Floor Statements

Thank you, Mr. Leader, for allowing me to be here today.

I have spent the last year and a half traveling throughout the Sixth Congressional District that I represent talking to small-, medium-, and large-size businesses. What I have asked them across the board is, what is it that would help you to be able to grow your business.

What I hear from them is that there's a lot of uncertainty out there, and they are concerned already about large burdens of increasing taxes, more regulations, more mandates. They really fear what Washington will do to them next.

What if we said to small businesses, that really are the engine of our economic growth, that we're going to do something for you instead of to you? What if Washington encouraged growth instead of causing small businesses to live in fear that one more tax might sink them?

Over 20 years ago, my family started a small business, and I can tell you that if the conditions were like they are today then we probably would not

have taken the risk to put everything on the line and start our small business. That's why I'm supporting Leader Cantor's 20 percent small business tax cut that would allow small business owners to, one, retain more capital; two, invest in their business; and three--this is the key--to hire more workers.

In the State of Tennessee, we have over 96,000 small businesses that employ over 1.38 million individuals. In particular, we have 12,000 small women-owned businesses, which have been, until recently, the fastest growing sector of our small business economy.

So it's not just a cliche that getting small business growing again is the key to our economic growth; it's a fact.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to congratulate my Legislative Director, Brian Lenihan and his wife Keagan, on the birth of their son, Tallon William Lenihan. Tallon William was born at 3:15 p.m. on Monday, April 2, 2012, in Washington, DC.

Tallon William Lenihan is nine pounds and one ounce of pride and joy to his loving grandparents, Michael and Marilyn Lenihan of Seminole, Florida, and Barclay and Lorita Resler of McLean, Virginia.

I am so excited for this new blessing to the Lenihan family and wish them all the best on their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss H.R. 4134, which I introduced on March 5, 2012. This legislation will curtail a tax abuse involving the mass production of cigarettes through ``roll-your-own'' machines at retail establishments. Currently, so-called ``pipe tobacco'' is taxed at rates dramatically less than ``cigarette tobacco'' and ``roll-your-own tobacco.'' That has had the effect of forming an industry of retailers that put RYO machines in their stores that allow customers to manufacture cigarettes for far less than the cost of name-brand cigarettes.

My legislation will require that RYO cigarettes are produced on a level playing field with all other cigarettes. In doing so--and this is very important--H.R. 4134 should be read as applying prospectively only--neither retailers nor consumers of RYO cigarettes before the date of enactment of my legislation should be forced to pay any taxes on cigarettes manufactured in these machines and sold before the date of enactment. I understand that there is litigation pending in this regard brought by the Department of the Treasury. My legislation should end that litigation and settle this issue once and for all.

I also want to note that H.R. 4134 is not intended to affect small, hand-operated devices used by customers at home to assemble roll-your- own cigarettes. These small devices, which customers take away from the retail establishment in original packaging and use for personal convenience and not for commercial purposes, have been sold for many decades without giving rise to the tax avoidance abuse my legislation seeks to address.

I am very pleased that Senator Max Baucus amended the Senate-passed highway transportation bill with language very similar to my bill. I look forward to working with him and others in order to enact this law, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 4134 in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 146 I was inadvertently detained in a meeting. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Stated against:

Mr. Chairman, in light of this week's Supreme Court arguments on the health care law, I'd like to take a moment to talk about the contrast between our Path to Prosperity budget and the broken promises of that law.

As we've heard from so many of my colleagues in the last couple of days, we are on the verge of a debt crisis. I don't think any of us can argue that. And this health care law, with a total price tag of $1.76 trillion, would surely drive us over that cliff faster. Now, that is why, in the Path to Prosperity budget, we repeal the entire health care law, including the very dangerous IPAB, which would slash physician payment rates, forcing doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients. This 15-member, unelected board makes senior care even harder to access and puts bureaucrats between patients and their doctors.

Our plan for Medicare offers a choice for seniors, and they deserve a choice. We increase the competition between a guaranteed coverage option--and I want to repeat that, that this is a guaranteed coverage option--and traditional Medicare, and it allows seniors to choose. All of this would lower costs of the program while increasing the quality of care. This is the choice of two futures, both for our health care system and also the prosperity of our Nation.

Now, we can continue to go down the path of ObamaCare, where we see $1.76 trillion in spending over 10 years. We also see $525 billion in new taxes, fees, and penalties on families and small businesses. Or, we can repeal this law and put in place policies that increase competition, decrease costs, and ensure that our health care system is patient-focused.

