Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act

02/08/12 http://www.gop.gov/legdigest/12/02/08

Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act H.R. 3521 Rep. Ryan, Paul Budget rule hr3521 http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hr3521 http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.3521: Andy Koenig

On Wednesday, February 8, 2012, the House is scheduled to consider H.R. 3521, the Expedited Legislative Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act, subject to a rule. The rule provides one hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Budget Committee. The rule also makes two amendments in order, each of which is debatable for up to ten minutes. A full summary of the amendments made in order under the rule, including a Manager’s Amendment offered by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), is available below. The bill was introduced on November 30, 2011, by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and referred to the House Budget Committee and the House Rules Committee. The Committee on Rules met on January 31, 2012, and ordered H.R. 3521 favorably reported to the House with an amendment by voice vote.

]]>

H.R. 3521 would establish an expedited procedure for consideration of presidential proposals to rescind certain spending provisions in newly enacted spending legislation. Under the expedited procedure, Congress would be required to consider proposals to rescind specific funding included in spending legislation if the rescission is proposed by the president within 45 days of the spending bill’s enactment. The authority of the president to propose rescission packages for expedited consideration established by H.R. 3521 would expire on December 15, 2015.

Congressional Consideration of Proposed Rescissions: H.R. 3521 would amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to authorize the president to propose the rescission of all or part of funding contained in a spending bill within 45 days of the bill’s enactment. For each piece of legislation that provides funding, the president would be authorized to request at most two packages of rescissions and the president would be prohibited from including the same rescission in both packages. In order to propose that Congress rescind funding, the president would be required to transmit a message to Congress specifying the following:

The dollar amount to be rescinded;
The agency, bureau, and account from which the rescission shall occur;
The program, project, or activity within the account (if applicable) from which the rescission shall occur;
The amount of funding, if any, that would remain for the account, program, project, or activity if the rescission request is enacted;
The reasons the president requests the rescission;
To the maximum extent practicable, the estimated fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect (including the effect on outlays and receipts in each fiscal year) of the proposed rescission;
To the maximum extent practicable, all facts, circumstances, and considerations relating to or bearing upon the proposed rescission and the decision to propose the rescission, and the estimated effect of the proposed rescission upon the objects, purposes, or programs; and
If a second special message is transmitted, a detailed explanation of why the proposed rescissions are not substantially similar to any other proposed rescission in such other message.

In addition, the president would be required to designate each separate rescission request by number and include proposed legislative text. The proposed text may not include any changes in existing law, other than the rescission of funding, or any supplemental appropriations, transfers, or reprogrammings.

Grants of and Limitations on Presidential Authority: H.R. 3521 would grant the president the authority to withhold funding proposed for rescission from obligation, subject to time limits, to ensure that those funds are available for cancellation upon enactment of an approval bill. Under the legislation, the president would be able to withhold funding until 1) the president determines that the continued withholding or reduction no longer advances the purpose of legislative consideration of the approval bill; 2) the 45th day following the date of enactment of the funding bill; or 3) the last day that the president determines the obligation of the funding in question can no longer be fully accomplished in a prudent manner before its expiration.

The bill would also mandate that any savings achieved through these procedures be used for reducing the deficit or increasing the surplus. This section also provides for necessary adjustments to levels in the concurrent resolution on the budget and statutory limits.

Procedures for Expedited Consideration: H.R. 3521 would create a special, expedited procedure for consideration of presidential proposals to rescind spending. Under the expedited procedure, the legislation to approve of the recessions would have to be introduced by the majority leader or a designee within five legislative days. Any committee to which the approval bill is referred would be required to report it, without amendment, within five legislative days. If the rescission approval bill is not reported by the committee within five days, it would be automatically discharged from committee.

H.R. 3521 would make it in order for a member to make a motion to proceed to consideration of the approval measure within five days of when it is reported or discharged out of committee. If a motion to proceed is agreed to, the House would be required to proceed to consideration of the approval bill without intervening motion, except two hours of debate.

In the Senate, each committee of referral would be required to report the bill without amendment within five session days. Again, if the committee fails to report the bill within that period the bill would be automatically discharged. Not later than five session days after the bill is reported or discharged, any Senator may move to proceed to consider the approval bill in the Senate.

Treatment of Rescissions: Under the legislation, rescissions proposed by the president would only take effect upon enactment of a rescission approval bill. If the approval bill isn’t enacted within 45 days from the enactment of the appropriations act, it is no longer eligible for expedited consideration.

]]>

According to Committee Report 112-364, the 111th Congress increased non-defense discretionary spending by nearly 25 percent, or by 84 percent when including appropriated funding contained in the “stimulus” bill. In addition, the president's budget request for Fiscal Year 2012 would have increased spending by $6.2 trillion over the House-passed budget resolution.

The 112th Congress has reduced discretionary appropriations spending by $95 billion below fiscal year 2010 levels. These reductions in spending mark the first time in modern history that Congress has cut discretionary spending two years in a row.

H.R. 3521 was introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), chairman of the Committee on the Budget, and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget. The bill would ensure that the president and Congress have additional tools to evaluate and cut Federal spending, which will help the government make better-informed decisions about national priorities. This bipartisan collaboration highlights the growing need and increasing public demand for reforms in Federal spending.

]]> According to CBO, “enacting H.R. 3521, by itself, would not have a significant impact on the federal budget. Any impact on the budget would depend on the extent of the President’s use of the new cancellation procedure and on future Congressional actions.”

]]>

Amendment No. 1—Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)/Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD): The Manager’s Amendment would change certain time periods established by the bill relating to the introduction and consideration of a rescission proposal. In addition, the amendment would indicate that the approval bill should be an appropriation bill and should be referred specifically to the appropriations committee. According to it sponsors, the Managers’ Amendment would restore language from the Budget Committee reported bill.

The amendment would reduce and extend certain time periods as follows:

The amendment would require the president to propose a rescission package within 10 days of enactment of a spending bill, rather than 45 days.
The amendment would allow to president to withhold funding proposed for rescission from obligation until the 60^th day following the date of enactment of the funding bill, rather than the 45^th day.
The amendment would require the chairs of the Committees on the Budget of the Senate and the House of Representatives to revise allocations and aggregates to reflect the rescissions within three days of the enactment of a rescission approval bill, rather than five days.
The amendment would require the introduction of a rescission approval bill no later than three days after receipt from the president, rather than five days.
The amendment would require committees to report a rescission approval bill within three days, rather than five.
The amendment would make it in order to proceed to consideration of a rescission approval bill within three days of when it is reported or discharged out of committee, rather than five.
The amendment would extend the period that a rescission approval bill could be enacted to 60 days from the enactment of the original funding bill, rather than 45.

Amendment No. 2—Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA): The amendment would prohibit the president from proposing any rescission to funds appropriated by Congress for the Corps of Engineers.

]]>

02/07/12 http://www.gop.gov/legdigest/12/02/07

Civilian Property Realignment Act H.R. 1734 Rep. Denham, Jeff Transportation and Infrastructure rule hr1734 http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hr1734 http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.1734: Andy Koenig

On Monday, February 6, 2012, the House is scheduled to begin consideration of H.R. 1734, the Civilian Property Realignment Act, under a rule. The rule provides one hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. In addition, the rule provides that an amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as adopted. The rule also makes five amendments in order, each of which is debatable for up to ten minutes. The bill was introduced on May 4, 2011, by Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA) and referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the House Rules Committee. On October 13, 2011, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a mark-up and reported the bill by a vote of 30-22.

]]>

H.R. 1734 would establish an independent commission known as the Civilian Property Realignment Commission (CPRC) to provide recommendations on civilian federal properties that can be sold, transferred, exchanged, consolidated, or redeveloped, so as to reduce the civilian real property inventory, reduce the operating costs of the Government, and create the highest value and return for the taxpayer. Specifically, the CPRC would be required to identify not less than five federal properties that have a total market value of at least $500 million and transmit the list to the president and Congress within 180 days. Once approved by the president, CPRC’s recommendations would be considered in Congress under expedited procedures. Under the bill, the CPRC would sunset six years after enactment.

Composition of the Civilian Property Realignment Commission: Under H.R. 1734, the CPRC would be composed of a chairman who is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, as well as eight other members appointed by the president. Under the bill, the term for each member of the Commission would be six years. In selecting individuals for appointment to the Commission, the president would be required to ensure the Commission contains individuals with expertise in commercial real estate and redevelopment, government management or operations, community development, and historic preservation. The bill would require the CPRC to hold open meetings which are announced at least two-weeks in advance. The bill would authorize compensation for members of the CPRC up to level IV of the Executive Schedule and up to level III of the Executive Schedule for the Chairperson of the CPRC. The Commission would also be required to appoint an Executive Director who, with the approval of the CPRC, could appoint and compensate personnel to carry out the purposes of the Commission. The bill would also authorize the CPRC to procure by contract, to the extent funds are available, the temporary services of experts and consultants.

Recommendations of the CPRC: H.R. 1734 would require each federal agency to submit data on all federal civilian property owned, leased, or controlled by that agency with 120 days of enactment. The data would have to include the age and condition of the property as well as the operating costs and number of federal employees and functions contained in each property. In addition to supplying data, each federal agency would be required to submit recommendations for properties which could be sold or otherwise disposed of, or federal properties that could be transferred in order to reduce the operating costs to the government. Agencies would have to report the data and recommendations to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the General Service Administration (GSA).

Within 60 days of receiving the agency information, OMB and GSA would be required to develop standards and criteria for reviewing agency data and making recommendations to the CPRC. The standards would have to incorporate the following:

The extent to which the building could be sold, redeveloped or otherwise used to produce the highest and best value and return for the taxpayer.
The extent to which the operating and maintenance costs could be reduced through consolidating, co-locating, reconfiguring space and other operational efficiencies.
The extent to which the utilization rate is being maximized and is consistent with non-governmental industry standards for the given function or operation.
The extent and timing of potential costs and savings, including the number of years, beginning with the date of completion of the proposed recommendation.
The extent to which reliance on leasing for long-term space needs would be reduced.
The extent to which a federal building or facility aligns with the current mission of the federal agency.
The extent to which there are opportunities to consolidate similar operations across multiple agencies or within agencies.
The economic impact on existing communities in the vicinity of the federal building.
The extent to which energy consumption would be reduced.

Commission Duties: Under the bill, the CPRC would be required to identify opportunities for the government to significantly reduce its inventory of civilian real property and reduce cost to the federal government. Specifically, the CPRC would be required to identify not less than five federal properties that have a total market value of at least $500 million and transmit the list to the president and Congress as Commission recommendations. In addition, H.R. 1734 would require the CPRC to develop an accounting system to assist in the development of its recommendations. According to the legislation, the intention is to ensure there is a standard accounting system to assist the Commission in developing recommendations that would produce the highest return to the taxpayer.

Review by the President: H.R. 1734 would require the president to review the recommendations of the CPRC within 30 days of their receipt. The president would be required to submit a report describing the president’s approval or disproval of the CPRC’s recommendations to Congress and the Commission. If the president approves of the Commission’s recommendations, the president would be required to transmit a copy of the recommendations to Congress. If the president disapproves of the recommendations, the Commission shall then transmit a revised list of recommendations to the president, within 30 days.

Congressional Consideration: Under the bill, each chamber of Congress would be required to vote on a joint resolution of approval on the commission recommendations within 45 days of the of the president’s transmission of approved recommendations. After the House or Senate receives the president’s transmission of approval, the majority leader of that chamber would be required to introduce a joint resolution within three legislative days (in the case of the House) or three session days (in the case of the Senate). Any committee of the House to which a joint resolution is referred would be required report the resolution to the House without amendment no later than the 10th legislative day after its introduction. The bill would also require expedited procedural instructions for floor consideration of the joint resolution.

Implementation of Committee Recommendations: Upon enactment of the joint resolution by Congress, federal agencies would be require to begin preparation to carry out the Commission’s recommendations within two years from the president transmitting the recommendations to Congress. Agencies would be required to complete all recommended actions within six years from the date the president transmits recommendations to Congress. For actions that will take longer than the six-year period due to extenuating circumstances, each federal agency shall notify the president and Congress as soon as the extenuating circumstance presents itself with an estimated time to complete the relevant action. The bill would require that all actions be economically beneficial and cost neutral or otherwise favorable to the government.

Authorization of Appropriations: The bill would authorize the one-time appropriation of $20 million for salaries and expenses of the Commission and $62 million for the Asset Proceeds and Space Management Fund for activities related to the implementation of the Commission recommendations.

]]>

According to House Report 112-384, poor asset management and missed market opportunities with regard to federal real estate holdings have cost taxpayers significant sums of money. For this reason, in 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) placed real property management on its list of ‘‘high risk’’ government activities, where it remains today. GAO conducts biennial reviews on high-risk areas within the federal government to bring focus to specific areas needing attention and oversight. Areas are identified as high-risk due to their greater vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement or areas that need broad-based transformation to address major economic, efficiency, or effectiveness challenges.

The key reasons the GAO identified federal real property as high risk are:

Excess and underutilized real property,

Deteriorating and aging facilities,

Unreliable property data, and

Over-reliance on costly leasing.

Unfortunately, despite executive orders and memoranda issued during two administrations and acts of Congress intended to improve the management of federal real property, these problems persist. According to the Committee Transportation and Infrastructure, vacant or underperforming assets can translate into significant costs associated with their operation, maintenance, and security. For example, in fiscal year 2009, the federal government spent $1.7 billion in annual operating costs for under-utilized buildings and $134 million, annually, for excess buildings. H.R. 1734 is intended to save taxpayer money by selling and redeveloping high value assets, consolidating facilities, maximizing utilization rates, and increasing the use of efficient space. H.R. 1734 would require the Commission established in the legislation to examine federal real property across government used and un-used and make decisions based on the best return to the taxpayer. In order to accomplish these goals, H.R. 1734 is modeled after the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process.

The BRAC process first requires DoD to collect data about its facilities and establish standards and criteria to apply in the evaluation of those facilities. Applying those standards and criteria, DoD then develops recommendations on base closures and realignments. Those recommendations are sent to the independent BRAC Commission for review. The Commission then determines if DoD followed its standards and criteria and reviews the associated data to determine if changes to the recommendations are appropriate. The BRAC Commission may make revisions; however, those revisions are limited in scope. The BRAC Commission then submits its recommendations to the president, who in turn must forward all recommendations to Congress or none of them. If the president disapproves of the BRAC recommendations, BRAC can revise and resubmit to the president. If the president approves of the revisions the recommendations are transmitted to Congress. Congress must affirmatively disapprove of the recommendations within a specified period of time and if Congress does not disapprove of the recommendations, the BRAC recommendations are implemented. Unlike BRAC, H.R. 1734 applies to property issues government-wide including those agencies that may or may not be willing partners in the process. Unlike the private sector, agencies have few incentives to eliminate unneeded property or shrink their footprint. And, even in those cases in which agencies want to dispose of real property, the process for doing so can be slow and require initial appropriations.

]]> According to CBO, implementing H.R. 1734 would cost $3 million in FY 2012 and $68 million over the FY 2012 through FY 2017 period. However, H.R. 1734 could result in the sale of at least five high-value federal properties with an estimated total fair market value of at least $500 million, which would fully offset the funding provided in the bill and reduce the deficit by an additional $432 million. Since the enactment of the Commission’s recommendations would be dependent on subsequent legislation, any estimated receipts from property sales would be attributed to that subsequent legislation.

]]>

Amendment No. 1—Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC): The amendment would require agency recommendations to take into consideration the environmental effects of the disposal, transfer, consolidation, or reconfiguration of civilian federal real estate. In addition, the amendment would provide for a limited review of property by homeless service providers for any buildings identified for disposal in the approved recommendations that are no more than 25,000 square feet or valued at less than $5 million.

Amendment No. 2—Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA): The amendment would provide for a 90 day review of property by homeless service providers for any buildings identified for disposal in the approved recommendations that are no more than 25,000 square feet or valued at less than $5 million.

Amendment No. 3—Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA): The amendment would allow General Services Administration (GSA) to override the congressionally-approved recommendations of the Commission and allow property to be given at no cost to create open space.

