To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the calculation of modified adjusted gross income for purposes of determining eligibility for certain healthcare-related programs.

I thank my friend from Michigan and the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. As we look at this redefinition of terms under the Affordable Care Act, let me take a minute or 2 or 3 and go to the facts on the health care law as it exists today.

Some people on the other side of the aisle and in the media continue to refer to this provision that we're talking about today as a glitch. As we learned from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Tax at the markup of this bill in the Ways and Means Committee, this provision was not a glitch.

Again, the other side will report that this was a glitch in the law. It was not a glitch. It was written into the law deliberately, and anyone who actually read the bill would have known that. This language was deliberately put into the health care law to expand affordable health insurance and will particularly help early retirees between the ages of 62 and 64, as well as Americans on disability.

But, again, for those of us who support this law and supported the passage of this law, we have heard a lot of distortions and a lot of falsehoods and outright lies about what is in this bill. That is why I encourage all my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, especially those of you who are new to Congress who were not here when the bill was passed, to read the bill. I bet that if you did so, you'd like a lot about what is in the bill.

There are no death panels in this bill, no government takeover of health care in this bill, and bureaucrats will not be in the operating room with your surgeon. These are all falsehoods spread about the law, and again, people who read the law know that these claims simply are not true.

But here is what is in the law. I think we need to be reminded. No longer will insurance companies be able to decide whether or not you or your family deserve care based on cost or profit-making; no, these decisions will be made by doctors and patients. That's no glitch. Children can no longer be denied coverage on their parents' private health insurance because of a preexisting condition like asthma, which is very prevalent in my district in the Bronx. This was no glitch. Children can stay on their parents' private health insurance until the age of 26, which has led to over 1 million more young adults being covered this year. It's no glitch.

No mandates on any employer with under 50 employees--none, zero. No mandating to any employers with under 50 employees, also deliberate by the writers of this bill. Prescription drugs for seniors are being made more affordable, and this year, seniors get deep discounts on their brand-name drugs if they fall into the prescription drug coverage gap, a black hole that seniors fall into if they need more than a few thousand dollars' worth of medications annually, which millions of our seniors do. It was no glitch--no glitch.

And, finally, something else in the bill--people will know if they read it: Young families with private health insurance can no longer be denied coverage or care under the disgusting term known as ``lifetime limits.'' If a young mother gives birth to a severely ill child, there are no lifetime limits. Yes, the practice of telling young parents that not only is their newborn severely ill but that their private insurance company won't pay for any more hospitalization care because it's too costly is over. That's no glitch. Those parents will be able to get their sick child the care that he or she needs without selling their home, without declaring bankruptcy, and without having to fight their health insurance company tooth and nail to provide for their child. Rather, they can focus on their child's well-being. It's no glitch. It's in the law. Democrats put it there deliberately.

What I can't understand is why my Republican colleagues will continue to work to rip away health care, from private insurance to Medicare and Medicaid. But they refuse to even acknowledge that they, themselves, benefit from taxpayer-funded health care in this Congress. I have a bill that will require every Member of Congress to publicly disclose if they are receiving the taxpayer-subsidized health care benefits that are provided to all Federal Government employees, including Members of Congress. My bill has not been brought up for a debate or a vote yet, even though it's a simple bill to make more information available to the American people about the benefits that we in Congress enjoy.

Finally, I want to address another serious issue about this bill and how it could affect tens of millions of middle class Americans. During the committee debate on this bill, it was certified by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation that Social Security benefits generally are not added back in determining one's modified adjusted gross income for other benefits that they receive, such as IRA contributions, student loan interest, and adoption tax benefits. But we are changing that definition today for consideration of who can obtain tax credits to purchase private health insurance. I argued, and no one corrected me during that debate, that this bill could be the Republicans' first step on a slippery slope to limit middle class Americans' ability to claim certain deductions for retirement security, college tuition expenses, and even adoptive assistance--yes, the first step on the Republican plan to raise taxes on working class families. And this morning, my fears are being proven correct. Right now, the Oversight Committee is discussing a report they wrote questioning the tax cuts provided to working families to afford health insurance in the Affordable Care Act.