We can continue to explode the size and scope of the Federal Government, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like. If Democrats had their way, their budget would tax more, borrow more, spend more, and waste more of the hardworking taxpayer dollars.

I find it interesting that last night this Chamber unanimously rejected the President's 2013 budget that would be an absolute fiscal disaster. And yet this budget before us today again doubles down on those failed policies of the past. The American people are sick and tired of Washington's culture of spend, spend, spend because they know there are consequences of living without a budget and spending more than what we take in.

What we're doing here today is being honest with the American people. We are here to cut spending, reform programs in order to save them, and we make government smaller and less intrusive.

Let's, first of all, start with the simple fact that no one in this room can deny, and that is there are 10,000 baby boomers that are added to the rolls each day. Medicare's exponential growth will cause the program to go bankrupt in 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office and the Medicare and Medicaid trustees have been ringing these alarm bells about Medicare's dwindling finances, and we must act now.

Over 46 million Americans rely on Medicare for their health care, and something must be done soon to save this program for future generations. Unfortunately, the President's budget proposal failed to address Medicare's grim future. Instead, what we have on the law books now is a 15-member board that is charged with cutting costs and denying care to our seniors. The Independent Payment Advisory Board established in the health care law would cut physician payment rates, forcing many doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients. This board makes senior care harder to access and

puts bureaucrats between the patients and their doctors.

Now, it's been said here today there's not another plan. Let me correct that. There is another way. As a matter of fact, there is a bipartisan way. The plan for Medicare that is a bipartisan proposal does three things. It does not make any changes for those at or near retirement, it offers guaranteed coverage options to seniors regardless of their preexisting conditions or health history, and it is financed by a premium-support payment that's adjusted to provide additional financial assistance to those who are low-income and less-healthy seniors, and more wealthy seniors will pay.

So the choice is clear: we can continue to stick our heads in the sand and go on with a program that takes away choice for our seniors, limits their care and supports the status quo, or we can improve a plan to save Medicare and provide more choice. For me, the choice is clear.

Mr. Speaker, I'm here today to commemorate the life of a truly wonderful man, Mr. Danny Thomas, who represents so much that is wonderful about our country.

Born to a poor immigrant family, Thomas understood the meaning of hard work from a very young age. He started work at the age of 10 selling newspapers and worked until he moved to Detroit to go into show business. After years of struggling, Thomas achieved unrivaled success with shows like ``Make Room for Daddy,'' the ``Andy Griffith Show,'' and the ``Dick Van Dyke Show.'' It was with this success that Thomas started St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, where no child is turned away because of an inability to pay.

Since it opened in 1962, St. Jude has saved thousands of lives, helped countless families, and forwarded vital research on childhood cancer and other diseases.

This month marks the 50th anniversary of St. Jude, and to commemorate this incredible work done at St. Jude, the U.S. Postal Service is honoring Danny Thomas and St. Jude with a commemorative stamp. I can think of no one and no charity more worthy for this honor than Thomas and St. Jude. His is a story of hard work, success, and giving.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to talk about my bill, H.R. 3842, a bill that would prohibit the Obama administration from filing lawsuits against Arizona, South Carolina, Alabama, and other States over their immigration enforcement laws. In the last 3 years, eight States have adopted immigration enforcement measures to address the illegal alien populations in their States. And in response, the Department of Justice and Eric Holder have pursued unprecedented lawsuits against these States.

Mr. Speaker, there are over 10 million unauthorized aliens in this country. States must be able to enforce the law if the Federal Government refuses to, and States should not have to live in fear of Federal retribution for trying to keep their citizens safe.

My bill, H.R. 3842, would deny the Obama administration and Eric Holder the funding for these meritless lawsuits. Until the Supreme Court decides the case against Arizona's S.B. 1070, Congress must use our power of the purse to stop these political lawsuits and allow States to uphold the law.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2012.

This would require the CBO to provide lawmakers with macroeconomic impact analysis for major legislation defined by budgetary impact greater than 0.25 percent of annual GDP. Pretty simple.

Current law already requires CBO to provide Congress with the fiscal impact. This bill would require the CBO to give us the economic impact. Now, included in the analysis would be a statement of critical assumptions and also sources of data underlying its estimate, which would provide for maximum transparency.

So if there were questions, we would have the information in front of us so that we could ask additional questions and be sure that we had all of the information in order to make an informed decision.

This is just another tool in our toolkit, and this will help Congress create policy that affects our economy while creating a pro-job agenda, which is on all of our minds and should be our priority. The more information available to policymakers, the better decisions.