Amendment No. 4—Rep. Shelia Jackson-Lee (D-TX): The amendment would add a sense of the Congress that suggests the Commission should provide assistance to small and minority-owned businesses. Specifically, the amendment would express the sense of Congress that:

“The Civilian Property Realignment Commission, should take steps to provide assistance to small, minority, and woman-owned businesses seeking to be awarded contracts to redevelop federal property;
“The Civilian Property Realignment Commission and other appropriate Federal officials should conduct a public information campaign to advise small, minority, and women-owned business firms with respect to contracts for the sale or redevelopment of Federal property; and
“Firms that are awarded contracts pertaining to the redevelopment of Federal property should, to the maximum extent practicable, seek to award sub-contracts for such contracts to small, minority, and women-owned business firms.”

Additionally, the amendment would require the Commission to submit a report every six months to the president and Congress indicating the size of all business firms awarded contracts by the Commission and the size of all business firms awarded subcontracts under such contracts.

Amendment No. 5—Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC): The amendment would require GSA to grant Indian tribes the option of obtaining excess federal properties directly from GSA at fair market value rather than through the Department of Interior.

Amendment No. 6—Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO): Would require the General Services Administration to evaluate the life-cycle costs before constructing or leasing a new building. Buildings subject to the cost evaluation would include construction projects receiving at least 50 percent Federal funding and which construction cost is over $1 million or the space to be leased is over 25,000 square feet. The amendment would require future prospectuses submitted to Congress for the construction, alteration or acquisition of a building or space to be leased by the Administrator of General Services to describe the use of life-cycle cost analysis and how its use has impacted long-term costs.

]]> Budget and Accounting Transparency Act of 2012 H.R. 3581 Rep. Garrett, Scott Budget rule hr3581 http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hr3581 http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.3581: Andy Koenig

On Tuesday, February 7, 2012, the House is scheduled to consider H.R. 3581, the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act of 2012, subject to a rule. The rule provides one hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairs and ranking minority members of the Budget Committee. The rule also makes three amendments in order, each of which is debatable for up to ten minutes. A full summary of the amendments made in order under the rule is available below. The bill was introduced on December 7, 2011, by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) and referred to the House Budget Committee, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on Ways and Means. The Budget Committee reported the bill on January 24, 2012, by a vote of 21 -10.

]]>

H.R. 3581 would modify the budgetary treatment of federal credit programs such that the cost of direct loans or loan guarantees would be calculated on a “fair value” basis, which includes not only the borrowing costs of the federal government, but also the cost of the market risk the government is incurring by issuing a loan or loan guarantee. Under current law, the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA) requires that the credit subsidy cost of federal direct loans and loan guarantees be measured on a net present value basis which determines the cost of a loan program based on calculations using the interest rates on Treasury securities and estimated losses that would be expected from defaults. However, this calculation ignores additional costs associated with market risks. According the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), “By incorporating a market-based risk premium, fair-value estimates recognize that the financial risk that the government assumes when issuing credit guarantees is more costly to taxpayers than FCRA-based estimates suggest.” By more accurately accounting for the costs of federal credit programs, H.R. 3581 would increase the estimated costs of such programs compared to measures used under current law.

In addition, the legislation would require that the federal budget reflect the net impact of programs administered by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, require that federal agencies post budget justifications on public websites on the same day they are submitted to the Congress, and require the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and CBO prepare studies on the costs of federal insurance programs and the historical application of the budgetary terms “revenue,” “offsetting collections,” and “offsetting receipts.”

Fair Value Accounting: H.R. 3581 would amend the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA) to require that, beginning in FY 2014, the costs of federal credit programs be measured on a fair value basis in order to provide a more accurate accounting of the costs of these programs. Under current law, estimates are made on a “net present basis,” which is estimated by discounting cash flows to the time of loan disbursement using the interest rates on Treasury securities of comparable maturity. The bill would require that the cost of a federal loan or loan guarantee program must include a market-based risk premium that is in addition to the net present value cost estimate calculated using Treasury’s discount rates. According to CBO, “estimates prepared using FCRA procedures provide a less-than-comprehensive measure of the cost to taxpayers of federal credit commitments.” Generally, the fair value of an asset is defined as the price that would be received if the asset was sold in an orderly transaction (one that occurs under competitive market conditions between willing participants and does not involve forced liquidation or a distressed sale). Likewise, the fair value of a liability is the price that would have to be paid to induce a market participant to assume the liability.

H.R. 3581 would require calculations for determining the up-front credit subsidy cost of federal loans or loan guarantees programs to include a market-based risk premium that is in addition to the net present value cost estimate calculated using Treasury’s discount rates. Under the legislation, long-term costs of a direct loan or loan guarantee would be estimated on a fair value basis, applying the guidelines set forth by the Financial Accounting Standards Board as well as Treasury discounting. The estimate would exclude administrative costs and any incidental effects on governmental receipts or outlays.

H.R. 3581 would require that by 2015 the president's budget reflect the costs of direct loan and loan guarantee programs and include the planned level of new direct loan obligations or loan guarantee commitments associated with each appropriations request.

Budgetary Adjustment: H.R. 3581 would authorize the one-time upward adjustment of caps on discretionary appropriations set forth in the Budget Control Act of 2011 in order to account for the increase in discretionary credit subsidy costs for loan and loan guarantee programs that will occur when the new accounting rules take effect. According to CBO, “Net receipts from discretionary credit programs reduced the estimated cost of appropriations in 2012 by about $4 billion on a FCRA basis. On a fair-value basis, CBO estimates that those same programs would require additional appropriations of about $20 billion.” Under the legislation, before adjusting the discretionary caps, OMB would be required to report to the Committees on the Budget of the House and the Senate on the amount of that adjustment, the methodology used in determining the size of that adjustment, and a program-by-program itemization of the components of that adjustment.

CBO and OMB Studies on Federal Insurance Programs: The bill would require that not later than one year after the date of enactment, the Directors of CBO and OMB prepare a study and make recommendations on the feasibility of applying fair value concepts to budgeting for the costs of federal insurance programs.

On-Budget Status of Fannie Mae and Freddie: The bill would require that receipts and disbursements, including the administrative expenses, of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) be counted as new budget authority, outlays, receipts, deficit or surplus for the purposes of the president's budget submission, the congressional budget, and the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. This provision would bring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on-budget in order to account for the full budgetary impact of these housing-related government-sponsored enterprises.

Budget Review and Analysis: The bill would require that not later than one year after the date of enactment, the Directors of CBO and OMB to prepare a study of the history of offsetting collections against expenditures and the amount of receipts collected annually, the historical application of the budgetary terms “revenue”, “offsetting collections” and “offsetting receipts”, and review the application of those terms. CBO would be required to review the OMB study. Both CBO and OMB would then be required to each make recommendations to the House and Senate Budget Committees as to whether such usage should be continued or modified. In addition, the bill would require that agencies make available on their public websites all budget justification materials provided to Congress on the same day as the justifications are submitted to Congress. The materials must be searchable, sortable, and downloadable.

]]>

According to Committee Report 112-380, the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA) reformed the budgetary treatment of Federal direct loans and loan guarantees to account for the cost of these programs on an accrual basis. Previously, federal direct loan and loan guarantee programs were accounted for on a cash basis, with expenditures and receipts being recorded in the year in which they occurred. Under the 1990 bill, the cost of these programs is developed by producing a net present value of cash flows using a discount rate based on the Federal Government’s borrowing costs. Under FCRA, net present value is estimated by discounting cash flows to the time of loan disbursement using the interest rates on Treasury securities of comparable maturity. (For example, a year after disbursement, cash flows are discounted using a rate on one-year Treasury securities; five years out, they are discounted using a five-year rate; and so on.)

Over time, CBO has concluded that the Treasury discount rate does not fully capture the cost of credit programs. According to CBO, “estimates prepared using FCRA procedures provide a less-than-comprehensive measure of the cost to taxpayers of federal credit commitments. In particular, discounting expected cash flows at Treasury rates—and thus ignoring market risk—yields an estimate of the cost of a loan guarantee that is lower than what competitive financial institutions would charge for such protection.”

H.R. 3581 would correct this current flaw by amending FCRA to ensure the full exposure to the taxpayer is recorded in the budget by providing that fair value estimates be used in calculating the cost of Federal credit programs. The executive branch and Congress would be required to use “fair value” accounting in calculating the costs of federal credit programs that consider not only the borrowing costs of the Federal government, but also the costs of the market risk the Federal government is incurring by issuing a loan or loan guarantee. This reform would bring federal budgeting in line with private sector cost-estimating practices.

The main conceptual difference between FCRA estimates and fair-value estimates is in the choice of discount rates. Instead of using Treasury rates to discount future cash flows, fair-value estimates employ rates that are consistent with the risk of a specific credit obligation. Fair-value estimates of federal subsidy costs also may incorporate administrative expenses that are essential to preserving the value of an asset, such as servicing and collection costs.

According to CBO, if fair-value procedures were used to estimate the cost of new credit activity in 2012, the total deficit for the year would be about $55 billion greater than the deficit as measured under current estimating procedures. However, since the legislation would not change the terms of such credit programs, but would change what is recorded in the budget as the cost of credit assistance, the changes in the estimates of the costs of credit programs would not be scored by CBO as attributable to H.R. 3581.

]]> According to CBO, implementing H.R. 3581 would increase discretionary spending subject appropriation by $14 million over the FY 2012 through FY 2017. The increase in spending subject to appropriations would come as a result of additional costs associated with measuring the cost of federal credit programs on a fair value basis, as well as requirements to post budget justifications on the Internet and produce studies which would require additional resources, according to CBO.

In addition, CBO estimates that if fair-value procedures were used to estimate the cost of new credit activity in 2012, the total deficit for the year would be about $55 billion greater than the deficit as measured under current estimating procedures. However, since the legislation would not change the terms of such credit programs, but would change what is recorded in the budget as the cost of credit assistance, the changes in the estimates of the costs of credit programs would not be scored by CBO as attributable to H.R. 3581.

]]>

Amendment No. 1—Rep. Shelia Jackson-Lee (D-TX): The amendment would shorten the time period in which CBO and OMB are required to report to Congress on the feasibility of applying fair value concepts to budgeting for the costs of federal insurance programs from one year to six months after enactment.

Amendment No. 2—Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL)/Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL): The amendment would require the Director of OMB to prepare all budgets submitted to the President according to both the accrual-basis and cash basis accounting method.

Amendment No. 3—Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY): The amendment would establish a six-member commission to make recommendations on the best measures to accurately account for the costs of federal credit programs. The provisions of H.R. 3581 would be delayed until the recommendations of the Commission are made, and could be superseded by a majority vote of the Commission. In addition, Congress would be required to vote on the recommendation of the Commission with 45 days of their submission. Under the amendment, the Commission would consist of the Director of the CBO, the Director of OMB, and four additional non-congressional members each appointed by the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House and the Majority and Minority leaders of the Senate.

]]> New York City Natural Gas Supply Enhancement Act H.R. 2606 Rep. Grimm, Michael Natural Resources suspension hr2606 http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hr2606 http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.2606: Andy Koenig

On Monday, February 6, 2012, the House is scheduled to consider H.R. 2606, the New York City Natural Gas Supply Enhancement Act, under a suspension of the rules requiring a two-thirds majority vote for approval. H.R. 2606 was introduced by Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY) on July 21, 2011, and was referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources, which reported the bill, as amended, by unanimous consent on November 17, 2011.

]]>

H.R. 2606 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue permits for the construction, operation, and maintenance of natural gas pipeline facilities within the Gateway National Recreation Area located in New York and New Jersey. In addition, the bill would authorize the Secretary to collect rent from leases of any National Park Service (NPS) land or buildings associated with the pipeline.

Under the legislation, permits issued for the natural gas pipeline facilities under this section shall be consistent with the laws and regulations generally applicable to utility rights-of-way within units of the National Park System. In addition, any permits issued under this section for the natural gas pipeline facilities shall be subject to such terms and conditions the Secretary deems appropriate. The Secretary would be required to charge a fee for any permits and permits would be issued for a term of 10 years.

]]>

According to Committee Report 112-373, due to increased demand for natural gas in New York City, New York, additional pipeline capacity is needed. To remedy this problem, New York City is working to place a pipeline through Gateway National Recreation Area. H.R. 2606 provides the National Park Service (NPS) with the authority to approve a pipeline through its jurisdiction. As part of an agreement reached with NPS, in exchange for permitting the pipeline, the Williams Company will restore and maintain abandoned aircraft hangers in Floyd Bennett Field which is part of the Gateway National Recreation Area. One hanger will house the pipeline meter station and the others will be for park purposes.

]]> According to CBO, any offsetting receipts from leasing NPS land or buildings associated with a pipeline in the Gateway National Recreation Area would total less than $150,000 a year. These receipts would be deposited in the U.S. Treasury as offsetting receipts and would go toward deficit reduction.

]]>

02/06/12 http://www.gop.gov/legdigest/12/02/06

]]>

The extent to which the building could be sold, redeveloped or otherwise used to produce the highest and best value and return for the taxpayer.
The extent to which the operating and maintenance costs could be reduced through consolidating, co-locating, reconfiguring space and other operational efficiencies.
The extent to which the utilization rate is being maximized and is consistent with non-governmental industry standards for the given function or operation.
The extent and timing of potential costs and savings, including the number of years, beginning with the date of completion of the proposed recommendation.
The extent to which reliance on leasing for long-term space needs would be reduced.
The extent to which a federal building or facility aligns with the current mission of the federal agency.
The extent to which there are opportunities to consolidate similar operations across multiple agencies or within agencies.
The economic impact on existing communities in the vicinity of the federal building.
The extent to which energy consumption would be reduced.

]]>

The key reasons the GAO identified federal real property as high risk are:

Excess and underutilized real property,

Deteriorating and aging facilities,

Unreliable property data, and

Over-reliance on costly leasing.

]]>

“The Civilian Property Realignment Commission, should take steps to provide assistance to small, minority, and woman-owned businesses seeking to be awarded contracts to redevelop federal property;
“The Civilian Property Realignment Commission and other appropriate Federal officials should conduct a public information campaign to advise small, minority, and women-owned business firms with respect to contracts for the sale or redevelopment of Federal property; and
“Firms that are awarded contracts pertaining to the redevelopment of Federal property should, to the maximum extent practicable, seek to award sub-contracts for such contracts to small, minority, and women-owned business firms.”

]]> Corolla Wild Horses Protection Act H.R. 306 Rep. Jones, Walter Natural Resources suspension hr306 http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hr306 http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.306: Andy Koenig

On Monday, February 6, 2012, the House is scheduled to consider H.R. 306, the Corolla Wild Horses Protection Act, under a suspension of the rules requiring a two-thirds majority vote for approval. H.R. 306 was introduced by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) on January 18, 2011, and was referred to the Natural Resources Committee. On October 5, 2011, a mark-up was held and the bill was reported, as amended, by voice vote.

]]>

H.R. 306 would require the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement with the Corolla Wild Horse Fund (a nonprofit corporation established under the laws of the State of North Carolina), the County of Currituck, North Carolina, and the State of North Carolina in order to provide for management of free-roaming wild horses in and around the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge.

The agreement would cap the herd size in and around the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge to 130 horses and would specify that the costs of managing the herd would be covered by the Corolla Wild Horse Fund. In addition, the agreement would be required to provide for cost-effective management of the horses while ensuring that natural resources within the refuge are not adversely impacted and provide for introduction of a small number of free-roaming wild horses from the herd at Cape Lookout National Seashore.

]]>

According to House Report 112-310, the Corolla Wild Horse Fund was established in 1988 to support the wild Spanish mustangs and to educate the public about the history of the herd. Today, the herd is comprised of about 140 animals that live on approximately 7,544 acres of public and private lands located on the Currituck Outer Banks, North Carolina. In 2007, the latest Wild Horse Management Plan was approved with the concurrence of the Corolla Wild Horse Fund, the County of Currituck, the State of North Carolina and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which administers the wildlife refuge. During the past four years, the Corolla Wild Horse Fund, the County of Currituck and the State of North Carolina have formally requested that the maximum herd size be increased and that a small number of mares from the nearby Shackleford Banks herd be introduced to restore diversity to the Corolla horses’ gene pool.

