tv [untitled] May 7, 2012 2:30pm-3:00pm EDT
staff, is your mike working? all right. we'll now take up the 30 minutes for staff to walk through the sequester replacement reconciliation act and the sequester replacement act. anybody have any questions? >> yes, mr. chairman, we do have some. i don't think we'll take the whole 20 minutes, not by far. >> gentleman from maryland. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a couple technical issues first. i see that you would have some of these cuts begin on july 1st of this year. why is that? >> one of the things that the committee was very interested was achieving the spending savings as fast as possible. as a result the budget resolution instructed the committees to achieve savings in fiscal year 2012 plus 2013. >> so for example, the cuts to the snap program, some of the food and nutrition programs.
but the effectiveness of the actual change in policy wouldn't be affected for two months or so. >> so cbo scoring on the food stamp cuts begins assumes the cuts to what people are receiving begins in what month? >> they assume effectiveness on july 1 and two months to be implemented. so september i suppose. >> i guess what i'm asking because it's not a technical question for the people who are going to lose these benefits. will they lose benefits july 1? >> the change in policy would take place on july 1st when the legislation becomes effective but actually implementing it would take time for the states since the states administer the program. >> so some families may lose
them july 2nd, others later that month, others in august, is that right? trying to understand how this is implemented. >> yes. it would take -- because the states add minister the programs when a state was able to implement the change in policy would vary by state. >> okay. so did cbo make any assumptions regarding on how states would make those decisions? >> i believe cbo made a technical judgment that based on past experience it takes states approximately two months to implement the change in policy. >> with respect to the funds that are eliminated for the health insurance exchanges, i assume those would also be cut off beginning july 1st, is that right? >> yes. legislation is effective july 1st, but cbo in their estimate specified that they expected there to be some spending between now and then for commitments already made by the federal government.
so the legislation does not require the federal government to break commitments it made to states. >> well, i mean, the federal government made a commitment in the affordable care act it would help support and provide funding for the creation of these exchanges. we are breaking that commitment through this legislation, are we not? >> by commitments i was referring to the specific commitments that between the state specific agreement to provide funding for a specific purpose, not a general policy set forth in law. >> i want to make sure i understand. so for states that have been proceeding to establish these exchanges, starting july 1, funding for those exchanges would be cut off. is that correct? >> my understanding, sir, is that if a commitment has been made by hhs to a state for the purpose of providing a grant, that commitment would be fulfilled under this legislation. >> just so i understand it, if your state and you've been
trying to put together your proposal and you don't get your proposal prepared and ready before july 1st, then you would receive no federal funds to help the exchange, correct? >> right. hhs can no longer enter into new agreements to provide funding once the law is effective. >> so for those states, in order to proceed with establishing exchanges, at that point they would have to provide the money themselves. is that right? >> the federal government would not have authority to provide funding. >> so we would be cutting off that funding so obviously if they wanted to proceed, then they would have to supply their own funds -- let me just ask you with respect to the cuts to the maintenance of effort requirements for the children's health insurance program. cbo estimates that by the end of three years, 300,000 children
will no longer get the health care they otherwise would have gotten under the children's health insurance program. you have any reason to dispute that conclusion? >> we have not prepared an independent estimate of the impact. >> and it is the case, is it not, if the sequester were to go off, if it were to be triggered in january, that none of those children would lose their health insurance. isn't that right? >> medicaid's exempt from the sequester. >> as is chips, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> so the cuts that this proposal makes to medicaid and chips would not occur if the sequester trigger went off. >> that's correct. >> and if the sequester trigger went off, you would have cuts to ag subsidies. >> yes, sir. >> you have an estimate of approximately what kind of cuts you're talking about? >> $60 million.
$16 billion. >> over 10 years. >> correct. the legislation before the committee does not turn off that sequester of ag. >> right. it does not turn off that. and it does not -- well, so it does not turn off that but it does, with respect to the food programs, the food programs would not see any reduction under the sequester. isn't that correct? >> yeah. i think for example snap is exempt. i'm not sure all food programs are but snap and most of them are exempt from a sequester. >> okay. and the medicare sequester, the 2% medicare sequester, how is that handled under this proposal? >> we do -- this does not turn off the medicare sequester. >> so, as i understand the way that's set up, that would mean 2% across the board cuts to medicare providers s that right?