There is no panacea in the budget process, but this is one more step in reforming what is a broken process; and we're going to see more information and more bills in the next several weeks talking about this broken process. But this is one more piece to give us one more piece of information.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my colleague from Louisiana's legislation repealing this unsustainable budget gimmick created to make the health care law look less expensive.

The CLASS Act was a long-term entitlement that was plagued with problems from the very beginning. From day one, concerns were raised about the CLASS program's unsustainable cost structure, and the administration ignored it.

I have a chart that was presented to us in our Ways and Means Committee in the markup of this bill, and from the very beginning there were six different occasions, and up until March 20 when it was passed, of experts who said this was unsustainable, and they've already been referenced by prior speakers.

Since that time of passage there were four others, including Secretary Sebelius in October of 2011, who also said: ``I do not see a viable path forward for the CLASS implementation.''

This program, again, has been unsustainable from the very beginning. I think what is so sad is we continue to put our head in the sand and make the American people believe that this program is somehow workable. This needs to be removed from our law so we can

start again. This is a nonpartisan issue, and we all need to work together in a bipartisan way. As a nurse for over 40 years working with the elderly, I recognize the need for long-term care.

Fixing something for 2 months is not fixing something. It's a Band-Aid and it's bad policy. I've been a nurse for over 40 years, and I'm going to use a medical analogy to illustrate this point.

If someone were to come into the emergency room where I'm working with a medical issue and I said to them: I'll give you a choice; we can either fix your problem for 2 months or we can fix your problem for a year, I have no doubt that the patient would choose certainty of 1 year over 2 months.

For the past 10 months, I have been visiting individuals and businesses in my district, and what I continually hear from them is uncertainty is hurting them and it's hurting our economy. Now, the House sent a bill to the Senate that contains some certainty, and we get back a 2-month Band-Aid.

In this bill, we have certainty for businesses, certainty for doctors, certainty for individual taxpayers, and certainty for our seniors. There is a need for a 2-year extension on the Medicare reimbursement for our doctors to ensure that seniors receive access to care. There is a need for a 1-year payroll holiday for individuals and businesses.

As has already been said, the National Payroll Reporting Consortium, which is a nonpartisan group, has expressed concerns to Members of Congress that the 2-month payroll tax holiday passed by the Senate and supported by the President cannot be implemented properly. We also need a 2-year extension or a fix for our unemployment benefits to give certainty to businesses and also to individuals.

Mr. Speaker, I am frustrated that the Senate kicked the can down the road one more time for only 2 months after we sent them a bill that was not only bipartisan--yes, a bipartisan bill passed by this House--but also had good job policies. I came back to D.C. yesterday to do something better, a package that creates certainty rather than a 2- month patch.

Thank you, Chairman Herger.

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I am extremely proud that my legislation is part of this very worthy, bipartisan jobs package.

Congress can and should work together to find common ground and forward solutions-based legislation like what we are considering right here. Today the House will pass a package that not only creates more certainty for small business, encourages hiring of our Nation's veterans, but is also paid for, thanks to my legislation, that repeals a costly glitch in the health care law. And this is more than deficit neutral. This legislation will save billions of dollars.

I've spoken on the floor of the House previously about my cost-saving legislation that is now part of this package. When the Affordable Care Act was passed, few realized that this legislation contained a loophole that would allow middle class Americans to receive Medicaid benefits. The new income formula that determines eligibility for government subsidized health insurance, the Modified Adjusted Gross Income, or MAGI, deviated from other Federal assistance programs, failing to include Social Security benefits as income.

Under the health care law, a married couple with an annual income of over $60,000 could 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 poverty level receiving Medicaid. This is unacceptable. I very strongly believe that it is our duty to ensure that the very scarce Medicaid resources are there for those in most need.

Again, let me state that the Affordable Care Act income formula for Medicaid, CHIP, and exchange subsidies deviated from the eligibility requirements for other Federal assistance programs. Supplemental Social Security Income; Supplemental Nutrition Programs, known as food stamps; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; and public housing all include the entire Social Security benefit as income.

My legislation, now a part of this package, adds Social Security benefits back into the equation, realigning Medicaid with the other programs and stopping these improper payments before they occur.

Closing the loophole in Medicaid will save $13 billion over 10 years according to the Congressional Budget Office. And by adding my legislation into this package that includes the 3 percent withholding repeal and the veterans tax deductions, this package will save vital tax dollars.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to take a moment to praise other sections of this bill. And on the heels of Veterans Day, I cannot think of a better time for Congress to step forward and help our veterans get to work. As a wife, mother, and daughter of veterans, I know how important it is that we support those brave men and women who fought for our country.

I thank the gentleman.

