[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MEMBER DAY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 14, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-FC13
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-530 WASHINGTON : 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
JASON SMITH, Missouri, Chairman
VERN BUCHANAN, Florida RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania MIKE THOMPSON, California
DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
DARIN LaHOOD, Illinois EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
BRAD WENSTRUP, Ohio BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
JODEY ARRINGTON, Texas DANNY DAVIS, Illinois
DREW FERGUSON, Georgia LINDA SANCHEZ, California
RON ESTES, Kansas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania TERRI SEWELL, Alabama
KEVIN HERN, Oklahoma SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
CAROL MILLER, West Virginia JUDY CHU, California
GREG MURPHY, North Carolina GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
DAVID KUSTOFF, Tennessee DAN KILDEE, Michigan
BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania DON BEYER, Virginia
GREG STEUBE, Florida DWIGHT EVANS, Pennsylvania
CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota JIMMY PANETTA, California
BLAKE MOORE, Utah
MICHELLE STEEL, California
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
MIKE CAREY, Ohio
Mark Roman, Staff Director
Brandon Casey, Minority Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Hon. Adrian Smith, Nebraska, Chairman............................ 1
Hon. Mike Thompson, California, Ranking Member................... 2
Advisory of September 14, 2023 announcing the hearing............ V
WITNESSES
Panel 1
Hon. Mike Collins, Georgia....................................... 2
Hon. Andy Barr, Kentucky......................................... 7
Hon. Bill Johnson, Ohio.......................................... 10
Hon. Neal Dunn, Florida.......................................... 13
Hon. Anthony D'Esposito, New York................................ 16
Panel 2
Hon. Zach Nunn, Iowa............................................. 19
Hon. Chuck Edwards, North Carolina............................... 26
Hon. Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, Puerto Rico....................... 31
Hon. Burgess Owens, Utah......................................... 37
Hon. Dan Meuser, Pennsylvania.................................... 41
Panel 3
Hon. Doug LaMalfa, California.................................... 47
Hon. Julia Letlow, Louisiana..................................... 52
Hon. Vicente Gonzalez, Texas..................................... 62
Hon. Trent Kelly, Mississippi.................................... 66
Hon. Tony Gonzalez, Texas........................................ 69
Panel 4
Hon. Bruce Westerman, Arkansas................................... 73
Hon. GT Thompson, Pennsylvania................................... 84
Hon. Buddy Carter, Georgia....................................... 91
Hon. Victoria Spartz, Indiana.................................... 99
Hon. French Hill, Arkansas....................................... 104
Panel 5
Hon. Marilyn Strickland, Washington.............................. 109
H on. August Pfluger, Texas...................................... 114
Hon. Mike Waltz, Florida......................................... 118
Hon. Maria Elvira Salazar, Florida............................... 122
Hon. Mark Green, Tennessee....................................... 129
Hon. Rudy Yakym, Indiana......................................... 135
Hon. Salud Carbajal, California.................................. 138
Hon. Rob Wittman, Virginia....................................... 141
Hon. John James, Michigan........................................ 147
Hon. Clay Higgins, Louisiana..................................... 155
Hon. Matt Rosendale, Montana..................................... 159
PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Public Submissions............................................... 165
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
MEMBER DAY
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2023
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:39 a.m. in Room
1100, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jason T. Smith
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska [presiding]. The committee will come
to order, and good morning. Thank you for gathering with us
here this morning.
The Ways and Means Committee has made it a priority to meet
with Americans in their communities to learn about challenges
as well as solutions that various folks think Congress should
consider for the future. Already the committee has traveled
more than 7,000 miles to hear directly from Americans who are
affected by our policies: workers, families, farmers, ranchers,
small business owners, just to name a few.
We have heard about high food prices. We have heard about
supply chains and the challenges that manufacturers face, small
and large--the challenges small and large and manufacturers
small and large. We have heard from real concerns coming from
workers, families, farmers, and so many different perspectives.