>> yes, sir. >> i don't know if my colleagues have any questions. >> so, going back to the issue of how the decision that we make later today, the state of minnesota is going through the final stages of setting its legislative policy, and so i want to follow up a little on this. so some of the snap changes in the reconciliation bill will mean more administrative costs for many of our states that have already set their budgets, is that not correct? >> i don't know if we have an estimate what the impact is on the states. >> no, we don't have an estimate of any increased administrative costs for states. >> we don't have an estimate of what is an unfunded mandate to the state. >> there snow unfunded mandate. >> the state has to administer
the program. >> we're still providing administrative funding to the states. >> administrative -- is it cut? >> there's some reductions in employment and training funding. >> so that there are cuts. >> ma'am, cbo performed analysis whether this creates unfunded mandates on the states and determined that the snap piece does not. >> as a state legislator if i'm expecting money to add minister a program from the federal program and it's cut when i was a state legislator i thought that was an unfunded mandate. do you have a number how many people you think will be losing their eligibility for nutrition because of changes to this bill? i have a lot of seniors who are depending upon snap for their nutrition so that their medicine works effectively. >> this bill does not change the
traditional snap eligibility requirements. if you are eligible under regular snap, requirements remain eligible for the program. >> so the information that i got from cbo that 1.8 million people will be losing snap benefits because of changes is not correct? >> there will be changes for folks that would have been eligible under less stringent criteria, such as -- >> my question was will people lose eligibility. you said no. people will. is that correct >> 1.8 million people that do lose eligibility. >> for clarification why don't you walk through the eligibility -- walk through how is it that an individual is not technically eligible for food stamps ends up receiving them. i think that's the question. >> the question i'm trying to get at, and thank you, i want to be accurate when i leave here and not make a misstatement an i
want to be accurate in saying, and the details are important and i'll be in full disclosure but 1.8 billion people will lose snap benefits. now, we can disagree on the formula for it but i want to make sure when i leave here i'm using correct terms. 1.8 billion people -- excuse me, yeah. million people will lose snap benefits. >> cbo estimated that will reduce -- >> i have a lot of children in st. paul, minnesota, some in my schools, some in my grade schools are close to 60%, 80% of children who are on school lunch programs. that's the hot meal they receive during the day. i have information from cbo that 280,000 children can lose access to school lunches. is that -- i want to make sure i'm using correct numbers.
>> cbo made that estimate. >> and then and there are as mr. van hollen pointed out there are no cuts to any of the ag subsidies. >> again, under this legislation we do not turn off the sequester of what $16 billion, so that will occur under current law. we do not turn that off. ag commodity programs will be reduced under this legislation as they are scheduled under the budget control act. >> but not reduced more. we're reducing snap and food nutrition but we're not reducing ag subsidies additional. >> correct. >> thanks. i just wanted to make sure i was using the right numbers. >> any other questions? hearing none. >> the clerk will report the title of the measure being reported. as soon as we get the clerk.
>> a bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013. >> according to 310 of the congressional budget act of 1974 the budget commit must report the bill to the house without substantive revision. this means that consideration of amendments to the bill is prohibited by law and any motion to amend would be ruled out of order. i therefore recognize the gentleman from new jersey for a motion to order reported the reconciliation bill. >> thank you mr. chairman. i move that the committee order
reported the sequester replacement reconciliation act with recommendation that the bill do pass. >> the question is on ordering the sequester replacement reconciliation act of 2012 to be reported favorably to the house all those in favor say aye. those opposed no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. a roll call vote is requested. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. garrett. >> aye. >> mr. simpson, ". mr. campbell, aye. mr. calvert, aye. mr. aiken. mr. cole. mr. coal, aye. mr. price aye. mr. mcclintock. aye. mr. chafffets, aye. mr. stutsman aye. mr. langford, aye.
mr. pascrell. mr. honda. mr. ryan. miss wasserman schultz. no. miss moore. miss castor, no. mr. shuler, no. miss bass, no. miss bonamici, no. mr. mullvainy, aye. mr. amash, aye. mr. chairman. >> aye. >> mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 21, the noes 9. >> the motion is agreed to. the sequester replacement act is reported to the house of representati
representatives. i note a quorm is present. >> thank you. i ask unanimous consent that the chairman be tlorsed to go to conference and file a conference report pursuant to clause 3 of house rule 19 and the staff be authorized to make any ness sar technical and conforming corrections prior to filing the bills and the motion be considered to be reconsidered laid on the table. >> without objection so ordered. that concludes the procedural business required to mark up an order report of the sequester reconciliation act. but before we adjourn, i would be willing to entertain up to four purely procedural motions as long as they do not have the effect of amending the bill as ordered reported, and they relate to the business that we are here to conduct today, as agreed, we will limit the time for debate to each motion to 60 minutes or less. evenly divided between the propose nent and the member opposed as we mentioned 25, 30,
35 for close. are there any motions? >> mr. chairman, before we get to that if i could just i couldr the two days. >> yes. >> without objection. >> as provided by the rules to file a minority report. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> are there any motions? >> miss castor? >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. i'm going to offer a motion to instruct, but first -- >> where are you calling it up? >> i have a motion at the desk. >> the clerk will designate the motion and the staff will distribute the motion. >> protecting health care coverage for at least 300,000 low-income children and lowering the deficit by eliminating certain tax season disfor big oil. >> the chair recognizes miss castor for 25 minutes with five minutes to close. >> miss castor. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. colleagues, two of the prominent scholars 6 congress and politics
thomas mann and norm ornstein recently completed a long research effort, and they determined that the republican party has become ideologically extreme, contemptuous of social and economic policy, scornful of compromise and unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science, and they said that when one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal could e deal con with the nation's challenges, and the republican budget is a perfect example of that. the republican budget shields special interests from participating in deficit reduction, and instead what do they propose? end medicare as we know it, and targeting our america's children and 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 family, well, this is the way to do it. and the only conclusion we can draw here is that driven by an ideology far outside of the mainstream the republicans have a real fairness problem, siding with special interests and then socking it to children, older americans and disabled americans all across this great country. and that's too bad because i believe that democrats and republicans agree on the importance of reducing the deficit, but we have starkly different visions on how to get there. the republican budget over the past month or so has been reviewed by all sorts of commentators, and the reviews are in. they call it extreme. they call it reverse robinhood. they call it a threat to middle class security and destructive.