They don't argue that the tax cuts are too limited or too weak; they actually argue that the tax cuts are too generous to working families and that too many Americans will benefit from tax cuts that will make obtaining private health insurance cheaper. The Oversight Committee report states that the health care law will ``take millions of people off the tax rolls.'' And let me continue from the report that says Americans receiving these tax cuts in the health care law will have their taxes reduced and ``will no longer pay the cost of government by contributing federal income taxes.''

What that means is because the tax cuts in the law will lower taxes for people so they can afford health insurance. It's amazing how tax cuts for millionaires are sacrosanct, but tax cuts for working people so they can get affordable health care coverage so their kids can see a doctor are somehow evil. Let's end the hypocrisy with respect to health care and Medicare for our constituents and end the lies about the Affordable Health Care Act, and let's not pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank my colleague from Michigan for yielding.

I just want to note for the record that the majority leader did not challenge my point that, if this bill passes, it will, in fact, increase taxes on the middle class.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentlelady.

You suggested this change of MAGI as it pertains to tax credits that are eligible to the middle class under the Affordable Care Act; is that correct?

I yield to the gentlelady from Tennessee.

Are you also going to make that same suggestion that we change the adjusted gross income for eligibility for the purposes of IRA contributions?

I understand that. We're talking about tax credits for health care.

You don't want to make certain individuals eligible for those tax credits; isn't that correct? Your attempt here is to not make certain people who under the Affordable Care Act today would be eligible for certain tax credits ineligible; is that correct?

My question is either ``yes'' or ``no.'' You can answer your way, but it's a simple question.

Under the Affordable Care Act, would the people who can receive tax credits today be denied those tax credits if your bill were to pass today?

If you will continue with me under my time, would you then suggest that we now do that for

other areas of the Code not pertaining to the lower class or the poor in this country? I'm not suggesting we do that. I'm talking specifically of the middle class.

Should we extend that logic or maybe enhance your bill to include IRA contributions, student loan interest and adoption tax credits, which are focused on the middle class?

Again, we're not talking about the poor. They're covered. We're talking about individuals who are struggling to survive right now in this economy, who are struggling to put food on their tables, to pay for their student loans or their children's student loans, to put away money for retirement, who maybe have the opportunity for the first time in their lives to afford health insurance. Under your bill, you would take those credits away. Are you suggesting that we take them away?

It's a slippery slope. You start here. Let's just look at the overall Tax Code. We'll change major portions then.

What about the IRA contributions that that person would be making? What about the student loan interest, the adoption tax credits? Should we also limit their ability to take advantage of those provisions of the law?

The silence is deafening. The silence is deafening because the reality is, Mr. Speaker, this is a slippery slope. You take away opportunities for the middle class to afford health insurance under the Affordable Care Act by whittling away at it. It's the middle class who are hurt here.

We're not talking about the poor; we're not talking about the least amongst us. We're talking about the middle class that under the Affordable Care Act would have the opportunity to afford insurance for the first time, and this legislation, this legislation, I can't even say as well intentioned as it may be, it is not well intentioned.

There is nothing about this bill that is well intentioned. It is simply to take away a provision that this Congress and our President made available for the first time in people's lives. They want to take it away for the middle class.

Let's put everything aside--that's what we're doing today--and I'm suggesting maybe this is just the first step, that maybe the next step will be limiting the ability of individuals to put away money for retirement in their IRA, limiting the availability for students or the parents to pay for a college education, and lastly, and probably most egregious, the adoption tax credits, taking them away. I mean, that's where this is going.

I thank my colleague from Michigan once again for yielding me the time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate it. And in friendship, while the gentleman is a fair Member of the other side of the aisle, we work very well together on a number of issues.

You make out the point about $64,000 a year as being--I won't say wealthy.

But you are suggesting maybe on $64,000 a year that people are living a little bit of the high life.

Will the gentleman continue to yield?

I was just suggesting, in my district in Queens, New York, or in the Bronx, $64,000 doesn't get you very far. It just doesn't.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan once again.

It's been said on the floor, once again, this bill has bipartisan support. I don't doubt that it probably will at the end of the day, but somehow that's the magic formula for doing the right thing. I would suggest there are many things that were done on this floor that enjoy bipartisan support. The Iraq war, unfortunately, had bipartisan support. I was one of those who supported it. I think many today would suggest that maybe that wasn't the right thing to do.