During the markup of this legislation, the Committee adopted an amendment offered by Congressman John Fleming that capped the number of wild horses at 130 and stipulated that the Corolla Wild Horse Fund would be legally responsible for periodic census and inspection of the health of the wild horses; coordinating the removal and placement of horses; administering a viable population control plan for the horses including adoptions, auctions, contraceptive fertility methods and other viable options; and maintaining the records of the horses. The intent of this amendment was to clarify that expenses related to wild horse management are to be incurred by the privately-funded Corolla Wild Horse Fund and not the Service. While this legislation will not eliminate the need for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to effectively administer the Currituck National Wildlife Refuge, including its desire to hire a new wildlife biologist, it does make it clear that in terms of the management of the Corolla Wild Horses, the responsibility will continue to reside with the Corolla Wild Horse Fund.

]]> According to CBO, under H.R. 306 “the federal government would incur no significant additional costs to manage or mitigate the effects of horses on the refuge.” However, if the Corolla Wild Horse Fund was unable to maintain a population of less than 130 horses, “CBO expects that USFWS would incur costs totaling roughly $200,000 a year to manage the horses.”

]]>

To provide the Quileute Indian Tribe Tsunami and Flood Protection, and for other purposes H.R. 1162 Rep. Dicks, Norman D. Natural Resources suspension hr1162 http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hr1162 http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.1162: Andy Koenig

On Monday, February 6, 2012, the House is scheduled to consider H.R. 1162, a bill to provide the Quileute Indian Tribe Tsunami and Flood Protection, under a suspension of the rules requiring a two-thirds majority vote for approval. H.R. 1162 was introduced by Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) on March 17, 2011, and was referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources, which reported the bill by voice vote on October 5, 2011.

]]>

H.R. 1162 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to transfer approximately 785 acres of lands within and around the Olympic National Park in the state of Washington to be held in trust for the benefit of the Quileute Indian tribe. The bill would incorporate specified federal lands within the Olympic National Park and specified land owned by the Quileute Tribe into the Quileute Indian Reservation, held in trust by the federal government. The land transfer would be made in order to facilitate the Tribe’s move to new lands on higher ground, away from the frequent flooding and the tsunami risk that the Tribe currently must contend with.

The 785 acres of land within Olympic National Park that would be held in trust for the Tribe under H.R. 1162 are in two parcels. The northern parcel, known as the Northern Lands, would be comprised of approximately 510 acres along the south side of the Quillayute River. These lands contain the area that has historically been referred to as Thunder Field. A 275-acre parcel, 220 acres of which are designated wilderness, lies immediately south of the current reservation boundary. There are no park-owned facilities or trails in this area, and there are few opportunities for park visitors.

In addition to providing for the 785 acres to be held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Quileute Indian Tribe, and excluding this land from the boundary of Olympic National Park, H.R. 1162 also would:

Provide for placing in trust for the benefit of the Tribe approximately 184 acres of non-Federal land that the Tribe has recently acquired;
Express the intent of Congress regarding preservation, protection and alteration of the 785 acres, and cooperative efforts between the National Park Service and the Tribe;
Provide specific restrictions on the use of the 785 acres in order to protect the land’s resources; and
Provide for continued public access and use of park and tribal lands at Second Beach, Rialto Beach, and along the Quillayute and Dickey Rivers.

]]>

The Quileute Tribe is located in La Push, Washington, on the shores of the Pacific Ocean. Currently, all of the land held by the tribe is located on a Pacific coastal flood plain and within a designated tsunami zone. The tribe has long disputed the location of the northern border of the reservation, which divides tribal lands from ancestral lands located in Olympia National Park. According to findings listed in the bill, in recent years, this dispute has intensified as the Tribe has faced an urgent need for additional lands for housing, schools, and other Tribe purposes outside the tsunami and Quillayute River flood zones. The lack of a settlement of this dispute could adversely impact the public’s existing and future recreational use of several attractions in the Park that are accessed by the public’s use of Reservation lands, according to the bill’s findings. The reservation is surrounded by park lands to the south and the town of Forks to the east. The reservation is very small, roughly one square mile in size, and has about 400 residents.

The purpose of the legislation is to resolve the longstanding dispute along portions of the northern boundary of the Quileute Indian Reservation and to grant the Tribe access to land outside of tsunami and Quillayute River flood zones, and link existing Reservation land with Tribe land to the east of the Park. The tribe is seeking additional land to move tribal residents and infrastructure, such as schools and medical facilities, out of the tsunami and flood zones.

]]> According to CBO, implementing H.R. 1162 “would have no impact on the federal budget.” However, H.R. 1162 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by exempting some land from taxation by state and local governments, but CBO expects the cost of that mandate to be small and well below the annual threshold established in UMRA for intergovernmental mandates.

]]>

New York City Natural Gas Supply Enhancement Act H.R. 2606 Rep. Grimm, Michael Natural Resources suspension hr2606 http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hr2606 http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.2606: Andy Koenig

]]>

02/03/12 http://www.gop.gov/legdigest/12/02/03

Baseline Reform Act of 2011 H.R. 3578 Rep. Woodall, Rob Budget rule hr3578 http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hr3578 http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.3578: Andy Koenig

On Thursday, February 2, 2012, the House is scheduled to begin consideration of H.R. 3578, the Baseline Reform Act of 2011, subject to a rule. The rule provides one hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairs and ranking minority members of the Budget Committee. The rule also makes one amendment in order, which is debatable for up to ten minutes. A summary of the amendment made in order under the rule is available below the summary of the bill. The bill was introduced on December 7, 2011, by Rep. Rob Woodall (R-GA) and referred to the House Budget Committee. On January 24, 2012, the Committee held a mark-up on the bill. The bill was reported, as amended, on January 30, 2012.

]]>

H.R. 3578 would remove the automatic annual inflation adjustment from CBO’s discretionary baseline spending projections, thereby removing the baseline assumption that discretionary spending will increase each year. The bill would require CBO to project future discretionary spending “at the level provided for the budget year in full-year appropriations acts,” requiring CBO to use “zero baseline” budgeting for discretionary spending projections.

H.R. 3578 would also require the CBO Director to prepare a new annual report containing budgetary projections that assume the extension of current tax policy. This report would be required in addition to the current-law baseline projections. “Current tax policy” would mean assuming the extension of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, the alternative minimum tax as in effect for taxable years beginning in 2011, and the estate and gift taxes. In addition, the bill would require the Director of the CBO to submit the agency’s Long-Term Budget Outlook on or before July 1 of each year and that the outlook cover at least the ensuing 40 fiscal years.

]]>

According to Committee Report 112-378, current law requires CBO and OMB to assume that discretionary federal spending will continue over the course of the ten-year budget window and increase at the rate of inflation. These requirements added approximately $1.4 trillion in outlays (over ten years) to the discretionary baseline in 2011. This assumption of additional spending in the baseline evidences a bias toward additional spending. It also creates the anomalous situation where a program’s funding could be increased in comparison to the previous year but still be called a cut because the funding level is below the inflationary increase assumed in the discretionary baseline.

The bill removes the inflationary assumption and other special exceptions from the discretionary baseline, requiring that the baseline assume neither an increase nor a decrease for these programs. The baseline provides information to the Congress and does not govern what is contained in the budget resolution or the appropriations bills that provide legal spending authority. As a result, changing the baseline does not change funding for these programs, but it does remove an upward bias in spending by comparing spending to previous year’s levels and not an inflated baseline.

]]> According to CBO, implementing H.R. 3578 would “not have a significant impact on the federal budget.”

]]>

Amendment No. 1—Rep. Jackson-Lee (D-TX): The amendment would require the Director of CBO to prepare an analysis and study of the impact of the H.R. 3578 on present and future Social Security recipients. The report would be required within 90 days of enactment.

]]> Conference Report Accompanying H.R. 658�FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2012 H.R. 658 Conference Report Rep. Mica, John Transportation and Infrastructure rule hr658conferencereport http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hr658conferencereport http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.658conferencereport: Andy Koenig

On Friday, February 3, 2012 the House is scheduled to consider the Conference Report to H.R. 658, the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2012. H.R. 658 was introduced by Rep. John Mica (R-FL) on February 11, 2011, and was referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. On February 16, 2011, a markup was held and the committee reported the legislation by a vote of 34-25. One April 1, 2011, H.R. 658 was approved in the House by a vote of 223-196.

]]>

The Conference Report would reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) operations and programs for four years, from FY 2012 through FY 2015. The legislation would provide a total authorization of $63.4 billion over the four year period, including $50 billion in discretionary authorizations and $13.4 billion in contract authority through the Airport Improvement Programs (AIP). The bill would extend the authority to expend funds from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund through FY 2015. The bill would also extend current taxes on aviation fuel, domestic and international ticket taxes, and taxes on cargo shipped by air through FY 2015. In addition, the bill would reform National Mediation Board (NMB) rules to require public hearings before any significant NMB ruling takes effect and by increasing the proportion of eligible members needed to petition for new union elections from 35 percent to 50 percent.

Authorizations

The Conference Report would authorize appropriations for a number of FAA operations as follows:

The bill would authorize $38.4 billion in appropriations for FAA operations, primarily for salaries and expenses related to operating the air traffic control system. The bill would authorize $9.65 billion for FY 2012, $9.53 billion in FY 2013, $9.59 billion in FY 2014, and $9.65 billion in FY 2015. The House bill provided a total of $36.9 billion over four years, while the Senate bill provided $19 billion over two years.

The bill would authorize $13.4 billion in contract authority from the aviation trust fund for Airport Improvement Programs (AIP). The bill would authorize $3.35 billion each fiscal year from 2011 through 2015 for AIP programs. The AIP provides federal grants to airports for airport development and planning. The funds obligated for the AIP are drawn from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which is supported by a variety of user fees and fuel taxes that are authorized within this legislation.

The bill would authorize $10.9 billion for Air Navigation Facilities and Equipment through FY 2015. The bill would authorize $2.7 billion for FY 2012 through FY 2015. The account provides funds for the procurement of equipment and for the construction of facilities.

The bill would authorize $168 million for airport programs administrative expenses annually between FY 2012 and FY 2015 for FAA research, engineering and development. In total, the bill would authorize $672 million for the programs.

The bill would authorize $54.7 million for the Essential Air Service (EAS) program for a period beginning on October 1, 2011, and ending on February 17, 2012. The bill would authorize $143 million for the program in FY 2012, $118 million for FY 2013, $107 million for FY 2014, and $93 million in FY 2015. The EAS program gives subsidies to air carriers that provide air service to certain rural areas. In August 2012, Congress enacted reforms (P.L. 112-27) to restrict EAS funding to airports located more than 90 miles from the nearest medium or large hub airport and prohibit subsidies for areas with an average subsidy per passenger of more than $1,000 during the most recent fiscal year.

Taxes

The Conference Report would extend certain aviation-related taxes that are used to finance the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, including ticket taxes. Specifically, the bill would extend the domestic passenger ticket tax at its current level of 7.5 percent of ticket price, the domestic flight segment tax which is adjusted annually for inflation and is currently at a level of approximately $3.70 per passenger, and the domestic cargo tax at 6.25 percent of the cost of transporting property. In addition, the bill would retain the 4.3 cent-per-gallon tax on commercial aviation fuel. The measure would also extend the existing tax rate for aviation-grade kerosene used for non-commercial aviation purposes at a rate of 21.8 cents-per-gallon and the non-commerical aviation gasoline tax would remain at the current 19.3 cents-per-gallon.

National Mediation Board Union Election Rules

The Conference Report would reform National Mediation Board (NMB) rules regarding unionization by requiring public hearings before any significant NMB ruling takes effect and by increasing the proportion of eligible members needed to petition for new union elections from 35 percent to 50 percent. Many unions have expressed opposition to the changes in the Conference Report and argue that they create new roadblocks for employees to form unions.

Airport and Airway Trust Fund Financing

The Conference Report would extend the FAA's authority to spend money from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF), charge taxes, and their appropriated spending levels for four years, through FY 2015. Under current short-term extensions, these authorities would expire on February 17, 2012.

Airport and Airway Trust Fund Guarantee

The Conference Report would amend the current Airport and Airway Trust Fund Guarantee which requires the total budget resources available from the trust fund be equal to the level of estimated receipts, plus interest. Under the bill, funding for the trust fund would be guaranteed at 90 percent of the estimated level of receipts plus interest from FY 2012 through FY 2015.

Passenger Facility Charges

The Conference Report would retain the current $4.50 maximum Passenger Facility Charges, which are collected by airlines and given directly to airports. FAA reauthorization bills passed in the House in the 111^th Congress would have raised fees from $4.50 to $7, an increase of 56 percent.

In addition, the Conference Report would require the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study of alternative means of collecting passenger facility charges without including the fees in the ticket price.

Overflight Fees

The Conference Report would authorize the FAA to increase fees for certain navigational services provided for flights that neither take off nor land in the United States, known as overflight fees. Such fees are generally paid by foreign air carriers and are recorded as revenues. The Conference Report would require the FAA to guarantee that the overflight fees are reasonably related to the costs for providing air traffic services and to adjust the fees accordingly.

Airport Improvement Program Modifications

The Conference Report would make a number of changes to the AIP, which provides grants to airports that are included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems. Under current law, the federal government's share for an AIP project is 75 percent for large-hub or medium-hub airports, and 90 percent for most other airports, including those funded through state block grants. The bill would cap the amount of discretionary AIP funds that could support terminal development projects at non-hub or small-hub primary airports at $20 million. H.R. 658 would amend the current-law definition of “airport development” to include the acquisition of firefighting equipment that service aircraft designed for more than nine passenger seats, but fewer than 31 seats—rather than more than 20 seats as required under current law. In addition, the bill would extend the Contract Tower Program to low activity air traffic control towers. Under the program, the FAA funds the cost of operating air traffic control towers. Any excess funding provided under the program could be used to carry out the Contract Tower Cost-Sharing Program.

Next Generation Air Transportation System

The Conference Report would streamline the funding processes for Next Generation (NextGen) air traffic control modernization projects planned in the next four years by prioritizing amounts allocated to the NextGen projects. The bill would require the FAA Adminstrator to appoint a “Chief NextGen Officer” to implement NextGen activities and budgets across all FAA program offices. The Conference Report would also establish the Director of the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) as the Associate Administrator for the NextGen Air Transportation System to oversee the NextGen program and implementation. The bill would also establish the NextGen senior policy committee to meet at least twice each year and requires the Transportation Department to submit a detailed annual report on the progress of NextGen.

Safety

The Conference Report contains the following new provisions and regulations meant to address safety concerns, including:

Inspection of Foreign Repair Stations: The Conference Report would require the FAA Administrator to establish a system to verify that each certified foreign repair station has been subject to an annual safety assessment.

Runway Safety: The Conference Report would require the FAA Administrator to develop a strategic runway safety plan, with an emphasis on preventing runway incursions and submit to Congress within six months of enactment.

Pilot Licenses: The Conference Report would require the FAA to issue “improved pilot licenses” which are resistant to tampering and include a photograph, incorporate biometric identifiers.

Flight Attendants: The Conference Report would require that flight attendants be able to read, speak and write English well enough to read and comprehend material and to provide direction to, and understand and answer questions from, English-speaking individuals.

Cockpit Smoke: The Conference Report would require the GAO to conduct a study on the effectiveness of oversight activities of the Federal Aviation Administration relating to the use of new technologies to prevent or mitigate the effects of dense, continuous smoke in the cockpit of a commercial aircraft.

Air Service Improvements

Smoking Prohibition: The Conference Report would continue a ban smoking on any passenger interstate air transportation or foreign air transportation or in an aircraft in nonscheduled passenger interstate or intrastate air transportation, if a flight attendant is a required crewmember on the aircraft.

Cell Phones: The Conference Report would require the FAA to conduct a study of on the impact of the use of cell phones for vocal communication during a flight. FAA reauthorization bills from the 111^th Congress had banned the use of mobile voice communications during a flight.

Aviation Insurance

The Conference Report would reauthorize the FAA aviation insurance program, which is intended to provide insurance to domestic airlines that cannot be provided through the commercial insurance market. The bill would extend the provision through December 31, 2013.

