spending, and curbing fraud in government programs in general. The 
President, on the other hand, has proposed raising taxes on the 
American people and American families and businesses, while at the same 
time increasing Federal Government spending. I cannot think of a more 
stark contrast, Mr. Speaker.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle have demagogued this 
reconciliation bill beyond recognition. The fact, however, remains that 
this bill reduces the deficit--not by some parade of horribles, but by 
stopping fraud, eliminating government slush funds and duplicative 
programs, and controlling runaway Federal spending. It does so while 
preventing devastating defense cuts that the Obama administration's own 
Defense Department has called ``unacceptable.'' And it does so by 
making sure that the domestic spending cuts that the President's own 
budget claimed will ``inflict great damage on critical domestic 
priorities'' do not go unaddressed.
  As part of the reconciliation process, the Judiciary Committee, Mr. 
Speaker, has recommended reforms to our medical liability system to 
rein in unlimited lawsuits and to make health care more accessible and 
affordable to all Americans.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Judiciary 
Committee's proposed medical liability reforms will reduce the deficit 
by more than $48 billion the very first year and beyond. The simple 
fact is that frivolous lawsuits drive physicians out of the practice of 
medicine in the primes of their careers, it pushes others away from 
high-risk medical specialties, and causes the vast majority of health 
care providers to practice defensive medicine. Studies indicate that 
the cost of health care lawsuit abuse is between $230 billion and $650 
billion annually. The Judiciary Committee's proposal helps to eliminate 
the cause of this out-of-control lawsuit abuse.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this reconciliation package so that we can both reduce the Federal 
deficit and avoid the draconian sequestration of Defense Department 
funding that threatens serious harm to our national security.
  Mr. Speaker, just a word on our national security. There is no more 
important thing to our economy of any kind than making sure that we are 
doing everything to be productive in a secure environment. If our 
national security is undermined, our economic security will be writing 
its own economic obituary.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and thank 
the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We keep hearing from our Republican colleagues that there's nothing 
more important than making sure we defend our national security. We 
agree that that's essential. We also agree that we need a strong 
economy. What's confusing is, if that's so important, why are our 
Republican colleagues refusing to ask the big oil companies to give up 
their big subsidies? They've said they don't need them.
  So, Mr. Speaker, again, we also keep hearing that these cuts aren't 
going to have an effect. There's the old saying that you're entitled to 
your own opinions, but not your own facts. What we've been talking 
about are facts from the Congressional Budget Office about the number 
of kids that would lose their health care and the number of struggling 
families that would lose their food and nutrition support.
  I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. 
Pierluisi).
  Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the provision in this 
legislation that would single out the Medicaid programs in the U.S. 
territories for a 65 percent cut, even though the territories are 
already treated in a profoundly unequal manner under this program. I'm 
joined in my opposition to this cut by the Republican Governor of 
Puerto Rico, Luis Fortuno, who knows discrimination when he sees it.
  And I'd like to remind the gentleman from Wisconsin that in the case 
of the territories, we are talking about an actual cut. We're not 
talking about a reduction in the growth of our funding, because we have 
a cap to live with.
  Just as we fought to obtain the funding that this bill now seeks to 
repeal, we will fight alongside our allies in the White House, the 
Senate, and this Chamber to retain this funding. This is a fight we 
intend to win.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), chairman of the Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee, and ask unanimous consent that he be 
allowed to yield time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
California will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation.
  Our committee has participated in $83 billion worth of this package, 
saving our men and women in uniform from finding themselves holding 
wooden rifles. I use that term because it once happened. It wouldn't 
happen under sequestration, but we would make cuts that would make them 
just as endangered in some cases as if they were carrying wooden 
rifles.
  Now, many people will talk about public servants in a less than kind 
way. I am not one of them. The Federal workforce has kept its promises. 
The Federal workers are not always well led or well managed, but they 
themselves deliver the product they're asked to deliver. However, the 
President's own commission--often called Simpson-Bowles on which the 
chairman of the Budget Committee served--found something that they all 
agreed on, that was that, in fact, the pension program that we as 
Federal employees--and I say ``we'' because Members of Congress pay 
into Social Security, have a 401(k), but we also have a pension--that 
that pension was more generous than our counterparts in the private 
sector.

                              {time}  1220

  They recommended that we, in fact, make it a 50/50 shared pension. My 
contribution from our committee, in fact, does that. At a rate of 5 
percent, phased in over 5 years, we bring the Federal workforce, 
members of the civilian DOD, members of your Park Service and Members 
of Congress, House and Senate, we bring us all into paying what 
Simpson-Bowles, on a bipartisan basis, very much felt was a fair share.
  Now, I want to make sure that everyone understands today that this 
is, in fact, a changing for members of the Federal workforce from what 
they perceived they would always have. It will not be easy. They will 
know that after this goes into effect, they will, in fact,

[[Page H2612]]

not have as much take-home as they did the day before.
  That's not to say it isn't due, that it isn't known, and it doesn't 
need to happen. What it's to say is, let's be understanding. These are 
tough times. The American people have made sacrifices for many years 
before this one. The Federal workforce has made some sacrifices. The 
President implemented a pay freeze.
  But I must tell you, our looking at it is that because of an outdated 
system, the pay freeze does not, in fact, freeze pay. Step increases 
have virtually automatically, almost 100 percent automatically caused 
the vast majority of these individuals to be eligible and receive pay 
increases, even at a time in which, theoretically, it was frozen.
  Additionally, civil servants know that if we're going to continue to 
hold on to a civil service workforce that has the confidence of the 
American people, their wages have to be comparable to their civilian 
counterparts.
  Our committee will continue to work with others to study to make sure 
we do keep Federal workers fairly paid as compared to the nongovernment 
workforce. But our bill today takes the President's own 
recommendations, the recommendations made to the President, and 
implements them, for a savings over 10 years of $83 billion.
  We believe this is the Federal workforce and we, as their 
representatives, asking them to make a reasonable sacrifice, one that I 
know they will do, while remaining confident that they will deliver the 
kinds of products they can.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, there are things that are not in this bill. The 
kind of pay-for-performance that we'd like to see enhanced, the kind of 
procedure for a quick remedy for individuals who have become disabled--
those are not in there. There are many other savings and improvements 
for the Federal workforce. We intend to go back on a bipartisan basis 
and do that.
  But when it comes to purely paying your fair share, we believe that 
Simpson-Bowles got it right. We believe the Federal workforce will not 
like this, but they will accept that this allows them to say our 
package is not inherently more generous than the private sector. It's 
been normalized for it.
  That and other changes that we made in this bill allow the Federal 
workforce to say stop saying that we somehow get something everyone 
else doesn't. The Federal workforce pays into Social Security, into 
Medicare and, in fact, they're going to be paying half the cost of 
their pension plan, which is commensurate with their private sector.
  So I want to be very positive here in saying this is never easy to do 
in times of austerity, but, in fact, the Federal workforce will stand 
behind this, as Congress will, in recognizing that they're doing their 
share.
  I'm very proud of the people throughout government who recognize that 
getting this right is part of being able to say to the American people, 
we're all in this together.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words the chairman of 
the Government Reform Committee said with respect to Federal employees.
  If you listen to the comments of a lot of these colleagues, they have 
made Federal civil servants scapegoats, and, in fact, their budget 
that's before us today does hit Federal employees.
  So the folks in the intelligence community who helped track down 
Osama Bin Laden, what do they get under this proposal? A 5 percent pay 
cut.
  How about the folks at NIH who are, every day, looking to find cures 
and treatments for diseases that plague every American family? A 5 
percent pay cut.
  How about the nurses who work in the Veterans Hospitals? A 5 percent 
pay cut.
  And yet, you don't cut the direct payment subsidies to agriculture. 
You don't cut the subsidies to the big oil companies. You just want to 
whack Federal civil servants.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), who has been working on this issue for a very long time.
  Mr. HOYER. I want to thank my friend, Mr. Van Hollen, for the work 
he's done.
  I want to rise in opposition to this focus on Federal employees. 
First of all, Federal employees have contributed $75 billion over the 
last 2 years towards helping us reduce the deficit--$75 billion. No 
other working American has been asked to do that.
  You treat Federal employees in this House as second-class working 
people. That's wrong. This is a 5 percent tax increase on Federal 
employees. Nobody else, nobody else do we ask--the richest people in 
America we don't ask to solve this deficit problem. But Federal 
employees, yes, a $75 billion contribution. And you don't blink an eye 
because it's easy, because we demagogue about government and, by 
association, we demagogue about bureaucrats used as an epithet.
  These are, as Mr. Van Hollen pointed out, people who protect our 
food, try to make sure that we can find cures for cancer, protect us 
from terrorism, guard our borders. That's who we're talking about. And 
we treat them as second-class citizens. That's wrong. It's wrong for 
our country, it's wrong for the American people, and it's wrong for us 
as an institution representing the government of this country.
  Ladies and gentlemen, reject this. I'm going to talk about other 
aspects of this so-called reconciliation bill at a future date. But I 
ask you on this basis alone: federal employees--I will tell you as one 
who represents a large number of them--are ready to participate in 
helping to bring down this deficit and meet this crisis. But do not ask 
them to do it alone.

  That's what Mr. Van Hollen says about oil companies, big 
corporations, loopholes, and the wealthiest in America. Don't simply 
ask more from those who have less and ask less from those who have 
more. That is not good policy. Let us not pursue it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the gentleman from Maryland.
  It is now my privilege to yield 3 minutes to another great Member of 
Congress from the State of Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the ranking member 
on the Government Reform Committee.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Van Hollen. This week marks the 28th 
anniversary of Public Service Recognition Week, a week in which we 
honor the contributions of Federal, State, local, and government 
employees. These employees include outstanding public servants like 
IRS' Shauna Henline, from Representative Rob Bishop's congressional 
district, who saved the United States taxpayers billions of dollars by 
identifying and bringing to justice tax evaders and scammers.
  They include the State Department's Shane Morris, a constituent of 
Representative Christopher Smith of New Jersey, who played a critical 
role in ensuring that United States diplomats in the Middle East 
continued to receive classified information, material, and equipment 
during the Arab Spring uprisings in 2011.
  Instead of us using this week to celebrate the good work of 
government employees who dedicate their lives to serving others, the 
Republican majority has put legislation on the House floor today that 
would take billions of dollars out of their pockets.
  I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, where is the 
appreciation or compassion for the dedication and commitment that 
public employees display day by day? It certainly is not in this bill, 
which is an uncompassionate and wrongheaded approach to our fiscal 
problems.
  The Federal employee-related provisions in this bill which were 
reported out of the Oversight Committee would reduce the take-home pay 
of nearly 3 million middle class Americans by 5 percent, mandating 
increased retirement contributions.
  The bill also would eliminate the FERS annuity supplement for new 
workers who retire before they are eligible for Social Security at 62. 
According to the Office of Personnel Management, the average annuity 
amount for current FERS retirees is nearly $700 per month. I do not 
think any American who has dedicated his life to the public service 
should be forced to lose that much money on a monthly basis, 
particularly those on a fixed retirement budget.
  Our middle class Federal employees have already contributed $75 
billion towards deficit reduction and other government programs, while 
millionaires and billionaires have not been asked to

[[Page H2613]]

contribute one additional cent to improve our government's financial 
condition.

                              {time}  1230

  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and, 
instead, to support a more rational and equitable budget proposal that 
asks for shared sacrifice from everyone in our country.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Members of Congress and Federal employees contribute .8 percent to 
their pensions. According to the CBO, their benefits are 48 percent 
higher than their average private sector counterparts. We think it's 
just reasonable and appropriate that they contribute about 5.8 percent 
to their pensions and contribute their half. It's the least we can ask 
of ourselves as Members of Congress and of hardworking Federal 
employees, that we treat ourselves like private sector workers are 
treated. More to the point, Mr. Speaker, if we want to have the moral 
authority to get spending under control, we need to ask more of 
ourselves.
  With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Camp), the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and ask unanimous 
consent that he be allowed to yield time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Michigan will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CAMP. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, back in 2010, I served on the President's debt 
commission, otherwise known as the Simpson-Bowles Commission. During 
that Commission, we heard nonpartisan, expert testimony that debts as 
large as ours slow economic growth by about 1 percent. In America, that 
translates into 1 million fewer jobs. So, to start getting our debt 
under control and our economy back on track, we passed the Budget 
Control Act, but we all know that was a blunt and ineffective tool. As 
a result, Republicans have stepped forward with a smarter plan.
  Today, I want to highlight the more targeted, sensible reductions in 
spending the Ways and Means Committee has offered as part of the 
reconciliation process, each of which has enjoyed bipartisan support.
  Our first recommendation requires exchange subsidy overpayments in 
the Democrats' health care law to be repaid in full. This is simple and 
common sense. If you aren't entitled to the benefit, you don't get to 
keep it. This policy will reduce the deficit by $43.9 billion over the 
next 10 years.
  A Democrat-controlled House and a Democrat-controlled Senate first 
used a version of this offset in 2010 to pay for a temporary Medicare 
so-called ``doc fix.'' This Congress also endorsed this policy as part 
of the 1099 repeal legislation that became law early last year. As 
Secretary Sebelius has previously said, requiring the return of 
exchange subsidy overpayments ``makes it fairer for recipients and all 
taxpayers.''
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sam Johnson) to discuss the committee's second recommendation. He 
is a true American hero, as well as the chairman of the Social Security 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, due to a loophole in the Tax Code, the IRS is shoveling 
out billions of American taxpayer dollars to those who are here 
illegally.
  The good news is this reconciliation measure includes a commonsense 
solution based on legislation I've authored that would save $7.6 
billion by putting a stop to this. The provision would stop illegal 
immigrants from getting the $1,000 refundable Child Tax Credit by 
simply requiring tax filers to provide their Social Security numbers.
  Right now, those who are here illegally can get cash from Uncle Sam 
by providing an IRS-provided taxpayer ID number to claim this 
refundable credit. According to a recent report by NBC Indianapolis' 
WTHR, illegal immigrants are even filing tax returns that claim 
children who do not live in America.
  Mr. Speaker, there really shouldn't be any controversy over this. The 
American people are speaking out against this. Treasury's tax IG has 
spoken out against this. Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill has spoken 
out against this. Even the administration supports through the funding 
of a verification program the idea of preventing illegals from 
receiving public benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, we can fix this and put a stop to the abuse of precious 
taxpayer dollars by simply requiring a Social Security number. 
Americans want, need, and deserve the better protection of their hard-
earned money, and we owe it to the United States of America to take 
action today.
  Mr. CAMP. I now yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Human Resources 
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis), to discuss the 
committee's final recommendation.
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, including the 
provision to end the duplicative Social Services Block Grant.
  As chairman of the Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee, we 
held a hearing last year on duplicative programs such as SSBG. Despite 
what we have heard from some on the other side, our concern is focused 
squarely on the design of the SSBG program, which does not serve 
taxpayers well for a number of reasons.
  SSBG is duplicative and unfocused. It supports 29 different types of 
social services with no eligibility requirements. The Federal 
Government already spends $446 billion per year on other social 
services programs, which is about 260 times the amount of SSBG 
spending. With no State spending requirements or accountability for 
results, SSBG is more akin to stimulus dollars than other more 
effective anti-poverty programs.
  With staggering deficits, we can't afford to send money to States 
without accountability through a program that is replicated by 
literally dozens of other Federal programs. That's what SSBG does 
today, and it is why it makes sense to end this duplicative program.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Mr. CAMP. Today, the economy is down and we're out of money, so it is 
our responsibility to reevaluate these programs, to assess whether 
they're meeting their intended purposes and to determine if the 
American taxpayer can afford them. We must reduce the burden our debt 
is putting on our economy, on our families, on job creation in this 
country. This legislation does that. It encompasses commonsense, 
bipartisan policies; and I urge its passage.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Child Tax Credit, I 
would like to insert into the Record a letter we received from the 
Catholic bishops on this subject. In part, it reads:

       I reiterate our strong opposition to an unfair proposal 
     that would alter the Child Tax Credit to exclude children of 
     hardworking immigrant families.

  The bishops also talk about the devastating impacts of eliminating 
the Social Services Block Grant.

                                     Committee on Domestic Justice


                                        and Human Development,

                                      Washington, DC, May 8, 2012.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: As you vote on a reconciliation 
     package for the fiscal year 2013 budget, I would like to 
     affirm the principle contained in the Committee Report that 
     the ``budget starts with the proposition that first, Congress 
     must do no harm.'' In this light, I urge you to ensure all 
     policies meet the moral criteria established by the Catholic 
     bishops of the United States to create a circle of protection 
     around programs that serve poor and vulnerable people and 
     communities:
       1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it 
     protects or threatens human life and dignity.
       2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it 
     affects the lives and dignity of ``the least of these'' 
     (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, 
     without work or in poverty should come first.
       3. Government and other institutions have a shared 
     responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially 
     ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity 
     in difficult economic times.
       A just framework for future budgets cannot rely on 
     disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons; 
     it requires shared sacrifice by all, including raising 
     adequate revenues, eliminating unnecessary military and other 
     spending, and addressing the long-term costs of health 
     insurance and retirement programs fairly.
       I reiterate our strong opposition to an unfair proposal 
     that would alter the Child Tax

[[Page H2614]]

     Credit to exclude children of hard-working, immigrant 
     families. The bishops' conference has long supported the 
     Child Tax Credit because it is pro-work, pro-family, and one 
     of the most effective antipoverty programs in our nation. 
     Denying the credit to children of working poor immigrant 
     families--the large majority of whom are American citizens--
     would hurt vulnerable kids, increase poverty, and would not 
     advance the common good.
       The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, 
     formerly known as food stamps), provides vital food security 
     to families during tough economic times. It is estimated that 
     cuts proposed in this bill would deny assistance to two 
     million families, and cut the benefit for everyone else. No 
     poor family that receives food assistance would be 
     unaffected, constituting a direct threat to their human 
     dignity. If savings in agricultural programs need to be 
     achieved, subsidies and direct payments can be reduced and 
     targeted to small and moderate-sized farms.
       The Social Services Block Grant is an important source of 
     funding for programs throughout the country that serve 
     vulnerable members of our communities--the homeless, the 
     elderly, people with disabilities, children living in 
     poverty, and abuse victims. We should prioritize programs 
     that serve ``the least of these,'' not eliminate them.
       The Catholic bishops of the United States recognize the 
     serious deficits our country faces, and we acknowledge that 
     Congress must make difficult decisions about how to allocate 
     burdens and sacrifices and balance resources and needs. 
     However, deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility efforts 
     must protect and not undermine the needs of poor and 
     vulnerable people. The proposed cuts to programs in the 
     budget reconciliation fail this basic moral test. The 
     Catechism of the Catholic Church states it is the proper role 
     of government to ``make accessible to each what is needed to 
     lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, 
     education and culture, suitable information, the right to 
     establish a family, and so on'' (no. 1908). Poor and 
     vulnerable people do not have powerful lobbyists to advocate 
     their interests, but they have the most compelling needs.
       As you pursue responsible deficit reduction, the Catholic 
     bishops join other faith leaders and people of good will 
     urging you to protect the lives and dignity of poor and 
     vulnerable families by putting a circle of protection around 
     these essential programs and to refrain from cutting programs 
     that serve them.
           Sincerely,
     Most Reverend Stephen E. Blaire,
       Chairman, Committee on Domestic Justice and Human 
     Development.