Just as an example, the point I was making with my friend, the gentleman from Texas, this magic number of $63,000 or $64,000 as being a wonderful income, not if you live in Queens or the Bronx; you're barely making it. I'm not talking about people who are destitute. I'm not talking about people who are suffering. We know they exist. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to do away with the Medicaid system. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to do away with the Medicare system. I'm not suggesting that you're talking about this in the bill.

But what I am suggesting, though, is that you think that people making $63,000 or $64,000 are living high on the hog. They're not. Not in my district they're not. They can barely afford their home. They can barely afford to send their children to school. They can barely afford to put food on the table, and many of them cannot even afford ownership of a health insurance policy to take care of their children let alone themselves. And that's what I'm talking about, giving people that opportunity.

I don't care if the President is going to sign this bill. It doesn't make it right. It doesn't make it right. We should not be degrading. We should not be degrading hardworking Americans, middle class Americans who are trying to do the best for their families.

This bill should have never gotten out of committee, and it shouldn't be on the floor in the manner it is.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for again yielding.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding the time, and I rise today in opposition to the combined rule for H.R. 674 and H.R. 2576.

The underlying bill, H.R. 674, repeals the 3 percent withholding for taxes on payments to government contractors, and H.R. 2576 will make health care unaffordable for 500,000 Americans--that's not according to me but according to CBO--leaving them with no choice but to drop their coverage. This bill will also increase the costs or reduce the coverage for many more Americans, including individuals with severe disabilities.

The pairing of these two bills is not, in my considered opinion, an appropriate use of our Nation's Tax Code, and in my opinion, does nothing to create jobs. It is part of the same old ``all or nothing'' majority strategy that led to the debt ceiling standoff earlier this year.

The Republicans have taken a bipartisan idea--and it is bipartisan, as my good friend from South Carolina said--that would actually put money directly in the pockets of hardworking Americans and make its passage contingent on a bill that rehashes the health care reform debate from the last Congress. Once again, my colleagues have chosen to play politics with the lives of middle class and working poor Americans.

The withholding requirement, itself, was passed in 2005 when President George W. Bush was in the White House and when Republicans had majorities in both the House and the Senate, but it was never implemented, and it has been put off a number of times.

Today, there is broad support for repealing this Republican-created provision. H.R. 674 has, as my friend said, 269 bipartisan cosponsors. Since Republicans have now brought a bill to the floor that would repeal this requirement, it is clear that this measure should not be combined, as in this rule, with H.R. 2576.

Getting rid of this provision will keep administrative costs down and assist American businesses during these challenging economic times. However, Republicans want to pay for the 3 percent bill by making it harder for retirees, the disabled, and poor to get access to health insurance. This is, yet again, an inappropriate use of our Tax Code.

This bill is known as the MAGI bill, ``modified adjusted gross income.'' It repeals the provision in the Affordable Care Act that allows individuals and families to exclude nontaxable Social Security benefits from their incomes when determining their eligibility for health care benefits. This definition would also apply when qualifying for Medicaid and Federal subsidies to buy private insurance in the State-run exchanges. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the exclusion of nontaxable Social Security benefits is typical when applying income limitations to tax benefits.

Regardless of the facts, my friends in the majority have decided to throw retirees and disabled individuals under the bus in order to offset a completely unrelated bill.

My friends on the other side of the aisle claim that this is about equity and fairness, but is it equitable for as many as 500,000 Americans to lose all their health care coverage as a result of this measure? What are we saying to these individuals; sorry, 500,000 of you are out of luck? Is it fair to make health care less accessible to low- and middle-income individuals rather than close loopholes and cancel special tax deals for wealthy, wealthy oil companies?

In contrast, the Democrats' substitute offered by Mr. Levin, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, will make oil companies pay their fair share of taxes, thereby reducing the deficit by $5.3 billion over 5 years and $12.8 billion over 10 years.

It is clear that H.R. 2576 is not about equity at all. It's about forcing individual taxpayers to shoulder the burden of business tax provisions. H.R. 2576 will impose higher costs on retirees and persons with severe disabilities, shifting them out of Medicaid coverage or requiring that they contribute significantly more of their income for health insurance coverage through reduced tax credits.