Earlier this year the committee approved a jobs package,
the American Families and Jobs Act. And that is a direct answer
to what we have heard from working Americans. It is the actual
rescue plan for those who need relief from high prices created
by Washington spending, and it gives small businesses a
fighting chance to expand and make America more competitive
with China.
In just 2 years we will face a $3 trillion tax hike from
the expiration of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Families making
under $500,000, the exact same folks that President Biden
promised not to raise taxes on, will be hardest hit. We welcome
ideas for avoiding this looming fiscal disaster for families
and small businesses.
I might remind folks that TCJA left the House on a
permanent basis with permanent policy that didn't quite survive
the policy--or the process, so we will have to address that
moving forward.
We have got a lot of challenges--China and their desire to
undermine our economic activity here in America--and I am glad
that we have various folks here today--members, colleagues--who
are focusing on solutions.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. So I will begin by recognizing Mr.
Thompson, the ranking member for Ways and Means today.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
want to thank all of our colleagues for being here today, both
on the dais and at the witness table. This is an important
chance for all of us to hear directly from our colleagues about
their priorities.
Our committee has an extremely wide mandate: taxes, trade,
Medicare, Social Security, retirement, and other things. So, I
look forward to hearing from all of you and the other members
who are scheduled to come in throughout today's hearing.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. And I yield back.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you, Mr. Thompson.
We will begin today in recognizing Mr. Collins from Georgia
here to perhaps carry the family mantle. His father once served
on the committee.
We are glad you are here, Mr. Collins. Please begin.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE COLLINS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Chairman Smith, and thank you,
Ranking Member Thompson.
You know, earlier in the year, when I made the comment in
that field hearing in Georgia that you all let me attend, and I
said I feel like I need to be over there on the witness side
more than over here, I didn't know you all were going to take
that literally. Next time I see you, I am sitting over here.
But that is all right.
I want to talk to you about a bill that we have that is
dealing with the aviation industry, or which is actually five
percent of the GDP, 125 trillion in revenue is what they
provide. And it is obvious, I think most of you probably fly in
and out of D.C. and you realize that--the shortage and the
aircraft delays and the flight delays. And we are addressing
that shortage with what we call the Aviation Workforce Act,
H.R. 1818.
And why is that important? I mean, just because we have a
shortage. Well, everybody knows the demand is up. More people
are flying, more cargo is being moved around the country by
air. And we have more pilots and aircraft mechanics today that
are retiring faster than ever. And so we have to address that.
And normally, recruitment keeps up with that. But it is
not. And there is two main reasons for that that we see. One is
military recruitment is down, and it has been down, and it will
continue to be down because of the socialistic agenda and
objectives that the military is pushing in their hiring and
recruiting process. And the other problem that we see out there
is just the barrier to entry, the cost problem that we have.
You know, it costs $90,000 to $100,000 at least to go out there
and get a commercial pilot certificate.
So what we have done--as a matter of fact, I want to
interject this--as a matter of fact, yesterday I spoke to the
Chamber of Commerce. And when we got through speaking, the very
first question they asked was, ``What are you all going to do
about the pilot shortage and the problems that we are having
with aircraft not being able to even function when we get to
the airport?'' And so I was able to tell them about H.R. 1818,
and how we were going to testify today in front of Ways and
Means to see if there is an avenue to get this out.
It is just a common-sense, simple bill that deals with the
529 savings plan, which I am sure you all are well aware of.
And all we are doing is taking and injecting into those degrees
and certificates, now that trade schools are allowed to be in
that part of that program, and just putting in there commercial
airline pilot certificate and aviation aircraft mechanic
certificates. That is all, and allowing people to use that
money for their children to get that.
As a matter of fact, one of the aviation schools contacted
us here recently because they knew about it, and somehow
parents are finding out about it. And they said they did a
survey and over 50 percent of the people are already inquiring,
``Can I use my 529 plan to put this child and get this
certificate?''