]]>

The FAA is an agency within the Department of Transportation that oversees and regulates the nation’s aviation system. The Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF), created by the Airport and Airway Revenue Act of 1970, provides funding for the nation’s aviation system through several aviation excise taxes. Funding currently comes from collections related to passenger tickets, air cargo excise taxes, passenger flight segments, and aviation fuels, among other sources.

The last long-term authorization of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), known as the Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, was approved in 2003 and expired at the end of FY 2007. Since that time, the FAA has operated under a series of temporary extensions. In the 110th and 111th Congresses, the House passed several short-term FAA extensions which were signed into law. Currently, FAA’s authorization and authority to levy taxes and expend revenue is set to expire on February 17, 2012. FAA’s authority to collect aviation trust fund revenues and expend money in the trust fund already lapsed for more than two weeks on July 22, 2011, and was not reauthorized until the Senate approved H.R. 2553 on August 5, 2011.

The House approved a long-term FAA extension, H.R. 658, the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011, which would reauthorize FAA operations, contract authority and taxing ability through FY 2014. The long-term FAA reauthorization was approved in the House on April 1, 2011, by a vote of 223 – 196. The Senate amended the language of H.R. 658 and replaced the text of the bill with a Senate substitute. On January 31, 2012, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee announced that an agreement had been reached among the Conference Committee.

]]> A CBO score for the Conference Report accompanying H.R. 658 was not available as of press time.

]]>

02/02/12 http://www.gop.gov/legdigest/12/02/02

Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2012 H.R. 3582 Rep. Price, Tom Budget rule hr3582 http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hr3582 http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.3582: Andy Koenig

On Thursday, February 2, 2012, the House is scheduled to consider H.R. 3582, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2011, subject to a rule. The rule provides one hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairs and ranking minority members of the Budget Committee. The rule also makes eight amendments in order, each of which is debatable for up to ten minutes. A full summary of the amendments made in order under the bill is forthcoming. The bill was introduced on December 7, 2011, by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) and referred to the House Budget Committee. On January 24, 2012, the Committee held a mark-up on the bill and the legislation was amended. The bill was reported, as amended, on January 30, 2012.

]]>

H.R. 3582 would require the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to prepare a supplemental estimate of the macroeconomic impact of any major bills reported by a House or Senate committee. Under H.R. 3582, a “major bill” would be defined as legislation with any one-year estimated budgetary effect of more than one-fourth of a percent (0.25%) of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in that year. (For example, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. GDP in 2011 was $15.087 trillion. Therefore, any legislation—excluding appropriations—that CBO estimated to have a budgetary impact of $37.7 billion or more would require a macroeconomic impact analysis.) Once it is established that legislation is “major,” CBO would be required to conduct its macroeconomic impact analysis relative to a current policy baseline which assumes that current tax policies are continued into the indefinite future, much like CBO's alternative fiscal scenario baseline.

Under the bill, the macroeconomic impact analysis would have to include the effect of the legislation on real GDP, business investment, the capital stock, employment, and labor supply. The analysis would also have to describe the potential fiscal effects of the bill on any estimates of revenue increases or decreases resulting from changes in GDP. H.R. 3582 would require the impact assessment to cover the ten fiscal-year period beginning with the first fiscal year for which a CBO cost estimate was prepared, as well as the next three ten-year periods, for a total period of four decades.

H.R. 3582 would also require the CBO Director to prepare a new annual report containing budgetary projections that assume the extension of current tax policy. This report would be required in addition to the current-law baseline projections. “Current tax policy” would mean assuming the extension of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, the alternative minimum tax as in effect for taxable years beginning in 2011, and the estate and gift taxes. The bill would require the Director of the CBO to submit the agency's Long-Term Budget Outlook on or before July 1 of each year and that the outlook cover at least the ensuing 40 fiscal years.

]]>

According to Committee Report 112-377, CBO already has the necessary analytical tools and expertise to produce the macroeconomic reports envisioned by this legislation for Congress. CBO has occasionally provided such reports for certain legislation or policies (e.g. An Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2012) though currently this analysis is done on an ad hoc basis, or by request only. One key aim of this legislation is to formalize the process of producing such analysis for each major bill or resolution before Congress, thereby providing Members with useful information on a consistent basis.

In its macroeconomic analysis, CBO has typically used a number of economic models which focus, respectively, on different timeframes (e.g. short term vs. long term) and contain different assumptions about how individuals, and the overall economy, respond to policy changes. While it is clear major legislation has a significant impact, no one economic model gives a complete picture of how the economy would actually respond to a major government spending or tax policy change. Generally speaking, CBO uses a pair of traditional macroeconomic forecasting models developed by private-sector companies (Macroeconomic Advisers and IHS Global Insight) to gauge the short-term economic impact of policies. These models are driven by traditional Keynesian economic relationships that emphasize the influence of aggregate demand on output in the short term. Therefore, frequent criticism of CBO is its cost estimates do not capture the economic impact of legislation. Since the scoring of legislation is done on a static basis, it does not take into account the degree to which policies might impact the overall economy (i.e. GDP) in a positive or negative way.

]]> According to CBO, implementing H.R. 3582 would cost about $2 million over the 2012-2017 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. CBO states that in order to prepare for the macroeconomic impact studies, as called for in H.R. 3582, the agency would probably need two or three additional staff members. Based on current average costs (including salaries and associated benefits), adding two or three staff members could have a small cost in fiscal year 2012 and would cost between $300,000 and $500,000 per year beginning in fiscal year 2013, resulting in a six-year cost of roughly $2 million.

]]>

Amendments to H.R. 3582�Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2012 H.R. 3582 Amendments Rep. Price, Tom Budget rule hr3582amendments http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hr3582amendments http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.3582amendments: Andy Koenig

On Thursday, February 2, 2012, the House is scheduled to consider H.R. 3582, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2011, subject to a rule. The rule provides one hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairs and ranking minority members of the Budget Committee. The rule also makes eight amendments in order, each of which is debatable for up to 10 minutes. The eight amendments made in order under the rule are summarized below. The complete Legislative Digest for H.R. 3582 is available here.

]]>

Amendment No. 1—Rep. Peters (D-MI): The amendment would add the following findings to the bill:

“On January 8, 2003, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said that President Bush believed that the tax cut package enacted in 2001 and expanded in 2003 would ‘create additional revenues for the Federal Government and pay for itself.’
“Before the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were enacted, the Congressional Budget Office projected gradually rising surpluses, from 2.7 percent of gross domestic product in 2001 to 5.3 percent of gross domestic product by 2011, with the Federal Government operating debt free by 2009.
“The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have added over $2 trillion to budget deficits from 2002–2011.
“Despite signing the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 into law, President George W. Bush’s administration had, according to the Wall Street Journal, ‘the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records’ in 1939.
“From 2001 to 2009, gross domestic product grew at the slowest pace for any eight-year span since 1953.
“Median household income declined during the Bush Administration for the first time since 1967, when this data began to be tracked.”

Amendment No. 2—Rep. Connolly (D-VA): The amendment would extend the requirement for macroeconomic analysis of major legislation to bills reported by the Appropriations Committees of each Chamber, which is not required under the bill.

Amendment No. 3—Rep. Walz (D-MN): The amendment would include “interest rates” among the variables that the macroeconomic impact analysis would have to estimate. Under the bill as reported, the macroeconomic impact analysis would have to include the effect of the legislation on real gross domestic product, business investment, the capital stock, employment, and labor supply.

Amendment No. 4—Rep. Fudge (D-OH): The amendment would include “income inequality” among the variables that the macroeconomic impact analysis would have to estimate. Under the bill as reported, the macroeconomic impact analysis would have to include the effect of the legislation on real gross domestic product, business investment, the capital stock, employment, and labor supply.

Amendment No. 5—Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX): The amendment would include “the potential impact, if any, on HUBZones” among the variables that the macroeconomic impact analysis would have to estimate. The Small Business Administration’s (SBA) HUBZone program provides federal contracting preferences and grants for qualified small businesses located in distressed geographic areas. Under the bill as reported, the macroeconomic impact analysis would have to include the effect of the legislation on real gross domestic product, business investment, the capital stock, employment, and labor supply.

Amendment No. 6—Rep. Quigley (D-IL): The amendment would require the CBO Director to create and maintain a website with the domain name TaxpayerReceipt.gov. The website would be required to include a calculator where taxpayers could enter their annual income and receive an estimate of the amount of their projected contribution to, or receipt from, any applicable major bill or resolution over ten years.

Amendment No. 7—Rep. Flake (R-AZ): The amendment would require that CBO prepare macroeconomic assessments of any legislation with any one-year estimated budgetary impact of more than $5 billion, as opposed to 0.25 percent of GPD (about $38 billion in 2011).

Amendment No. 8—Rep. Cicilline (D-RI): The amendment would amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to require that CBO, when preparing cost estimates for each bill, also include an estimate of the number of jobs which would be “created, sustained, or lost” as a result of the legislation. The estimate would be required to cover the first five fiscal years after the bill becomes effective and, to the extent practicable, include state and regional jobs estimates as well.

]]> Baseline Reform Act of 2011 H.R. 3578 Rep. Woodall, Rob Budget rule hr3578 http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hr3578 http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.3578: Andy Koenig

]]>

]]> According to CBO, implementing H.R. 3578 would “not have a significant impact on the federal budget.”

]]>

02/01/12 http://www.gop.gov/legdigest/12/02/01

Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Act of 2011 (CLASS Act Repeal) H.R. 1173 Rep. Boustany, Charles rule hr1173 http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hr1173 http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.1173: David Rosenfeld

On Tuesday January 31, 2012, the House is scheduled to consider H.R. 522 “providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1173) to repeal the CLASS program” (as described below). On Wednesday February 1, 2012, H.R. 1173, the Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act of 2011, will be considered under a rule. The rule provides one hour of general debate on the bill, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule provides an overall three-hour limit on consideration of amendments and for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. H.R. 1173 was introduced by Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA), on March 17, 2011 and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and to the Committee on Ways and Means. The Energy and Commerce Committee held a mark-up session on November 29-30, 2011 and ordered the bill as amended favorably reported by a vote of 33-17. Subsequently, the Ways and Means Committee held a mark-up session on January 18, 2012 and ordered the bill favorably reported without amendment by a vote of 23-13.

]]>

H.R. 1173 as amended repeals title VIII of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) which established the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Program—a national, voluntary long-term care insurance program for purchasing community living assistance services and supports. Title VIII also authorized and appropriated funding through 2015 for the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information first established in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. H.R. 1173 would replace those appropriated funds for the clearinghouse for 2013 through 2015 ($9 million) with funding subject to future appropriation actions.

]]>

Section 8002 (title VIII) of the president’s government takeover of healthcare law amended the Public Health Services Act (title XXXII) to create the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) program.

CLASS directs the HHS Secretary to establish a voluntary, national insurance program for American workers to help pay for long-term care services and supports such as home modifications, assistive technology, accessible transportation, homemaker services, respite care, personal assistance services, home care aides and nursing support.

During Congressional debate, advocates of the program argued that the private long-term care insurance market options were too costly and/or too difficult for certain populations to access due to pre-existing conditions and disabilities.

Accordingly, the intent of CLASS is to develop a federally run voluntary long-term care insurance program for purchasing nonmedical services to use either at home or at an LTC facility so that individuals with functional limitations can better maintain their personal and financial independence.

The program is to be funded solely with collected premiums without any federal subsidies or taxpayer funding. The premiums are to be determined by the HHS Secretary based on 75-year actuarial estimates of expected future use and expenditures. Coverage is guaranteed issue with no medical underwriting (i.e., everyone is accepted) and premiums vary by age at time of enrollment.

The program limits participation with few exceptions to workers and the self-employed. If employers choose to participate in the CLASS program, all employees are automatically enrolled. The program is “voluntary” because employees can opt out. The HHS Secretary is required to develop procedures for an alternative process for individuals who are self-employed or whose employers do not participate in CLASS.

To be eligible for CLASS benefits, a participant must meet a five-year vesting requirement as well as other conditions. To remain an active participant, a person must continue to pay premiums beyond the five year period. Benefits to eligible recipients include a cash benefit of at least an average of $50 a day, indexed to CPI. There is no limit on benefit duration.

Even before passage of the president’s government takeover of healthcare law, concerns were raised regarding CBO’s estimates – noting the premiums collected for CLASS could not be double-counted as federal savings to cover both the cost of other entitlement expansions contained in the law and used to cover the CLASS program benefits.

In addition, concerns were raised about the program’s solvency over the long-term and the affordability of the proposed benefit for consumers.

Because the program’s solvency was directly related to the CBO savings projections ($70 billion over 10 years), Members voiced questions about the potential increase in the nation’s deficit if the program became insolvent and the original projected savings were never generated. The $70 billion figure was based on the premise that during the initial 10 years of the program, it would collect more revenue in premiums than it would pay-out in benefits, including the first five years of the program in which no benefits are paid at all.

On October 14, 2011, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that HHS was suspending implementation of the CLASS program because of HHS's recognition that there is "no viable path forward" for developing a program meeting the applicable criteria. Specifically, Secretary Sebelius announced that she did not “see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time.” (emphasis added)

On the same day, HHS issued a comprehensive analysis of its work on the CLASS program titled ‘‘Report on the Actuarial, Marketing, and Legal Analyses of the CLASS Program.’’ In that report, Administration on Aging Administrator Kathy Greenlee raised concerns with potential adverse selection, noting, ‘‘If healthy purchasers are not attracted to the CLASS benefit package, then premiums will increase, which will make it even more unattractive to purchasers who could also obtain policies in the private market. This imbalance in the beneficiary pool would cause the program to quickly collapse.’’

The affordability of the program’s premiums was also a concern. The HHS analysis projected premiums even higher than had been previously estimated by outside actuaries, noting the basic CLASS benefit plan could cost, ‘‘$235 and $391 a month, and may cost as much as $3,000 per month.’’

Many of the concerns outlined by the Department in this report reiterate those raised before the program was enacted. Members of both parties and outside actuaries raised concerns, before and after passage, that the CLASS program was actuarially unsound and fiscally irresponsible ─ creating a long-term financial risk for the federal government and potential beneficiaries.

Additionally, Secretary Sebelius expressed her concerns with the CLASS program early last year. In testimony before the Senate Finance Committee on February 16, 2011, she recognized the program was “totally unsustainable.”

Separately, the independent Medicare actuary had earlier concluded that there is a “very serious risk” of the CLASS program becoming unsustainable, the American Academy of Actuaries warned that the CLASS program has a substantial risk of failure, and the President’s own Fiscal Commission recommended that the “financially unsound” program be significantly reformed or repealed entirely. The Fiscal Commission stated: “the program’s earliest beneficiaries will pay modest premiums for only a few years and receive benefits many times larger, so that sustaining the system over time will require increasing premiums and reducing benefits to the point that the program is neither appealing to potential customers nor able to accomplish its stated function. Absent reform, the program is therefore likely to require large general revenue transfers or else collapse under its own weight.”

And Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad famously called the program “a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing Bernie Madoff would have been proud of.”

Finally, a bicameral Repeal CLASS Working Group issued “CLASS’ Untold Story: Taxpayers, Employers, and States on the Hook for Flawed Entitlement Program,” which includes documents obtained through a bicameral Congressional investigation revealing HHS was aware that the program was unsustainable as early as the spring of 2009.

Despite the Secretary’s suspension of the program as noted above, there is legitimate concern that if the CLASS program is not repealed, the program could go forward in some fashion at a later date. The Secretary’s October 14, 2011 statement announcing HHS’ decision not to proceed with implementation “at this time” is fueling hope among advocates and concern among opponents as to whether HHS intends to move forward at some point.

It is also possible that advocates or other outside groups with standing could bring suit against HHS to compel implementation based on CLASS language requiring the Secretary to designate a “CLASS Act Independence Benefit Plan” by October 1, 2012. The statute requires the Secretary to publish this designation of a benefit plan as a final rule.

It does appear that the Secretary’s decision to suspend the program would be judicially reviewable at least as of October 1, 2012 and could result in a court ordering HHS to comply with CLASS language. Only repeal of CLASS would negate this and other possibilities for the CLASS program to move forward. A comprehensive CRS memo on standards and possibilities for judicial review of the Secretary’s October 14, 2011 decision and related matters such as establishment of the “CLASS Independence Advisory Council” is available here.