I hope that this bipartisan, bicameral veterans legislation is just the beginning of more veterans bills getting passed by Congress.

Veterans who return home to us and seek work should be able to find it. With our economic recovery sluggish, at best, my colleague Mr. Herger's 3 percent withholding repeal will go a long way to create more certainty for small business. Taxing business at 3 percent is something we cannot afford.

I look forward to this legislation and the entire package being signed into law by the President as soon as possible. We should not have to wait for these commonsense, bipartisan solutions to go into effect.

Mr. Speaker, I'm here today to talk about jobs. People in the Sixth District of Tennessee are hurting. Our State has currently a 9.8 percent unemployment rate, and we have been at over 9 percent unemployment since February of 2009. Many of my counties are well above the Tennessee average. In Overton County, in the eastern part of my district, their unemployment rate is 10.6 percent; and in Marshall County in the southern part of my district, 13.8 percent of our population is out of work.

The President's new slogan on jobs of ``We can't wait'' is an odd choice. Right now, there are 15 House-passed bills sitting on the Senate desk waiting for action. Since day one, I have been working with my colleagues to create certainty in our economy, trying to cut the burdensome red tape and get government out of the way. Throughout our Nation's history, it's been the American entrepreneurial spirit that has pushed us forward.

Put simply, government does not create jobs. American small businessowners create jobs. That's why I'm here today to urge Majority Leader Reid and our colleagues in the Senate to pass these 15 jobs that we have created in a bipartisan manner over here in the House. America cannot wait, Mr. Reid. Take up our bills.

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.

I thank my colleague from South Carolina for yielding.

I'd like to begin by stating that this legislation, H.R. 2576, is about fairness.

When the news broke this summer that the Affordable Care Act contained a loophole that would allow middle-class Americans to receive Medicaid benefits, I, like many of my colleagues, was very concerned. The new income formula that determines eligibility for government subsidies health insurance, the modified adjusted gross income, or also known MAGI, deviated from all of the other Federal assistance programs, failing to include Social Security benefits as income.

Under the health care law, a married couple with an annual income of over $60,000 could 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

poverty level, receiving Medicaid. This is unacceptable. I very strongly believe that it is our duty to ensure that the very scarce Medicaid dollars and resources are there for those who are in the most need.

Again, let me State that the Affordable Care Act's income formula for Medicaid, CHIP, and exchange subsidies deviated from the eligibility requirements for all other Federal assistance programs. Supplemental Security Income, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and public housing all--all--include the entire Social Security benefit as income. My bill, H.R. 2576, would add Social Security benefits back into the equation, realigning Medicaid with all the other programs and stopping these improper payments before they occur.

It is incorrect to assert that this legislation unfairly targets widows, survivors, and the disabled. This is equivalent to asserting that the public housing or the SNAP are unfairly targeted to widows, survivors, disabled simply because, when accounting for the resource programs, they 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 who both earned Social Security benefits and have a total income of $22,065 would have a higher income than a couple earning $58,840 for the purpose of determining eligibility for the Federal subsidies in the exchange. This is totally unfair.

When asked about the MAGI glitch, CMS actuary Richard Foster said, ``I don't generally comment on the pros and cons of policy, but that just doesn't make sense.'' Foster said the situation keeps him up at night and has previously compared the MAGI formula to allowing middle- class Americans to receive food stamps.

Additionally, Richard Sorian, the HHS assistant secretary for Public Affairs, conceded that ``as a matter of law, some middle-income Americans may be receiving coverage through Medicaid, which is meant to serve only the neediest Americans.''

Now, it is important to note that my legislation does not take away a benefit from anyone on the Medicaid rolls today. MAGI would not be in effect until 2014, so it's important that we bring Medicaid back into line with all of the other Federal assistance programs as soon as possible.

Additionally, my legislation enjoys bipartisan support. In the Senate, HELP Committee Ranking Member Mike Enzi has a companion bill, and President Obama himself, as has already been noted, recognizes the problem. In his recent debt reduction plan, the President explicitly-- explicitly--proposes that the entire amount of Social Security benefits be included in the definition of income. And, as has already been stated, there was a statement of administration policy put out yesterday, and I want to read that to you:

The administration supports H.R. 2576, which could 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.

This commonsense bipartisan solution would bring Medicaid into line with all of the other Federal assistance programs and ensure that the program is there for those who are in the most need. That is very important. Furthermore, and I believe this cannot be emphasized enough, according to CBO and the Joint Tax Committee estimates, this bill could save taxpayers approximately $13 billion over 10 years. Considering our $14 trillion in national debt, closing this loophole as soon as possible is good policy on a number of levels.