  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, the ranking 
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Waxman, who has been 
working so hard on these issues.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the bill that is before us today is an 
unbalanced package of cuts that hurts the most vulnerable populations 
in our society and the working middle class.
  There was a budget agreement on a bipartisan basis between the 
Congress and the President by which we would shield low-income programs 
from the cuts that are now before us today. That agreement is being 
rejected, and the Republicans are pushing for cuts for low-income 
programs such as Medicaid, SNAP--which is the food stamp program--
helped by the Social Services Block Grant and which are vital to 
maintaining and continuing our economic recovery. These are the safety 
net programs. With the slashes in Medicaid, we will have hundreds of 
thousands of people, including 300,000 children, denied health 
insurance.
  Is this something that we have to do when we're not letting others do 
their fair share?
  The bill would establish a Federal medical malpractice system that 
tramples on the meaning of states' rights, which the Republicans have 
said is a central tenet of their point of view. They would undermine 
our future health care by cutting prevention and public health 
investments. They would make it harder for women to access important 
and life-saving preventative care, and they fail to protect Medicare 
from billions of dollars in cuts that would happen under the 
sequestration.
  But we shouldn't be surprised.
  This is all based on the Ryan budget that the Republicans passed on 
the House floor last month. Under that budget, defense spending is 
increased over investments in health, education, and research. 
Medicare, as we know it, would come to an end. The number of uninsured 
would rise, but millionaires and billionaires would receive enormous 
tax cuts.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Instead of a budget that actually reduces the deficit, 
which this budget would not do, and that tries to do it in a balanced 
and fair way, the Ryan budget, and this bill specifically, targets 
those most in need; and it puts our Nation's financial recovery at 
risk. I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from the Virgin 
Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, to say I rise in strong opposition to 
this bill would be an understatement. In addition to the other 
egregious cuts, this bill would eliminate the critically needed $6.3 
billion in funding that the U.S. territories' Medicaid programs receive 
under the Affordable Care Act.

                              {time}  1240

  More than that, it sends a clear message to Americans in the 
territories that while they are American enough to defend this Nation 
during times of war, they are not American enough for this Nation to 
protect and preserve their health and well-being. This bill is un-
American and it is unjust.
  I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this terrible reconciliation 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, to say that I rise today in strong opposition to this 
bill would be an understatement.
  The truth is that there are so many elements included in this bill 
that warrant everyone's strong opposition that the list reads like a 
dishonor roll: the attacks on Medicare and CHIP; the elimination of 
funding for the Exchanges that will expand health insurance to more 
than 30 million uninsured Americans; and the repeal of the Prevention 
and Public Health Fund, which expands access to preventive health care 
services to millions of Americans who--as a result--would have improved 
overall health and well-being. The list goes on for far too long.
  But, it gets worse because this bill also includes a provision to 
eliminate the critically needed 6.3 billion dollars in funding that the 
U.S. Territories' Medicaid programs received under the Affordable Care 
Act--a funding influx that, two years ago, my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle and in both chambers deemed legitimate and necessary. And, 
if that is not bad enough, this bill also bumps our FMAP down from 55 
to 50 percent--a percentage that every expert has agreed is far too low 
and unjust, given the territories' income, poverty and cost of living 
numbers.
  I will call it like I see it: it bullies the most vulnerable 
Americans in the territories whose medical needs surpass their 
financial resources; and this bill sends the very clear message to 
Americans in the territories that while they are ``American enough'' to 
defend this nation and its honor during times of war, they are not 
``American enough'' for this Nation to help protect and preserve their 
health, health care and thus well-being. It is un-American; it is 
unjust; it is an unnecessary embarrassment; and it must not pass.
  We have one last chance to do the right thing; let's do it and not 
pass this bill.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma, a member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Cole.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, the American people know in their gut that 
they're not taxed too little, and they also know that the Federal 
Government spends too much.
  This bill is an important first step in restraining spending and 
bringing our out-of-control deficit under control. I'm very proud of 
our chairman, Mr. Ryan, on our committee for bringing it to the floor. 
I'm even prouder of the six authorizing committees that systematically 
did their job of reviewing nondiscretionary spending and finding real 
savings that we can use to reduce the deficit and protect important 
investments in defense.
  Taming the deficit will require that we take these steps each and 
every year going forward. We haven't done it since 2005. It's time to 
do it today. Let's take a step in the right direction.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this bill is vivid evidence of the 
radicalization of the Republican Party.
  I recall decades ago chairing a committee in the Michigan State 
Senate

[[Page H2615]]

and addressing a number of reforms affecting the lives of working men 
and women. I directly engaged in give and take and negotiated final 
legislation with Governor George Romney, resulting in legislation that 
passed on a bipartisan basis.
  Today, the radicalization of the Republican Party would make that 
impossible. Instead, we have a bill that would take away food stamps 
for 2 million Americans, children, working parents, and seniors. It 
would threaten 280,000 school meals and end the Social Services Block 
Grants, which provide home care, transportation for individuals with 
disabilities, protection for abused children, and Meals on Wheels. All 
of this and much more extremism to carry out an additional tax cut of 
$240,000 for the very wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers.
  We can turn off the budget sequester and the damaging across-the-
board cuts, but not with this extreme partisan bill. The House 
leadership refuses to follow a bipartisan path. This bill is sad proof 
of how the Republican Party of today has moved dramatically to the 
extreme, leaving behind most Americans, except the very wealthy.
  Mr. Speaker, I now would like to enter into the Record letters from 
organizations that are opposed to this bill's drastic cuts in services 
for the elderly, the disabled, and children:

                                       Catholic Charities USA,

                                   Alexandria, VA, April 25, 2012.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Ryan: As the House Committee on the 
     Budget evaluates the priorities expressed in the federal 
     budgeting process, we urge you to reject the proposed 
     elimination of the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) as 
     proposed by the House Committee on Ways and Means.
       Everyday thousands of individuals who are disabled, 
     children, preschoolers, homeless, elderly, or at risk of 
     being abused are receiving services because of SSBG funding. 
     These funds prevent the need for more expensive and less 
     desirable interventions. SSBG is a flexible federal funding 
     source that allows states, local governments and non-profit 
     organizations to support local programs and services for 
     vulnerable children, youth, and elderly and disabled people. 
     States have a long history of cooperation with community and 
     faith-based organizations in the allocation of SSBG funds.
       Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA) is a network of more than 
     1,600 social service agencies and institutions providing 
     services to more than 10 million people annually. As one of 
     the nation's largest social service providers, CCUSA 
     recognizes the critical need for SSBG funding and uses these 
     funds in almost every category of direct services.
       Among those vulnerable populations that receive critical 
     assistance from SSBG-funded programs are: Children: Local 
     Catholic Charities agencies use SSBG funds to provide child 
     care to low-income families; foster care support service; and 
     prevention and protective services for neglected and abused 
     children. Youth: Local Catholic Charities agencies utilize 
     funds from SSBG to supplement work with expecting and 
     parenting teens; drug counseling for troubled youth; and 
     special services for youth involved in or at risk of 
     involvement with criminal activity. Elderly: Local Catholic 
     Charities rely heavily on SSBG funds to support Meals on 
     Wheels programs that address both nutrition and isolation 
     issues for frail elderly persons; transportation services for 
     persons who also need assistance with their grocery shopping, 
     doctor appointments, and during church services; adult day 
     care; and emergency shelter and assistance for victims of 
     elder abuse.
       The following provides some examples of programs at local 
     Catholic Charities agencies that would be affected by the 
     elimination of SSBG funding:
       New Jersey: In Newark, SSBG funds are used to support many 
     programs and services, among them counseling and child abuse 
     prevention services for families referred from the State 
     child welfare system; supervised housing for youth exiting 
     the child welfare system for independent living; The funds 
     are used to provide services directed towards preventing, 
     reducing or eliminating dependency; achieving or maintaining 
     self-sufficiency; preventing neglect, abuse or exploitation 
     of children and adults; and preventing or reducing 
     inappropriate institutional care.
       Pennsylvania: In Wilkes-Barre/Scranton SSBG funding 
     supports activities at a homeless veterans residence, 
     Maternity Home and Senior Citizens Housing.
       Texas: In Beaumont, SSBG funds the soup kitchen, long term 
     disaster recovery, financial education and counseling 
     programs. In Brownsville, SSBG funds are used to assist with 
     long-term recovery from disasters including replacing 
     essential items for those who were rendered homeless from 
     such disasters.
       Wisconsin: In LaCrosse, SSBG funds provide services for 
     children and adolescents in their Disabilities Services 
     Program. Its mission is to keep these young people in their 
     homes and prepare them for congregate or semi-independent 
     living and provides a unique niche and without it many would 
     not be able to be in mainstreamed into the community and 
     would be at risk for institutional care.
       We acknowledge that tough choices will be made as part of 
     your ongoing budget discussions and that every one of these 
     tough choices will be met with frustration, disappointment 
     and even anger from certain segments of the population. 
     Catholic Charities USA recognizes that social service 
     initiatives will not be immune to those difficult decisions. 
     However, as you look for savings within the budget, we reject 
     the notion that those most vulnerable among us should feel 
     the greatest impact of future reductions.
       Rather than simply embracing quick answers to the immediate 
     need to shave dollars off the federal budget by impairing 
     local organizations' ability to deliver critical services to 
     those in need, now is the time to work together to create a 
     new national approach to service delivery that enable the 
     country to permanently make a difference in the lives of 
     those living in poverty.
           Sincerely,
                                                Fr., Larry Snyder,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                      May 5, 2012.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner: As groups of faith that provide 
     critical support for those living on the margin, we write to 
     urge you to reject the House Budget Committee's proposal to 
     repeal funding for the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG).
       The SSBG is a flexible federal funding source that allows 
     states, local governments and nonprofit organizations to 
     support and supplement programs and services on the local 
     level for vulnerable children, youth, the elderly and people 
     with disabilities. States have a long history of cooperation 
     with community and faith-based organizations in the 
     allocation of SSBG funds.
       According to the Department of Health and Human Services, 
     the SSBG helped more than 22 million individuals in 2009, 49 
     percent of whom were children. In 1996, funding for SSBG was 
     cut, and while it was intended to increase to $2.8 billion in 
     2003, instead it was reduced to $1.7 million and has remained 
     at this level. The flat funding level has failed to keep up 
     with inflation, forcing states to cut back on social services 
     or tap into funds allocated for the Temporary Assistance for 
     Needy Families. In these times of economic hardship, states 
     are dealing with budget crises and a growing number of people 
     in need of social services. SSBG funds are critical to help 
     states fill in gaps with the flexibility to target the funds 
     according to their needs.
       SSBG plays an important role in the types of services 
     provided by our organizations to low-income people. The 
     elimination of funding would disproportionately impact the 
     most vulnerable populations by impairing our ability to 
     provide services that help children in need of child care, 
     youth in need of intervention and prevention services, and 
     older Americans and persons with disabilities who might 
     otherwise need to be placed in institutional care. The 
     slightest reduction in funding for this vulnerable population 
     would compromise their livelihood and possibly their lives. 
     Therefore, we strongly urge you to protect SSBG funding so 
     that these vital programs continue to be available to these 
     vulnerable populations.
           Sincerely,
     Catholic Charities USA.
     Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
     Association of Jewish Family & Children's Agencies.
     The Jewish Federations of North America.
     Lutheran Services in America.
                                  ____

                                                      Easter Seals


                                          Disability Services,

                                   Washington, DC, April 19, 2012.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of Easter Seals I am writing 
     to urge you to oppose legislation that eliminates the Social 
     Services Block Grant (SSBG) and cuts the Supplemental 
     Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). We urge you to vote 
     against these proposals if they come before the full House of 
     Representatives.
       The Social Services Block Grant is a critical resource that 
     enables Easter Seals affiliates throughout the country to 
     provide quality services that support the independence of 
     people with disabilities. Our affiliates work with localities 
     to provide inclusive child care for children with 
     disabilities, adult day services for older adults, 
     recreational programs for people with disabilities of all 
     ages and much more. Without SSBG, access to these critical 
     services would be extremely limited. In addition, many of the 
     people with disabilities we serve rely on SNAP and other 
     federal supports to remain independent.
       Easter Seals appreciates the urgency for the federal 
     government to be fiscally responsible and to strengthen our 
     national economy. At the same time, we know that people with 
     disabilities disproportionately rely on government services 
     to live, learn and work in their communities. These services 
     were created by government because the private market place 
     would not meet the unique needs of people with disabilities.

[[Page H2616]]

       Again, please oppose proposals to eliminate SSBG and cut 
     SNAP. Thank you for considering our views.
           Sincerely,
                                               Katherine Beh Nees,
     Senior Vice President, Government Relations.
                                  ____



                                                         AARP,

                                                      May 9, 2012.
       Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of over 38 million 
     members and other Americans who are age 50 and older, AARP is 
     writing to express serious concerns with the House 
     Reconciliation proposal pursuant to the Fiscal Year 2013. 
     While the reconciliation package offers ideas for confronting 
     our nation's deficits and debt, AARP believes the proposal 
     lacks balance and could jeopardize the health and economic 
     security of older Americans, as well as their families.


                    State Health Insurance Exchanges

       The reconciliation proposal strikes funding for state 
     health insurance exchanges (Exchanges), as well as rescinds 
     obligated funds which states are relying on for future use. 
     The establishment of the Exchanges is one of a number of 
     initiatives in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
     (ACA) to improve access to affordable, quality care. AARP 
     believes the Exchanges can promote more cost-effective care, 
     improve pricing transparency, and increase health insurance 
     companies' accountability for quality health care. The 
     Exchanges' functions are critical in determining eligibility 
     for individuals or employers seeking to purchase qualified 
     health plans (QHPs), and in particular for determining 
     eligibility for the premium tax credits under the rules as 
     set out by the IRS. Exchanges are also important for 
     facilitating a seamless eligibility system with State 
     Medicaid programs under the rules set out for Medicaid. AARP 
     supports innovative ways to provide access to affordable, 
     quality care. The House proposal to defund the Exchanges by 
     $13.5 billion dollars will make it more difficult for 
     millions of Americans to obtain affordable and quality 
     healthcare.


                           Subsidies--True up

       The proposal would require those who receive Exchange 
     subsidies overpayment to repay the full amount of the 
     overpayment. Individuals and families would still be allowed 
     to keep the subsidies they are entitled to receive under the 
     ACA. AARP supports health insurance Exchanges' subsidies to 
     individuals up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level. 
     The subsidies and their proper administration are a critical 
     element in assuring affordability of quality healthcare 
     coverage for individuals and families. Without these 
     subsidies, many of our members and other Americans will not 
     be able to afford coverage or the cost sharing for covered 
     care. We believe that efforts to change percentage limits or 
     decrease the subsidy levels will erode the affordability 
     protection of the credits, and will mean that over time more 
     people will find insurance unaffordable.


                    Repeal of the Public Health Fund

       The proposal repeals the prevention and public health fund. 
     This fund is an important component in state and community 
     efforts to prevent illness and promote health, so that all 
     Americans can lead longer, more productive lives. An 
     estimated 32.5 million people with Medicare received at least 
     one free preventive benefit in 2011, including the new Annual 
     Wellness Visit, since the health reform law was enacted. 
     Seventy-five percent of all health care costs in our country 
     are spent on the treatment of chronic diseases, many of which 
     could be easily prevented. More than 70 million Americans 
     ages 50 and older--four out of five older adults--suffer from 
     at least one chronic condition. More than half of older 
     adults have more than one chronic condition, and 11 million 
     live with five or more chronic conditions. A focus on 
     prevention will not only lead to better health for Americans, 
     but will also help reduce the need for costly treatment and 
     intervention of these chronic diseases.
       The prevention and Public Health Fund has also been used to 
     bolster the health care workforce to ensure that consumers 
     would have access to clinicians providing primary care, 
     prevention, and wellness care. In 2010, it helped to 
     transition 800 part time nursing students to full time status 
     to help infuse the healthcare workforce. Without such 
     funding, more consumers would go without necessary preventive 
     and primary care and would end up needing more advanced 
     interventions in acute care or chronic care institutions--
     thereby decreasing their quality of life, overburdening the 
     health care delivery system, and increasing the cost of 
     health care. AARP strongly urges the House to oppose repeal 
     of the prevention fund.


     Repeal of Medicaid and CHIP Maintenance-of-Effort Requirements

       AARP opposes the reconciliation provision eliminating the 
     Medicaid Maintenance-of-Effort (MOE) requirement included as 
     part of the ACA. We are concerned this will lead to state 
     Medicaid cuts that could leave many older Americans, people 
     with disabilities, and children without health care coverage.
       Medicaid often covers services that other programs, such as 
     Medicare, do not generally cover, including home health aide 
     and personal attendant care services, as well as nursing home 
     services. In fact, Medicaid is the largest payer of long-term 
     care for older adults and people with disabilities. Because 
     of the extremely high cost of long-term services and 
     supports--the average annual cost of nursing home care is 
     over $75,000--many older Americans, including middle income 
     Americans, have to virtually deplete all of their personal 
     resources to finance their ongoing care. Medicaid is a last 
     resort for these individuals and many other Americans who 
     find themselves uninsured or uninsurable in the private 
     market due to a catastrophic illness such as cancer. It 
     provides the needed long-term care services that Medicare 
     does not cover.
       Starting in 2014, the ACA expands Medicaid coverage for 
     persons with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level, 
     to ensure that people who cannot afford care on the private 
     market still have access to core services without the 
     inefficiencies and expense of uncompensated care. The MOE 
     provisions included in ACA serve as a bridge to 2014, making 
     certain that important health coverage remains in place until 
     the new law is fully implemented. According to the non-
     partisan Congressional Budget Office's scoring, the MOE 
     elimination would lead to hundreds of thousands of these 
     vulnerable Americans losing coverage each year.
       Reducing Medicaid coverage is not the solution for reining 
     in health care costs. To be exact, cuts to Medicaid and CHIP 
     will only result in costly uncompensated care, which in turn 
     will result in higher health care costs in the private 
     market. Rather than simply continue to shift costs, health 
     care costs should be reduced by pursuing more effective ways 
     to deliver and coordinate care; by working to prevent and 
     treat costly chronic conditions; by carefully expanding home 
     and community-based services; and by reining in costs 
     associated with waste and fraud.


    Repeal of increased federal Medicaid funding cap and match for 
                              territories

       AARP opposes the reconciliation provision that would 
     replace the ACA's increased Medicaid federal match and cap 
     for the territories with the levels in place prior to the 
     ACA. We supported raising the cap on Medicaid funding for 
     Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the other 
     territories. AARP believes that quality, affordable health 
     coverage should be available to all Americans wherever they 
     reside, and this reconciliation provision would only serve to 
     further increase health care inequities for Americans who 
     live in the U.S. territories. The proposal would cut federal 
     funding for Medicaid in the territories by 65% over the next 
     decade. Such a drastic cut would be a crippling blow that 
     would devastate Medicaid within the territories, as well as 
     budgets within the territories.