More detailed background information about CLASS can be found in the most recent version of CRS report R40842 here.

]]> CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1173 would reduce direct spending by $9 million over the 2012-2016 and 2012-2021 periods. H.R. 1173 also would increase spending subject to future appropriation by $9 million over the same periods. Pay-as-you-go procedures apply because enacting the legislation would affect direct spending. Enacting H.R. 1173 would have no impact on federal revenues (see below). The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).

On October 14, 2011, HHS Secretary Sebelius announced that she did not “see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time.” CBO considers that announcement to be definitive new information and as a result, in its next baseline projections, CBO will assume that CLASS will not be implemented unless there are changes in law or other actions by the Administration that would supersede the Secretary’s announcement. Further, legislation to repeal the provisions of law establishing the CLASS program are now estimated as having no budgetary effect relative to current law.

However, the Secretary’s announcement does not affect use of funds authorized and appropriated for the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information first established in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Therefore, the replacement of these appropriated funds for the clearinghouse for 2013 through 2015 with funding subject to future appropriation actions would have a budgetary effect of reducing direct spending by $9 million and subsequently increasing spending subject to appropriation by $9 million over the 2012-2021 period.

Additional detail on CBO’s scoring is available here.

]]>

Amendment No. 1—Rep. Jackson-Lee (D-TX): This Amendment would prevent repeal of the CLASS program until such date as the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies to the Congress that at least 60 percent of individuals in the United States who are 25 years of age or older have private long-term care insurance.

Amendment No. 2—Rep. Jackson-Lee (D-TX): This Amendment would prevent repeal of the CLASS program until such date the following studies are completed and reported to Congress: (1) the Director of the Congressional Budget Office completes a macroeconomic study and submits a report to the Congress on the impact on the Federal, State, and local governments of not having long-term care insurance; and (2) the Secretary of Health and Human Services completes a study and submits a report to the Congress on the best practices necessary to have a viable, financially secure, and solvent long-term care insurance program. An exception to the above would permit to go forward and take effect upon enactment certain conforming changes regarding Section 6021(d) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

Amendment No. 3—DL. Christensen (D-St. Croix, VI): This Amendment would prevent repeal of the CLASS program until such date as the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies that an affordable national long-term care program for community living assistance services and supports (other than the CLASS Program under title XXXII of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ll et seq.)) is in effect. An exception to the above would permit to go forward and take effect upon enactment certain conforming changes regarding Section 6021(d) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

Amendment No. 4—Rep. Deutch (D-FL): This Amendment would prevent repeal of the CLASS program until 90 days after the date on which the Comptroller General of the United States certifies to Congress that failure to implement the CLASS program established under title XXXII of the Public Health Service Act will not increase State and Federal spending for long-term care under the Medicaid program under title XIX of the Social Security Act. An exception to the above would permit to go forward and take effect upon enactment certain conforming changes regarding Section 6021(d) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

Amendment No. 5—Rep. Deutch (D-FL): This Amendment would add a Section 3 “CLASS Program Flexibility” to the bill providing that repeal of the CLASS program could not take effect unless the following have been satisfied: (1) the Secretary of Health and Human Services submits to Congress a report including a determination made by the Secretary on whether or not the Secretary has the authority to implement the CLASS program under title XXXII of the Public Health Service Act and develop and implement the benefit plans described in subsection (c) of this Amendment which states that not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop 3 actuarially sound benefit plans as alternatives for consideration for designation as the CLASS Independence Benefit Plan described in section 3203 of the Public Health Service Act that address adverse selection and have market appeal. (2) if the Secretary determines the Secretary does not have the authority described in (1), the Secretary includes in the report described in such paragraph recommendations for statutory changes needed, and a recommended list of statutory provisions that would need to be waived, to provide the Secretary with such authority. (3) In the case the Secretary determines the Secretary does not have the authority described in (1), not later than 90 days after the submission of such report and recommendations Congress has considered and rejected such recommendations. An exception to the above would permit to go forward and take effect upon enactment certain conforming changes regarding Section 6021(d) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. In addition, the Secretary would not have to comply with (2) if the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that the Secretary has the authority described in (1) above and the Secretary develops the 3 benefit plans described in subsection (c) of this Amendment also described above. However, if the Secretary determines the Secretary does not have such authority and Congress has not considered and rejected the recommendations described in (2) within 90 days after the submission of such report and recommendations, repeal of the CLASS program cannot take effect and the Secretary shall have the authority to waive the provisions recommended by the Secretary to be waived in (2) above.

]]> Adjusting the amount provided for the expenses of certain committees of the House of Representatives in the One Hundred Twelfth Congress H.Res. 469 Rep. Lungren, Dan House Administration suspension hres469 http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hres469 http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.res.469: Andy Koenig

On Wednesday, February 1, 2012, the House is scheduled to consider H.Res. 496 under a suspension of the rules requiring a two-thirds majority vote for approval. H.Res. 496 was introduced by Rep. Daniel Lungren (R-CA) on December 14, 2011, and was referred to the Committee on House Administration, which reported the bill by voice vote on December 16, 2011.

]]>

H.Res. 496 would adjust the limits on the amount of funds authorized for each House of Representatives select and standing committee in the second session of the 112^th Congress. The resolution would adjust the amount provided for the expenses of each standing and select committee—including the expense of all staff salaries—for the period beginning at noon on January 3, 2012, and ending immediately before noon on January 3, 2013. The resolution would make an aggregate reduction to the total funding for House committees from the first session of the 112^th Congress. However, the resolution would not make reductions at a uniform rate. Some committees would face larger proportional reductions than others. The amounts for each committee in the second session of the 112^th Congress are below.

Committee	Original 2012 Authorization as in H.Res. 147	2012 Authorization cut by 6.4%	Revised 2012 Authorization as in H.Res. 496	Percent Difference from Original 2012 Authorization	Amount of Cut from Original 2012 Authorization
Agriculture	$ 6,045,553	$ 5,658,638	$ 5,658,638	-6.4%	$ 386,915
Armed Services	$ 7,525,264	$ 7,043,647	$ 7,374,759	-2.0%	$ 150,505
Budget	$ 6,033,185	$ 5,647,061	$ 5,647,061	-6.4%	$ 386,124
Education and Workforce	$ 8,346,254	$ 7,812,094	$ 7,812,094	-6.4%	$ 534,160
Energy and Commerce	$ 11,428,642	$ 10,697,209	$ 10,697,209	-6.4%	$ 731,433
Ethics	$ 3,043,776	$ 2,848,973	$ 3,393,775	11.5%	$ (349,999)
Financial Services	$ 8,958,018	$ 8,384,705	$ 8,384,705	-6.4%	$ 573,313
Foreign Affairs	$ 8,952,470	$ 8,379,512	$ 8,379,512	-6.4%	$ 572,958
Homeland Security	$ 8,443,724	$ 7,903,326	$ 7,903,326	-6.4%	$ 540,398
House Administration	$ 5,566,837	$ 5,210,559	$ 5,169,169	-7.1%	$ 397,668
Judiciary	$ 8,401,406	$ 7,863,716	$ 7,863,716	-6.4%	$ 537,690
Natural Resources	$ 7,869,766	$ 7,366,101	$ 7,366,101	-6.4%	$ 503,665
Oversight & Gov't. Reform	$ 10,613,054	$ 9,933,819	$ 9,933,819	-6.4%	$ 679,235
Rules	$ 3,391,985	$ 3,174,898	$ 3,174,898	-6.4%	$ 217,087
Science, Space, and Tech.	$ 6,660,637	$ 6,234,355	$ 5,986,023	-10.1%	$ 674,614
Small Business	$ 3,659,109	$ 3,424,926	$ 3,383,536	-7.5%	$ 275,573
Transportation & Infra.	$ 9,915,223	$ 9,280,649	$ 9,280,649	-6.4%	$ 634,574
Veterans Affairs	$ 3,682,512	$ 3,446,830	$ 3,446,830	-6.4%	$ 235,682
Ways and Means	$ 9,801,366	$ 9,174,079	$ 9,174,079	-6.4%	$ 627,287
HPSC on Intelligence	$ 5,153,750	$ 4,823,910	$ 4,823,910	-6.4%	$ 329,840
Totals ………………….	$ 143,492,528	$ 134,309,007	$ 134,853,809	-6.02%	$ 8,638,719

]]>

According to House Report 112-362, the Committee on House Administration is responsible for an expense resolution to provide the authorized level of funding for House committees. On March 9, 2011, the Committee on House Administration reported H. Res. 147, which set committees funding levels. H.Res. 147 cut an average of 5 percent in funding for each committee from the amount each committee received in the 111th Congress. In addition, the resolution stipulated that none of the funds for the second session may be made available after March 15, 2012, until the Chairs and Ranking Members appeared and presented testimony before the Committee on House Administration to review the use of funds in the first session. On December 14, 2011, Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) introduced a second committee funding resolution, H. Res. 496, to adjust committee authorization levels. According to the committee, this resolution would match the authorization levels with the reduced funding levels included in previous appropriations bills.

A number of Democrats on the Committee on House Administration have opposed the reductions contained in this resolution. According to Minority Views provided by Democrats on the Committee on House Administration, “Committee Democrats oppose this unprecedented committee defunding resolution which would reduce budgets by an average of 6.4 percent during the second session. These cuts come just nine months after House Resolution 147 instituted an average cut of 5 percent in funding for each committee.”

]]> A CBO cost estimate for H.Res. 496 was not available as of press time.

]]>

Welfare Integrity Now for Children and Families Act of 2011, as amended H.R. 3567 Rep. Boustany, Charles Ways and Means suspension hr3567 http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hr3567 http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.3567: Andy Koenig

On Wednesday, February 1, 2012, the House is scheduled to consider H.R. 3567 under a suspension of the rules requiring a two-thirds majority vote for approval. The bill was introduced on December 6, 2011, by Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA) and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.

]]>

H.R. 3567 would require states receiving federal grants through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program to maintain policies that prevent TANF assistance from being used in a transaction in any of the following places:

Any liquor store;
Any casino, gambling casino, or gaming establishment; or
Any retail establishment which provides adult-oriented entertainment in which performers disrobe or perform in an unclothed state for entertainment.

The bill would define a “liquor store” as “any retail establishment which sells exclusively or primarily intoxicating liquor.” Further, the bill would stipulate that a “casino” does not include “a grocery store which sells groceries including such staple foods and which also offers, or is located within the same building or complex as, casino, gambling, or gaming activities.”

To enforce the requirement established in this legislation, the bill would require that federal TANF assistance be reduced by 5 percent in any state that does not report its implementation of these policies within two years. The reduction would be enforced in the fiscal year immediately succeeding the year in which two-year period ends and would continue each year until the state demonstrates that these policies have been implemented.

]]>

In 1996, President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, a largely Republican bill that overhauled the federal welfare program. The legislation replaced the entitlement program known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with a block grant program called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The passage of TANF changed the way that federal cash benefits are given to needy people in the U.S. by requiring welfare recipients to engage in a minimum amount of monthly work activity. The bulk of federal TANF funding is in a basic block grant to states that totals $16.5 billion per year. States are also required to expend a certain amount of their own funds on TANF-related programs, under what is called a maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement, equal to a total minimum of $10.4 billion per year.

The House has already approved legislation that contained prohibitions on the use of welfare funds in strip clubs, liquor stores, and casinos by blocking welfare Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards from working in transactions at those locations. On December 13, 2011, the House approved H.R. 3630, legislation to extend the payroll tax holiday for all of 2012 and also extended the authorization of the TANF program. The bill included language that banned the use of EBT cards in the same locations as the underlying legislation. That bill was approved in the House by bi-partisan vote of 234-193. However, Senate Democrats refused to approve the legislation and instead would only agree to a short term extension (H.R. 3765) of the TANF program for just two months and did not include a prohibition against welfare funds from being accessed in strip clubs, liquor stores, and casinos. In addition, the House approved a stand-alone TANF extension (H.R. 3659) that would have extended the program for one year as well as blocked funds from being used in strip clubs, liquor stores, and casinos. The Senate has yet to consider that legislation.

]]> A CBO cost estimate for H.R. 3567 was not available as of press time.

]]>

To extend the pay limitation for Members of Congress and Federal Employees H.R. 3835 Rep. Duffy, Sean Oversight and Government Reform suspension hr3835 http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hr3835 http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.3835: Andy Koenig

On Wednesday, February 1, 2012, the House is scheduled consider H.R. 3835 under a suspension of the rules, requiring a two-thirds majority vote for passage. The resolution was introduced by Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) on January 27, 2012, and referred to the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform and House Administration.

]]>

H.R. 3835 would amend the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2011 to extend for an additional year, until December 31, 2013, a pay freeze for federal civilian employees, to include Members of Congress and legislative branch employees.

]]>

The limitation was originally enacted pursuant to a provision in the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions Act, 2011 (P.L. 111-322), which became law on December 22, 2010. Among other things, that legislation implemented a pay freeze for federal civilian employees (except military personnel) for two years, from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2012.

]]> There was no CBO cost estimate available for this bill.

]]>

01/25/12 http://www.gop.gov/legdigest/12/01/25

Ultralight Aircraft Smuggling Prevention Act of 2012 H.R. 3801 Rep. Giffords, Gabrielle Ways and Means suspension hr3801 http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hr3801 http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.3801: Andy Koenig

On Wednesday, January 25, 2012, the House is scheduled to consider H.R. 3801 under a suspension of the rules, requiring a two-thirds majority vote for approval. H.R. 3801 was introduced by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) on January 23, 2012, and was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means as well as the House Committee on Armed Services.

]]>

H.R. 3801 would amend the Tariff Act of 1930 (otherwise known as the Smoot–Hawley Tariff) to include ultralight aircraft under its aviation smuggling provisions and provide for additional criminal punishments for using an ultralight aircraft to transport illegal goods. Under current law, it is a crime for individuals to use aircraft to illegally transport drugs and the maximum penalty carries a $250,000 and a 20-year prison sentence. This legislation would allow the same prosecution for persons smuggling drugs on ultralight aircraft.

]]>

Every year hundreds of ultralight aircraft are flown across the southern border and can carry several hundred pounds of narcotics. According to the 2011 National Drug Threat Assessment, “Smuggling via ultralights has increased since 2008, with several hundred incidents reported in FY2010. Most incidents occur in central Arizona and western New Mexico. Loads can exceed 100 kilograms and mainly involve marijuana.” Ultralights are small, single-seat aircraft that are favored by smugglers because they are inexpensive, relatively quiet and can fly at night without lights. They are often able to evade radar detection and can drop a load of narcotics in the U.S. and return to Mexico without ever landing in this country. Under current law, drug smugglers who use ultralights receive a lesser penalty than those who use airplanes or cars. This legislation was sponsored and championed by retiring Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

]]> A CBO cost estimate for H.R. 3801 was not available as of press time.

]]>

01/24/12 http://www.gop.gov/legdigest/12/01/24

War Memorial Protection Act H.R. 2070 Rep. Johnson, Bill Natural Resources suspension hr2070 http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hr2070 http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.2070: Andy Koenig

On Tuesday, January 24, 2012, the House is scheduled to consider, H.R. 2070, the World War II Memorial Prayer Act of 2011, under a suspension of the rules requiring a two-third majority vote for approval. The bill was introduced on June 1, 2011, by Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) and referred to the committee on Natural Resources, which held a mark up and reported the bill, as amended, by unanimous consent on November 17, 2011.

]]>

H.R. 2070 would require the Secretary of the Interior to install a plaque or an inscription with the words that President Franklin D. Roosevelt prayed with the Nation on June 6, 1944, the morning of D-Day, in the area of the World War II Memorial. Under the bill, the Secretary would be required to design, procure, prepare, and install the plaque, however, the Secretary would be prohibited from using federal funds to prepare or install the plaque or inscription. The Secretary would be allowed to accept and expend private contributions for the purpose of carrying out this legislation. Under the bill, the proposed addition to the memorial would be exempt from the requirements of the Commemorative Works Act (CWA).

