Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was absent for roll call votes 127 and 128 on the evening of March 7, 2017. I would have voted in favor of H.R. 1362, which names the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Pago Pago, American Samoa, the Faleomavaega Eni Fa'aua'a Hunkin VA Clinic. I would have also voted in favor of the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair.

Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 127; and YEA on Roll Call No. 128.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent from Roll Call votes 86 and 87 on the evening of February 13, 2017. I would have voted in favor of H.R. 244 which encourages the hiring and contributes to the well-being of our veterans, as well as provide community and charitable services supporting the veteran community. Lastly, I would have voted in favor of H.R. 974 which would boost veteran employment as the VA would be directed to give preference to organizations that employ a higher percentage of full-time employees when awarding contracts. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 86 and YEA on Roll Call No. 87.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent on Roll Call Votes 12 through 23 on the evening of January 5, 2017.

I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 26, the Regulations in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017. I would have voted against all amendments that would weaken the underlying legislation, would have voted in favor of amendments that strengthen the underlying legislation, and would have voted in favor of final passage of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent on rollcall votes 12 through 23 on the evening of January 5, 2017. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall No. 12, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 13, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 14, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 15, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 16, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 17, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 18, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 19, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 20, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 21, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 22, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 23.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 529, a bill that Congressman Kind of Wisconsin and I introduced to make sensible enhancements to 529 college savings plans.

The 529 plans enjoy growing popularity, primarily with middle class families who are looking for ways to responsibly prepare for the growing cost of college. The 12 million 529 accountholders across the country are able to choose a plan whose funds will then grow and be withdrawn tax free to pay for college expenses such as tuition or room and board.

H.R. 529 will make several technical changes to 529 plans that will allow students to purchase a computer using their 529 funds, remove the unnecessary distribution aggregation requirements from the accounts, and allow 529 funds to be redeposited if the student withdraws from college. These modernizations will allow 529 plans to help families get the most out of their savings.

I ask my colleagues to join me in this effort.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise today as a supporter and cosponsor of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. I was a cosponsor of this legislation in the previous two Congresses, and I continue to support it after hearing from my constituents time and time again that they do not want their tax dollars funding abortions. In fact, the majority of Americans and the vast majority of Kansans oppose their tax dollars being used towards abortion.

The specter of taxpayer-funded abortion has been exacerbated by the President's health care law, which offers subsidies to taxpayers in order to offset its high cost. These subsidized plans, bought through the health care exchanges, could allow for taxpayer-funded abortions to occur.

Without this crucial legislation, we will continue to have a patchwork of provisions regarding Federal funding. This creates confusion, blocks transparency, and opens up additional loopholes. Longstanding provisions are reestablished under H.R. 7, which would apply uniformly across Federal programs, including the President's destructive health care law.

I urge passage of this bipartisan bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, wish the chair happy birthday, and I would like to honor the Congressman from Indiana, Congressman Young, for his leadership on this important issue.

This effort to change the employer mandate definition of a full-time employee as one who only works 30 hours a week to 40 hours a week is a priority for folks all across the country, and it is appropriate that the House is taking action on H.R. 30 on this, only the third day of the 114th Congress.

I have heard from employees and employers alike about the negative consequences of the employer mandate penalty. The most complicating factor that I hear about is the definition of a full-time employee as someone who works only 30 hours or fewer per week.

This rule, which is not based in reality, and goes against every traditional measure of a full-time workweek, results in fewer jobs, reduced hours, and less opportunity for millions of working-class Americans. It effectively is a regressive tax on the folks who can least afford to have their hours cut.

The sticks that are used in the President's health care law to force employees into health care plans are hurting employees and employers, and unfortunately, the result is reduced hours and opportunity for hardworking Americans trying to support their families.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I was a freshman lawmaker in 2010 when the President's partisan health care law was passed through Congress and became law. I worried at the time that it would take our health care system in the wrong direction and would lead to numerous unintended consequences that could hurt American families. Now that the law is being implemented, we can see that this is indeed true.

The employer mandate penalty tax is a troublesome and confusing piece of the President's health care law. The American people want to see it fixed. The legislation that we are debating right now will exempt those who employ members of our Nation's military and veterans from the employer mandate.

Because our current and former servicemembers already receive health care from TRICARE and the VA, it simply does not make sense to force small businesses to treat these folks as if they do not have health insurance, which drives up the cost of doing business, leaving less for employees' salaries. In fact, the current law effectively punishes small businesses for hiring these heroes.