             Eliminating Social Services Block Grant (SSBG)

       The proposal aims to eliminate the SSBG. SSBG serve a 
     unique purpose and are not duplicative of other funding. The 
     original intent of SSBG funds was to increase the flexibility 
     of state governments to set social services spending 
     priorities outside the constraints of federal program 
     dollars. Since SSBG funds must be directed to services for 
     low income and vulnerable persons and enable them to be more 
     independent or gain greater economic self-sufficiency, around 
     23 million seniors, children and disabled persons will 
     experience reduced or no services since many states lack the 
     capacity to replace the funds if this proposal were to take 
     effect. Home delivered meals (1.7 million seniors), adult 
     protective services and transportation services are most 
     frequently noted as services for seniors supported by the 
     SSBG. In two recent reports by AARP and the National 
     Association of States United for Aging and Disabilities on a 
     wide array of supportive and long-term care services, states 
     acknowledge that maintaining current services levels is the 
     greatest challenge as the population ages at an increasing 
     rate. About 1.8 million children at risk of abuse and 4.4 
     million kids may lose child care related care services, while 
     an estimated 1 million disabled persons are affected by a 
     loss of transportation funds. Given the extreme vulnerability 
     of the populations receiving services under SSBG, AARP cannot 
     support this approach to balancing the federal budget and 
     urges rejection of this proposal.


                Block Grant SNAP and Narrow Eligibility

       The reconciliation proposal aims to cut and block grant the 
     Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). It 
     contradicts the evidence of the major reputable studies on 
     nutrition programs, including the Government Accountability 
     Office's findings that SNAP was very effective in meeting its 
     mission and targeting goals. Further, all the major 
     bipartisan deficit reduction proposals considered by Congress 
     in the past two years have agreed that the safety net needs 
     to be kept intact so those least able are not asked to bear 
     the burden of balancing the federal budget. The House 
     proposal cuts about $35 billion over 10 years from nutrition 
     programs without sacrifices from farm subsidies or other 
     agriculture spending. The result is a significant reduction 
     in assistance to buy food. 2.7 million seniors are currently 
     receiving SNAP benefits. Additionally, the proposal results 
     in close to 2 million persons being eliminated from SNAP 
     assistance as application and eligibility requirements are 
     tightened by prohibiting coordination with the Low Income 
     Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and other low income 
     benefits, eliminating the Recovery Act enhancement that 
     helped SNAP benefits gain on the inflated cost of food during 
     the recession, and capping the amount that can be spent to 
     provide nutrition to low income households. AARP urges 
     Congress to reject proposals to cap or reduce SNAP funding, 
     restrict eligibility or reduce benefits. Instead

[[Page H2617]]

     Congress should support proposals to increase benefit 
     adequacy so that households have the resources to purchase a 
     nutritionally adequate diet.
       On behalf of our millions of members and all older 
     Americans, we reiterate our concerns about the harm this 
     reconciliation proposal could cause Medicare and Medicaid 
     beneficiaries, as well as other older Americans and their 
     families. We strongly urge you to enact a reconciliation 
     package that will better protect the interests of our 
     nation's seniors and their families. If you have any 
     questions, feel free to call me, or please have your staff 
     contact Joyce Rogers, Senior Vice President of our Government 
     Affairs office at 202 434 3750.
           Sincerely,
                                                    A. Barry Rand,
     Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____



                                                      The Arc,

                                      Washington, DC, May 3, 2012.
     Chairman Dave Camp,
     Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
     Ranking Member Sander M. Levin,
     Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Camp and Ranking Member Levin, I am writing 
     to express the strong opposition of The Arc of the United 
     States (The Arc) to two proposals approved by the Committee 
     on Ways and Means at its April 18 markup of budget 
     reconciliation language.
       The Arc is the largest national community-based 
     organization advocating for and serving people with 
     intellectual and developmental disabilities and their 
     families. We have more than 140,000 members and more than 700 
     state and local chapters nationwide. We are concerned that 
     the proposals to eliminate the ``safe harbor'' for 
     individuals and families receiving premium tax credits under 
     the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and to eliminate the Social 
     Services Block Grant (SSBG) could harm people with 
     intellectual and developmental disabilities and their 
     families.
       ``Safe Harbor'' for Premium Tax Crafts Under the Affordable 
     Care Act
       The ACA protects individuals and families from having 
     excessive penalties if the premium tax credit paid towards 
     insurance coverage during the year exceeds the actual amount 
     the individual or family was due. The protection, through a 
     ``safe harbor'' that caps the amount of the premium tax 
     credit an individual or family under 400% of poverty will 
     have to re-pay, recognizes that there are certain instances 
     that cannot be easily accounted for that will change the 
     amount of credit due.
       Eliminating this ``safe harbor'' will hurt people with 
     disabilities who have lower average incomes than non-disabled 
     workers and often work part-time. Penalizing low income 
     people for changes in earnings or family status that occur 
     during the year by removing the repayment cap will leave 
     people with disabilities vulnerable to an unaffordable tax 
     bill. This could lead to more people refusing coverage for 
     fear of the repayment penalty.
       Social Services Block Grant
       The Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) helps provide 
     critical services to approximately 23 million people with 
     disabilities, seniors, and children across the United States. 
     For example, the SSBG helps provide vital services for people 
     with disabilities and their families, including respite care 
     and transportation; Meals on Wheels and other supportive 
     services for seniors; child care and related assistance for 
     children; and child protective services for at risk children.
       For people with intellectual and developmental 
     disabilities, the SSBG can provide invaluable supports and 
     can help leverage state and local funding to deliver 
     essential services. For example, in New Jersey the SSBG helps 
     fund an independent Living program operated by The Arc of 
     Bergen and Passaic Counties. The program assists low-income 
     people with developmental disabilities who are on a waiting 
     list for services from the State Division of Developmental 
     Disabilities (DDD) or who do not qualify for the full array 
     of state DDD services.
       Under the program, The Arc of Bergen and Passaic Counties 
     receives referrals from homeless shelters, mental health 
     providers, and other agencies and often provides emergency 
     stabilization for referred individuals and families who are 
     in crisis. The program provides people with developmental 
     disabilities with individualized supports such as: locating 
     and maintaining housing; landlord relations; job search and 
     employer/employee relations; budgeting, bill paying, and 
     other financial challenges; and accessing medical and mental 
     health care.
       SSBG funds leverage matching County contributions as well 
     as funding from the Community Development Block Grant. 
     Without the SSBG portion, the program would not be viable.
       New Jersey's program is an example of how the SSBG can fill 
     gaps in the service continuum and act as a lifeline for 
     people with disabilities. Eliminating the SSBG would reduce 
     essential funding at a time when state and local budgets are 
     under severe pressure and people with disabilities, seniors, 
     and families need more help.
       Preserving the ``Safe Harbor'' for Premium Tax Credits and 
     the SSBG
       In closing, The Arc believes that eliminating the SSBG and 
     the ``safe harbor'' for premium tax credits under the 
     Affordable Care Act could harm people with disabilities and 
     their families, and we oppose the proposed elimination of 
     these important supports. Thank you for considering our 
     views.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Marty Ford,
     Director, Public Policy Office.
                                  ____

                                                   National Foster


                                               Care Coalition,

                                                   April 23, 2012.
       Dear Member of Congress: We are a coalition of diverse 
     groups opposed to the recent actions of the House Ways and 
     Means Committee to find federal budget savings through the 
     elimination of the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). The 
     actions taken on Wednesday, April 18, 2012, by the Ways and 
     Means Committee, through budget reconciliation, will hurt 
     some of this nation's most vulnerable families and children.
       SSBG is a major funder for state and local child abuse 
     prevention services, child protective services (CPS) and it 
     supplements services for adoptions and for services to 
     infants, children and youth in foster care. In some states, 
     it is a significant source of local funding for adult 
     protective services.
       During the 1996 welfare reform debate, the Congress and 
     Governors agreed to reduce SSBG funding to $2.38 billion 
     temporarily and return it to its former level of $2.8 billion 
     in 2003. The reductions were agreed to at a time when members 
     of both parties and houses were looking for revenue to 
     balance the federal budget. SSBG contributed to that deficit 
     reduction. It was to be restored when the fiscal condition 
     improved. Instead, Congress reduced SSBG further to $1.7 
     billion to help pay for a 1998 transportation bill in lieu of 
     other revenue sources. During this period, deficits not only 
     declined but were eliminated. Although this cut was intended 
     to be temporary, SSBG was never restored. We are disappointed 
     that some would propose to once again use SSBG for deficit 
     reduction--despite the fact that SSBG funding contributed not 
     a dollar to current deficits.
       The champions of SSBG have included the leadership from 
     both parties, including the bipartisan leadership of both the 
     House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance 
     Committee. We hope these champions will remain strong.
       SSBG helps to fill the numerous state budget gaps in areas 
     as diverse as senior services, mental health services, and 
     services to people with disabilities. While we focus on 
     SSBG's vital importance to child abuse prevention and child 
     welfare services, it also supports services for those adults 
     in jeopardy of entering a nursing home or institution, it 
     supports other low-income individuals and families including 
     adults who have been abused; children in need of child care; 
     and youth in need of transitional services.
       Imposing these cuts to child abuse prevention funding and 
     child welfare services at a time when state and local budgets 
     are under severe pressure and families need more help, will 
     create a human deficit while failing to deal with the current 
     financial one.
       The undersigned organizations ask you to reject this 
     proposed elimination of SSBG.
           Sincerely,
         Alliance for Children and Families; Alliance for 
           Children's Rights; American Academy of Pediatrics; 
           American Association on Health and Disability; American 
           Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 
           (AFSCME); American Group Psychotherapy Association; 
           American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children; 
           American Psychological Association; Ampersand Families, 
           MN; Association for Ambulatory Behavioral Healthcare; 
           Association of University Centers on Disabilities; 
           Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Bill Wilson 
           Center, CA; Black Administrators in Child Welfare; 
           Buncombe County, North Carolina; California Alliance of 
           Child and Family Services; California Youth 
           Connections; Children's Advocacy Institute; Children's 
           Aid Society; Children and Families First, DE; Children 
           and Families Futures; Children's Defense Fund; Children 
           First for Oregon; Children's Home Society of America; 
           Children's Home Society of North Carolina; Children's 
           Rights Project, CA; Child Welfare League of America; 
           CLASP; Clinical Social Workers Association; Coalition 
           on Human Needs; Connecticut Association of Foster and 
           Adoptive Parents; Council of Family and Child Caring 
           Agencies, NY; County Welfare Directors Association of 
           California; Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption; 
           Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance; Every Child 
           Matters; Family Service Center of South Carolina; First 
           Focus Campaign for Children; Foster Care to Success 
           Foundation; Foster Family-Based Treatment Association; 
           Great Circle, MO; John Burton Foundation; Larry Brown 
           Associates; Lutheran Services in America; Mental Health 
           America; Minnesota Association of County Social Service 
           Administrators; Mississippi Children's Home Services; 
           Missouri Coalition of Children's Agencies; National 
           Adult Protective Services Association; National 
           Alliance of Children's Trust and Prevention Funds; 
           National Alliance to End Homelessness; National 
           Association for Children's Behavioral Health; National 
           Association for the Education of Homeless Children and 
           Youth; National Association of Area Agencies on Aging; 
           National Association of Counsel for Children; National 
           Association of

[[Page H2618]]

           County Human Services Administrators; National 
           Association of Social Workers; National Center on 
           Shaken Baby Syndrome; National Center for Housing and 
           Child Welfare; National Crittenton Foundation; National 
           Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health; 
           National Foster Parent Association; National Indian 
           Child Welfare Association; National Respite Coalition; 
           New York Council on Adoptable Children; New York Public 
           Welfare Association; Nebraska Children's Home Society; 
           Nebraska Families Collaborative; North American Council 
           on Adoptable Children; North Carolina Association of 
           County Directors of Social Services; NYSCCC Support, 
           Information and Advocacy for Foster & Adoptive 
           Families; Oklahoma Therapeutic Foster Care Association; 
           Ohio Job and Family Services Directors' Association; 
           Parents Anonymous; Prevent Child Abuse America; Prevent 
           Child Abuse Indiana; Public Children Services 
           Association of Ohio; School Social Work Association of 
           America; Stop It Now; Three Rivers Adoption Council, 
           PA; The Villages of Indiana; Voice for Adoption; Voices 
           for America's Children; Weill Cornell Medical College's 
           Division of Geriatrics and Gerontology.
                                  ____



                                                          CWLA

                                   Washington, DC, April 19, 2012.
     Hon. Dave Camp,
     Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, 1102 Longworth HOB, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Sander Levin,
     Ranking Member, House Ways and Means Committee, 1106 
         Longworth HOB, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Camp and Ranking Member Levin: On behalf of 
     the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) representing 
     hundreds of public and private child-serving member agencies 
     serving millions of children and families in all fifty 
     states, I write this letter to express opposition to the 
     Committee's proposal to eliminate the Social Services Block 
     Grant (SSBG). At its inception, Title XX was an entitlement 
     to fund social services. It was then restructured in 1981 
     into a block grant that would provide states more flexibility 
     to support an array of services to children, youth, and 
     families.
       The Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) has long supported 
     our most vulnerable children and continues to be a critical 
     resource for child welfare. This flexible funding stream 
     creates and sustains strong communities through a broad range 
     of health and human services. SSBG represents 12% of federal 
     funds states spend to provide child abuse prevention, 
     adoption, foster care, child protection, independent and 
     transitional living and residential services for children and 
     youth. Nationwide, more than 2.6 million children received a 
     range of child welfare services funded in part or in total by 
     SSBG.
       According to the latest data available, 39 states use SSBG 
     funds for child abuse and neglect prevention, 22 states use 
     them for adoption assistance, while 36 states allocate them 
     to provide foster care services for children who may not be 
     eligible for federal IV E support. States also use SSBG to 
     fund independent and transitional living services to youth 
     aging out of the foster care system, residential treatment 
     and other prevention and intervention services.
       Unfortunately, this Committee has proposed eliminating SSBG 
     in its entirety, despite the fact less than a decade ago this 
     Committee shared bipartisan support for increasing funding to 
     this vital safety net. Elimination of SSBG would place a 
     huge, undue burden on states already facing tight budgets. At 
     a time when states are struggling to avoid further cuts to 
     the human service delivery systems, arguing that funding for 
     the SSBG should be eliminated because it is duplicative 
     disregards the underlying need for services that will not go 
     away even if funding does.
       In closing, I ask that you not turn your back on vulnerable 
     children and families, in an attempt to reduce the deficit. 
     CWLA appreciates your leadership in these trying times.
           Sincerely,
                                            Christine James-Brown,
     President/CEO.
                                  ____

                                                      Coalition on


                                                  Human Needs,

                                   Washington, DC, April 18, 2012.
       Dear Member of the House Committee on Ways and Means: This 
     morning, the Committee will mark up legislation making 
     reckless and extreme cuts in assistance for poor and 
     vulnerable people, cutting even more deeply than the House 
     budget resolution required of you. It is particularly 
     striking, considering that tax policy is within the 
     jurisdiction of your Committee, that the chokes for reducing 
     the deficit come solely by hurting low-income children and 
     families, seniors, and the uninsured.
       The Coalition on Human Needs strongly urges you to reject 
     this course. Here are some of the reasons why the 
     reconciliation cuts proposed are so unwise:
       Denying the Child Tax Credit to millions of poor children: 
     By eliminating the Child Tax Credit for working families who 
     use a Taxpayer Identification Number instead of a Social 
     Security Number, you will hurt millions of poor children by 
     raising their families' taxes by an average of $1,800. Their 
     incomes average $21,000 a year; four out of five of the 
     children in these families are citizens. A decision to make 
     poverty deeper for millions of children is reckless because 
     it increases the chances that these children will suffer 
     inadequate nutrition, become sick, experience developmental 
     delays, and fall behind in school--all documented outcomes 
     associated with child poverty. It is wrong and makes no sense 
     to compromise children's life chances by deepening their 
     poverty.
       Permanently terminating the Social Services Block Grant: 
     Ending this vital source of funds to programs operated by 
     states will mean millions of low-income seniors, children, 
     and families will do without help. In particular, this 
     extreme cut will deny protection to millions of children and 
     older people who are victims of abuse or neglect--a truly 
     reckless choice. Some examples of the services that will be 
     terminated:
       Child Protective Services: 41 states used over $270 million 
     in SSBG funds to protect children from abuse and neglect in 
     FY 2009, providing services to more than 1.75 million 
     children, in a year when child protective services agencies 
     received an estimated 3.3 million reports of child abuse or 
     neglect.
       Among other services to protect children from abuse and 
     neglect provided through SSBG:
       36 states used $391 million for foster care services for 
     more than 451,000 children.
       Over the course of FY 2009, more than 700,000 children 
     spent at least part of the year in foster, kinship, or 
     residential care. Many states use SSBG funds to pay foster 
     care costs for children not eligible for Title IV E foster 
     care assistance. 30 states used $133 million in SSBG funds in 
     FY 2008 for prevention and intervention services for more 
     than 640,000 children.
       (Source: the National Foster Care Coalition, citing data 
     collected by the Office of Community Services, HHS (http://
www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg/reports/ssbg_focus_2009/
child_protective_services.html)).
       Adult Protective Services (for seniors); 34 states used 
     $216 million in SSBG funds to provide adult protective 
     services to seniors who were victims of abuse or neglect in 
     FY 2009. These funds provided protective services to 579,465 
     seniors in 2009, up from 411,691 in 2005. These funds 
     provided core protective services for older adults: 
     investigations, interventions, and shelters for abused 
     elders. Such services are not funded by the Older Americans 
     Act, and so states use SSBG to carry out these essential 
     protections. Ten states use 10 percent or more of their SSBG 
     funds for adult protective services, among them:
       New York: 37%
       South Carolina: 23%
       West Virginia: 18%
       Texas: 16%
       Oklahoma: 16%
       Tennessee: 13%
       A false rationale for terminating the Social Services Block 
     Grant is that its funds are ``duplicative.'' These core 
     protective services are not provided elsewhere. In the case 
     of seniors, the Older Americans Act does not provide them at 
     all. State funding in many states has been reduced, even for 
     services to protect children and seniors from abuse and 
     neglect. (Source: Office of Community Services, HHS, FY 2009 
     reports, at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg/reports/
ssbg_focus_2009/child_protective__services.html.)
       Child Care: 35 states used $391 million in FY 2009 to 
     provide child care.
       Six states spent more than 20 percent of their SSBG funds 
     for child care:
       California: 52%
       Oregon: 43%
       Connecticut: 35%
       Pennsylvania: 31%
       Delaware: 21%
       Rhode Island: 21%
       New Hampshire: 20%
       (Source: Office of Community Services, HHS, SSBG focus 
     reports, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg/reports/
ssbg_focus_2009/child_care.html)
       States were struggling to provide child care in the face of 
     severe state budget shortfalls and eroding federal 
     assistance. According to the National Women's Law Center, 37 
     states reduced their child care assistance in FY 2011 below 
     FY 2010 levels. At the federal level, even the increases 
     proposed in the President's budget for FY 2013 will only 
     support 1.5 million children receiving child care, down from 
     1.7 million children in FY 2010. (Source: http://
www.nwlc.org/resource/additional-child-care-funding-
essential-stop-state-cuts) To deny child care assistance to 
     the 4 million children who make use of SSBG funds would 
     inflict grossly irresponsible harm to low-income working 
     families. Making work more difficult at a time when the 
     economy remains so fragile makes no sense.
       When the Social Services Block Grant was created, its 
     stated purpose was to give states flexibility by pooling 
     funds from previously separate funding streams so states 
     could determine where the funds were most needed. Now to take 
     the funding away because it is ``duplicative'' misses the 
     point of this flexible funding source, denying states support 
     for the services they have deemed important, because other 
     funding sources are either nonexistent or inadequate to meet 
     need.
       Recapturing overpayments In premium subsidies under the 
     Affordable Care Act: There have already been policy changes 
     to get some of the overpayments back when people do not 
     estimate their income correctly. To seek the full cost of the 
     premium subsidies back will be a tremendous disincentive to 
     participating in the program at