]]>

According to House Report 112-368, there has been some controversy regarding the omission of the phrase “so help us God” in an inscription with an excerpt of President Roosevelt's address to Congress following the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The Park Service responded with the explanation that the phrase was excluded because it was not spoken at the point in the address from which the excerpt was derived. This legislation would require the Secretary of the Interior to install in the area of the World War II Memorial in the District of Columbia a suitable plaque or an inscription with the words that President Franklin D. Roosevelt prayed with the Nation on June 6, 1944:

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace—a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil. Thy will be done, Almighty God. Amen.

]]> According to CBO, implementing H.R. 2070 would “have no significant impact on the federal budget.”

]]>

War Memorial Protection Act H.R. 290 Rep. Hunter, Duncan D. Natural Resources suspension hr290 http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hr290 http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.290: Andy Koenig

On Tuesday, January 24, 2012, the House is scheduled to consider, H.R. 290, the War Memorial Protection Act, under a suspension of the rules requiring a two-third majority vote for approval. The bill was introduced on January 12, 2011, by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and referred to the committee on Natural Resources, which held a mark up and reported the bill by unanimous consent on May 5, 2011.

]]>

H.R. 290 would authorize the inclusion of religious symbols as part of military monuments that are established or acquired by the U.S. government or military memorials established in cooperation with the American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC). The bill would specifically state that in order to recognize the religious background of members of the United States Armed Forces, religious symbols may be included as part of a memorial or monument commemorating the service of the United States Armed Forces.

]]>

According to House Report 112-156, H.R. 290 is intended to help resolve the legal situation involving the cross at the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial. The bill was introduced shortly after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found the Mt. Soledad Cross in La Jolla, California, violated the Constitution because it displayed a religious preference and was not solely a war memorial. In 1989, the City of San Diego was first sued over the 43-foot cross which was first placed on Mt. Soledad in La Jolla, California, in 1913. According to the Committee on Natural resources, the plaintiffs in the suit claimed a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution which bars the State or local government from using funds to assist religious sects or churches, or from showing preference to one religion over another.

Since the lawsuit was initially filed, several remedies were attempted to avoid having the cross removed by order of the courts, including transferring the property to a non-profit—for which San Diego was sued for showing a preference—and the federal government taking the land by eminent domain. Indeed, the Department of Defense took possession of the property in 2006. Subsequently, the federal government was sued and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the cross unconstitutional in January 2011.

]]> According to CBO, there would be no costs associated with implementing H.R. 290.

]]>

Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks Study Act H.R. 1022 Rep. Speier, Jackie Natural Resources suspension hr1022 http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hr1022 http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.1022: Andy Koenig

On Tuesday, January 24, 2012, the House is scheduled to consider, H.R. 1022, the Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks Study Act, under a suspension of the rules requiring a two-third majority vote for approval. The bill was introduced on March 10, 2011, by Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) and referred to the committee on Natural Resources, which held a mark up and reported the bill by unanimous consent on June 15, 2011.

]]>

H.R. 1022 would require the Secretary of the Interior to carry out a study of alternatives for commemorating and interpreting the role of the Buffalo Soldiers in the early years of the National Park Service (NPS). The study would be required to include:

A historical assessment of the Buffalo Soldiers who served in National Parks in the years prior to the establishment of the National Park Service;
An evaluation of the suitability and feasibility of establishing a national historic trail commemorating the route traveled by the Buffalo Soldiers;
The identification of properties that could meet criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or criteria for designation as National Historic Landmarks;
An evaluation of appropriate ways to enhance historical research, education, interpretation, and public awareness of the story of the Buffalo Soldiers' stewardship role in the National Parks; and
Any other matters that the Secretary of the Interior deems appropriate for this study.

H.R. 1022 would require that the study be completed and the results transmitted to Congress within three years of funds being made available for the study. According to CBO, conducting the study would cost about $400,000 over the next three years.

]]>

According to House Report 112-166, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Buffalo Soldiers, the all African-American cavalrymen of the U.S. Army, rode from the San Francisco Presidio to the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, serving as the protectors of several of the country's first national parks. Led by Lieutenant Colonel Charles Young, the first African American superintendent of Yosemite National Park, these de facto rangers built trails, preserved the giant sequoias, and protected the wildlife of Sequoia and Yosemite National Parks from poaching during these critical, formative years. H.R. 1022 directs the Secretary of the Interior to research the role of the Buffalo Soldiers in protecting these nascent parks and examine, among other things, the possible creation of a National Historic Trail along the route used by these soldiers.

]]> According to CBO, conducting the study would cost about $400,000 over the next three years.

]]>

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend authorizations for the airport improvement program, and for other purposes H.R. 3800 Rep. Mica, John Transportation and Infrastructure suspension hr3800 http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hr3800 http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.3800: Andy Koenig

On Tuesday, January 24, 2012, the House is scheduled to consider H.R. 3800, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund under a suspension of the rules requiring a two-thirds majority vote for approval. The bill was introduced by Rep. John Mica (R-FL) on January 23, 2011, and was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Committee as well as the Ways and Means Committee.

]]>

H.R. 3800 would extend, through February 17, 2012, the authorities of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which are currently set to expire on January 31, 2012. The bill would extend the authority to expend funds from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund through February 17, 2012. The bill would extend taxes on aviation fuel, domestic and international ticket taxes, and taxes on cargo shipped by air. H.R. 3800 would extend current aviation taxes and fees, including the 7.5 percent passenger ticket tax, the 6.25 percent cargo tax, the 19.3 cents/gallon general aviation gasoline tax, and the 4.3 cents/gallon commercial jet fuel tax. Currently, authority to levy these taxes is set to expire on January 31, 2012.

The bill would authorize the appropriation of $1.34 billion for the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) for the period beginning October 1, 2011, and ending February 17, 2012, or nearly the entire first five months of FY 2012. On an annualized basis, the bill would authorize approximately $3.53 billion in AIP contract authority for FY 2012. In addition, the bill would authorize $3.69 billion for FAA operations for the period beginning October 1, 2011, and ending February 17, 2012.

The legislation would also extend the modified funding formula for the Essential Air Services (EAS) which was contained in the last extension (H.R. 2887). The EAS program gives subsidies to air carriers that provide air service to certain rural communities. Specifically, the bill continues to require that a portion of the funding for EAS must be drawn from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. The bill would authorize $54.7 million from the trust fund for the period beginning October 1, 2011, and ending February 17, 2012. This would be an increase of $4.4 million from the level authorized from the period beginning October 1, 2011, and ending January 31, 2012.

]]>

The last long-term authorization of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), known as the Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, was approved in 2003 and expired at the end of FY 2007. Since that time, the FAA has operated under a series of temporary extensions. In the 110th and 111th Congresses, the House passed several short-term FAA extensions which were signed into law. Currently, FAA’s authorization and authority to levy taxes and expend revenue is set to expire on January 31, 2012. FAA’s authority to collect aviation trust fund revenues and expend money in the trust fund already lapsed for more than two weeks on July 22, 2011, and was not reauthorized until the Senate approved H.R. 2553 on August 5, 2011.

The House approved a long-term FAA extension, H.R. 658, the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2011, which would reauthorize FAA operations, contract authority and taxing ability through FY 2014. The long-term FAA reauthorization was approved in the House on April 1, 2011, by a vote of 223 – 196. The Senate amended the language of H.R. 658 and replaced the text of the bill with a Senate substitute. According to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, this short-term extension would provide time for the House and Senate to conclude negotiations on a long-term FAA reauthorization.

]]> A CBO cost estimate for H.R. 3800 was not available as of press time.

]]>

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the passage of a fiscal year 2013 Federal budget is of national importance H.Res. 516 Rep. Nugent, Rich Budget suspension hres516 http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hres516 http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.res.516: Andy Koenig

On Tuesday, January 24, 2012, the House is scheduled to consider H.Res. 516 under a suspension of the rules requiring a two-thirds majority vote for approval. H.Res. 516 was introduced by Rep. Richard Nugent (R-FL) on January 18, 2012, and was referred to the Committee on the Budget.

]]>

H.Res. 516 would express the sense of the House of Representatives that the passage of a fiscal year 2013 Federal budget is of national importance.

]]>

According to the resolution’s findings, the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 established the modern budgeting process and requires the president to submit a budget to Congress each year. The findings also note that the last time the House of Representatives approved a budget was on April 15, 2011, while the last time the Senate approved a budget was on April 29, 2009. January 24, 2012, marks the 1,000 day since the Senate approved a budget for the U.S. government.

]]> A CBO score for H.Res. 516 was not available as of press time.

]]>

01/23/12 http://www.gop.gov/legdigest/12/01/23

Rota Cultural and Natural Resources Study Act H.R. 1141 Rep. Sablan, Gregorio Natural Resources suspension hr1141 http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hr1141 http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.1141: Andy Koenig

On Monday, January 23, 2012, the House is scheduled to consider, H.R. 1141, the Rota Cultural and Natural Resources Study Act, under a suspension of the rules requiring a two-third majority vote for approval. The bill was introduced on March 16, 2011, by Del. Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan (D-MP) and referred to the committee on Natural Resources, which held a mark up and reported the bill by unanimous consent on June 15, 2011.

]]>

H.R. 1141 would require the Secretary of the Interior to carry out a study of the feasibility of designating forest sites on the Island of Rota, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, as a unit of the National Park System (NPS). The study would have to be competed and the results transmitted to Congress within three years of funds being made available for the study. According to CBO, carrying out the study required by H.R. 1141 would cost approximately $200,000 over the next three years.

]]>

According to the bill's findings, the Island of Rota was the only major island in the Mariana Islands that did not suffer significant damage during World War II. The island contains examples of the culture of the indigenous Chamorro people of the Mariana Islands, including prehistoric stone structures. The island also contains remnants from its Japanese period between 1914 and 1945. This legislation would require the Secretary of Interior to conduct a study to determine if the Island should be included as a unit of the National Park Service (NPS). Similar legislation in the 111^th Congress (H.R. 4686) was approved by voice vote on July 13, 2010.

The NPS is facing a maintenance deficit and a deteriorating national park infrastructure. According to CRS, while the NPS has improved inventory and asset management systems, the estimate of its deferred maintenance backlog has continued to mount. The Department of Interior (DOI) estimated deferred maintenance for the NPS for FY2010 at between $8.77 billion and $12.89 billion, with a mid-range figure of $10.83 billion. The backlog is a result of the NPS’s failing to do scheduled maintenance and upkeep that was either not funded or carried out according to plan.

]]> According to CBO, carrying out the study required by H.R. 1141 would cost approximately $200,000 over the next three years.

]]>

Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2011 H.R. 3117 Rep. Wittman, Rob Natural Resources suspension hr3117 http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hr3117 http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.3117: Andy Koenig

On Monday, January 23, 2012, the House is scheduled to consider, H.R. 3117, the Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2011, under a suspension of the rules requiring a two-third majority vote for approval. The bill was introduced on October 6, 2011, by Rep. Robert Wittman (R-VA) and referred to the committee on Natural Resources, which held a mark up and reported the bill by unanimous consent on November 17, 2011.

]]>

H.R. 3117 would authorize the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to permanently allow states to provide federal migratory bird hunting and conservation stamps (referred to as federal duck stamps) electronically. The electronic stamps would remain valid for up to 45 days to allow for the physical stamps to arrive in the mail. A pilot program that authorized states to issue electronic stamps expired last year, although the USFWS has continued the program under other authorities.

Under H.R. 3117, state applications to participate in the electronic program would be required to describe the format of the duck stamp, the fees that will be charged, the process for accounting and providing funds to the Department of Interior (DOI), the transmission of customer data, the process for delivering a stamp and procedures for issuing duplicate stamps. The bill would authorize the DOI to terminate participation by a state if terms of the application are violated and notice is given 30 days prior to the termination.

H.R. 3117 would specify that electronic duck stamps must have the same format as other licenses issued by the state, and would require the relevant state agency to specify the identifying features of a license-holder so law enforcement can verify the holder's identity. The electronic stamp would bestow the same privileges as an actual duck stamp, would be recognized nationally, and would authorize hunting in other states.

]]>

Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps, commonly known as “Duck Stamps,” are pictorial stamps produced by the U.S. Postal Service for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. They are not valid for postage, however they are necessary in order to hunt waterfowl. Originally created in 1934 as the federal licenses required for hunting migratory waterfowl, revenue from Federal Duck Stamps is used to purchase or lease wetland habitat for protection in the National Wildlife Refuge System. In general, hunters are required to purchase both a federal duck stamp and a state stamp in order to legally hunt waterfowl. The current price of a federal duck stamp is $15.

In 2006, the Electronic Duck Stamp Act was enacted (P.L. 109-266) and directed the Secretary of Interior to conduct a new, three-year pilot program under which eight states authorized by the Secretary were allowed to issue electronic duck stamps. According to the DOI, through the program, more than 600,000 electronic duck stamps were sold, accounting for 27 percent of all sales.

]]> According to CBO, the net effects of H.R. 3117 would be insignificant for each year because the legislation would not have a significant impact on the number of federal duck stamps purchased.

]]>

01/17/12 http://www.gop.gov/legdigest/12/01/17

Electing the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Representatives H.Res. XX House Administration rule hresdfcg1529 http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/2/hresdfcg1529 http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.res.xx: Andy Koenig

On Tuesday, January 17, 2012, the House is scheduled to consider a resolution electing the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Representatives as a privileged resolution.

]]>

The resolution would elect Paul D. Irving as the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Representatives.

]]>

According to the House of Representatives Office of the Clerk, the Sergeant at Arms is the chamber’s principal law enforcement official, charged with maintaining security on the floor and for the House side of the Capitol complex. The modern Sergeant at Arms serves on the Capitol Police Board and the Capitol Guide Board along with the Senate Sergeant at Arms and the Architect of the Capitol. Mandated under the current House Rule II, the Sergeant at Arms also enforces protocol and ensures decorum during floor proceedings. In addition, the office’s duties encompass administrative functions such as arranging Capitol funerals, managing parking facilities, and issuing identification to Members and staff.

Paul D. Irving, 54, began his law enforcement career as a clerk in the FBI’s Los Angeles field office and, in 1983, joined the Secret Service as a special agent. He rose to a supervisory position on the Presidential Protective Detail and served as Deputy Assistant Director of the Secret Service for Congressional Affairs and Assistant Director for Government and Public Affairs. In 2003 he was detailed to the Executive Office of the President as a core member of the White House transition team responsible for assembling the Department of Homeland Security. Irving retired from the Service in 2008 as Assistant Director for Administration, with overall responsibility for budget formulation as well as direct oversight of the agency’s Chief Financial Officer, Chief Procurement Officer and Chief Property Officer. Mr. Irving would replace Wilson “Bill” Livingood, who will retire on January 17, 2012, after more than 17 years as the House’s top law enforcement official.

]]> A CBO cost estimate was not available as of press time.

]]>

12/20/11 http://www.gop.gov/legdigest/11/12/20

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding any final measure to extend the payroll tax holiday, extend Federally funded unemployment insurance benefits, or prevent decreases in reimbursement for physicians who provide care to Medicare H.Res. 501 rule hres501 http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/1/hres501 http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.res.501: Andy Koenig

On Tuesday, December 20, 2011, the House is scheduled to consider H.Res. 501, under rule. Under the rule (H.Res. 502), the resolution would be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. H.Res. 501 was introduced by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) on December 19, 2011 and referred to the House Committees on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, Administration, and Transportation and Infrastructure.

]]>

H.Res. 501 would express the sense of the House that any final measure to extend the payroll tax holiday, extend federally funded unemployment insurance benefits, or prevent decreases in reimbursement for physicians who provide care to Medicare beneficiaries should also:

Extend the payroll tax holiday through December 31, 2012;
Extend and reform Federally funded unemployment insurance benefits;
Eliminate for two years the dramatic cut in reimbursement for physicians who provide care to Medicare beneficiaries;
Reduce spending from areas throughout the Federal Government in order to protect the Social Security Trust Fund, whose solvency would otherwise be diminished as result of the payroll tax holiday; and
Provide immediate job creation through:
- Final approval of the Keystone XL pipeline;
- Expensing for capital assets placed in service in 2012; and
- Redrafting of EPA’s onerous regulation of boilers.