How do Republicans intend to offset the cost, such as increased trips to the emergency room? How do you offset that association with half a million Americans suddenly losing their health insurance coverage? The Tax Code should not be used to effectively reduce health care coverage and increase costs for those least able to afford it.

Make no mistake, H.R. 2576 is yet another attempt by Republicans to undermine comprehensive health care reform. Last week, the Senate Republicans forced a vote on the 3 percent withholding repeal bill, but it too failed over unreasonable Republican demands.

Where are the jobs? Instead of passing a jobs bill, Republicans are redefining the rules to make health care less accessible for a considerable number of Americans. These bills together are a new approach to cutting the deficit for Republicans. Until recently, they said that the only way to fix the deficit was to starve the beast, that is, spending cuts only. But with a bill like H.R. 2576 that takes away health care from hundreds of thousands of Americans, Republicans have decided that rather than starving the beast, it's better to feed the beast to our society's most vulnerable members.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my friend and classmate from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my good friend from South Carolina that I am the last speaker. If he has other speakers, then I will reserve my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, President Obama, as has been cited, along with many of our colleagues, supports changing the definition of ``modified adjusted gross income.'' But like on other occasions, I have disagreed with this President on matters, and in this instance I do. There are many in the institution who have a different view. But there is no reason why a bill reducing access to health care for millions of Americans has to be tied to a bill that will put money back into the pockets of middle class and working poor Americans.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle made a conscious decision to make it harder for Americans to pay their medical bills. Now, they could have just as easily tied this bill to one that reduces oil and gas subsidies. But listen, I just spoke to a group of students, about 15 or 20 of them from American University, and I put the question to them regarding this rule,

explaining to them some of the dynamics of the institution. I put the question to them: What would seem more sensible to you. Would it be that 500,000 people should and may lose their coverage under a measure, or that the oil companies and gas companies--and I added GE--that those kinds of companies that cause these kinds of matters not to have to come into play at this time in our institution?

Now Democrats--Sander Levin, my good friend from Michigan, the ranking member--introduced a substitute that would eliminate oil and gas subsidies in order to repeal the withholding requirement while still allowing Americans to keep their health care coverage. Yet they wouldn't waive the rules for that, as they've done a number of times, my Republican friends, for their own amendments, proving once again that the rules are only sacred when oil and gas and big business profits are at stake.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, an amendment will be offered to the rule to let Mr. Levin of Michigan or Mr. Bishop of New York or Mr. Keating of Massachusetts offer the amendment we tried to have made in order in the Rules Committee yesterday. As we've said, the amendment will roll back special tax loopholes for immensely profitable big oil companies. Is there anybody that doubts that?

And I'd like to hear from these oil company representatives. They're entitled. They're not a person, as some have said; they're a corporation. And they don't have, I guess, a conscience because their bottom line is to make a profit. Well, they've made a lot of it, and all we're asking them to do in this case and others--and I'll be back down here another time asking them--to share some of it with the American people and not cause the pressing down to our States, the pressing down to our counties and municipalities, and causing people who are disabled--and, indeed, some will lose their insurance because of this.

And maybe some of these persons have never had a disabled person. But I had a mother that was disabled for the last 2 years of her life, 30 years previous to that being almost bedridden, and I know what disability is, as I'm sure some of my friends do here. Had I not been alive, she would have died many years earlier because she had no ability to provide for herself, yet Shell Oil and Exxon and GE and all these people do. And they're right about their profitmaking, but they're wrong about not being able to share it with the people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Another day in the House of Representatives, another day without a jobs bill. As a Red Sox fan, I'm not prone to quoting Yogi Berra--but this is deja vu all over again.

This Tea Party-run Republican House is not only breaking House rules to move a bipartisan bill--something they said they would never do--but they are breaking these rules to protect big oil while taking healthcare away from low-income Americans.

Talk about hitting the trifecta.

Let's start with the rule. We have one rule for two bills, one bill repealing the 3% withholding requirement and another bill offsetting the costs of the first bill. Why have two bills come up under one rule? The only reason is because the Republicans want to shut down debate and limit the motion to recommit. That's why the rule combines these two bills into one bill after they are approved on their own.

This is just one more example of this Republican leadership's continual streak of broken promises.

If this weren't bad enough, this rule waives all points of order-- including the Budget Act. Why is this necessary? Well, that's because the 3% withholding bill violates the Budget Act twice.