[[Page H2619]]

     all, since many low-income families' earnings fluctuate in a 
     way that makes it impossible to be certain what level of 
     subsidy to claim. Having to repay the entire amount will 
     create significant hardships for families already living on 
     the edge.
           Sincerely,
                                                Deborah Weinstein,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a 
distinguished gentleman on the Budget Committee, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we've heard a lot about fairness, which the Democrats 
have defined to mean taxing businesses to finance a variety of welfare 
programs.
  The problem is businesses do not pay business taxes. Business taxes 
can only be paid by consumers through higher prices; by employees 
through lower wages; and by investors--mainly pension funds--through 
lower earnings. There is no other way to pay a business tax.
  So the net effect of pursuing their definition of ``fairness'' is to 
push more consumers into debt, push more employees into unemployment, 
and push more retirees into poverty, which in turn requires more and 
more government welfare spending until their financial house of cards 
collapses. That's the economic spiral their policies are producing in 
our time.
  The House budget, which this act advances, breaks that cycle and 
restores policies that throughout our history have lifted our Nation 
from times of want and despair to eras of prosperity and abundance.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, we're still waiting for this House to 
take up the President's jobs bill that was submitted last September. 
We've seen 25 consecutive months of positive private sector job growth. 
It was a whole lot better than where we were in January when the 
President was sworn in, losing 800,000 jobs a month. But we need to 
sustain that recovery, and we're still waiting. The clock is ticking. 
Let's take that legislation up so that we can accelerate the recovery.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas, 
representing the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Ms. Sheila 
Jackson Lee.
  (Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, 
and I thank the ranking member of the full Judiciary Committee, Mr. 
Conyers, who worked extensively to bring reason to this discussion.
  I must remind my colleagues that this is a debate that is, of course, 
necessary, but it is not going anywhere. This is in essence to respond 
to the potential and pending sequestration and the deadlock of the 
committee, but the deadlock of the committee gave us an opportunity to 
work in a bipartisan manner.
  My good friend who just spoke on the other side of the aisle talked 
about abundance and prosperity and talked about welfare. What I would 
say to the gentleman is that we're not talking about welfare. We're 
talking about investment in people, and we're talking about not having 
a siege upon our children.
  On April 25, 2012, we were back in the Judiciary Committee again 
looking at medical malpractice for the umpteenth time. I wondered why 
we were there. It was because each committee was told to find a way to 
find money. So the directions of the Republicans for the Judiciary 
Committee were to oppress the sick and to be able to cap medical 
malpractice insurance on innocent victims such as women and children 
and the elderly when the medical system fails us as it relates to 
medical devices and other elements.

  We were told to eliminate for the children of America by limiting 
noneconomic damages, restricting punitive damages, limiting access to 
courts for poor victims of medical malpractice, shortening the statute 
of limitations for claims, eliminating the protections of children, and 
prohibiting joint and several liability. We were simply told to shut 
the courthouse door for children that needed to be able to have the 
opportunity to have their lives saved, just like a little boy who 
needed surgery in a hospital in San Antonio. They told the family it 
was a serious surgery and they needed to have a cardiologist on staff. 
He went into surgery, and, of course, things went wrong. There was no 
cardiologist there; there was a mishap; there was a fault; and that 
little boy died. They want to deny that poor family access to the 
courthouse. That is what that bill does.
  When my friends begin to talk about what else it does, it cuts SNAP, 
the nutrition program. It cuts Medicaid.
  Mr. Speaker, what I would say is that this bill is a siege on 
children. We should oppose it. It is not reconciliation. It is 
oppression. I would ask us to vote against it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 5652, the 
``Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012'' This piece of 
legislation should really be entitled the ``Ryan's Replacement 
Sequester to Thwart the Bipartisan Budget Control Act of 2012''
  Whatever anyone wants to entitle this measure, one thing will still 
remain true . . . this legislation is unfair. It literally takes money 
out of programs dedicated to serving low income families, children, 
seniors, the disabled, the most in need of our assistance. Why isn't 
the funding coming from war savings. There has been a consistent attack 
on the other side of the aisle on programs that are proven to be 
affective at combating the stresses associated with poverty, aging, and 
long term care. Before us is a measure that is a wolf in sheep's 
clothing.
  In my lifetime, I have never seen such a concerted effort to ransom 
the American economy in order to extort the American public. While I 
support bipartisan efforts to decrease the debt and to resolve our 
differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues, I cannot 
support a bill that unduly robs average Americans of their economic 
security and ability to provide for their families while constraining 
the ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, 
fiscal, and job creation troubles.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying to give the 
American people the impression that their sentimental and unbridled 
concern for the military means that it is necessary to take an ax to 
programs for seniors and low income that is not something that our 
military would be proud to be connected too. Why not use, instead, war 
savings and a small finite tax on income over $1 million dollars.
  This unbalanced bill modifies last year's bipartisan Budget Control 
Act to cancel the sequestration of discretionary spending currently 
scheduled to occur in January 2013 in order to prevent cuts to defense. 
That is fine but Republicans have already voted twice this year to pass 
their budget to end the Medicare guarantee and increase costs for 
seniors while giving massive tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans.
  While the U.S. economy is healing, the world economy continues to be 
in a fragile state and all economies are linked through trade and 
finance. In this environment, this bill sends the economy downward. 
However, over the last few years the economy has been steadily growing. 
We are not where the American people should be but the economy has 
gained jobs.
  According to Secretary Solis she stated ``know where our nation's 
unemployment rate stands. I have to report it every month. But we've 
now added private sector jobs to our economy for 26 months running. 
Since President Obama took office, we've created 4.2 million new jobs. 
That's no small potatoes when you consider we were bleeding 750,000 
jobs a month when this President took office. I know we've got a lot 
more to do. But we're making progress.'' During this time of progress, 
this is no time to cut the social safety net for those still 
unemployed--no time to cut food stamps, medicaid, or medicare.
  The President signed the Recovery Act which invested in mass transit, 
roads, and bridges to build critical infrastructure and secure 
construction jobs. The Recovery Act also included strong Davis-Bacon 
and Buy American provisions, to stimulate local economies and create 
high-quality jobs. In total, the Recovery Act supported up to 3.5 
million jobs through the end of 2010.
  It is essential that we allocate the money spent on previous wars to 
programs to help expand opportunities for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, if you asked the typical American family what they would 
need to do to balance their family budget, they would respond: spend 
less. But they would also be quick to acknowledge that without a job, 
or in the case of the federal budget, tax revenue, the budget will 
never balance. It is critical to address both sides of the ledger. It 
is also imperative for the Republicans to place the President's jobs 
bill on the agenda to vote on and pass.
  Sure, save money but cutting benefits but without additional revenue, 
the budget is doomed. Moreover, you surely would not find any family in 
Texas that would suggest buying luxury items, while struggling to 
balance the family budget is a sensible approach. But Republicans 
insist on advocating for tax breaks for the wealthy--the luxury class.

[[Page H2620]]

                               Economists

  Economists have long pointed to investments in ``human capital''--the 
productive capability that is embedded in people--as one of the most 
important determinants of economic growth. A large and growing body of 
literature has examined the returns to investments in human capital 
from both a societal and individual perspective.
  In his book, Dangerous Half-Truths & Total Nonsense, Pfeffer writes: 
``There is compelling evidence that when companies use Human Resources 
best practices based on the best research, they trump the competition. 
These findings are replicable in industry after industry, from 
automobiles to textiles, to computer software to baseball. ``We must 
use our Human Resources wisely.


                      energy and deficit reduction

  And speaking of saving money and reducing the deficit, I have 
introduced H.R. 3710 which increases the acreage to 10 percent of what 
is already allocable under a proposal by Interior Secretary Salazar, as 
announced on November 8, 2011. In other words, more land will be 
available for exploration, in line with two objectives: decreasing our 
dependence on foreign sources for oil, and plugging our budget deficit.
  The monies will be deposited into the DRES Fund and invested by the 
Secretary of the Treasury, until the money is transferred to the 
Coastal and Ocean Sustainability Health Fund (COSH). Annually, the 
Secretary of the Interior is required to lease 20 percent of the DRES. 
In addition, this bill will help foment job creation in an industry 
that is already responsible for 9.2 million American Jobs.
  The bill also establishes the Deficit Reduction Energy Security Fund, 
housed within the United States Treasury Department, which will receive 
the accrued funds that are dedicated to deficit reduction. In order to 
ensure that the putative funds generated from the leasing activities 
which derive from this bill inure to the goal of deficit reduction, the 
legislation also sets up the aforementioned COSH.
  This bill establishes in the Department of the Treasury, the COSH, 
which shall fund grants for addressing coastal and ocean disasters; and 
programs and activities that restore, protect, maintain, manage, or 
understand marine resources and their habitats, and ocean, and coastal 
resources, including baseline scientific research, and other programs 
in coordination with federal and state agencies. Monies will be 
deposited into the COSH fund from interest accrued on OCS royalties, 
rents, revenues, and fees that will remain, for the period of one year, 
in the Fund before moving the entirety of the principle in the general 
Treasury. The bill authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to make grants 
for such purposes. I look forward to working with members of this 
Committee and our colleagues to ensure passage of this legislation.
  Simply put Mr. Speaker, my bill does not rob Peter to pay Paul but 
actually requires that money made from the hard work of drilling by our 
companies is rededicated to reducing our deficit--common sense fiscal 
and energy policy.
  As called for by the House's FY 2013 budget resolution, it replaces 
the $98 billion sequester in discretionary spending with a $19 billion 
reduction in the discretionary cap for FY 2013 and with 
``reconciliation'' savings from mandatory programs recommended by six 
House committees. These cuts hurt the American people, children and 
families.
  It also eliminates the separate cap on defense spending for the year 
to allow for higher spending levels. The measure would modify mandatory 
programs to save $19.7 billion through FY 2013 and about $315 billion 
over 10 years, including by decreasing benefits and eligibility for the 
food stamp program, reducing and repealing elements of the 2010 health 
care law, and requiring all current and future federal workers to pay 
an additional 5 percentage points of this salary toward their federal 
pensions.
  President Obama and Democrats oppose the GOP measure, and say that 
preventing the January 2013 sequester and replacing the savings that 
would come through sequestration should be done in a ``balanced'' 
approach in which revenue is part of the solution.
  Republicans must abandon their ideological agenda and join Democrats 
to restore fairness, opportunity, and prosperity to our budget and our 
economy.


                  taxes and the buffett rule and taxes

  Mr. Speaker, the cloud looming over this Congress is an unintended 
``triple-watching hour'' of tax increases that will take effect at the 
beginning of 2013.
  The expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts, the end of the recently extended 
Payroll Tax Cut, and increases in capital gains and dividends taxation 
will shock the conscience and wallets of the American people. That is 
why Congress needs to enact bi-partisan legislation that helps lower 
the deficit but does not wreck havoc on the financial soul of the 
middle class. This is a moral document and frankly, the other side is 
getting more than a little fresh with the American people. It is May 
and we are voting on a vacuous budget that will likely pass but is 
doomed to failure in the Senate.
  But again, tax reform that lowers the rate, reduces the deficit, and 
does not pick winners and losers is not easy, but let's not forget, if 
President Reagan and then-Speaker Tip O'Neill could do it in 1986, 
anything is possible. But this morning we are not doing a bipartisan 
dance, but participating in a roller-derby, a truly zero-sum game.
  In the budget, the Administration calls for individual tax reform 
that: cuts the deficit by $1.5 trillion, including the expiration of 
the high-income 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. As a matter of sound fiscal 
policy, I am supportive of this effort. I recognize the economic 
benefits that many attribute to the Bush Tax Cuts, but we must ask 
ourselves are they affordable at this time.
  The President's budget also eliminates inefficient and unfair tax 
breaks for millionaires while making all tax breaks at least as good 
for the middle class as for the wealthy; and observes the Buffett Rule 
that no household making more than $1 million a year pays less than 30 
percent of their income in taxes.
  The individual income tax is a hodgepodge of deductions, exemptions, 
and credits that provide special benefits to selected groups of 
taxpayers and favored forms of consumption and investment. These tax 
preferences make the income tax unfair because they can impose 
radically different burdens on two different taxpayers with the same 
income. In essence, Congress has been picking winners and losers.


       the hope and promise of the democratic alternative budget

  Preserves the Medicare guarantee and the Social Safety Net. The 
Democratic budget rejects any policy to end Medicare's guarantee of 
health care coverage for seniors and disabled workers, and ensures the 
social safety net remains intact.
  Protects Medicare Beneficiaries. Rejects the Republican budget's 
proposal to end the Medicare guarantee. It supports reforms in the 
Affordable Care Act (ACA) to close the prescription drug ``donut hole'' 
for seniors with high prescription drug costs and ensure free 
preventive care. As a result of these measures, as well as provisions 
in the ACA to make Medicare spending more efficient, a person in 
Medicare will save an average of about $4,200 on premiums and 
coinsurance from 2011 through 2021. Medicare beneficiaries with high 
prescription drug costs will save even more--an average of nearly 
$16,000 over the same period.
  Preserves Medicaid for Low-Income Families and Seniors. Maintains 
Medicaid to ensure that 57 million low-income people continue to get 
health care. Seniors and people with disabilities account for two-
thirds of Medicaid spending, and children account for another 20 
percent.
  Preserves Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP). Fully funds SNAP 
and supports the President's proposal to continue certain benefits 
added because of the economic downturn. Nearly three-quarters of people 
served by SNAP are in families with children, and one-quarter are in 
households with someone who is elderly or disabled.
  Protects Social Security from Privatization. Social Security is not 
responsible for our current deficits and should not be cut to reduce 
the deficit. However, many Republicans continue to advocate 
privatization, which would put retirees' financial security at risk and 
worsen the deficit for decades. Our budget affirmatively rules out 
privatization.
  Helps Create More Jobs Now. Unlike the Republican resolution, our 
budget includes the President's jobs initiatives, including the 
following:
  Transportation Jobs. $50 billion to fund jobs that address immediate 
surface transportation priorities and $10 billion to establish an 
infrastructure bank.
  Tax Credits for Job Creation. A temporary 10 percent tax credit for 
new jobs and wage increases.
  Tax Incentives for Manufacturing. Includes a number of incentives for 
domestic manufacturing, such as providing a tax credit for companies 
that return operations and jobs to the U.S. while eliminating tax 
breaks for companies that move opertions and jobs overseas.
  Education Jobs. $80 billion to promote jobs creating the 
infrastructure to help students learn and create a better future 
workforce, including $30 billion to put hundreds of thousands of 
Americans back to work upgrading at least 35,000 crumbling public 
schools, and $25 billion to help prevent hundreds of thousands of 
educator layoffs.
  First Responder Jobs. $5 billion to help states and localities hire 
police officers and firefighters and reverse previous layoffs.
  Jobs for Veterans. $1 billion for the President's proposal to 
establish a Veterans Job Corps and employ at least 20,000 veterans.
  Builds a Stronger America through Long-Term Growth. Our budget 
invests in research,

[[Page H2621]]

education, and innovation that will create a globally competitive 
workforce for the future.
  Education Investments. Follows the President's request for increased 
investment in education and includes his request for $6 billion to 
prevent the interest rate on subsidized student loans from doubling 
this July.
  Innovation and Research Investments. Funds science and engineering 
workforce development and supports innovative manufacturing processes 
that will reduce costs by using less energy, improving product quality, 
and accelerating product development.
  Small Business Investments. Provides additional resources for the 
Small Business Administration (SBA) to ensure that the lending volume 
for loan programs remains the same, rather than shrinking and denying 
many small businesses' access to capital.
  Infrastructure Investments. In addition to short-term jobs 
initiatives for transportation, our budget includes the President's 
six-year surface transportation proposal to create construction jobs 
and fuel long-term economic growth. It also includes additional funding 
to maintain America's harbors, seaports, and waterways.
  Reduces the Deficit through Shared Responsibility. Congress has 
already reduced projected deficits by more than $1 trillion through 
discretionary cuts for 2011 and 2012 and enacting tight spending limits 
for the next nine years. Our budget further reduces the deficit with 
policies that balance spending cuts increased revenue.
  Gets Deficits Under Control. The deficit falls from 8.7 percent of 
GDP in 2011 to under 3 percent of GDP by 2015, and it remains there 
through the ten-year budget window.
  Cancels Sequestration and Replaces it with Balanced Deficit 
Reduction. Replaces the $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction under the 
scheduled Budget Control Act sequestration with greater deficit 
reduction from targeted spending cuts and revenue increases.
  Provides Tax Relief for Working Families and Ends Tax Breaks for the 
Wealthy. Extends the 2001 03 tax cuts for the middle class and rejects 
tax increases on the middle class. Accommodates expansion of incentives 
for low- and middle-income families to earn income, save for 
retirement, and attend college. To increase fairness and reduce the 
deficit, this budget ends unwarranted and fiscally irresponsible Bush-
era tax cuts for millionaires, closes a variety of corporate tax 
loopholes, and establishes a ``Buffett Rule'' to ensure that working 
families do not face a higher tax rate than the wealthiest Americans.