]]>

The resolution is accompanied by the following findings:

Whereas a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut instead of a full-year extension would cause additional uncertainty and complexity for private-sector job creators already struggling in the current economy;
Whereas on December 17th, 2011, President Barack Obama said, “It would be inexcusable for Congress not to further extend this middle-class tax cut for the rest of the year.”;
Whereas on December 17th, 2011, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said, “House Democrats will return to Washington to take up this legislation without delay, and we will keep up the fight to extend these provisions for a full year.”;
Whereas on December 17th, 2011, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D–MD): “I’m disappointed that Senate Republicans would not agree to a longer-term extension of critical policies.”;
Whereas in 2011 working Americans received a temporary payroll tax rate reduction which allowed the average family to keep $1,000 more of their annual wages;
Whereas on December 31, 2011, without action by the Congress, the temporary payroll tax rate reduction will expire, leaving nearly 170 million American workers with less disposable income as the economy continues to struggle;
Whereas the imminent expiration of the temporary payroll tax rate reduction is creating further uncertainty for families as well as employers who must adjust withholding amounts from their employees’ paychecks;
Whereas the Social Security Trust Fund is now running a cash deficit, and over the next 75 years will require an additional $6.5 trillion to pay scheduled benefits;
Whereas on January 1, 2012, without Congressional action, Medicare physician payments will be cut by 27.4 percent;
Whereas in order to preserve access to health care for the nation’s seniors, two years of stable Medicare payment rates would provide the most certainty physicians have had since 2004;
Whereas a two-year period of stability would provide Congress time to develop a long-term replacement to the Sustainable Growth Rate formula;
Whereas 13 million Americans remain unemployed and the unemployment rate has been above eight percent for 34 consecutive months, the Congress should enact needed reforms to ensure a fiscally responsible unemployment insurance program;
Whereas H.R. 3630 as passed by the House provided a fully offset extension of unemployment insurance benefits in line with previous periods of economic duress and integrated common-sense reforms into the program, including a requirement that benefit recipients search for work and participate in reemployment services to help them get back to work;
Whereas construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City, Nebraska, and to the United States Gulf Coast through Cushing, Oklahoma, is a $7 billion energy project that will enhance the energy security and economy of the United States;
Whereas the Keystone XL pipeline will create 20,000 direct jobs and 118,000 indirect jobs;
Whereas the Keystone XL pipeline has been subjected to three years of intensive environmental review, and was deemed environmentally sound by the U.S. Department of State in its August 26, 2011 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS);
Whereas Keystone XL pipeline legislation passed by the House and Senate would allow the state of Nebraska to continue its environmental review of a new pipeline route to avoid the Sand Hills region and the Ogallala Aquifer;
Whereas H.R. 3630 as passed by the House will reduce the cost for employers to purchase and place in service new equipment next year, and continued expensing will serve as an incentive to make investments and foster greater business investment and job creation;
Whereas EPA’s new proposed rules for boilers would cost manufacturers, colleges and universities, municipalities, and small businesses $15 billion and put up to 240,000 jobs at risk;
Whereas significant concerns with EPA’s new proposed rules cannot be adequately addressed or remedied unless Congress passes legislation; and
Whereas the House of Representatives passed on October 13, 2011, by a vote of 275 to 142, with the support of 41 Democrats, legislation that would overturn EPA’s Boiler MACT rules and require the agency to re-propose new rules in 15 months after date of enactment, with achievable standards, and an extension of the compliance period from three years to five years.

]]> A CBO score for H.Res. 501 was not available.

]]>

Motion that the House Disagree to the Senate Amendments H.R. 3630 Motion that the House Disagree to the Senate Amendments Rep. Camp, Dave Ways and Means rule hr3630motionthatthehousedisagreetothesenateamendments http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/1/hr3630motionthatthehousedisagreetothesenateamendments http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.3630motionthatthehousedisagreetothesenateamendments: Andy Koenig

On Tuesday, December 20, 2011, the House is scheduled to consider a motion that the House disagree to the Senate amendments to H.R. 3630, The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011, subject to a rule. Under the rule (H.Res. 502), the motion would be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

]]>

The motion would affirm that the House disagrees to the Senate amendments to H.R. 3630 and requests a conference with the Senate on the bill. H.R. 3630 was initially introduced by Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) on December 9, 2011, and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means as well as 11 other House committees. The House approved the bill by a roll call vote of 234–193 on December 13, 2011. The bill was amended in the Senate and approved on December 17, 2011, by a vote of 89-10. A Summary of the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3630 is available below.

]]>

Summary of The Senate Amendment to H.R. 3630

The Senate Amendment to H.R. 3630 would provide a two-month extension of the current payroll tax rates and federally funded Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits, as well as a two-month delay in the implementation of the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (the so-called “Doc Fix”). Unlike the House-approved version of H.R. 3630, the Senate Amendment would only extend these provisions of current law through February 29, 2012. The bill would offset these provisions by increasing fees charged by government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to lenders for assuming the credit risk on loans in the secondary mortgage market. In addition, the bill would require the President to make a determination on a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline within 60 days.

According to CBO, the two-month extension of provisions in the legislation would result in a deficit increase of $32.732 billion. The increase in GSE fees used to offset the bill would reduce the deficit by $35.7 billion. Thus, the bill would result in a deficit reduction of $2.968 billion over ten years.

Extensions

Extending the Payroll Tax Reduction: The legislation would extend the current payroll tax rate reduction, which lowers the standard Social Security payroll tax rate by two percentage points for employees, for two months, expiring on February 29, 2012. The bill would extend the current rate of 4.2 percent for employees, and 10.4 percent for the self-employed. The bill would make no changes to the payroll tax rate for employers (6.2 percent). Prior to 2011, employees and employers each paid 6.2 percent of covered earnings (for a total of 12.4 percent) up to an annual income limit. The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 reduced the FICA tax rate for employees by two percentage points for calendar year 2011. The bill would require amounts to “be transferred from the general fund at such times and in such manner as to replicate to the extent possible the transfers which would have occurred to such Trust Fund had such amendments not been enacted.” According to CBO, this provision would reduce revenue and thus increase the deficit by $20.4 billion.

Extending Unemployment Insurance Benefits: The bill would extend federally funded benefits under the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) and the Extended Benefit (EB) programs for two months, though February 29, 2012. Under the Senate Amendment, UI would be available for up to 99 weeks in certain states with high unemployment. The Senate Amendment would not include reforms to gradually reduce the current maximum amount of time total benefits could be distributed in states with high unemployment from 99 weeks to 59 weeks by mid-2012. In addition, the Senate Amendment would not reform the UI benefit program to require that participants are actively working and training towards employment and to streamline the program. According to CBO, this provision would increase spending and thus the deficit by $8.39 billion.

Medicare Physician Payment Rates: This provision would delay a 27.4 percent cut in Medicare physician payment rates slated to begin on January 1, 2012, for two months, through February 29,2012. According to CBO, this provision would increase spending and thus the deficit by $4.1 billion.

Physician Work Geographic Adjustment: This provision would extend, through February 29, 2012, the current floor used in calculating the portion of Medicare physician payments that accounts for the geographic area where a physician practices. This provision would increase physician payment rates in roughly 54 of the Medicare program’s 89 geographic areas.

Outpatient Therapy Caps: This provision would extend the therapy caps exceptions process through February 29, 2012, with modifications that will require that the physician reviewing the therapy plan of care be detailed on the claim, reject all claims above the spending cap that do not include the proper billing modifier, and provide for a manual review of all claims for high cost beneficiaries to ensure that only medically necessary services are being provided. Furthermore, the spending caps ($1,880 in 2012), which have been in effect since 2006, would be extended to the hospital outpatient department setting to prevent a shift in the site of service to higher cost settings once enforcement of the current exceptions process begins. Exempting these services in the HOPD setting made sense when the hard therapy cap was in place, but it no longer makes sense with the exceptions process.

Ambulance Add-On Payments: This provision would extend through February 29, 2012, the following add-on payments: 2 percent for urban ground ambulance services, 3 percent for rural ground ambulance services, and an increase to the base rate for ambulance trips originating in qualified “super rural” areas as calculated by the Secretary (currently 22.6 percent).

Qualified Individual (QI) Program: This provision would extend the QI program, which provides federal reimbursement for states to cover Part B premiums for seniors with incomes between 120 and 135 percent of poverty, through February 29, 2012. The provision would reduce the capped allotment states receive to administer the program from $1 billion in 2011 to $730 million in 2012, which is anticipated to still fully fund the program.

Extension of Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA): This provision would provide for a one-year extension of TMA, through February 29, 2012, for low-income families transitioning into employment. In addition, this provision ensures that only those individuals with incomes below 185 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) can qualify for TMA benefits.

TANF Extension: The bill would extend the authorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) state block grant program at current level of $16.5 billion annually, through February 29, 2012. The legislation does not include a prohibition against welfare funds from being accessed in strip clubs, liquor stores, and casinos by blocking welfare EBT cards from working in ATMs there.

Offset

GSE Guarantee Fees Offset: The bill would increase guarantee fees charged by the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lenders for assuming the credit risk on the loans GSEs purchase in the secondary mortgage market. In addition, the Senate Amendment would increase the guarantee fees charged by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) as well, which the House bill did not. The bill would increase these fees by 10 basis points, or one-tenth of one percent, over 2011 levels. These fees are in effect a premium to guarantee the repayment of principal and interest on those securities, insuring Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) investors from the risk that the securities will default. The increase is to be phased-in over the next two years. According to CBO, this provision would increase revenue and thus reduce the deficit by $35.7 billion.

Other Provisions

Keystone XL Pipeline: The bill would require the President to issue a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline unless he determines that the pipeline would not serve the national interest. The permit would be required within 60 days of enactment of this Act. If the President makes such a finding he would be required to submit a report to Congress providing justification for such a determination. Any permit issued under this section would be required to comply with all applicable Federal and state laws and would require the reconsideration of routing within the State of Nebraska.

Key Differences Between the House-Approved Version of H.R. 3630 and the Senate Amendment

Length of Payroll Tax Cut and Unemployment Insurance Extensions:

The House-approved bill would extend the payroll tax cut and Unemployment Insurance (UI) for one year as President Obama called for. In fact, just this weekend President Obama said, “it would be inexcusable for Congress not to further extend this middle-class tax cut for the rest of the year.”
The Senate Amendment only extends payroll tax rates and UI for two months, through February 29, 2011, adding to the uncertainty already weighing on taxpayers and those struggling to find a job in the Obama economy. In addition, the non-partisan National Payroll Reporting Consortium (NPRC) as well as the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) have both stated that the two-month extension of the payroll tax cut is unworkable and both concur that “H.R. 3630 as written could create substantial problems, confusion and costs affecting a significant percentage of U.S. employers and employees.”

Length of “Doc Fix” Extension:

The House-approved bill would avert a 27.4 percent cut to physician payment rates for two years. The bill would also increase rates by 1 percent in each of the next two years. The 2-year payment update is the longest that Congress has provided since 2004, which allows Congress and the medical community time to develop a permanent solution.
The Senate Amendment would only extend the Doc Fix for two months, through February 29, 2012, adding to the uncertainty felt by doctors providing care to Medicare beneficiaries.

Unemployment Insurance Reforms:

The House-approved bill would reform the UI program to help Americans get back to work through new programs that would encourage job training and require recipients to actively seek employment. In addition, the House-approved bill would use a two-step process to gradually reduce the current maximum weeks of benefits from 99 to 59 weeks, a level that is in line with past recessions and economic downturns.
The Senate Amendment would keep the current unemployment system without making any reforms to help unemployed Americans get back to work.

Expanding Job Creation:

The House-approved bill would extend for an additional year, through 2012, the 100 percent depreciation allowance that is currently in effect for 2011. Under legislation enacted in late 2010, qualifying property purchased (and generally placed into service) after September 8, 2010, and before January 1, 2012, is eligible for “expensing” (sometimes referred to as “100-percent bonus depreciation”), which allows a business to deduct the cost of the property immediately that year. Extending 100 percent expensing will encourage businesses to invest in additional real property and has been endorsed by President Obama.
The Senate Amendment would not extend the 100 percent depreciation allowance.

Cost

According to CBO, the two-month extension of provisions in the Senate Amendment would result in a deficit increase of $32.732 billion. The increase in GSE fees used to offset the bill would increase revenue by $35.7 billion. Thus, the bill would result in a deficit reduction of $2.968 billion over ten years.

]]>

12/19/11 http://www.gop.gov/legdigest/11/12/19

To provide for the placement of a statue or bust of Sir Winston Churchill in the United States Capitol H.Res. 497 Rep. Boehner, John House Administration suspension hres497 http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/1/hres497 http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.res.497: Andy Koenig

On Monday, December 19, 2001, the House is scheduled to consider H.Res. 497 under a suspension of the rules requiring a two-thirds majority vote for approval. H.Res 497 was introduced by Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) on December 15, 2011, and was referred to the Committee on House Administration.

]]>

H.Res. 497 would direct the Architect of the Capitol to place an appropriate statue or bust of Sir Winston Churchill in the United States Capitol at a location directed by the House Fine Arts Board in consultation with the Speaker.

]]>

According to the resolution’s findings, Winston Churchill was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1940 through 1945 and from 1951 through 1955. On December 26, 1941, Sir Winston Churchill addressed a Joint Session of Congress and said: “Sure I am that this day—now we are the masters of our fate; that the task which has been set us is not above our strength; that its pangs and toils are not beyond our endurance. As long as we have faith in our cause and an unconquerable will-power, salvation will not be denied us. In the words of the Psalmist, ‘He shall not be afraid of evil tidings; his heart is fixed, trusting in the Lord.’ Not all the tidings will be evil.” December 26, 2011, is the 70th anniversary of this speech to a joint session of Congress. Currently, the U.S. Capitol does not currently appropriately recognize the contributions of Sir Winston Churchill or that of the United Kingdom.

]]> A CBO score for H.Res. 497 was not available as of press time.

]]>

Senate Amendment to instruct the Inspector General of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to study the impact of insured depository institution failures, and for other purposes H.R. 2056senamdt Rep. Westmoreland, Lynn suspension hr2056senamdt http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/1/hr2056senamdt http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.2056senamdt: Jon Hiler

On Monday, December 19, 2011, the House is scheduled consider a Senate Amendment to H.R. 2056 under a suspension of the rules, requiring a two-thirds majority vote for passage. The resolution was introduced by Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) on May 31, 2011, and was approved by the House on July 28, 2011 by voice vote. The bill was approved with an amendment in the Senate on December 17, 2011 by voice vote.

]]>

H.R. 2056 would require the Inspector General of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to study the impact of the failure of insured depository institutions. Specifically, H.R. 2056 would require the study to detail:

The impact of loss-sharing agreements (LSAs) on the insured depository institutions that survive and the borrowers of insured depository institutions that fail;
The effect of FDIC policies and procedures regarding maturing LSAs;
The methods of ensuring the orderly end of expiring LSAs to prevent any adverse impact on borrowing, the real estate industry, and the Depositors Insurance Fund;
The significance of certain paper losses, with specified factors for consideration;
The success of FDIC field examiners in implementing specified FDIC guidelines regarding workouts and commercial real estate loans;
The application and impact of consent orders and cease and desist orders;
The application and impact of FDIC policies; and
The FDIC’s handling of potential investment from private equity companies in insured depository institutions.

The bill would require the FDIC make available from the portion of the FDIC budget allocated to management expenses, sums allowing the FDIC Inspector General to complete this study.

]]>

At press time, the Congressional Budget Office has not produced a score for H.R. 2560.

]]>

Senate Amendment to the Risk-Based Security Screening for Members of the Armed Forces Act H.R. 1801senamdt Rep. Cravaack, Chip suspension hr1801senamdt http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/1/hr1801senamdt http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.1801senamdt: Jon Hiler

On Monday, December 19, 2011, the House is scheduled to consider the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1801, the Risk-Based Security Screening for Members of the Armed Forces Act, under a suspension of the rules, requiring a two-thirds majority for passage. H.R. 1801 was introduced by Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN) on May 10, 2011, and was approved in the House on November 29, 2011 by a vote of 404-0. The bill was approved with an amendment in the Senate on December 12, 2011 by voice vote.

]]>

H.R. 1801 would require the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, acting through the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), to implement expedited screening processes at certain airports for uniformed members of the armed forces and accompanying family members. The bill would specify factors for the Assistant Secretary to consider in designing such processes and would require TSA to report to the Congress on their implementation.