The sad truth is that the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, the gentleman from California Mr. Herger, didn't even know that his bill violated the Budget Act when he testified before the Rules Committee yesterday.

Chairman Dreier, of course, tried to explain these violations but he was misinformed when he said the only reason for these violations was because the Senate did not pass a budget resolution. To correct the record, that's only one of the violations. The other violation is because this bill violates the House-passed budget resolution. I'm not one to defend the Ryan budget, but I'd like to think that the Republicans wouldn't use one bill to contradict legislation they passed earlier this year.

And the Republican offset for the 3% withholding bill is a bad one-- it tightens Medicaid and health insurance exchange subsidy eligibility requirements. In other words, it prevents low-income individuals and families from being eligible for Medicaid, an egregious act during normal times but especially heartless in this difficult economy.

Talk about turning a deaf ear to people who are struggling to make ends meet.

Now, Democrats offered an amendment to replace the bad Republican offset by eliminating subsidies to big oil and gas companies. BP, for example, reported profits of $4.9 billion in the third quarter of this year even though their production decreased by 12 percent over that period. They made more money with less oil and we--the American people--still provide lucrative subsidies to them.

Time after time, the Rules Committee has blocked my amendment ending the subsidy--siding with big oil and defending their subsidy--using procedural excuses.

It's funny how the Republicans waive the rules when it's convenient for their agenda but they refuse to apply that same standard to all bills. In this case, Republicans waive all points of order against the underlying bills but cite germaneness and cut-go as reasons why they're not making the Democratic substitute in order.

The truth is Republicans are hiding behind this flimsy excuse to protect big oil.

To my Republican friends, let me set the record straight. You're making in order a non-germane bill to pay for the repeal of the 3 percent withholding bill--a bill that violates the Budget Act--but you're saying an amendment ending subsidies for oil companies making billions of dollars each month can't be made in order because it's not germane?

You're making in order a bill that violates the rules of the House-- and you're protecting this bill from these points of order--but you won't do the same for our proposal?

It's truly outrageous that you're making two bills in order and using the rule to combine these two bills into one; that you're going out of your way to make in order your non-germane bill and you're not doing the same for our bill.

It's truly outrageous that you're more interested in rationing healthcare for those who need it instead of ending subsidies for oil companies who continue to rake in billions of dollars of profits each quarter; and that you're hiding behind procedural excuses in order to get your way.

Mr. Speaker, this is a process even Tom DeLay would marvel at.

The following is a list of the instances when the Republicans have waived germaneness (Clause 7 of Rule XVI) and both cut-go and germaneness (Clause 10 of Rule XXI).

Republicans' Waivers of Cutgo and Germaneness This Year So Far:

Cutgo waivers--clause 10 of rule XXI (3 times):

H.R. 3079 (H. Res. 425)--Panama trade bill

S. 627 (H. Res. 375)--Budget Control Act of 2011

S. 365 (H. Res. 384)--Budget Control Act of 2011

Germaneness waivers--clause 7 of rule XVI (9 times):

H.R. 839 (H. Res. 170)--HAMP Termination Act of 2011 (canceled a program to help homeowners modify their loans)

H.R. 861 (H. Res. 170)--NSP Termination Act (canceled a program to redevelop abandoned and foreclosed homes and residential properties)

H.R. 910 (H. Res. 203)--Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 (taking away EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases)

H.R. 1315 (H. Res. 358)--Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act of 2011 (weakened the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau)

Senate amendment to H.R. 2608 (H. Res. 405)--CR I11Senate amendment to H.R. 2608 (H. Res. 412)--CR

H.R. 658 (H. Res. 189)--FAA reauthorization

H.R. 754 (H. Res. 264)--Intel Authorization

H.R. 1892 (H. Res. 392)--Intel Authorization

Vote no on the previous question, reject this rule, and reject the pay-for that violates the Budget Act and cuts healthcare for low-income families.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 448 Offered By Mr. Hastings of Florida

(1) In the first section of the resolution, strike ``the

previous question'' and all that follows and insert the

following:

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the

bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally

divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Ways and Means; (2) the amendment

printed in section 4, if offered by Representative Levin of

Michigan, or Representative Bishop of New York, or

Representative Keating of Massachusetts, which shall be in

order without intervention of any point of order, shall be

considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for 30

minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and

an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without

instructions.