          ryan republican alternative: hurt and pain--part II

  Ends the Medicare Guarantee. The Republican budget ends the Medicare 
guarantee, giving seniors a voucher with an artificial price cap to 
purchase insurance and leaving it up to them to figure out how to keep 
their costs down as the value of their voucher fails to keep pace with 
projected growth in health care costs. This plan will raise health care 
costs for seniors and leave traditional Medicare to ``wither on the 
vine.''
  Reopens the Medicare ``Donut Hole'' and Increases Costs of Preventive 
Care Services. The budget takes away important Medicare improvements 
for seniors and persons with disabilities by repealing key provisions 
of the Affordable Care Act. The budget reduces the prescription drug 
health by re-opening the coverage gap, or ``donut-hole,'' and it 
increase costs to seniors for preventive care services. Reopening care 
services. Reopening the donut hole alone will increase costs for 
Medicare beneficiaries with high prescription drug costs by an average 
over $10,000 over the next ten years.
  Abandons American Workers. Putting Americans back to work is the 
fastest and most effective way to reduce the short-term deficit-in 
fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that slow growth and 
under-employment account for over one-third of the projected deficit 
for 2012. But the Republican budget turns it back on American workers, 
ignoring the President's proposals for new jobs for teachers, first 
responders, construction workers, and veterans involved in building a 
better infrastructure that will boost our economy now and in the 
future. Independent analysts have found that the Republican budget 
could lead to the loss of more than 2 million jobs over two years.
  Transportation Jobs. Instead of investing in infrastructure, the 
Republican budget reduces transportation spending by at least one-
quarter over 10 years. Next year, transportation spending would be 
barely one-half of this year's level, a steep cut that could delay or 
stop projects already underway. A failure to invest in transportation 
will also hurt businesses' ability to transport goods and supplies in 
the long run, weakening future economic growth.
  Tax Breaks for Outsourcing jobs. The Republican budget boosts tax 
incentives that encourage multinational companies to ship profits, 
intellectual property, and thousands of jobs overseas while costing the 
American economy billions of dollars.
  Makes College More Expensive, Undermining U.S. Competitiveness. The 
budget eviscerates funding for higher education, eliminating the $104 
billion that Congress has already enacted to help sustain the maximum 
Pell grant award and to provide for yearly inflationary increases. It 
adds an average of $2,800 in higher loan repayment costs to more than 7 
million low-and moderate-income college students by letting the 
interest rate on subsidized students loans double, from 3.4 percent to 
6.8 percent. It also eliminate $47 billion for lower-cost loans for 
low-income students as well as repayment plans enacted and paid for by 
previous Democratic Congresses. It even rejects the President's 
proposal to extend a $2,500 tax cut to working families to help cover 
the costs of college, refusing to extend the American Opportunity Tax 
Credit beyond December. Overall, mandatory higher education funding is 
cut by $166 billion over ten years versus current law levels, and by 
$285 billion below the President's request.
  Slashes the Social Safety Net. The Republican budget shreds the 
social safety net for seniors, low-income children, persons with 
disabilities, and families struggling to get by in a challenging 
economy, all while cutting taxes for the very wealthy.
  Slashes Medicaid for Seniors and Low-Income Families. The budget 
slashes Medicaid by $810 billion and converts it into a block grant to 
states. ``Block-granting'' Medicaid is not entitlement reform it is 
entitlement destruction. This is simply code for deep, arbitrary cuts 
in support to the most vulnerable seniors, individuals with 
disabilities, and low-income children.
  Block-grants and Cuts Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP). The 
budget slashes SNAP funding by $133.5 billion over ten years, harming 
the million who rely on this aid to feed their families. Nearly three-
quarters of people served by SNAP are in families with children, and 
one-quarter are in households with someone who is elderly or disabled.
  Abandons Fairness. The budget provides tax breaks for the wealthy and 
special interests at the expense of everyone else. Republicans' refusal 
to ask millionaires to pay one more penny in taxes leads them to place 
the entire burden of reducing deficits and debts on the shoulders of 
middle-income families and seniors. This budget dismantles the Medicare 
guarantee, cuts back and nutritional assistance for low-income children 
and families, and severely underfunds the crucial health care safety 
net for more than 56 million Americans provided by Medicaid. At the 
same time, it showers an additional $4.6 trillion in tax cuts (over and 
above extending all of the Bush-era tax cuts) that primarily benefit 
the wealthy. Overall, millionaries can expect an average tax cut of 
$394,000 in this budget, which includes $129,000 just from extending 
all of the Bush-era tax cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, again I call on my colleagues to vote against H.R. 5652, 
an unrealistic, unpragmatic, and unPATRIOTIC so-called bill that is a 
punch to the gut of the most vulnerable Americans.
                                         International Association


                                 of Fire Fighters',

                                     Washington, DC, May 10, 2012.
     Member of Congress,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the nation's 300,000 
     professional fire fighters and emergency medical personnel, I 
     write to express my strong opposition to H.R. 5652, the 
     Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012. This 
     legislation would rewrite the bipartisan Budget Control Act 
     of 2011 by placing greater economic hardships on working 
     class Americans or vulnerable populations.
       Although the IAFF is deeply concerned with the impact that 
     defense cuts will have on our federal members employed at 
     defense installations, we cannot support unraveling the 
     Budget Control Act through the unbalanced and draconian 
     approach of H.R. 5652. Balancing the budget on the backs of 
     fire fighters without requiring those who are well off in our 
     society to share more of the burden is simply inexcusable. To 
     solve our fiscal challenges, we must have shared sacrifice 
     from all members in our society. Instead of shared sacrifice, 
     H.R. 5652 just leaves fire fighters sacrificed at the altar.
       One of the main ways H.R. 5652 achieves savings in the 
     federal budget is by shifting a greater burden for funding 
     essential services to state and local governments. Over the 
     past five years, states already have cut nearly $300 billion 
     from their operating budgets as a result of the Great 
     Recession. Even as the private sector recovers, state and 
     local governments are still struggling to balance their 
     budgets, leading to continued job losses among fire fighters 
     and other public sector employees. Since April 2012, the U.S. 
     economy has lost 584,000 jobs in the public sector. Further 
     cuts in federal aid for essential government services will 
     only exacerbate public sector job losses and undermine core 
     functions of government such as fire protection and emergency 
     medical treatment.
       Specifically, H.R. 5652 would completely eliminate the 
     Social Services Block Grant, saving the federal government 
     $18.7 billion. Originally established during the Reagan 
     administration, these critical funds help state and local 
     governments provide essential

[[Page H2622]]

     services to 23 million seniors, children, and disabled 
     Americans. Home-based services like Meals on Wheels, child-
     care services for low-income families, and programs to 
     prevent child abuse and neglect all receive funding, in whole 
     or in part, through the Social Services Block Grant.
       H.R. 5652 would also cut $22.7 billion from the Medicaid 
     program. Created along with Medicare in 1965, Medicaid 
     represents an historic joint commitment by the federal 
     government and our states and territories to provide 
     essential health care to our nation's poor. Medicaid is one 
     of our nation's core safety-net programs. As the depths of 
     the Great Recession grew, so too did Medicaid enrollment, 
     creating increased pressures on state budgets. The proposed 
     cuts in H.R. 5652 to Medicaid will only add to state budget 
     pressures. For example, nearly half of the cuts will come 
     from a reduction in the state provider tax threshold. States 
     can use the revenues generated from the provider tax to 
     offset their share of Medicaid payments.
       Eliminating the Social Services Block Grant and cutting 
     Medicaid would have disastrous consequences for our local 
     communities. State and local governments would be hard-
     pressed to fill the budget holes created by H.R. 5652. 
     Without these funds, state and local governments may be 
     forced to eliminate these programs or cut funding from other 
     essential programs such as the fire service to balance their 
     budgets. Either way, the consequences to our local 
     communities would be devastating.
       Furthermore, the IAFF strenuously objects to forcing 
     drastically higher pension contributions from current and 
     future federal employees. H.R. 5652 would require all current 
     federal employees to contribute an additional five percent in 
     pay toward their defined benefit pension plan, with no 
     enhancement in benefits. Federal workers have already 
     contributed $60 billion toward deficit reduction through a 
     two-year pay freeze. Forcing greater economic sacrifices from 
     federal fire fighters is particularly insulting, given the 
     sacrifices these brave men and women already make on the job. 
     The nation's federal fire fighters protect many of America's 
     most vital national assets, ranging from sensitive military 
     bases to Veterans hospitals. Federal fire fighters should not 
     be treated like a piggy bank for Congress.
       For these reasons, we urge you to reject H.R. 5652, the 
     Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012 when it 
     comes for a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives. Thank 
     you for your consideration of the views of America's front 
     line domestic defenders.
           Sincerely,
                                           Harold A. Schaitberger,
                                                General President.

                              {time}  1250

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting just to hear all the 
hyperbole. As a freshman that walks in this body, I'm not used to 
hearing all the back-and-forth. I am used to sitting down at a table 
and working things out and actually going through the facts. It's 
always fascinating for me to be able to hear the speeches and to be 
able to hear how impressive things are when there are some simple 
things. It reminds me again of how difficult it really is to bring down 
Federal spending and to actually balance our budget when we can't agree 
on simple things--simple things like:
  Should we write a check and mail it on April 15 to people that are 
here in this country illegally? Yes or no.
  If people do not qualify for food stamps, should we give them food 
stamps anyway?
  If there's a TARP program that's out there that all of us, in a 
bipartisan manner, have said does not work--it was supposed to give 
home assistance for mortgages to millions of people, and it's been a 
miserable failure--can we close down that program and use those 
dollars?
  The answer seems to come back, no, no, and no. And it's this 
repetitive statement again and again of, if we'll just tax those oil 
companies, everything will be all right. Well, I'm sorry, but a $4 
billion tax on oil companies, which will cause prices to increase on 
gasoline, does not solve a $1 trillion hole.
  This is a first step. This is a beginning point to say we've got to 
get in balance. And this is a real, practical way to begin to deal with 
fraud and abuse and waste in our system and duplication in government 
so we do not have the across-the-board sequestration, so we do not have 
a big hit on our defense. We've got to solve this. And we should be 
able to come together and say this is waste, abuse, and fraud. Let's 
settle that before we deal with taxes.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing about waste, fraud, and 
abuse. We all need to do everything humanly possible to make sure 
there's no waste, fraud, and abuse. We keep hearing about these people 
who are receiving assistance under Food and Nutrition programs like 
they are cheating the system. They are eligible for the program. And 
that is why the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that 22 
million households with kids are going to see their food nutrition cut, 
not because they're getting it somehow fraudulently. It is because what 
the Republican proposal does is cut it off. Almost 2 million people 
will be eliminated from access to the Food and Nutrition program.
  I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from Wisconsin (Ms. 
Moore), somebody who knows a lot about these issues and is a terrific 
member of the Budget Committee.
  Ms. MOORE. I thank the gentleman from Maryland.
  It's important that the American people know the truth about this 
sequestration replacement bill. And no matter how many times we hear 
that this package is going to cut welfare programs or socialist 
programs, like Medicare and Medicaid, things that we call the safety 
net, all for the sake of reserving every last dime of military 
spending, ignoring the opportunity to rout out waste, fraud, and peace 
dividends, it doesn't add up.
  The math I was taught is that what you do to one side of an equation, 
you have to do to the other side of the equation for it to balance out. 
You can't just subtract from the social safety net--Medicare, Medicaid, 
food stamps, cut the Social Services Block Grant, stop the Wall Street 
bailouts; you can't just add more tax cuts for the wealthiest, add more 
defense spending, maintain oil subsidies, maintain expensive corporate 
farm subsidies and say that that's a balanced approach.
  I have very limited time, but I want to say to Americans: It don't 
add up. This dog doesn't hunt. You can't just cut the social safety net 
and add billions of dollars of corporate welfare and say that that's a 
balanced equation. It doesn't support simple math.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds all Members to address 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
for the purpose of joining me in a colloquy.
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the 
gentleman from Oklahoma if he could respond to the notion: All of us 
want to protect the social safety nets for the truly needy, but we also 
want to stop abuses within the system that take money from those 
programs and hurt the poor, for example, people who hide their assets 
to fraudulently qualify, people who misuse food stamps for alcohol and 
tobacco.
  So I would like to ask the gentleman if he is going to be doing more 
to close the loopholes, to reduce waste and abuse, and reform the 
system, while really protecting those who qualify.
  Mr. LUCAS. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is exactly right. That is 
the goal of our language in this bill, and it will be the additional 
efforts that we will undergo in the comprehensive farm bill that will 
follow soon.
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I have one additional question for the 
gentleman.
  In fairness here, will you be bringing forward a bill to the House 
from the committee that's truly going to reform farm subsidies, produce 
savings, and result in deficit reduction?
  Mr. LUCAS. I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that, when 
we come with our comprehensive farm bill, things that have been 
identified by many people as a concern, like the direct payments, will 
not be there. We will address all spending in all portions of the farm 
bill. We will make reductions in every part of agricultural spending, 
as we do our part in helping address this huge, tremendous national 
deficit.
  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for his responses.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear that last colloquy, 
because this Republican proposal cut the Food and Nutrition programs in 
the Ag Committee's jurisdiction and then

[[Page H2623]]

didn't ask for one penny from the ag subsidies. If our Democratic 
substitute had been made in order, that was one of the cuts that we 
made in order to prevent devastating cuts to the Food and Nutrition 
programs for over 22 million American families with children.
  I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to achieve a very worthy goal: reduce 
the debt of the United States and establish a sustainable level of 
spending. I share that goal, but I oppose this bill for two reasons:
  First, the proponents of this bill know--or they certainly should 
know--that there is absolutely no chance this bill will be passed by 
the Senate or signed by the President. That turns this into a political 
manifesto, not a practical proposal.
  Second, and most importantly, the design of this bill guarantees that 
it will fail. Our budget is a three-pronged stool: domestic spending, 
Pentagon spending, and revenues. And if you want a strong and durable 
stool, you need three strong legs. This budget cuts two away. It takes 
revenues off the table completely, and it exempts the Pentagon, with 
its nearly $700 billion budget, from making any contribution to debt 
reduction.
  Mr. Speaker, our debt problem is serious but solvable. There were 100 
of us in this House--60 Democrats and 40 Republicans--who wrote to the 
supercommittee, and we said the obvious: Put everything on the table. 
By doing so, we can succeed.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney), a member of the Budget 
Committee.
  Mr. MULVANEY. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. Speaker, in my office, as we all do, we get emails, from time to 
time, from constituents, viral emails alleging, from time to time, some 
type of violent fraud in the system or some type of bizarre government 
overreach, and we actually research them in my office to find out if 
they are true or not.

                              {time}  1300

  And we got this one this week--in fact, we got dozens of them this 
week--about a program that, supposedly, was part of an investigative 
report by a television station in the Midwest. It said that, 
supposedly, illegal immigrants were able to file paperwork every April 
15 and receive a thousand dollars back from the Federal Government for 
every child that they had, regardless of whether or not they could 
prove the child existed, regardless of whether or not the child 
actually lived in the country.
  I was stunned by it, to be quite frank with you, and we gave it to my 
office to actually research it. And it turns out, Mr. Speaker, 
stunningly, it's absolutely true. Absolutely true. And it's not just 
the radio station or television station in the Midwest. The IRS admits 
that this is true. The inspector general looked into this and said we 
are spending $4 billion every single year--over $4 billion--on this 
type of program. They admit that it's true, and the IRS has asked us to 
act. And we have done nothing.
  This is an outrage, Mr. Speaker. I'm surprised to hear anybody defend 
this system. This is the type of waste, fraud, and abuse that 
undermines confidence in the way we do business in this town. This is 
the type of thing that gives people concern that we don't have any idea 
what we're doing about anything.
  The good news here is that, for a change, we actually have a chance 
to do something about it. We could pass the bill of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Johnson), but we could also do something today. We don't 
have to wait to fix this type of abuse. We can pass this reconciliation 
bill today and stop this program and at least take a small step towards 
restoring confidence in the way the American government provides 
services to its people. And I hope we do exactly that.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Neal), who is on the Ways and Means Committee and knows a lot 
about this issue.
  Mr. NEAL. Mr. Speaker, we just heard a moment ago from the gentleman 
from South Carolina that there was an illicit or perhaps illegal 
initiative that was taking place across the country in the Midwest. So 
the answer in that instance is to notify the U.S. Attorney's Office if 
it's fraudulent. The answer there is to notify immigration authorities.
  But this argument right here is not about illegal immigration. This 
argument today is about once again asking the wealthiest people in our 
society just to sacrifice a bit.
  When the gentleman talks about $4 billion of fraud, there isn't 
anybody on the Democratic side that encourages or countenances the idea 
of fraud. Tell the American people where the expenditures go.
  A million new veterans have been created between Afghanistan and 
Iraq. You're 20 years old, and you've been wounded in Iraq or 
Afghanistan, you're going to be in the care of the VA system for the 
next 50 or 60 years. We are obligated to take care of them. That's 
where the money goes.
  We cut taxes in this country by 
$2.3 trillion during the Bush years, and my Republican pals were all 
culpable in that argument. You can fight two wars in Afghanistan and 
Iraq, now both north of $2 trillion, and cut taxes by $2.3 trillion, 
and people wonder why we're in the predicament that we're in.
  Twelve successive years of tax cuts, and at the same time asking 
nothing of the people at the very top, who, incidentally, during the 
Clinton years were not even asking for a tax cut. Their argument was: 
Pay down the debt.
  We are being asked to revisit with this budget what went awry during 
the Bush years. We are being asked with this budget to go back to the 
policies that got us into this predicament during the Bush years. We 
are being asked at this time, once again, to ask the poorest people in 
our society to shoulder the burden of tax cuts for the wealthiest in 
America--tax cuts that have not paid for themselves, tax cuts that will 
not pay for themselves, and tax cuts that do not take us on a sound 
path to fiscal stability in the near- or long-term future.
  This conversation should be about balancing the budget, and it should 
be done by Democrats and Republicans, not with a sledge hammer, as is 
being proposed early this afternoon.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I would say, Mr. Speaker, this is not a tax 
cut bill, this is a spending cut bill.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
5652, the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act. I commend Budget 
Committee Chairman Paul Ryan for the leadership in bringing this 
important legislation to the floor.
  This reconciliation legislation will make necessary and strategic 
reforms to a number of mandatory programs to better ensure that those 
most in need of government assistance receive it, instead of 
individuals who are not eligible or indeed may be gaming the system. 
With these reforms, we will find nearly $328 billion in savings over 10 
years. Furthermore, H.R. 5652 will offset $78 billion in cuts to the 
Department of Defense as a result of sequestration.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that there are two provisions that I 
authored that have been included in H.R. 5652. The first is H.R. 5, 
which seeks to address the rising cost of health care through 
meaningful, fair, and balanced medical liability reform. The second is 
H.R. 1683, the State Flexibility Act, which seeks to correct a problem 
created by the failed stimulus and ObamaCare. This provision gives 
States the opportunity to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in the 
Medicaid program.
  I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
H.R. 5652.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Democratic 
Whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the challenging times we live in force us to make 
difficult choices about our priorities. The reconciliation bill before 
us today is an example of choosing the wrong priorities.

  While we must address our deficits and avert sequestration, the 
Republican reconciliation bill does it absolutely the wrong way. It 
places the entire burden of deficit reduction on the

[[Page H2624]]

most vulnerable while asking nothing of the best off. Indeed, it asks 
for more from those who have less, and less from those who have more. 
It harms seniors and children by eliminating Social Services Block 
Grants, which provide for programs for our communities like child 
protection services and Meals on Wheels.
  They say they're getting rid of fraud, waste, and abuse--I've heard 
that for 31 years--while they added $6.4 trillion to the deficit. It 
slashes food stamp funding by $33.2 billion. They say that's waste, 
fraud, and abuse. CBO does not agree. It's real assistance to families 
in need. Furthermore, it cuts the pay of middle class workers who serve 
the public--the only workers it adversely affects.
  These are the priorities we've seen throughout the Republican budget: 
Ending the Medicare guarantee, slashing jobs while cutting taxes for 
the wealthiest at the expense of seniors. The gentleman from Wisconsin 
says this bill doesn't do that. He's correct. His budget did that.
  Middle class families and those who are the most vulnerable pay the 
price.
  Democrats have our own proposal. Unfortunately, it wasn't made in 
order. As the gentleman from Maryland, my colleague said, you only had 
to waive one rule as opposed to the three you waived for your budget, 
but you wouldn't do it because you didn't want to have the American 
public see the real alternatives out here. I regret that. To that 
extent, you closed down this rule which you railed so much against.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HOYER. Unlike today's Republican bill, our proposal reduces 
deficits in a balanced way and prevents sequestration through a 
balanced combination of spending cuts and revenues.
  And let me say something: Nobody is asked to make a sacrifice in the 
richest country on Earth; what we have to do is make appropriate 
contributions. Nobody is asked to make a sacrifice--and certainly not 
the most vulnerable in our country, as does this reconciliation bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this bill. We can and should do 
better.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman from Maryland and I rise in 
opposition to this bill.
  It should come as no surprise the Republicans in Congress do not take 
the budget deficit seriously. When they were in total control during 6 
of the 8 Bush years, they did nothing to reduce the deficit. Quite the 
opposite.
  Republicans say they're all for cutting spending, just not the 
spending they like. So here we have an attempt to replace sequestration 
so that they can continue to destroy the social safety net while 
protecting defense spending, Big Oil, and the wealthiest in this 
country, yet again asking the middle and lower classes to bear the cost 
of cutting the budget.
  I said when they agreed to the sequester that they'd try to back out 
of the deal to protect their pet policies and gut the social safety 
net. And that's what we see in this document: cutting food stamps, 
cutting SNAP, hurting senior citizens, repealing evidence of health 
care reforms, hurting Federal workers.