So it is already out there, you all. We have 139
cosponsors, very bipartisan. As a matter of fact, we have 8
members of the House Ways and Means, or 19 percent of the
committee, that are already cosponsors of this bill.
So I encourage you, please take a hard look at it. We would
love to have this bill passed out of the House Ways and Means,
got on the floor. We have got somebody sitting in the Senate
right now with it, ready to take this thing up and get this
thing passed. It would be a good bill, not just for the House,
it would be a good bill for America and for the American
people.
[The statement of Mr. Collins follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. COLLINS. And with that I yield back and I thank you for
your time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you, Mr. Collins. I appreciate
your work on this issue. These workforce issues are certainly
acute. The needs are so, so deep. And I appreciate your focus
on this and focus on solutions.
Next we will have Mr. Barr from Kentucky.
You are recognized.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ANDY BARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Mr. BARR. Thank you, Chairman Smith and Ranking Member
Thompson.
I have the privilege and responsibility of representing
central Kentucky in the Congress. And it may not surprise you
all that I am going to talk about horses and bourbon, because
that is what I represent, the horse industry, the thoroughbred
horse industry, and the Kentucky whiskey industry. And Iowa
corn goes into that bourbon.
So let me first talk about horses. This is a $6 billion
industry for our country. And we need to update some of our tax
laws to continue to encourage that investment.
So first, the Racehorse Cost Recovery Act is before this
committee. The legislation makes permanent the modification of
accelerated depreciation allowance for racehorses to allow a
three-year recovery period for a racehorse. The default is
seven years, but the useful life of that asset is three years,
and we need to make that permanent law. That is before the
committee. We would encourage you to look at that because that
encourages investment in these very valuable racehorses, and it
would encourage more investment that would, again, very much
accelerate this dynamic industry.
Also, the Racehorse Tax Parity Act would shorten the
holding period for racehorses to be considered eligible for the
long-term capital gains treatment. Oddly, if you realize a
capital gain with a racehorse, you have to hold that asset for
24 months, as opposed to the 12 months. This makes no sense. We
need just to level the playing field on that asset class, make
it a 12-month holding period in order to get that capital gains
treatment.
On bourbon, Mr. Thompson, Ranking Member Thompson, we are
trying to replicate the wine industry. The bourbon tourism is
exploding in Kentucky, just like Napa and Sonoma. We want to do
what you have done, Mr. Ranking Member, and we want to continue
to attract that kind of tourism to central Kentucky the way you
have in Northern California.
And so one of the ways to do that is to fix some of these
tax problems with the bourbon industry. One is the Duty
Drawback Clarification Act. This bill would clarify that all
whiskey products are commercially interchangeable and eligible
for the drawback program by creating a single, eight-digit
harmonized tariff schedule for whiskeys. Under the current HTS,
spirits categories such as whiskeys have several different HTS
numbers at the eight-digit level.
For example, Scotch whiskey and bourbon have their own HTS
codes at the eight-digit level, meaning that these products are
not commercially interchangeable for purposes of drawback. So
when we import Scotch whiskey, that has a separate and
different eight-digit code. We need to make sure that bourbon
whiskey, a uniquely American spirit--again, a multi-billion
dollar industry growing every day--has that interchangeability
with our imported whiskeys. We can--when we can compete on a
level playing field, Kentucky bourbon will definitely get into
that market share in Europe and Asia. But we are punishing
ourselves because we have this duty drawback disadvantage.
And then finally, the rum cover over. So the rum cover over
has expired, and the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico's rum
distilleries work in tandem with many of our U.S.-based spirits
companies. The territories, as well as the companies, all rely
on the cover over to meet their fiscal obligations. Making the
cover over part of a tax package looking back to 2021 as well
as forward would be the responsible course to cover. And if you
want to help American spirits, American Kentucky bourbon,
extending that rum cover over would be helpful not only to the
territories, but also to the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
I see I have about 45 seconds left, and let me just take
that opportunity to encourage the committee to fix this R&D tax
credit. We have got a lot of manufacturers in central Kentucky.