Madam Speaker, I was a proud cosponsor and supporter of this legislation in the last Congress, and I am happy to again stand today in support of this commonsense provision. I ask that you support it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would like to thank him for his leadership on this issue and so many others during his esteemed career here in the people's House. He will be greatly missed as he retires at the end of this Congress.

I rise today in support of H.R. 5806, the Supporting America's Charities Act. This bill reflects the good work that has been done in the Ways and Means Committee during the 113th Congress. It makes permanent important provisions that would continue to allow taxpayers to make contributions from their IRAs to charities, contributions to food inventory, and contributions of conservation easements on a tax- preferred basis.

In the case of these three important provisions, greater permanency will assist taxpayers with their tax planning while helping to advance their charitable goals. Charitable deductions are designed to encourage charitable giving by lowering the cost to privately support charitable organizations. It also recognizes the amounts of income voluntarily given to charity should be treated differently from most other income spent or otherwise used for personal benefit.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, and I hope that the Senate does the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the ABLE Act.

I am a cosponsor of this bill because I believe that we need to make it easier for families with individuals with disabilities to save money for their care and to not be penalized for doing so. This legislation also makes an important improvement to 529 plans that will give parents more control over their children's savings.

It is rare for a bill to gain as much bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate as the ABLE Act has. This is because advocates for the ABLE Act have worked tirelessly over the past several years to ensure that it crosses the finish line.

I am pleased that many of them are here today, and I congratulate them on their hard work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize November 20 as National Rural Health Day.

I was born and raised in a small town in Kansas. I understand firsthand that folks in rural communities deserve access to quality health care options. A growing challenge facing folks in many rural communities across the country is access to health care. For many rural communities, the presence of a critical access hospital could be the deciding factor in whether or not the next generation decides to raise their family in their hometown.

These communities are the backbone of America. Congress' commitment to ensuring rural communities have access to care has been strong over the years, but it must continue. I take to the floor today to reaffirm my personal, unwavering support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3043, the Tribal General Welfare Exclusion Act.

Under what is known as the general welfare doctrine, the IRS excludes a broad array of public services for purposes such as education, public safety, health, housing, and culture from taxation; however, this has not always been the case for tribal nations.

Recently, the IRS has challenged tribal general welfare programs, despite many of these being nearly identical to tax exempt programs provided by Federal, State, and local governments.

Members of the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, the Kickapoo, Iowa, and the Sac and Fox Nation in Kansas have all voiced their concerns to me about invasive IRS audits and examinations that seek to tax government programs and benefits to their members.

This bicameral and bipartisan legislation will positively affect many Native Americans and is an important step in bringing IRS treatment of the tribes in line with how they are currently treating States.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4067, a bill to provide for the extension of the enforcement instruction on supervision requirements for outpatient therapeutic services in critical access and small rural hospitals through 2014.

I was proud to introduce this legislation in February, and I am pleased that Chairman Upton and the Energy and Commerce Committee reported it favorably and brought it to the House floor today.

The 83 critical access hospitals in Kansas are the lifeblood of our rural communities, and one of the many challenges these communities face is access to health care. The presence of a facility such as a critical access hospital in a community could be the deciding factor in whether or not the next generation of children decide to raise their family in their hometown, or perhaps whether or not a business decides to locate there.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services made a decision on January 1 of this year that will make it more difficult for these rural hospitals to serve their communities. CMS informed these hospitals that physicians are now required to directly supervise outpatient services, such as drawing blood and activity therapy. This is a change in policy that will put a strain on providers while providing no quality improvements for the patients they serve.

This bill will correct that problem by reinstating the moratorium on enforcement of these unnecessary regulations. It has broad bipartisan support in Congress and the support of key stakeholders.

Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record letters of support for H.R. 4067 from the American Hospital Association, the National Rural Health Association, the Kansas Hospital Association, and Anderson County Hospital, which is a critical access hospital in Garnett, Kansas, one of 1,300 nationwide.

American Hospital Association,

Washington, DC, May 19, 2014.

Hon. Lynn Jenkins,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Jenkins: On behalf of our nearly 5,000

member hospitals, health systems and other health care

organizations, and our 43,000 individual members, the

American Hospital Association is pleased to support H.R. 4067

to provide for the extension of the enforcement instruction

on supervision requirements for outpatient therapeutic

services in critical access and small rural hospitals through

2014.