                              {time}  1310

  I voted against the Budget Control Act because it was an unbalanced 
budget that put the responsibility of balancing the budget on the backs 
of the middle class. But at least it was an agreement that put both 
defense and discretionary spending up for equal cuts. It was an 
agreement that both parties came to, recognizing the need to cut 
Federal spending. Now the Republicans are trying to back out of that. 
And in backing out of that, they are protecting the wealthiest among 
us, hurting the middle class. This is the wrong way to go. It is a 
shameful document.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I continue to reserve.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, it's called a reconciliation act, but how 
do we reconcile more money for bombs while cutting money for bread? How 
do we reconcile our Nation helping oil companies, arms merchants, and 
war profiteers while cutting assistance to low- and moderate-income 
families?
  My colleagues are worried about abuse of food stamps. I wish they 
would have additional concern and sympathy for the abuse of the middle 
class, for 10 million Americans out of work, for millions losing their 
homes, their retirement security.
  Let's look to where the real fraud is in our government--in wars 
based on lies, over trillions of dollars, billions of U.S. money lost 
or stolen in Afghanistan. Just in the last week, $80 million for a 
consulate that they are not even going to use, they are going to close. 
And we blame poor people using food stamps?
  The real deficit we're dealing with here is a moral deficit, and it's 
time that we face the truth.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Baca).
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this misguided 
budget that we'll vote on today. This package literally takes food off 
the table for millions of disadvantaged Americans by cutting $33 
billion from the SNAP program.
  I ask my Republican colleagues: Where are your priorities? Is it to 
take from the poor to give to the rich?
  SNAP is a lifeline for 46 million Americans. We continue to spend 
hundreds of millions of dollars every year to assist foreign countries, 
but we don't spend money to take care of the struggling families right 
here at home. It's a shame.
  This budget proposal not only cuts benefit levels, but it also keeps 
thousands of children from receiving school meals. Can you imagine 
going to school on an empty stomach and having to take a test? In 
America, this should not happen.
  I understand the value of the SNAP program because I once relied on 
food stamps. Unless you've been in that situation, you don't know what 
it's like. You have no choice. You have no choice but to receive 
assistance to feed your family.
  I ask my colleagues to make sure that we vote against this and make 
sure that we put food on the table for the 46 million people who are 
going hungry right here in the United States. Vote ``no'' on this.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time 
remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland has 3 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  As we said at the beginning, there is no disagreement over the fact 
that we need to have a plan to reduce our deficit. The question has 
been how. And there is no dispute about whether we need to replace the 
sequester, the meat-ax cuts that will take place automatically January 
1. Again, the question is how.
  The Republican approach once again asks nothing of people who are 
doing so well in this country, people who are making over $1 million a 
year. And because they ask nothing of them, their budget hits everybody 
else. The figures we're talking about today, these are about real 
people. These are figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office as to the impact of their proposal: 300,000 kids will lose their 
health care coverage under CHIPs; 22 million kids will see their food 
and nutrition support under SNAP reduced; 2 million people will see all 
of their food and nutrition support eliminated. Those are facts.
  I know people want to pretend that this doesn't impact real people. 
That makes it easier to say we're not going to ask big oil companies to 
get rid of their subsidies if we can pretend that the cuts don't have 
an impact, but they do. And that's why every bipartisan group that's 
looked at this budget challenge has said we need a combination of cuts. 
We did a trillion more, and we have cuts in our substitute, but you 
also need to get some revenue by closing some of these tax loopholes.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democrats had a substitute amendment. The 
Republicans won't even let us have a vote on

[[Page H2625]]

it. They waived three provisions in their rules to bring up their 
proposal. They wouldn't waive one to hear an alternative.
  We keep hearing that it's so important to reduce the deficit; 
apparently, not important enough to ask for one penny from people who 
are making a million dollars a year.
  We keep hearing that the impact of sequester is going to hit defense. 
But again, not one penny from the oil companies to help take a balanced 
approach.
  I urge rejection of the Republican proposal.
  I wish we could have an up-or-down vote on the Democratic substitute. 
That would be democracy, but maybe that's asking too much these days.
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield the balance of my time to a lady who has 
spent her life fighting for justice and trying to make sure that is 
reflected in the budgets that we present to the American people, the 
distinguished Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 1 minute.

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to call to the attention of all of our colleagues and those 
who follow the work of Congress the extraordinary contribution that 
Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen has made to this debate. He has led our 
Democratic members on the Budget Committee in a way that reflects the 
values of our country: how we can meet the needs of our children, their 
health, their education, and the economic security of their families.
  When people ask me what are the three most important issues facing 
the Congress, I always say the same thing: our children, our children, 
our children. And the issues that are addressed in the budget address 
the needs of our children directly and the families in which they live.
  I watched with great pride the debate and the strong distinction that 
has been made between a values-based budget, put forth by the 
Democrats, that supports a thriving middle class, and the Ryan 
Republican Tea Party budget that upholds millionaires over the middle 
class.
  We are here today because the Republicans in the House have decided 
over and over again to walk away from a bipartisan, bicameral agreement 
that we reached to avert economic crisis and to reduce our deficit and 
to honor the full faith and credit of the United States of America. 
They are walking away and punishing the middle class, because they 
refuse to close even one special interest tax loophole to reduce our 
deficit. They are putting Big Oil and millionaires ahead of America's 
middle-income families.
  In recent weeks, House Republicans have voted twice--not once, but 
twice; here we go again, in the words of a great Republican President--
have voted twice to pass a budget that gives massive tax breaks to the 
wealthiest Americans while ending the Medicare guarantee and increasing 
cost for seniors in the meantime. That is an absolute fact. Today 
Republicans are voting to begin implementing their out-of-touch budget, 
and middle class people, seniors, women, and children will pay the 
price.
  Consider these few things. I know that members of the committee have 
made the case, but I just want to focus on a few things that affect 
people very directly in their lives.
  This Republican-Ryan-Tea Party budget will assault women's health by 
eliminating the Prevention Fund: 326,000 women would not get the breast 
cancer screening they're slated to receive next year; 248,000 women 
would not get the cervical cancer screening they're slated to receive 
next year. Those are big numbers, but every individual case is 
important to the families that those women live in.

                              {time}  1320

  So the numbers are staggering, but the specific cases are what is 
important, and this is hundreds of thousands.
  This budget would harm children and seniors, literally taking food 
out of the mouths of babies, as nearly 300,000 children would lose free 
or reduced-cost school meals--300,000 kids. Wait a minute. We're going 
to give a $400,000 tax cut to people making over $1 million a year, and 
we're going to take food from 300,000 children to do that.
  1.7 million seniors would lose Meals on Wheels--people are familiar 
with that in their neighborhoods, in their communities--and other 
services.
  It would put Wall Street ahead of middle class and working families 
by weakening the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In the Wall 
Street reform bill, we not only had the biggest changes in regulations 
so that the recklessness on Wall Street would no longer cause 
joblessness on Main Street--the recklessness of some. I don't paint 
everyone with the same brush. The recklessness of some on Wall Street 
would not create, again, massive joblessness on Main Street.
  In that same legislation--and they were the biggest regulation 
changes in a long time, decades--the biggest change in history was in 
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This budget weakens consumer 
protection. That's just not right.
  So, here we are again with the Republican budget, to name a few.
  In contrast to this draconian Republican bill, Democrats are fighting 
for a balanced approach that creates jobs, expands opportunity, reduces 
the deficit, protects the health and economic security of America's 
families, and honors the entrepreneurial spirit of America.
  Republicans are focused on obstruction rather than solutions. 
Americans have rejected Republican obstructionism and made it clear 
over and over again: We must work together to find solutions.
  Because this legislation will have a devastating impact, it's opposed 
by numerous organizations, from Easter Seals, to the National Women's 
Law Center, to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Voices for 
America's Children.
  As the Obama administration wrote in expressing their strong 
opposition to this bill, the bill's unbalanced provisions fail the test 
of fairness and shared responsibility. At the same time the House is 
advancing tax cuts that benefit the most fortunate Americans, this 
legislation would impose deep budget cuts that cost jobs and hurt the 
middle class and vulnerable Americans, especially seniors, veterans, 
and children.
  Mr. Speaker, instead of the slash-and-burn approach, let's come 
together in a bipartisan way, in a balanced way, to cut our deficit by 
growing the economy, creating growth, creating jobs, bringing in 
revenue to reduce the deficit, to make the priority choices that 
reflect the values of our country, the values of fairness and 
opportunity, of sustaining a thriving middle class for the middle class 
and all who aspire to it. It is the backbone of our democracy. For that 
reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this devastating bill.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  First off, Mr. Speaker, let me thank those six committees that 
contributed to making this possible.
  Over 60 percent of the Federal budget is in a category of spending we 
call mandatory spending. It's a budget term of art that means that part 
of spending is on autopilot. Congress does not address or oversee or 
set the levels of that spending in any given year. Congress does 
address what we call discretionary spending. That's government agency 
budgets--about 39 percent of the budget every single year. The last 
time Congress actually looked at this 60 percent of spending on 
autopilot for savings was 2005. It's important that we make sure that 
we're scrutinizing how we're spending hard-earned taxpayer dollars, and 
it's a shame that we haven't revisited this category of spending since 
2005. We're doing that here.
  Now, the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Speaker of the 
House, the minority leader of the House, they've all said that this 
sequester is a mistake; it's bad, it's going to hurt. Not only does it 
hollow out defense, according to the Defense Secretary, but it also 
creates an 8 percent across-the-board cut to domestic discretionary 
spending, like the National Institutes of Health. We think we should 
prevent that. On a bipartisan basis, we think we should prevent that. 
That's what we're doing. This is the only plan that says, Prevent that 
from happening, and here's how you pay for it. Here's our plan to stop 
that from happening, this event that everybody says should be stopped.
  Now, when we take a look at what this package does, I think we want 
to

[[Page H2626]]

look at, is our government working the way it ought to be?
  In particular, we're hearing lots of comments about how this hurts 
people, how this hurts the poor. Let's take a look at our poverty-
fighting efforts. And should we measure our poverty-fighting efforts 
based on inputs or based on outcomes? Should we measure our poverty-
fighting efforts based on how much money we're spending and how many 
programs we're creating? Or should we think about how many people are 
we getting out of poverty?
  Here's the problem: These efforts aren't working. One out of six 
Americans today are in poverty. We have the highest poverty rates we've 
had in a generation. These programs aren't working. Let's fix them. 
Let's pass reforms that instead decrease the poverty rate, which is 
happening these days, and get people back into lives of self-
sufficiency.
  Let's go back to the American idea of an opportunity society with a 
safety net that doesn't keep people in poverty but gets people out of 
poverty into lives of self-sufficiency. And we're not going to be able 
to achieve that if we don't grow our economy. We're not going to be 
able to achieve that if we don't have more opportunities in society so 
that people who are on the bottom rung of the economic ladder can't 
climb up and out.

  We shouldn't be defining success as how many people we have on these 
benefit programs. We should be defining success as to how many people 
we are graduating from these benefit programs into lives of self-
sufficiency, into jobs. That's the American idea.
  So when you take a look at whether these programs are working well or 
not, we need to reform them. We haven't touched these programs for 
decades. Food stamps, we've gone from 17 million people to 45 million 
people in a decade, a 270 percent spending increase--$1.8 billion in 
overpayments last year alone. We're just saying you need to qualify for 
the benefit to get the benefit.
  Medicaid. If we think this is such a success, then why are half the 
doctors filling out surveys saying they're not going to take any new 
Medicaid patients. If this program is working so well, then why was 
$15.8 billion in overpayments made just last year? Does this devastate 
Medicaid? Instead of increasing Medicaid by 125 percent over the next 
decade, this proposal increases it by 123 percent over the next 
decade--hardly draconian.
  What we're saying is we need to make these programs work to achieve 
their intended results. Give States more flexibility to customize their 
benefits to meet the needs of the people in their States. That's what 
these Medicaid reforms are all about.
  When we hear the other side talk about no spending cuts but more tax 
increases, that's going to slow down job creation. We're the first ones 
who came to this floor saying, ``Close these tax loopholes, but close 
these tax loopholes to create economic growth by reforming the Tax 
Code.'' Treat people fairly in the Tax Code so that a company or a 
person who makes the same amount of money pays the same level of tax. 
You do that by getting rid of tax shelters and tax loopholes, not to 
raise spending, but to lower tax rates so American businesses can 
survive, can thrive, and create jobs. Upward mobility. Economic 
opportunity. That's what we're trying to achieve here.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. Speaker, we should not be talking to each other in this society 
as if we're stuck in some class, as if this person's middle class, that 
person's lower class, and that person's upper class. Our ancestors left 
those class-based societies to form this country, which should not be a 
class-based society. It should be a society of upward mobility, where 
we can make the most of our lives, based on our own God-given talent 
and our own effort. We should not be speaking to people as if they're 
stuck in their current station in life and the government is here to 
help them cope with it.
  We need to get ourselves out of this debt crisis because, if we have 
a debt crisis, if we keep on this path where we're borrowing 40 cents 
of every dollar we spend, we're going to have a debt crisis. Europe is 
in a debt crisis.
  And what happens when you're in a debt crisis? Immediate austerity, 
cutting benefits to seniors, cutting benefits to people in the safety 
net, raising taxes. That slows down the economy, especially for the 
youth.
  Look what we're doing right now. Half of our Nation's college 
graduates are either unemployed or underemployed--half.
  It's not working. We need to change these policies. We need to grow 
the economy. And if we have a debt crisis because of this spending, 
then the people who need government the most, they're the ones who get 
hurt the first and the worst.
  We're leading. The President, no plan to fix this. The Senate, no 
budget since 2009. And our friends on the other side of the aisle, tax 
increases, spending increases, no spending cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a small step in the right direction. It's 
something Congress should do every day. I urge passage of this bill.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this morning, I met with 
homeless individuals and families, and community leaders who advocate 
on their behalf. I can tell you that even in my district the wealthiest 
in the nation--we have real needs. While our poverty rate may be the 
envy of most jurisdictions across the nation, that's just a statistic. 
In real numbers, more than 60,000 people are struggling with poverty--
hard working men and women trying to provide for themselves, and tens 
of thousands of children not knowing where they'll sleep tonight, or if 
they'll eat. In fact there are more people below the poverty line in 
Fairfax County than the total population of more than 100 of Virginia's 
139 jurisdictions.
  This sequester replacement is a short sighted and cynical action. 
Make no mistake; this is NOT about fiscal responsibility. It forces 
sacrifices on the less fortunate among us; seniors and children who 
will lose supplemental meal assistance; struggling single parents who 
will lose child care support, threatening their ability to work; lower 
income families who will lose their health care. What this plan does 
not do is ask similar sacrifices from the most wealthy in our nation. 
In fact, it paves the way for another tax cut for the top 1 percent. 
Oil and gas companies, which have seen $290 billion in profits over the 
last 4 years are not asked to contribute even 1 penny of the $16 
billion in special tax breaks they received.
  No, this Republican Reconciliation Ruse is really an attempt to 
fundamentally change American values at the expense of the sick, the 
old, the young and the disadvantaged. I would ask my colleagues to go 
home and talk to those individuals struggling to get by in their 
community, and faith leaders who work with them, and ask how these 
draconian cuts affect their lives. I urge my colleagues to reject this 
Republican Reconciliation Ruse and to work toward truly comprehensive, 
responsible and bipartisan deficit reduction that safeguards the less 
fortunate among us and is reflective of our nation's shared values.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ride in strong opposition to 
the draconian cuts to health care, food stamps, and other essential 
programs that are being proposed by the House majority in H.R. 5652.
  Last summer, this Congress and the Administration agreed on a path to 
reduce the national deficit by over $2.1 trillion. Over half of this 
amount was going to come either through a bipartisan agreement by the 
so-called ``Super Committee'' or through sequestration.
  I do not like sequestration. It is an inefficient way to make 
spending decisions that affect millions of Americans. However, this is 
what was agreed to and for the House majority to go back on that 
agreement and not have an open and frank debate on how this chamber can 
agree to reduce our national deficit while preserving essential 
programs and services is more than just disappointing. For millions of 
our fellow Americans, it is a matter of survival.
  This legislation would result in cutting food stamps by over $33 
billion dollars. Nearly 50 cents of every dollar into food stamps helps 
children get the food they need to grow and thrive.
  H.R. 5652 would gut vital health care services, including ending the 
Prevention and Public Health Trust Fund, which is essential for finding 
better ways to promote wellness, prevent disease, and protect against 
public health emergencies.
  This bill would also reduce matching state funds to Medicaid, as well 
as make it more difficult to qualify for the program and make 
devastating cuts to the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
  It would make sharp cuts to the Social Services Block Grant program, 
which could result in 1.7 million children losing access to protective 
services, 450,000 children being denied foster care, and 640,000 
children losing child abuse prevention services.
  This legislation would also eliminate the FDIC's ability to unwind 
financial institutions