(2) At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in the first section of

this resolution is as follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the

following:

Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia, Majority Leader Cantor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am here today to speak on my bill, H.R. 2576, which would save $13 billion by ensuring that Medicaid dollars go to those who are most in need.

When the Affordable Care Act was passed, it created a new income formula that determines the eligibility for government-subsidized health insurance. The Modified Adjusted Gross Income, more commonly known as MAGI, deviated from other Federal assistance programs in failing to include Social Security benefits as income. Let me repeat that: the new income formula for Medicaid, CHIP, and exchange subsidies deviated from the eligibility requirements for other Federal assistance programs. Supplemental security income, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs, also known as food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and public housing all include--all include--the Social Security benefit as income.

Congress didn't know that then, but we know now that the Affordable Care Act had the unintended consequence of allowing a couple with close to $60,000 in income to qualify to receive Medicaid benefits. Let me put it in more stark terms. Changing the income formula could result in individuals whose incomes are up to 400 percent of the Federal poverty level receiving Medicaid. This is unacceptable, and I very strongly believe that it is our duty to ensure that the very scarce Medicaid resources will be there for the most in need.

It is incorrect to assert that this legislation unfairly targets widows, survivors, or the disabled. This is the equivalent of asserting that public housing or the SNAP unfairly target widows, survivors or the disabled simply because, when accounting for resources, these programs consider the source of income.

The health care law's deviation from the typical method of counting income results in taxpayer dollars being directed to individuals who do not meet the standard definition of ``low income.'' According to the current law, a couple that is on Social Security benefits and has a total income of $22,000 a year would have a higher income than a couple earning $58,000 a year for the purpose of determining their eligibility for Federal subsidies in the exchange. I am not the only one who thinks so.

At the July 14 Budget Committee hearing, I asked Richard Foster, the CMS chief actuary, about the income eligibility issue. He said, ``I don't generally comment on the pros or cons of policy, but that just doesn't make sense.'' Foster had previously compared the MAGI glitch to allowing middle-income Americans to qualify for food stamps. Additionally, Richard Sorian, who is the HHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, conceded, ``As a matter of law, some middle-income Americans may be receiving coverage through Medicaid, which is meant to serve only the neediest Americans.''

Primarily, my bill is about fairness. We must accurately account for poverty in Federal assistance programs. My commonsense, bipartisan solution has a companion bill in the Senate, which is sponsored by HELP Committee Ranking Member Mike Enzi; and H.R. 2576 passed out of Ways and Means with bipartisan support.

As has already been reported, President Obama, himself, recognizes the problem on page 41 of his recent debt reduction plan where he explicitly proposes the entire amount of Social Security benefits be included in the definition of ``income.''

Mr. Speaker, we must bring Medicaid back into line with other Federal assistance programs and limit improper payments to those who should not receive Medicare benefits.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

That is correct.

Sir, we're talking about social benefit programs.

As the bill proposes, this would put it into alignment with other Federal assistance programs. That's the intent of the bill.

I have answered your question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is difficult to recognize the argument on this when we have bipartisan support. And once again, I want to read the Statement of Administration Policy that came out on October 25 from the executive office of the President, and it reads:

``The administration supports passage of H.R. 2576, which would change the calculation of modified adjusted gross income, as defined in section 1401 of the Affordable Care Act, to include both taxable and nontaxable Social Security benefits. Beginning in 2014, this income definition will be used to determine financial eligibility for Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and for premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions available through Affordable Insurance Exchanges. The administration looks forward to working with the House to ensure the bill achieves the intended result.''