]]>

According to the committee report, H. Rept. 112-271, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) uses the same screening procedures for all passengers at airport checkpoints. Although TSA has plans to move to a more risk-based method of screening passengers at airport checkpoints in the future, this legislation directs the Transportation Security Administration to screen members of the Armed Forces in uniform on an expedited basis and in a manner that makes sense for the men and women serving our country at home and on the battlefield. The legislation does not contradict existing TSA policy and complements the plans TSA has for risk-based screening protocols.

]]> The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that fully funding H.R. 1801 would cost less than $500,000 annually, assuming the availability of appropriated funds. Enacting H.R. 1801 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.

]]>

Senate Amendment to protect the safety of judges by extending the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact sensitive information contained in their financial disclosure reports, and for other purposes H.R. 1059senamdt Rep. Conyers, JohnJr. suspension hr1059senamdt http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/1/hr1059senamdt http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.1059senamdt: Jon Hiler

On Monday, December 19, 2011, the House is scheduled consider a Senate Amendment to H.R. 1059 under a suspension of the rules, requiring a two-thirds majority vote for passage. The resolution was introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) on March 14, 2011 and was approved by the House on September 12, 2011 by a vote of 384-0. The bill was passed with an amendment in the Senate by unanimous consent on November 17, 2011.

]]>

H.R. 1059 would correct a misspelling set forth in the redaction portion of the Ethics in Government Act (“Marshals” instead of “Marshall”). The Senate Amendment would extend the sunset provision—currently December 31, 2011—that applies to the redaction authority to the year 2017. The House version struck the sunset provision entirely.

]]>

Judges and certain other judicial branch employees are required to file annual financial disclosure reports under the Ethics in Government Act. Given the security risks that confront members of the Judiciary, however, the Judicial Conference is authorized to redact sensitive information from these reports that could otherwise be used to compromise the safety of the filers or their families. The statutory authority of the Judicial Conference to redact this information expires on December 31, 2011. H.R. 1059 permanently extends the authority beyond this date.

]]> According to the Congressional Budget Office, implementing H.R. 1059 would have no significant impact on the federal budget. Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.

]]>

Senate Amendment to Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2011 H.R. 515senamdt Rep. Smith, Christopher suspension hr515senamdt http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/1/hr515senamdt http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.515senamdt: Jon Hiler

On Monday, December 19, 2011, the House is scheduled consider a Senate Amendment to H.R. 515 under a suspension of the rules, requiring a two-thirds majority vote for passage. The resolution was introduced by Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ) on January 26, 2011, and was approved by the House on July 6, 2011 by voice vote. The bill was approved with an amendment in the Senate on December 14, 2011 by voice vote.

]]>

H.R. 515 would amend the Belarus Democracy Act of 2004 to authorize assistance to promote democracy and civil society in Belarus. The legislation would affirm that the President should continue to support radio, television, and Internet broadcasting within the scope of increased support and funding for U.S. government and surrogate broadcasting into Belarus. The legislation would also expand a reporting requirement to include certain information on weapons-related training and censorship or surveillance of the Internet

Additionally, the legislation would condemn the conduct of the recent presidential election and the crackdown on opposition candidates and activists. The legislation would expand the conditions under which sanctions may be lifted, requiring the government of Belarus to release individuals who were jailed based on political beliefs or human rights violations in connection with the repression that attended the December 2010 election.

The legislation would also expand on existing sanctions, including the denial of entry visas to any member of the Belarusian security or law enforcement services who participated in the crackdown on opposition leaders, journalists, and peaceful protesters or in the persecution of religious groups or human rights defenders that occurred in connection with the December election.

]]>

According to findings in the legislation, the Government of Belarus has engaged in a pattern of clear and uncorrected violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Government of Belarus has engaged in a pattern of clear and uncorrected violations of basic principles of democratic governance, including through a series of fundamentally flawed presidential and parliamentary elections undermining the legitimacy of executive and legislative authority in that country.

Additionally, the Government of Belarus has subjected thousands of pro-democratic political activists to harassment, beatings, and jailings, particularly as a result of their attempts to peacefully exercise their right to freedom of assembly and association.

The Government of Belarus has attempted to maintain a monopoly over the country’s information space, targeting independent media, including independent journalists, for systematic reprisals and elimination, while suppressing the right to freedom of speech and expression of those dissenting from the dictatorship of Aleksandr Lukashenka, and adopted laws restricting the media, including the Internet, in a manner inconsistent with international human rights agreements.

After the December 19, 2010, presidential election the Government of Belarus responded to opposition protests by beating scores of protestors and detaining more than 600 peaceful protestors. They jailed seven of the nine opposition presidential candidates and abused the process of criminal prosecution to persecute them. Following the election, the Government of Belarus also disrupted independent broadcast and Internet media, and engaged in repressive actions against independent journalists. The Belarusian security services and police also conducted raids targeting civil society groups, individual pro-democracy activists, and independent media.

]]> According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), enacting the bill would increase direct spending and decrease revenues; therefore pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates those effects would not be significant and would cost less than $500,000 over the 2012-2016 period, assuming the availability of appropriated funds.

]]>

12/19/11 http://www.gop.gov/legdigest/11/12/19

Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3630�Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011 H.R. 3630 Motion to Concur Rep. Camp, Dave Ways and Means rule hr3630motiontoconcur http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/1/hr3630motiontoconcur http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.3630motiontoconcur: Andy Koenig

On Monday, December 19, 2011, the House is scheduled to consider a motion to concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3630, The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011, subject to a rule. H.R. 3630 was initially introduced by Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) on December 9, 2011, and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means as well as 11 other House committees. The House approved the bill by a roll call vote of 234–193 on December 13, 2011. The bill was amended in the Senate and approved on December 17, 2011, by a vote of 89-10.

]]>

According to CBO, the two-month extension of provisions in the legislation would result in a deficit increase of $32.732 billion. The increase in GSE fees used to offset the bill would increase revenue by $35.7 billion. Thus, the bill would result in a deficit reduction of $2.968 billion over ten years.

Key Differences Between the House-Approved Version of H.R. 3630 and the Senate Amendment

Length of Payroll Tax Cut and Unemployment Insurance Extensions:

The House-approved bill would extend the payroll tax cut and Unemployment Insurance (UI) for one year as President Obama called for. In fact, just this weekend President Obama said, “it would be inexcusable for Congress not to further extend this middle-class tax cut for the rest of the year.”
The Senate Amendment only extends payroll tax rates and UI for two months, through February 29, 2011, adding to the uncertainty already weighing on taxpayers and those struggling to find a job in the Obama economy. In addition, the non-partisan National Payroll Reporting Consortium (NPRC) as well as the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) have both stated that the two-month extension of the payroll tax cut is unworkable and both concur that “H.R. 3630 as written could create substantial problems, confusion and costs affecting a significant percentage of U.S. employers and employees.”

Length of “Doc Fix” Extension:

The House-approved bill would avert a 27.4 percent cut to physician payment rates for two years. The bill would also increase rates by 1 percent in each of the next two years. The 2-year payment update is the longest that Congress has provided since 2004, which allows Congress and the medical community time to develop a permanent solution.
The Senate Amendment would only extend the Doc Fix for two months, through February 29, 2012, adding to the uncertainty felt by doctors providing care to Medicare beneficiaries.

Unemployment Insurance Reforms:

The House-approved bill would reform the UI program to help Americans get back to work through new programs that would encourage job training and require recipients to actively seek employment. In addition, the House-approved bill would use a two-step process to gradually reduce the current maximum weeks of benefits from 99 to 59 weeks, a level that is in line with past recessions and economic downturns.
The Senate Amendment would keep the current unemployment system without making any reforms to help unemployed Americans get back to work.

Expanding Job Creation:

The House-approved bill would extend for an additional year, through 2012, the 100 percent depreciation allowance that is currently in effect for 2011. Under legislation enacted in late 2010, qualifying property purchased (and generally placed into service) after September 8, 2010, and before January 1, 2012, is eligible for “expensing” (sometimes referred to as “100-percent bonus depreciation”), which allows a business to deduct the cost of the property immediately that year. Extending 100 percent expensing will encourage businesses to invest in additional real property and has been endorsed by President Obama.
The Senate Amendment would not extend the 100 percent depreciation allowance.

SUMMARY OF SENATE AMENDMENT PROVISIONS

Extensions

Extending Unemployment Insurance Benefits: The bill would extend federally funded benefits under the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) and the Extended Benefit (EB) programs for 2 months, though February 29, 2012. Under the Senate Amendment, UI would be available for up to 99 weeks in certain states with high unemployment. The Senate Amendment would not include reforms to gradually reduce the current maximum amount of time total benefits could be distributed in states with high unemployment from 99 weeks to 59 weeks by mid-2012. In addition, the Senate Amendment would not reform the UI benefit program to require that participants are actively working and training towards employment and to streamline the program. According to CBO, this provision would increase spending and thus the deficit by $8.39 billion.

Offset

Other Provisions

]]>

According to CBO, the two-month extension of provisions in the legislation would result in a deficit increase of $32.732 billion. The increase in GSE fees used to offset the bill would increase revenue by $35.7 billion. Thus, the bill would result in a deficit reduction of $2.968 billion over ten years.

]]>

12/16/11 http://www.gop.gov/legdigest/11/12/16

Senate Amendment to Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 H.R. 1892senadmt Rep. Rogers, Mike suspension hr1892senadmt http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/1/hr1892senadmt http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.1892senadmt: Jon Hiler

On Friday, December 16, 2011, the House is scheduled to consider the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1892 under a suspension of the rules, requiring a two-thirds majority vote for passage. The bill was introduced by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) on May 13, 2011, and referred to the Committee on Intelligence. The House approved H.R. 1892 on September 9, 2011 by a recorded vote of 384-14. The Senate passed the bill with amendment by unanimous consent on December 14, 2011.

]]>

H.R. 1892 would authorize the intelligence activities of the United States government for Fiscal Year 2012. This bill would fund the requirements of the men and women of the Intelligence Community (military and civilian), many of whom directly support the war zones or are engaged in other dangerous operations to keep Americans safe.

The bill would provide budget authority and personnel manning levels for the conduct of intelligence activities in the amounts specified in section 102, the Classified Schedule of Authorizations.

The bill would authorize $590.3 million in FY2012 for the Director of National Intelligence’s (DNI) Intelligence Community Management Account, as well as 794 full-time personnel for this account. This is the principal source of funding for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and provides resources for the coordination of programs, budget oversight, and management of the intelligence agencies. Additionally, the bill would provide additional flexibility for the DNI in managing the civilian personnel of the Intelligence Community.

The bill would also authorize appropriation of $514 million for the Central Intelligence Agency Retirements and Disability System for FY2012.

The Senate amendments to the bill are primarily minor and technical with the exception of the following provisions:

Section 310: Burial allowance.

A House passed provision to increase the burial allowance for CIA employees killed in the line of duty from today’s $800 amount has been modified to apply to all intelligence community personnel and to mirror the amount available to DOD employees.

Section 308: Notification of transfer of a detainee held at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

This provision requires the President to submit certain information to Congress 30 days prior to the transfer or release of a detainee. It mirrors language previously passed in the 111th Congress and explicitly makes clear that it in no way affects certification provisions on detainee release or transfer contained in the defense authorization or appropriations bills for FY 2012.

Section 309: Enhanced procurement authority to manage supply chain risk.

This provision authorizes the heads of elements of the Intelligence Community outside the Department of Defense to take certain procurement actions under certain circumstances to reduce the risk that an adversary may sabotage or otherwise subvert information systems. The Senate provision makes technical modifications to the House provision to more closely align it with a similar provision in the FY2011 Defense Authorization while ensuring the procurement authorities referenced in the provision amend the appropriate law concerning Intelligence Community procurement.

]]>

The bill authorizes Fiscal Year 2012 programs and funding levels for the Intelligence Community, as well as foreign intelligence activities of the Department of Defense, Federal Bureau of Investigation, State Department, and Department of Homeland Security. The United States Intelligence Community consists of 17 agencies including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the National Security Agency (NSA), and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). These organizations enhance national security, support and assist the Armed Forces, and facilitate U.S. foreign policy.

The primary vehicle for exercising credible congressional oversight over the intelligence agencies is the intelligence authorization bill. The current challenging fiscal environment demands the accountability and financial oversight of our classified intelligence programs that can only come with an intelligence authorization bill.

Congress has recently approved intelligence authorization bills, but a complete bill, including the classified annex, has not been enacted since 2004. Actual funding for the Intelligence Community has recently been appropriated via “deeming” language within defense spending bills.

Several portions of this bill are classified—the classified annex to the legislation contains specific funding and personnel levels for intelligence programs. The annex is available to members in HVC-304.

The following was provided courtesy of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:

After passage of the Budget Control Act, the Committee revamped the bill it reported out of Committee in May -- to double its budget savings. As a result, the bill is significantly below the President’s Budget request for Fiscal Year 2012 and further still below the levels authorized and appropriated in Fiscal Year 2011. These savings were achieved without impacting the Intelligence Community’s important mission, as the cuts of the 1990’s did.

This bill was crafted using a five-part resource strategy to keep intelligence strong, even in an era of declining budgets:

Curb unnecessary personnel growth: The cost of additional personnel would squeeze funding for high-tech investments, which is our competitive advantage in intelligence. While the bills denies a substantial portion of the Administration’s requested personnel increases, it still adds some new key positions in high priority areas such as cyber defense and analysis of terrorist financial support networks.

Find major operating savings: The bill promotes operating efficiencies in a number of areas, including data processing, IT, and office leases, finding over $100 million in savings.

Make only “best value” investments: The bill shaves $1 billion from a handful of “big ticket” hardware programs.

Deliver acquisitions on-budget and on-schedule: Stable funding, based on independent cost estimates, is key to keeping acquisition programs on cost and schedule. Accordingly, the bill funds all best-value investments based on their independent cost estimates.

Protect investments in cutting-edge Research and Technology: The bill redirects roughly $500 million of various savings to invest in game-changing technologies.

]]> There was no revised CBO cost estimate available at press time.

]]>

Senate Amendment to United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Reform and Reauthorization Act of 2011 H.R. 2867senadmt Rep. Wolf, Frank suspension hr2867senadmt http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/1/hr2867senadmt http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.2867senadmt: Jon Hiler

On Friday, December 16, 2011, the House is scheduled to consider the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2867 under a suspension of the rules, requiring a two-thirds majority vote for passage. The resolution was introduced by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) on September 8, 2011 and referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The House approved H.R. 2867 on September 15, 2011 by a vote of 391-21. The Senate passed the bill with amendment on December 13, 2011 by voice vote.

]]>

The Senate Amendment to H.R. 2867 would impose term limits for appointees to United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Reform, limiting members to two full terms of two years each in length.

The amended bill would also subject Commission members to certain federal travel rules and Department of State travel regulations regarding government authorized travel.

Additionally, the bill would authorize Commission funding for fiscal years 2012 through 2014.

H.R. 2867 would specify that, for purposes of redress under various antidiscrimination laws (e.g., those dealing with employment discrimination, family and medical leave, veterans reemployment, Americans with Disabilities Act, etc.), Commission employees shall be treated the same as Congressional employees.

H.R. 2867 would include a “standards of conduct and disclosure” section that would insert in the underlying statute the $250,000 cap that has been in place since FY10 in place of the nine-year-old $100,000 cap on how much of its annual funding the Commission may use to contract for temporary services (such as GSA administrative support, and project-specific translation and subject-matter expertise); and would correct/update the House Committee name in the underlying statute (from “International Relations” to “Foreign Affairs”).

H.R. 2867 would require a one-time report by GAO on the following: (1) review the effectiveness of federal programs to promote international religious freedom; (2) assess the roles and functions of the Office on International Religious Freedom, the relationship to other offices in the Department of State, and the role of the Ambassador at Large; (3) analyze the Commission's structure as an independent nonpartisan entity in relation to other U.S. advisory commissions; and (4) review the relationship between the Ambassador at Large and the Commission.

Lastly, the bill would extend the Commission’s sunset date by three years, to 2014, thus requiring further legislative action and reauthorization after the issuance of the GAO report.

]]>

At press time, there was no CBO score available for H.R. 2867.

]]>