[[Page H2627]]

that are ``too big to fail'' in an orderly way, eliminate the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) funding source, and cut pension 
contributions to federal workers.
  I stand with our nation's servicemembers and am committed to making 
sure that they have the tools and resources necessary to protect 
America from any and all threats.
  However, support for our nation's heroes should not and cannot come 
at a cost to America's most vulnerable. We can find a better way to 
balance our priorities, protect those in need, and honor our servicemen 
and women.
  I call on Members on both sides of the aisle to join me in finding a 
better way to reduce our deficit while protecting children, the needy, 
and America's men and women in uniform and vote against this 
legislation.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to express my strong 
support in favor of the H.R. 5652, the Sequester Replacement Act of 
2012. This legislation reflects the support I have for the Republican 
Budget and the principles I have stood for during my almost thirty 
years in this House, a return to fiscal sanity and responsibility. This 
legislation also makes certain that the brave men and women in our 
Armed Forces will have the resources to protect this Nation from the 
many threats we face in an uncertain world.
  However, I do have one concern. During my tenure here I have been an 
advocate for equal treatment for our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico, 
who have defended this Nation in record numbers in every military 
conflict since U.S. citizenship was conferred on them in 1917. Puerto 
Ricans take pride in their American citizenship and our Nation should 
be grateful for their service.
  My dear friend and former colleague, Governor Luis Fortuno, was 
recently able to accomplish what other Puerto Rican Governors have 
tried to do for decades in lessening the disparities between the 
funding of federal healthcare programs in the territories and the 
states. Through his hard work, persistence and dedication, Governor 
Fortuno was able to obtain an increase in Medicaid funding for the US 
territories that reduces the gap. Unfortunately, the available 
legislative vehicle in which this could be accomplished was Obamacare, 
which I have been a staunch opponent of for a whole host of reasons 
that have nothing to do with Medicaid in Puerto Rico. I am, as a 
result, troubled that we have included the repeal of the expansion of 
Medicaid for Puerto Rico and the other territories in H.R. 4966. I 
believe there are other ways to cut spending that do not contribute to 
the perception that Puerto Ricans are less deserving U.S. citizens than 
residents of the states.
  I want to assure our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico that the action 
we take today is just a step in what promises to be a long budget 
negotiation. As we continue to move forward to repeal Obamacare, I know 
I am not alone among my Republican colleagues in the belief that we 
should adequately fund federal healthcare programs in Puerto Rico and 
the other US territories. As we continue to work this year to reach an 
agreement on the budget with the Senate, I am hopeful that the 
principle of equal treatment for Puerto Rico will not be lost, and that 
the final budget product will bring our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico 
closer than ever to the parity they deserve in federal healthcare 
programs.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, today's debate is about priorities. The 
Republican reconciliation bill provides a stark contrast between the 
measures Democrats know are necessary to get our fiscal house in 
order--creating jobs and encouraging investments, and those that 
Republicans covet--tax cuts for special interests and giveaways for 
millionaires.
  It is high time we get serious about our fiscal situation, and I, 
like most Americans, am prepared to make sacrifices to put us on a 
sustainable path.
  But this reconciliation bill sends our country in the wrong 
direction--reducing benefits for our children, elderly, and most 
vulnerable to pay for tax cuts to millionaires and subsidies for oil 
and gas companies. Under the Republican plan, 22 million families could 
see their food and nutrition assistance cut, and up to 300,000 children 
could lose both their health coverage and their school lunch program. 
Jeopardizing struggling families is not the way to get your country 
back on track.
  I see the importance of these programs to my constituents every day. 
There are thousands of hard working Rhode Islanders who still can't 
make ends meet, who need a little help so their kids don't go to bed 
hungry or sleep in a cold house. The economic downturn has been a 
trying time for everyone, and all of us have a family member or a 
friend who has been forced to ask for help at one time or another. yet 
Republicans are trying to pull away the helping hand the government 
offers to those who are living on the edge.
  At a time when we ought to be investing in our future, the Republican 
budget offers shortsighted measures that will irreparably shortchange 
our most critical national investments. With unemployment at 11.1 
percent in my home state of Rhode Island, my number one priority is 
spurring job growth and development. Unfortunately, this Republican 
budget, which gives away $3 trillion in tax breaks to corporations and 
the super-wealthy, will do just the opposite.
  Democrats are offering a fair and balanced approach that keeps the 
promises made to our seniors, preserves our social safety net, and 
maintains investments in our economic security. With key 
recommendations of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles and Domenici-Rivlin 
budget commissions as a guide, it addresses both sides of the ledger--
through strategic spending cuts and revenues. There is simply no other 
way to equitably address our fiscal challenges.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget is not what the American public 
wants, it is not what Rhode Islanders need, and it is not what our 
future generations deserve. I urge my colleagues to reject it.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I believe that our Vice President, Joe 
Biden was correct when he said, ``Don't tell me what you value, show me 
your budget, and I'll tell you what you value''. Well Mr. Speaker, we 
have seen the Tea Party budget, and we sure know what their values are.
  The majority values millionaires over women and children's access to 
healthcare. They value corporate welfare for outsourcing jobs over 
helping the next generation of workers afford college. And they value 
oil and gas companies over ensuring that our most vulnerable citizens, 
including seniors and children, have access to important nutrition and 
healthcare programs, plain and simple.
  As a Member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I fought against that 
committee's unfair reconciliation legislation that inordinately Placed 
the burden of increased defense spending and tax cuts for the very 
wealthy on seniors, the disabled and middle class families.
  Instead of asking the wealthiest amongst us to pay just a small 
fraction of their income more, the majority's legislation squeezes it 
out of the 14.5% of U.S. children living in poverty in New Jersey. This 
bill will snatch $1,800 from the pockets of a family earning $21,000 a 
year. Instead of cutting back on oil and gas subsidies for companies 
like Exxon, which made an almost $10 billion profit last quarter, this 
bill cuts $47 billion in tax credits for middle class families could to 
purchase health insurance.
  In short, the majority's choice is to cut $75 billion from programs 
that directly benefit seniors, the middle class and poor, in order to 
protect special interests and millionaires.
  We must fight back against the Tea Party assault on the middle class, 
women, children, and the poor, and I ask my colleagues to vote no on 
this legislation.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I resolutely oppose H.R. 5652, 
the Sequester Replacement Act of 2012. As our nation struggles to 
emerge from one of its worst economic crises, I am profoundly 
disappointed with the Republican Leadership for offering legislation 
that would harm tens of millions of Americans to deliver a windfall of 
additional wealth to already-privileged individuals and companies. Such 
overt protection for the wealthiest and most secure at the expense of 
the most vulnerable represents an affront to American values and 
blatant disregard of a policymaker's responsibility to protect our 
nation's citizens. Robbing the poor, children, elderly, and ill to 
further balloon the wealth of the most affluent in our country is 
deplorable.
  The Sequester Replacement Act of 2012 clearly demonstrates the 
fundamental disagreement between parties at present. The Democratic 
lawmakers believe that the federal government has the responsibility to 
help it citizens during times of struggle and economic hardship. To 
achieve this support and revitalize our nation, the Democrats maintain 
that shared responsibility among the wealthy and the middle class, 
defense and non-defense initiatives, and spending cuts and revenues are 
necessary. Strengthening our national and individual economic well-
being requires balance. In contrast, the Republican Leadership asserts 
that the responsibility for helping the poor or vulnerable falls to 
individual charity and the path to economic revitalization is to 
eviscerate federal services that support the poor, elderly, children, 
and ill to deliver billions of dollars in financial assistance to the 
wealthiest individuals, oil companies, and businesses that ship jobs 
overseas.
  There are multiple provisions within the Republican Sequestration 
bill that exemplify the approach of giving massive tax breaks to the 
wealthiest while slashing vital services to the vulnerable.
  Take the elimination of the Social Services Block Grant, which 
provides critical support for child care, child welfare, and elderly 
services. Nearly all SSBG funds serve the needs of vulnerable adults, 
children and disabled. Terminating the program will affect 
approximately 23 million people, half of them children. Cutting

[[Page H2628]]

SSBG means the 1.7 million seniors would lose ``Meals on Wheels'' and 
other home-based services. Eliminating SSBG means that 1.7 million 
children likely lose access to protective services, 451,000 children 
would be denied foster care, and 640,000 children likely lose child 
abuse prevention services. Stopping SSBG means that 4.4 million 
children would lose child care and related assistance--a loss that is 
especially egregious when 22 states reported considerable wait-lists 
for child care assistance in 2011.
  Slashing $36 billion to the food assistance program for the poor 
would reduce aid to 47 million Americans, terminate benefits for 
approximately 2 million low-income individuals, and revoke the 
automatic eligibility for free school meals for nearly 300,000 low-
income children. In my Congressional District alone, there are 40,784 
households receiving benefits--with 49.2% of these families having 
children under 18 and 30.9% having one or more people over the age of 
60. These families already are bearing the brunt of our economic 
hardship. They cannot sustain further cuts to their food aid.
  Repealing the Medicaid and CHIP maintenance-of-effort requirements 
directly threatens the health coverage of millions of pregnant women, 
infants and children. Medicaid finances about 41% of births each year, 
serving as THE source of health care for 1 out of 4 children in our 
country--especially children with special healthcare needs. Removing 
the maintenance-of-effort protections of coverage would increase the 
number of uninsured children by at least 300,000 in 2015, as estimated 
by the Congressional Budget Office.
  Eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund further jeopardizes 
the health and well-being of women and children. Specifically, loss of 
the Prevention Fund means about 2.2 million fewer childhood 
vaccinations to prevent childhood diseases, 326,000 fewer breast cancer 
screenings, and 284,000 fewer cervical cancer screenings. Cutting the 
Prevention Fund means stopping tobacco cessation and obesity prevention 
programs. I have been a strong proponent of prevention my entire adult 
life given its proven ability to improve the quality of life for 
citizens with minimal financial investment. Indeed, proven community-
based prevention programs yield an estimated return of $5.60 for every 
dollar invested. Since 2010, the state of Illinois has received $31 
million from the Prevention Fund. I cannot support the loss of these 
funds.
  Dramatically reducing the Child Tax Credit by $7.6 billion means that 
more than 3 million children would lose the pro-family support that 
their low-income families need to put food on the tables and roofs over 
their heads.
  The Republican reconciliation bill offers an unacceptable vision for 
our nation that calls on the most vulnerable of our citizens to support 
a privileged lifestyle for the most secure. At a time in our history 
where more than one in five children currently lives in poverty and 
tens of millions of citizens struggle with unemployment, 
underemployment, and foreclosure, I cannot support such a vision that 
would undermine the well-being of millions of Americans. We must pursue 
a balanced approach to strengthening our nation's and our citizens' 
economic well-being, asking all to share in the sacrifice.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to 
H.R. 5652, ``Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012,'' which 
slashes $238 billion over 10 years and cancels the discretionary 
sequestration scheduled for 2013 to exempt defense spending from the 
cuts agreed upon by the Republican majority in the Budget Control Act 
of 2011. This bill is unfair to children, seniors, women, and working 
families. This abomination is unworthy of a civilized nation. Little 
wonder that so many faith-based and leading national organizations, 
from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to the National Education 
Association oppose this bill. I stand with them in strong opposition to 
this assault on working and middle class families.
  My Democratic colleagues and I agree that the scheduled sequester, 
with its indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts, should be replaced with 
a balanced deficit reduction package that includes both spending cuts 
and additional revenues. Republicans disagree and would let the burden 
and cost of deficit reduction fall on the shoulders of children, 
seniors, working families, and the middle class rather than close even 
one special interest tax loophole or ask any sacrifice of the truly 
wealthy.
  This bill makes cuts to critical safety-net programs that millions of 
people rely on, all while returning to policies that sparked the 
recession in the first place. They are choosing the wrong programs to 
cut in order to reduce the deficit. Let me highlight a few examples to 
illustrate just how extreme and unfair this legislation is.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5652 makes cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program (SNAP), the program formerly known as food stamps) 
that would result in reducing benefits for all 46 million SNAP 
participants--one million of whom live in Los Angeles County--and 
terminate assistance for at least two million. Low-income households 
who do not lose benefits altogether will face monthly reductions of 
$50, $60, or even $90 a month. In 2010, SNAP kept 4.4 million people 
from being poor, 1 million of whom were lifted out of poverty just from 
the increase in SNAP benefits that began in 2009.
  You cannot make a nation's economy healthy by impoverishing its 
people.
  A 9-year panel study conducted by the Department of Agriculture 
showed that the federal food assistance program alone was responsible 
for lifting low-income persons purchasing power by six percent. This is 
a program that is proven to work, and yet the this Republican bill 
seeks to slash it $33.2 billion. With cuts of this magnitude, 
eligibility for the program will have to be scaled back dramatically, 
and benefits will be cut deeply for those who still qualify. This will 
have serious effects on millions of low-income families who rely on the 
program just to get by.
  The bill also proposes to end the Prevention and Public Health Fund. 
Since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, the Department of 
Health and Human Services has awarded more than $90.6 million in 
Prevention Fund grants to my home state of California. These grants are 
used to combat obesity, tobacco use, unhealthy nutrition practices, and 
to fund other programs that promote good health. If the Republican 
sequestration replacement were to become law, these essential programs 
will have to be scaled back or cut entirely.
  Mr. Speaker, we need get our fiscal house in order but I will not 
vote to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, the vulnerable, or 
the middle class.
  My Democratic colleagues and I supported a balanced approach to the 
current fiscal challenge that preserves Medicare. House Republicans 
favor ending Medicare as we know it, along with gutting the Children's 
Health Insurance Program and the Child Tax Credit.
  The Republican approach is unfair, unwise, and short-sighted. For 
example, childhood immunizations are among the most cost effective 
preventative health measures available. On average each dollar invested 
in children's immunization saves $16.50 in medical and societal costs 
down the road. Given the persistent rise in the cost of treating 
serious health problems it makes absolutely no sense to cut programs 
that will lead to substantial cost reductions in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill would leave our most vulnerable citizens 
exposed and unprotected. I cannot and will not support legislation 
inflicts such grave hardship on the most vulnerable of our citizens 
while asking nothing of those who benefited most from the reckless 
economic policies of the previous administration.
  We cannot have a serious conversation about getting our budget under 
control when House Republicans are taking large items like revenue and 
defense off the table, all while repealing programs like the Social 
Services Block Grant. This unique grant allows states to help their 
citizens become more self-sufficient by providing child care, 
preventing and addressing child abuse, and supporting care for the 
elderly and disabled. Slashing the Social Services Block Grant program 
in an effort to avoid the defense cuts reflects poorly upon those who 
propose do so.
  Mr. Speaker, if House Republicans are unwilling to abide the 
agreement they made just last year, how can they be trusted to keep 
faith with promises made to seniors, children, the poor and weak, that 
bind us together as a nation?
  What we need right now is for responsible leaders to work together to 
come to an agreement on a balanced long-term approach to resolve our 
fiscal challenges. As legislators, our constituents are looking to us 
to get on with, and serious about, the work that must be done to get 
our fiscal house in order and make the needed investments that will 
grow our economy and position our people to compete and with in an 
increasingly globalized world. That is what they sent us here to do and 
they deserve no less.
  Mr. Speaker, my constituents did not send me to Congress to make the 
wrong choice for our nation. That is why I cannot support the 
legislation before us. It places the burden for the nation's financial 
crisis squarely on the shoulders of the middle class and the poor, 
while failing to ask anything of those most able to contribute toward 
economic recovery.
  For these reasons, I stand in strong opposition to H.R. 5625, the 
Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012, and urge my 
colleagues to join me in rejecting this radical and dangerous proposal.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5652, 
the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012.
  As the Ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, 
which has jurisdiction over the various insular territories of the 
United States, I wish to call the attention of my colleagues to the 
adverse impact of this bill on the 4.1 million Americans who live on

[[Page H2629]]

the five U.S. territories--Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, 
American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas Islands.
  Of all the cuts being proposed by this bill today, perhaps none is as 
cynical, thoughtless and irresponsible as the Republican proposal to 
repeal Section 1204 of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act 
of 2010, which finally mitigated the profoundly unjust treatment that 
these Americans in the five U.S. territories have always been subject 
to under the Medicaid program.
  If this proposal is enacted, it would cut total federal funding for 
Medicaid in the territories by 65% over the next decade--a crippling 
blow that would devastate the territories' Medicaid programs and 
drastically restrict the ability of millions of Americans to receive 
care.
  The territories' Medicaid programs are already vastly underfunded. By 
law, they are supposed to receive a 50% federal funding match, but they 
get nowhere near it. Unlike the 50 states and the District of Columbia, 
the amount that the federal government can contribute to their Medicaid 
programs is capped, and so Puerto Rico, for example, receives less than 
a 20% match.
  The 50 states and the District of Columbia, on the other hand, 
receive up to an 80% match. Even the wealthiest states--which receive 
the lowest match rates--get 50%.
  If the federal match for each of the territories was calculated the 
same way they are calculated for the states, each of the territories 
would have Federal Medical Assistance Percentages, (FMAP) in the 75% to 
83% range based on their poverty levels.
  The results of this chronic underfunding by the federal government 
are both devastating and predictable: too many patients in the 
territories receive inadequate care and too many providers in the 
territories are not adequately compensated for their services.
  Because the treatment of the territories under Medicaid was a 
travesty from both a moral and public policy perspective, the 
Affordable Care Act (ACA) sought to partially redress this profound 
inequality. It provided $6.3 billion in additional Medicaid funding to 
the territories between the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2011 and 
Fiscal Year 2019.
  The territories have already begun to use--and will continue to use--
this new funding to increase the number of low-income individuals that 
can receive Medicaid coverage and to provide beneficiaries with 
essential health services. Prior to this funding increase, the 
territory governments could not afford to provide many basic services 
or to cover many of their neediest residents under Medicaid. Every 
penny of this money will be used.
  H.R. 5652 cuts funding that would merely narrow the inequality gap 
between the states and the territories. It still would not come close 
to eliminating it.
  It is important to remember that residents of the territories are 
Americans who, if they are not receiving adequate health care, can 
relocate to the states and become eligible for fully-funded Medicaid 
whenever they wish. Thus, treating territory residents like second-
class citizens under Medicaid is extraordinarily short-sighted.
  It is also important to remember that residents of the territories 
serve in disproportionate numbers in the U.S. military. Residents of 
the territories have made tens of thousands of deployments to Iraq, 
Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa since 2001, and nearly 170 service 
members from the territories have lost their lives.
  The Republicans should explain to the hundreds of thousands of 
soldiers and veterans from the territories why they are ``American 
enough'' to defend our country in combat, but somehow not ``American 
enough'' to receive a modicum of fair treatment under critical health 
care programs.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this mean-spirited bill.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act.
  Today, House Republican leadership is asking low and middle income 
families to sacrifice their health care and basic services in order to 
protect bloated and wasteful Pentagon spending and to protect tax cuts 
for millionaires.
  This out of touch budget to end the Medicare guarantee while giving 
massive tax breaks to Big Oil and the wealthiest is not a serious 
proposal, Mr. Speaker.
  In these difficult times for millions of struggling families, 
Republicans are asking that we vote to cut $36 billion from the food 
stamp program and children's health services so we can spend more money 
on cold war weapons that do nothing to improve our national security.
  Our budget should reflect our values. We should not be balancing our 
budget on the backs of the most vulnerable.
  We do not have to make these heartless cuts that hurt our poor and 
struggling families so we can spend more money to build two more 
nuclear submarines or buy more over budget V 22 helicopters.
  We do not have to make choices that abandon the needy, our seniors 
and the futures of our children.
  We must come together to protect people who are struggling, our 
Nation's children and our elderly during economic downturns, not make 
them more vulnerable.
  We must protect and invest in the futures of our most vulnerable 
families, not dole out more money to the Pentagon for outdated and over 
budget weapons programs that we don't need and doesn't make America any 
safer.
  We should not be shortchanging the education of our children, risk 
the health of our seniors and allow our infrastructure to crumble 
beneath our feet so that bloated defense contractors can keep getting 
contracts.
  The priorities on display in this bill are clear and shameful. Once 
again, the Republicans put millionaires and billionaires, subsidies for 
big oil and gas, and bloated Pentagon spending above everyone and 
everything else.
  As co-chair of the Out of Poverty caucus, I urge my colleagues to 
reject this attack on our most vulnerable.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are considering today is 
quite possibly the moral low-point of this House Republican Majority. 
Not only does it negate a law that was agreed to just last year to cut 
the deficit, it makes unconscionable cuts to safety net programs that 
help to feed hungry children and seniors and to protect them from 
abuse. It could also cause 14 million children to lose health insurance 
due to massive cuts to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance 
Program (CHIP).
  Republican leaders are claiming that this legislation is needed to 
reduce the deficit. That is false. The reality is that we are voting 
today to protect the bloated defense budget and tax breaks for 
millionaires.
  The choice before us could not be clearer: will you stand with 
families, children, and seniors? Or will you stand with special 
interests? Do you believe America should be a nation that cares if 
children have enough to eat and seniors can age with dignity? Or do 
believe our country should be run by and for the wealthiest among us?
  The Sequester Replacement and Reconciliation Act (H.R. 5652) is 
designed to prevent the pending automatic spending cuts, or 
``sequester,'' that Congress passed last year in the Budget Control 
Act. Half of the $110 billion in cuts under the sequester would come 
from the defense budget. That makes sense, as roughly half of our 
discretionary budget is dedicated to defense. Medicare and other vital 
programs will also take a hit under the sequester.
  As an alternative to the reckless Reconciliation Act before us today, 
Congress could come up with a balanced approach to replace the 
sequester while still cutting the deficit. Such an approach should 
include ending taxpayer subsidies for oil companies, rolling back 
subsidies for agri-business, allowing the Bush tax cuts for 
millionaires to expire, closing tax loopholes that allow lawyers and 
lobbyists to avoid paying Medicare taxes. A balanced approach should 
also include cuts to defense, bringing the Afghan War to an end, and 
eliminating federal programs that do not work.
  Yet Instead of trying to legislate responsibly, the Republican 
Majority is doubling down on their Budget and bringing legislation to 
the floor that only asks families, children, seniors, and federal 
workers to sacrifice. H.R. 5652 eliminates the Social Services Block 
Grant, which funds Meals and Wheels and child abuse prevention 
programs. It continues the assault on Health Reform by making it harder 
for working people to afford insurance. It undermines the new Wall 
Street Reform law by de-funding the Consumer Financial Protection 
Agency. It makes devastating cuts to Food Stamps, Medicaid, and CHIP. 
Our nation will be a sicker and crueler place if this legislation is 
allowed to become law. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this 
immoral and irresponsible bill.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider the Sequester 
Replacement Reconciliation Act.
  This bill is a broken promise.
  It would eliminate the Social Service Block Grant, which funds 
essential services like child abuse prevention and Meals on Wheels.
  It would cut off food assistance for 1.8 million Americans, and leave 
100,000 children and senior citizens without health insurance, so we 
can increase defense spending.
  We spend nearly as much on defense every year as the rest of the 
world combined.
  This includes billions maintaining a nuclear arsenal designed for the 
Cold War, and $500 million a year for military bands.
  We can protect ourselves and our allies with a leaner, smarter 
defense.
  Yet if we make cuts like these, our military will have little to 
defend.
  We will only solve our debt crisis with a balanced, bipartisan 
approach that honors our commitments.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in regards to H.R. 5652, 
the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012.