We need to eliminate the five-year amortization requirement for
R&D, and we need to continue expenditures in the taxable years
in which they are occurred. That is going to make sure that we
can compete with China in manufacturing.
Also, I would also encourage you all to look at this
Opportunity Zones Enhancement Act. The bill would create a tax
exemption on interest income earned by taxpaying banks from
loans extended to qualified businesses operating in opportunity
zones. I know that you all have updated and provided some
enhancement to the Opportunity Zones in the most recent tax
package. From the position of the Financial Services Committee,
taxpaying banks want that level playing field with credit
unions. Give them a tax exemption to deploy private capital
into these Opportunity Zones to help distressed areas.
[The statement of Mr. Barr follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. BARR. And with that I will yield.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Kelly.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. No, Andy, let's get together on
that. You understand a lot of this stuff, and I think one of
the difficulties when you get to Congress is you find out that
people are making policy that have never been involved in the
actual policy they are trying to make.
When you talked about fine wines, Mike Thompson, right? He
knows everything about it. When you are talking about banking,
there is--I don't think there is enough depth of knowledge and
experience, but there is the talent to understand what you
want--what you are talking about. I would like to spend some
time with you privately when you have an opportunity to do a
little deeper dive on this so that I can understand it better.
But I know you are on the right track.
Mr. BARR. Thank you, Congressman Kelly. And yes, indeed. So
when your credit unions come and talk to you, and your banks
come and talk to you about the disparity in the tax treatment,
this is a way to help level the playing field for banks,
taxpaying banks. Give them an incentive to deploy private
capital and not have to pay taxes on those loans, those--that
private capital deployed to small businesses in Opportunity
Zones. And this is the way to supercharge Opportunity Zones and
also help those taxpaying banks.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Come to Erie, Pennsylvania. I
will show you----
Mr. BARR. Okay.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I will show you that whole thing
in action. One of the most successful pieces that we did, of
course, with the Opportunity Zones, that city and what they
have done with the policy that we gave them that allowed them,
through private investment, not taxpayer investment, to
complete--they did a 180. A thing that was falling apart now is
a place of beauty and a place where business is thriving.
So come with me to Erie some time. You don't have to come
in the summer. Well, wait. You better not come in the winter,
unless you bring snowshoes with you. But we are on the right
track. Thank you.
Mr. BARR. Thank you.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Barr. You
mentioned a variety of issues here, and I am--I appreciate your
engagement, and look forward to working with you in the coming
months.
Next we have Mr. Johnson from Ohio, a member of one of the
newer committees in the House, the Energy and Commerce
Committee. [Laughter.]
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Johnson, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BILL JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, good morning, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for giving me an opportunity to speak this morning. I
come to you and the committee with a plea for help on behalf of
the people of East Palestine.
As many of you know, I represent the village of East
Palestine, Ohio, the site of the train derailment and
subsequent fire and chemical spill on February 3 of this year,
which has completely upended the lives of the residents there
through no fault of their own.
I have spent a significant amount of time in East Palestine
since the derailment. The national media, for the most part,
has left and the story has faded from the national news. But
that doesn't mean that the problems are solved. Far from it. I
have continued to be there every chance I get, meeting with
residents and small business owners. Later this month I will be
hosting an Energy and Commerce Environment, Manufacturing, and
Critical Materials Subcommittee field hearing in the village,
where we will hear from the EPA officials, community leaders,
and the railroad regarding what happened, the ongoing cleanup
efforts, and actions being taken to address environmental and
health concerns.
As you would expect, many residents have taken a financial
hit due to this disaster. We in Congress have an opportunity to
play a meaningful role in helping them out. Back in March I
introduced H.R. 1270, a bipartisan piece of legislation called
the East Palestine Tax Relief Act. Cosponsored by two members
of this committee, this bill ensures those that were thrust
into this unfortunate situation will not have to pay taxes on
any relief payments they have already rightfully received or
will receive in the future relating to the accident. This
includes direct payments from the railroad, any subsidiary
insurer, or agent of Norfolk Southern, or any local, state, or
Federal agency.