Approximately 46 million Americans live in rural areas and

depend on these hospitals as an important, and often the

only, source of care. Critical access and small rural

hospitals face unique challenges because of their remote

geographic location, scarce workforce, physician shortages

and constrained financial resources with limited access to

capital.

Your bill attempts to address one of these unique

challenges--the issue of direct supervision for outpatient

therapeutic services. In the 2009 outpatient prospective

payment system (PPS) final rule, the Centers for Medicare &

Medicaid Services (CMS) mandated a new policy for ``direct

supervision'' of outpatient therapeutic services that

hospitals and physicians recognized as a burdensome and

unnecessary policy change. CMS's policy required that a

supervising physician be physically present in the department

at all times when Medicare beneficiaries receive outpatient

therapeutic services. Hospital outpatient therapeutic

services have always been provided by licensed, skilled

professionals under the overall direction of a physician and

with the assurance of rapid assistance from a team of

caregivers, including a physician, should an unforeseen event

occur. While hospitals recognize the need for direct

supervision for certain outpatient services that pose high

risk or are very complex, CMS's policy generally applies to

even the lowest risk services. Your bill would provide a

needed delay in enforcement of the direct supervision policy

through 2014 for critical access and small rural hospitals

with fewer than 100 beds.

Again, we are pleased to support this bill and applaud your

commitment to America's rural hospitals and health care

providers.

Sincerely,

Rick Pollack,

Executive Vice President.

Mr. Speaker, I was born and raised in a small town in Kansas, and I feel strongly that folks in rural communities deserve access to quality health care.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I am hopeful that the Senate will soon act on it so that it may become law.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his leadership on this particular issue.

We are a Nation that is struggling to make ends meet. The rising cost of everyday essentials, such as gas, groceries, and electricity, all continue to rise, while household incomes remain stagnant.

There is no need to compound these problems with a Tax Code that punishes working parents by making it hard for them to keep up with the rising costs of raising a family.

The child tax credit was originally enacted in 1997 to ease the financial burden on families. Over time, the original credit amount was eventually increased and made partially refundable to help more families. However, since being expanded to $1,000 back in 2004, the child tax credit has failed to keep pace with costs.

Kids are expensive: diapers and car seats, haircuts, toothbrushes, books, clothes, and even sporting equipment. A recent study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated that for a middle-income couple, it will cost over $240,000 to raise a child until 18 years of age.

I did the calculation for a middle-income two-parent household with three kids. According to the USDA calculator, the average household will spend $3,500 on food, $4,000 on transportation, $1,600 on clothing, and nearly $7,000 on child care and education for a total of over $30,000 annually.

Contributing the most to these rising costs are items such as spending on education and child care. In fact, since 2000, the cost of child care has increased twice as fast as the median income of families with children.

The Child Tax Credit Improvement Act, which is before us today, indexes the credit and the limitations to inflation to help parents keep more of their hard-earned money to use for the mounting expenses of parenting.

In addition to indexing the credit and limits to inflation, the bill also eliminates the marriage penalty by increasing the joint filing phaseout threshold to exactly double that of single filers. Removing marriage penalties and indexing for inflation have become a recognized part of our tax system.

The lack of indexing of a particular provision to inflation means that a provision is worth less to taxpayers every year. In the case of the child tax credit, this means working low and middle class families.

This legislation essentially removes the annual hidden tax placed on these families and recognizes that $1 of income in 1998 and in 2004 is not the same as $1 of income in 2014.

Similar tax credits that Congress has smartly indexed to inflation include the adoption tax credit, the earned income tax credit, and education tax credit. All of these tax credits make it easier on working families to put money aside and save for the future.

Increasing the phaseout level is a family-friendly change that greatly simplifies the code for middle class parents currently forced to perform a complicated computation and increases the fairness across the Code.

It also includes an antifraud provision championed by Congressman Sam Johnson, seeking to curtail tax fraud by requiring a Social Security number to be eligible for this tax credit. It is a simple principle also supported by Democrat United States Senator Claire McCaskill. Simply put, if you are breaking the law by working illegally in our country, you should not be getting a tax benefit for it.