[[Page H2630]]

  Eliminating the threat of our massive national debt must be a top 
priority for this Congress. I am pleased that House Republicans have 
identified and put forward a sensible plan. This reconciliation bill 
will forestall the Budget Control Act's sequestration cuts to defense 
while, at the same time, offer alternative reductions in federal 
spending. This measure is a critical first step in getting our fiscal 
house in order and doing so in a responsible manner.
  In addition to the number of spending reforms that are included in 
H.R. 5652, there is an important reform that was proposed--meaningful 
medical liability reform. Specifically, H.R. 5, the Help Accessible, 
Efficient, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare, which seeks to ensure that the 
cost of frivolous litigation is not passed on to consumers in the form 
of higher health-care premiums by capping non-economic damages in 
medical liability lawsuits. While I am supportive of these efforts, I 
currently own shares in multiple corporations that may benefit from its 
enactment.
  While my participation in legislative consideration of H.R. 5652 
would not appear to violate current House Rules and established 
precedent, as in all matters susceptible to subjective examination, 
there are no bright line rules to determine whether a Member should 
recuse himself or herself in legislation that may benefit that Member 
in a personal or financial manner. While this may be a gray area, I do 
not want to raise any potential ethical questions regarding my 
participation in this legislation. As a result, I have acted to dispel 
any appearance of conflict by recusing myself from legislative 
consideration of H.R. 5652 in the 112th Congress.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I commend our Leaders and Chairman 
Ryan for the bold budget which we are going to approve today. Many of 
the programs targeted for cuts in the Reconciliation Package are 
worthwhile initiatives that I have and will continue to support such as 
childhood nutrition programs and family support services. However, the 
future of this nation and that of our children and grandchildren 
depends on our resolve to address the debt crisis while making certain 
that our national security is protected. This is not an easy vote, but 
it is a necessary one.
  Despite my willingness to support our Leadership in making these 
tough choices, I rise to express some concern over one particular 
provision which would eliminate the Medicaid expansion in the U.S. 
territories. While on this side we have all voted for the full repeal 
of Obamacare, this provision had very little to do with that measure. 
The territories provision was instead intended to close the gap between 
healthcare funding on the mainland and in the U.S. territories. Puerto 
Rico, for example, had previously funded 80% of its Medicaid, while 
states with similar demographics funded only 20%. The provision I am 
concerned about helped to close that gap.
  While we will continue to pursue the full repeal of Obamacare, I will 
continue to stand for the closing of that gap and for fully funding 
healthcare in the U.S. territories. The citizens of those jurisdictions 
are Americans and deserve to be treated with equality.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the ``Sequester 
Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012.'' While my Democratic 
colleagues and I are working to stimulate the economy and create jobs, 
protect and extend health care coverage, and promote affordable, high-
quality education for all Americans, Tea Party Republicans have 
launched a radical, ideological, and partisan attack on American 
families. The ``Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act'' is yet 
another misguided attempt to eliminate critical support for middle-
class Americans, seniors, veterans, and children in favor of Bush 
Administration policies that caused the recent economic recession. It 
is utterly and truly irresponsible to balance the budget on the backs 
of our seniors, veterans, children, and families.
  This bill is a joke. The Tea Party Republicans have proposed to 
reduce the deficit by slashing more than $300 billion dollars from 
programs on which millions of ordinary Americans rely. For example, 
this bill cuts over $33 billion dollars in funding for nutrition 
programs that help millions of hard-working Americans feed their 
families. I am appalled that my colleagues across the aisle are more 
concerned with cutting taxes for millionaires and billionaires than 
supporting programs which ensure that our nation's children have enough 
to eat.
  In addition, this extreme, hyper-partisan bill would eliminate the 
Social Services Block Grant program. This vital program provides much 
needed social services--including daycare and protective services, 
foster care and adoption services, and transportation and meals for 
elderly and disabled individuals--to roughly 23 million of the most 
vulnerable Americans. If that was not enough, this irresponsible piece 
of legislation would also slash funding for Medicaid, cut pension 
contributions for federal workers, and eliminate funding for the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--an office established to protect 
consumers engaged in financial transactions.
  Our nation's seniors, veterans, children, and families should not be 
forced to bear the burden of fiscal austerity measures while 
millionaires and billionaires are not asked to pay their fair share in 
taxes. I urge my colleagues to stand together in opposition to yet 
another right-wing attack on programs that have a significant impact on 
the residents of my district and millions of ordinary Americans. I 
remain committed to working with my colleagues to fight against 
fundamentally flawed bills like the ``Sequester Replacement 
Reconciliation Act of 2012,'' and to support a budget proposal that 
creates jobs, expands health care coverage, and promotes access to 
affordable education.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 648, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. LOEBSACK. I am opposed in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Me. Loebsack moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5652 to the 
     Committee on the Budget with instructions to report the same 
     back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
       At the end of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 504. PROHIBITION ON TAXPAYER-FUNDED PENSIONS FOR MEMBERS 
                   OF CONGRESS WHO BECOME HIGHLY-PAID LOBBYISTS.

       (a) In General.--Any former Member of Congress who is 
     registered as a lobbyist, and whose annual income from 
     lobbying activities exceeds $1,000,000, shall not be eligible 
     to receive benefits under either the Civil Service Retirement 
     System or the Federal Employees' Retirement System for the 
     period of time during which such former Member is employed as 
     such a lobbyist and receiving from lobbying activities an 
     annual income that exceeds $1,000,000.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``former Member of Congress'' means an individual who becomes 
     a former Member of Congress after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 505. ENSURING THAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS PAY THEIR FAIR 
                   SHARE FOR RETIREMENT BENEFITS.

       (a) Civil Service Retirement System.--
       (1) Individual contributions.--Section 8334(c) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(c) Each'' and inserting ``(c)(1) Each''; 
     and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     subsection, the applicable percentage of basic pay under this 
     subsection shall, for purposes of computing an amount with 
     respect to a Member for Member service--
       ``(A) for a period in calendar year 2013, be equal to the 
     applicable percentage under this subsection for calendar year 
     2012, plus an additional 2.5 percentage points;
       ``(B) for a period in calendar year 2014, 2015, 2016, or 
     2017, be equal to the applicable percentage under this 
     subsection for the preceding calendar year (as determined 
     under subparagraph (A) or this subparagraph, as the case may 
     be), plus an additional 1.5 percentage points; and
       ``(C) for a period in any calendar year after 2017, be 
     equal to the applicable percent age under this subsection for 
     calendar year 2017 (as determined under subparagraph (B)).''.
       (2) Government contributions.--Section 8334(a)(1)(B) of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in clause (i), by striking ``Except as provided in 
     clause (ii),'' and inserting ``Except as provided in clause 
     (ii) or (iii),''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) In the case of a Member, the amount to be 
     contributed under clause (i) shall, with respect to a period 
     in any year beginning after December 31, 2012, be equal to--
       ``(I) the amount which would otherwise apply under clause 
     (i) with respect to such period, reduced by
       ``(II) the amount by which, with respect to such period, 
     the withholding under subparagraph (A) exceeds the amount 
     which would otherwise have been withheld from the basic pay 
     of the Member involved under subparagraph (A) based on the 
     percentage applicable under subsection (c) for calendar year 
     2012.''.
       (b) Federal Employees' Retirement System.--
       (1) Individual contributions.--Section 8422(a)(3) of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
       (B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
       ``(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     paragraph, the applicable percentage under this subsection 
     shall, for purposes of computing an amount with respect to a 
     Member (other than an individual who is a

[[Page H2631]]

     revised annuity employee by virtue of becoming a Member after 
     December 31, 2012)--
       ``(i) for a period in calendar year 2013, be equal to the 
     applicable percentage under this paragraph for calendar year 
     2012, plus an additional 2.5 percentage points;
       ``(ii) for a period in calendar year 2014, 2015, 2016, or 
     2017, be equal to the applicable percentage under this 
     paragraph for the preceding calendar year (as determined 
     under clause (i) or this clause, as the case maybe), plus an 
     additional 1.5 percentage points; and
       ``(iii) for a period in any calendar year after 2017, be 
     equal to the applicable percentage under this paragraph for 
     calendar year 2017 (as determined under clause (ii)).''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (C) (as so redesignated by subparagraph 
     (A)), in the line relating to a Member, by striking ``9.3'' 
     and inserting ``12''.
       (2) Government contributions.--Section 8423(a)(2) of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(2)'' and inserting ``(2)(A)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B)(i) Subject to clauses (ii) and (iii), for purposes of 
     any period in any year beginning after December 31, 2012, the 
     normal-cost percentage under this subsection for Members 
     shall be determined and applied as if section 505(b)(1)(B) of 
     the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012 had not 
     been enacted.
       ``(ii) Any contributions under this subsection with respect 
     to Members in excess of the amounts which (but for clause 
     (i)) would otherwise have been payable shall be applied 
     toward reducing the unfunded liability of the Civil Service 
     Retirement System.
       ``(iii) After the unfunded liability of the Civil Service 
     Retirement System has been eliminated, as determined by the 
     Office, Government contributions under this subsection shall 
     be determined and made disregarding this subparagraph.''.

     SEC. 506. ANNUITY SUPPLEMENT TERMINATION APPLICABLE TO 
                   MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ONLY.

       Section 8421(a) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (3)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraphs (3) and (4)'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``paragraph (3)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraphs (3) and (4)''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) No annuity supplement under this section shall be 
     payable in the case of any individual who, after December 31, 
     2012, first becomes subject to this chapter by virtue of 
     being a Member.''.

     SEC. 507. EXCLUSION OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS FROM PROVISIONS 
                   ALLOWING CONTRIBUTIONS TO THRIFT SAVINGS FUND 
                   OF PAYMENTS FOR ACCRUED OR ACCUMULATED LEAVE.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, nothing 
     in section 503 or any amendment made by section 503 shall 
     apply with respect to a Member (within the meaning of section 
     8331 or 8401 of title 5, United States Code).

  Mr. LOEBSACK (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will continue to read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed with.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state the inquiry.
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Mr. Speaker, is it not the case that if my final 
amendment is adopted, the underlying bill is amended and we immediately 
vote on final passage of the bill, as amended?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If a motion to recommit with forthwith 
instructions is adopted, the amendment is reported by the chair of the 
committee and is immediately before the House.
  Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, while I oppose the underlying bill, I am offering this 
amendment to prohibit former Members of Congress who cash in to become 
million-dollar lobbyists from collecting their pensions. My amendment 
also stops Members of Congress from getting a better deal than everyone 
else by asking them to contribute the same amount to their pensions as 
other Federal employees.
  We all know that Americans' faith in their government has been 
severely damaged. If Congress does not take action to stop the 
revolving door between Capitol Hill and Washington lobby firms, there 
is little chance that that faith can be restored. It is time we take 
action and put a stop to these practices.
  Members of Congress who choose to take this route, especially those 
making exorbitant salaries as millionaire lobbyists, should forego 
their pensions. It's that simple. It is patently ridiculous that these 
Members are finding a way to have their cake and eat it, too. It is 
just another example of special Washington privileges for out-of-touch 
elites, privileges that I have promised not to take and that should be 
ended.
  I have vowed never to use my public service for personal gain to 
become a lobbyist. I first ran for office because, having grown up in 
poverty, I know that Iowa families need a strong voice and an advocate 
who will ensure that their voices are heard over the voices of the 
special interests who dominate Washington.
  I came here for one reason: to serve the people of Iowa. I go back to 
Iowa every weekend and visit with my constituents so that I know what's 
on their minds and what they want to happen here in Washington.
  Sadly, some people come to Washington to cash in, and I think we can 
all agree that this is unacceptable. I believe that former Members of 
Congress who become millionaire lobbyists should never be able to 
collect their pensions. It's that simple.
  My final amendment would make sure that millionaire lobbyists aren't 
using their status as former Members to line their pockets at the 
expense of middle class Americans.
  In these tough economic times, we have had to make difficult choices 
in order to improve our Nation's fiscal status. While I might not like 
all the cuts that have been made or are being proposed, I know that we 
need to be on better footing if our economy is to recover.

                              {time}  1340

  The unemployment rate remains far too high, and we need to get the 
economy moving again and get people back to work. Americans need jobs. 
That is my number one priority here in Congress, and it is something I 
think about each and every day.
  With all of the sacrifices that Iowa families are making as a result 
of the economic downturn and as a result of all of the cuts that are 
affecting their communities, Members of Congress also need to find ways 
to tighten their belts. Maintaining special benefits for Members of 
Congress at a time like this is both intolerable and inexplicable. That 
is why my final amendment would also increase the contributions that 
Members of Congress make to their pensions by the same amount that the 
underlying bill increases them for Federal employees.
  This is the final amendment to the bill. It will not kill the bill or 
send it back to committee. If adopted, the bill, as amended, would be 
immediately voted upon. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to join me in putting the interests of the American people before those 
of the lobbyists and special interest groups by supporting my 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for 
bringing this to our attention. We just received the legislation about 
3 or 4 minutes ago, and there are a couple of observations I want to 
make.
  Number one, I think this is an intriguing policy with respect to 
denying pensions to the Members who become lobbyists. I think the 
gentleman should introduce legislation and send it to committee, like 
the legislation should be passed, and we should give it proper review 
instead of springing it at the last minute.
  The second point I would make is on an area where we completely 
agree, which is that Members of Congress should bear an even higher 
burden than we're asking of other Federal employees. This bill does 
that. The underlying bill does that. The underlying bill says:
  In addition to Federal employees going from paying .8 percent to 
their

[[Page H2632]]

pensions, they go to 5.8 percent from their paychecks to contribute to 
their pensions so that they pay half of their pension benefits as is 
required through most private sector arrangements. Members of Congress 
will pay 9.8 percent to their pensions under this bill. This bill has 
an 8.5 percent pay cut to Members of Congress, and it only has a 5 
percent pay cut to all other Federal employees.
  So we are already incorporating the idea, which we agree with. 
Members of Congress, in order to exercise moral authority, are the ones 
who should take the biggest pay cuts and have the biggest pension 
contributions relative to anybody else. That's why we have it in this 
bill already. While I understand the gentleman's interest--I appreciate 
it--it is something that we are already accommodating in this bill. As 
a result, I would urge a ``no'' vote.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. LOEBSACK. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 170, 
nays 232, answered ``present'' 11, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 246]

                               YEAS--170

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--232

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     DeGette
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--11

     Brown (FL)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Fudge
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rush
     Sensenbrenner
     Watt
     Waxman

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Berman
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Donnelly (IN)
     Duncan (SC)
     Filner
     Flores
     Heinrich
     Johnson (GA)
     Mack
     Meeks
     Napolitano
     Noem
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Stutzman

                              {time}  1406

  Messrs. GUTHRIE, HUNTER, BENISHEK, KINZINGER of Illinois, HALL, 
WOODALL, and LAMBORN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. SCHRADER, Ms. BERKLEY, Ms. TSONGAS, Mr. NEAL, Ms. HOCHUL, Messrs. 
CARSON of Indiana, RICHMOND, and Mrs. DAVIS of California changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  Messrs. CLEAVER, JACKSON of Illinois, RUSH, and Ms. BROWN of Florida 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``present.''
  Ms. FUDGE, Messrs. WATT, ROHRABACHER, and WAXMAN changed their vote 
from ``nay'' to ``present.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 246, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 10th, 2012, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 246 in order to attend my grandson's 
graduation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the 
Motion to Recommit with Instructions H.R. 5652, To provide for 
reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on 
the budget for fiscal year 2013.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218, 
noes 199, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 247]

                               AYES--218

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor

[[Page H2633]]


     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--199

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Amash
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Labrador
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Sensenbrenner
       

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Berman
     Burgess
     Donnelly (IN)
     Filner
     Heinrich
     Mack
     McIntyre
     Napolitano
     Noem
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Slaughter
     Stutzman


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. RUSH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 247, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 10, 2012, I was absent 
during rollcall vote No. 247 in order to attend my grandson's 
graduation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on final 
passage of H.R. 5652, To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 
201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013.

                          ____________________