could you all pull up slide number four. now, my motion would allow us -- would allow us to eliminate one of the most extreme and destructive policies of the republican budget, particularly the severe cuts to health services for children. specifically my motion will allow children across america to maintain their ability to see a doctor, to see a nurse, to receive immunizations that they need, and if put into effect overall, if you take a step back, when you undermine the economic and health security of americans in this manner, using this example, what you're doing is proposing to rip hundreds of thousands of american families out of the middle class because medicaid and the children's health insurance program is one of the ways we empower american
families to stay in the middle class and give them hope to climb into the middle class, so what you're doing here is you're making it more difficult for those families to remain in the middle class. with this reconciliation budget maneuver, the republicans propose to eliminate health services for 300,000 children that receive their doctor visits and services under the popular and formerly bipartisan children's health insurance program and medicaid. 300,000 children. that was the number not devised by our side of the aisle but by the non-partisan cbo. medicaid, i know that it's tossed around, and many people don't really understand what medicaid, is but we're talking about 50 million people across america, many children, millions and millions of children who don't have access to a doctor's office or to see a nurse or to
get their shots in any other way. we're talking about our older neighbors. many of our parents and grandparents who rely on skilled nursing. americans with dementia, parkinson's, cancer, heart disease that often don't have anywhere else to go. thank god for medicaid that allows their families to ensure that their parents and grandparents with those awful conditions in their later years in life can live their lives in dignity, and the families are not ripped out of the middle class because they are having to pay everything they own and to sell their house to keep their loved one in a nursing home. we're talking about millions of our neighbors across america with disabilities such as multiple sclerosis, mental illness, many families that you all go to church with, that i go to church with, that we see in the grocery store rely on medicaid. so let's not use that term loosely and try to say that that's a handout in any way.
that's something that is equal to our values as americans, to ensure that we're going to take care of our neighbors and our grandparents and grandparents no matter what life throws at them. so current federal law requires that states maintain certain stability requirements, but in this budget republicans go for the jugular here, and in their budget they eliminate that stability requirement. sometimes it's called the maintenance of effort. that's why the committee just voted on and passed, by the way. the republican cuts to children should not be confused with reform, by the way. i hear that argument a lot, that these -- that this is an effort to reform the safety net. well, don't confuse it with reform or any type of rational cost-saving measure.
for example, in the national association of public hospital and health systems wrote on just this matter, and they said in their letter to the energy and commerce committee where we worked on this a couple weeks ago, drastic cuts to medicaid will only shift the cost burden to states, hospitals and other providers and low-income beneficiaries ultimately hurting patients. arbitrary cuts to the medicaid program do not make health care costs disappear. they greatly aggravate the problem. uninsured individuals are more likely to develop costly chronic conditions requiring extensive treatment that umt -- ultimately cost taxpayers money. the largest non-profit in my area, the tampa area, wrote and advised that such cuts would jeopardize services for children, pregnant women and the disabled. so what you're -- what the republican budget is doing, it's
not -- they are not saving anyone money. in actuality what republicans are proposing is a back door tax increase at the state and local level because the health care costs, for example, for a disabled individual or someone in a nursing home, that doesn't go away. state and local government oftentimes has to pick that up, or people who have health insurance get charged extra to cover the costs. that's not smart. that's not good public policy. it's poor public policy to eliminate these cost-effective stability provisions that ensure that children receive doctor visits in the most affordable way rather than foist of turmoil of costly e.r. visits on a family and then saddle with huge medical bills and debt which will eat up their income and probably take them out of the middle class. so, colleagues, cuts to health services for children is neither
the right nor the only way to reduce the deficit. to the contrary. there are all sorts of special interest tax loopholes that i would propose are a better way to go about reducing the deficit so you don't have to look at these draconian, extreme cuts to seniors and nursing homes and 300,000 kids that would not be able to see a doctor and our disabled neighbors, so in this motion i propose that instead of eliminating health -- health care for 100,000 children across america, that we ask the big oil companies to give up their tax breaks that they do not need. see slide number 9. there we go. this is the fair approach. the big oil companies, the five big oil companies are making record profits. they don't need further subsidies from the american taxpayer. if we didn't -- you know, if we