This is sensible legislation that will help hardworking families keep more of their paychecks and help pay for the rising costs of raising a family. A vote for this bill will give Americans more freedom to save their own money and help struggling families who are just trying to get by.

I urge everyone to support H.R. 4935, the Child Tax Credit Improvement Act of 2014, because when working families succeed, the Nation's economy succeeds.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

I want to commend the gentleman from Washington for recognizing that this does put more money back in the pockets of hardworking Americans, but I just want to correct the record that this is in no way, shape, or form a tax increase.

There certainly have been a lot of inaccuracies and highly misleading statements from the other side of the aisle about this bill this morning. This bill does not end the credit for low-income working families. It is not a tax increase on them. It certainly does not cast millions of children deeper into poverty.

The tax provision in this bill originated from the stimulus bill. It was extended back in 2013 for 5 additional years. So it is not currently expiring, and it will not expire until 2018.

All H.R. 4935 does is it keeps that in place and does not even address that particular provision. It does not call for ending that provision. It does not call for reducing or altering that provision. Rather, this bill deals with the immediate concern, and that is the erosion of the value of the child tax credit for every family struggling today.

So following this absurd logic from the other side, every single bill and amendment that comes to the House floor that fails to address or does not extend their provision is a tax increase.

This bill before us today will have and deserves bipartisan support. It is unfortunate that some have resorted to recycled talking points and outright falsehoods to conjure up some reason to oppose the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

I am just puzzled by this logic that the minority is concerned about a provision that expires in 4 years. They are worried about that today, but yet they are not worried about the loss of buying power for hardworking American families starting next year. They are willing to give up helping families next year, and they want to debate an issue that we aren't going to even address for another 4 years.

As it relates to their charge that this in some way helps the wealthy, I would like to point out that a foundational principle of the Tax Code is that it should be, at worst, neutral toward the decision to get married. It should not be a deterrent. Certainly, it should not make taxpayers worse off merely by making the decision to marry and start a family. Marriage is beneficial to society and something that we have and should continue to encourage.

Removing the marriage penalty is about one thing, and that is fairness. This is especially true for today's two-earner households where both spouses have to work just in order to make ends meet.

Congress has had the wisdom to remove the marriage penalties from many other parts of the Tax Code, including the standard deduction. A deduction for married couples is twice the amount for single filers, and in tax brackets the income range of 10 to 15 percent brackets for couples is twice that of individuals, as it should be.

We are asking for that same parity to be afforded in the child tax credit.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am just amazed by the other side's doing time travel 4 years into the future when a lot of hardworking families are struggling every day--right now--to deal with this economy, and that needs to be the focus of this debate.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Brady, a fine member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and will be prepared to close.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. One goal of tax policy is to strengthen the economy so that there are more jobs and bigger paychecks for American families. Today, we have an opportunity to put more money in the pockets of hardworking families.

This commonsense bill reforms the child tax credit so that it can keep up with the rising cost of living, and eliminates the current marriage tax penalty.

I have a letter of support that says it best, and I quote:

Representative Jenkins' bill indexes the credit and income

limits for inflation. Inflation erodes the value and

purchasing power of the U.S. dollar and, as a result, a

dollar is worth less today than it was years ago. This

important piece of legislation adjusts the credit for

inflation to ensure that the value of the credit continues to

maintain its value.

We know that family and marriage is beneficial to society,

and the Federal Government ought to promote economic policies

that allow families to thrive. This tax credit recognizes the

important contribution of the family and children to our

country and starts to address a problem with our Tax Code

today, the marriage penalty. A fair system of taxation does

not penalize marriage and family.

With that, I would ask the body to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4935, the Child Tax Credit Improvement Act of 2014, to honor families with children.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this very important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill to make 50 percent bonus depreciation permanent because it grows the economy and creates jobs. Short of comprehensive tax reform, a permanent extension of bonus depreciation is our best option to grow the economy, create jobs, and lift wages.

This bill is important to Kansas manufacturers and to Kansas farmers and ranchers. The Tax Foundation found that permanent bonus depreciation would grow the economy by 1 percent, adding $182 million to the economy, increase wages, and create over 210,000 jobs. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this legislation will increase economic growth and could reduce the debt by as much as $10 billion.

But, most importantly, today's bill moves our Tax Code in the right direction. It is broad-based in that it does not pick winners and losers and does not favor one type of investment over another. Simply, it favors investment in the types of capital that create jobs and put more money in people's pockets.