I think that speaks for itself.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, October 25, 2011.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 2576--Modify Income Calculation for Eligibility for Certain Health

Programs (Rep. Black, R-TN, and 3 cosponsors)

The Administration supports passage of H.R. 2576, which

would change the calculation of modified adjusted gross

income, as defined in section 1401 of the Affordable Care

Act, to include both taxable and non-taxable Social Security

benefits. Beginning in 2014, this income definition will be

used to determine financial eligibility for Medicaid and the

State Children's Health Insurance Program, and for premium

tax credits and cost-sharing reductions available through

Affordable Insurance Exchanges. The Administration looks

forward to working with the House to ensure the bill achieves

the intended result.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

We are ready to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This bipartisan solution would bring Medicaid back into line with other Federal assistance programs and ensure that the program is there for those who most need it. Furthermore, according to the CBO and the Joint Tax Committee estimates, this bill would save taxpayers approximately $13 billion over 10 years. And considering our $14 trillion in national debt, closing this loophole as soon as possible is a good policy on a number of levels. I am delighted that both the President and other Members across the aisle support this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 448 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 448 provides for a closed rule for the consideration of H.R. 674, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the imposition of 3 percent withholding on certain payments made to vendors by government entities, and H.R. 2576, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the calculation of modified adjusted gross income for purposes of determining the eligibility for certain health care-related programs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bills. What we have here is something very simple: a bill to save jobs in America and a way to pay for it through a simple technical fix in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is supported by the President and many Democrats in this Chamber.

H.R. 674, or what I call the Saving American Jobs Act, would repeal the 3 percent withholding requirement on government payments to businesses, both large and small. This is truly a bipartisan bill with more than 60 Democrats among the 269 cosponsors. Even the President supports changing the withholding tax. The tax is a job killer, plain and simple.

Beginning January 1, 2013, government agencies at all levels-- Federal, State and local--will have to withhold 3 percent of their payments to businesses for goods and services. For many small businesses, this has the potential to completely wipe out their profit margins. At a time when we have a desperate need to create jobs and to create the environment for job creation, the withholding tax does the exact opposite. For many State and local governments, the implementation costs will be huge at a time when their budgets are already stretched thin.

For example, in my home State of South Carolina, the State Comptroller estimates the implementation costs associated with this tax will take up 11.5 percent of its budget. This tax punishes all businesses for the sins of a few, automatically and wrongly assuming all job creators who do business with the Federal Government are somehow

evading full taxation. The last I checked, we should be encouraging people to follow the law, not penalizing them for doing so.

The tax also treats all businesses the same regardless of their taxable incomes. In the construction industry, for example, where unemployment is currently at 13.5 percent, companies rarely have a pretax profit margin of more than 3 percent. Therefore, a 3 percent withholding tax would completely wipe out their profit margins. As a former small business owner myself, I can assure you this is not the kind of math that leads to job creation.

This tax will also harm local governments that are already hurting for dollars by placing on them an unfunded mandate to collect a Federal tax. Again, as former chairman of the Charleston County Council, this is more math that just doesn't add up.

With unemployment still at 9 percent, our job creators need capital to invest and long-term certainty in the Tax Code. Taking hard-earned dollars away from our job creators will only lead to higher prices, lower wages, and lost jobs.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it's odd that as the American people continue to watch Congress asking for a bipartisan approach to what we do here, it's very odd for us to find ourselves in that position today saying to the American people, we are finally on the right page of a bipartisan approach. And as it relates to the whole undermining of the health care act, the President himself has released a statement, an administration policy statement, that simply says that he supports H.R. 2576.

The fact of the matter is if we are going to find ways to save Medicaid and keep it available for the next generation, we must do things in a bipartisan approach that actually solve the problems without increasing the system necessarily.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Diane Black.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Mike Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is so important for us to recognize is the importance of living within our means and allowing our ability to control our spending to dictate what we are able to use, as opposed to having more tax increases as a way to fund the resource priorities of this Nation.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. James Lankford.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Randy Hultgren.

I would just encourage my friends on the left who want to raise taxes, raise taxes if you can, but the bottom line is that raising revenues does not make you more responsible, does not make you use the revenues that you currently have more responsibly. So the notion of raising taxes to use that as a fix to this situation is inconsistent with the reality and is part of the alternate universe that we ought not be a part of.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Donald Manzullo.

We have one more speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Dennis Ross.

Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves at a place where we should have been at for many, many months, and that is working in a bipartisan way to save American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that we have this opportunity to have the President's support with those of us on the right, to have the Democrat leadership joining us, 269 cosponsors on this legislation that simply says to the job creators: We believe in you.

Mr. Speaker, today we have a very simple vote. We can remove an impediment to job creation from the backs of small businesses with no overall increase in government spending. That should be our vote today.

I encourage all of my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.