I believe this is the right thing to do. I urge my
colleagues to support the residents of East Palestine by
holding a vote on H.R. 1270 in the coming weeks, and I thank
the committee.
[The statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. JOHNSON. I yield back.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Certainly,
the issues that you raise are important, and always trying to
have a good tax policy and responsive tax policy in mind.
Mr. Thompson.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Thank you for testifying today.
As you know, this is an issue of great interest to a number of
us in the House and on this committee.
I think in the next panel or one of the later panels, Mr.
LaMalfa from up in Butte County is going to testify. He and I
have legislation dealing specifically with folks who received
payments and are being taxed on those payments, payments that
don't even hold them harmless. And it is terrible. That
particular bill, I was the lead author in the last Congress,
and we passed it out of this committee, and it passed out of
the House and went over to the Senate. And as you know, the--
Senator McConnell said no to all tax bills in the final--in the
eleventh hour.
So hopefully, we will be able to put these together, we
will be able to move--all these disaster bills, we will be able
to move them over to the Senate and we will get more
cooperation. Because like you, I have constituents that are
really hurting. And it is not just in Ohio and California; it
is in states across the country. And we have a responsibility
to help those people.
So thanks for being here.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Johnson,
for your input today.
Next we have Dr. Dunn. Dr. Dunn is here to share his
insight.
Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. NEAL DUNN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Dr. DUNN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Thompson.
As a member of the China Select Committee, it has become
clear that strategic competition with China is one of the
defining issues of the 118th Congress. Reducing American
reliance on China is a shared policy goal of many across the
bipartisan political spectrum, as well as many American
companies.
In July Mr. Auchincloss and I, joined by 64 Members of
Congress, including every single member of the China Select
Committee, sent a letter to this committee underscoring the
necessity of legislation to facilitate the supply chain shifts
out of China, specifically the renewal of the generalized
system of preferences on tariffs.
And thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your attention
to this and your staff's attention to this letter.
The GSP is one of America's oldest and largest trade
agreements. It has been renewed by both Democrat and Republican
administrations since 1974, 59 years we have never failed to
renew this until 2020 when we failed on December 31, 2020. So
it has lapsed for that long. The GSP boosts economic
development by removing tariffs on non-sensitive goods from 119
different developing countries, all of them putative friends of
America. China is not a qualified country. But thanks to our
gridlock, the GSP expired in 2020 and the last vote, I would
note, on the GSP renewal was 400 to 2. So, I mean, this is a
very popular bill.
I am confident that GSP renewal legislation will be
delivered under the Chairman--chair's leadership and--on Ways
and Means Committee. And without it, billions of dollars in
additional costs from current tariffs will be transferred to
American companies and consumers. Right now American companies
are forced to choose between hiking prices, absorbing the
profit cuts, or finding cheaper places to manufacture, places
like China. Our failure to renew this GSP moves international
manufacturing to China.
In addition, China exploits U.S. trade laws, gaming our de
minimis system. With a tax and duty-free threshold for all
imports set at $800, China plays trade games at our expense.
I am proud to co-lead H.R. 4148, the Import Security and
Fairness Act, with Mr. Blumenauer of this committee. This bill
would have the effect of removing Russia and China from
receiving de minimis benefits.
Why do communist and authoritarian countries who seek to
undermine the United States get a non-reciprocal trade subsidy
at the same time some United States businesses and workers
struggle to make ends meet in today's economy? The CCP and
Russian exporters receive American charity that they do not
deserve.
I encourage my colleagues on this committee and throughout
Congress to support the Import Security and Fairness Act, and
please put an end to this. I am confident we can do that.
[The statement of Dr. Dunn follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Dr. DUNN. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman SMITH [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Dunn, for coming
to our committee today.
I am pleased to recognize Mr. D'Esposito from New York.
Mr. D'Esposito, I appreciate your opportunity to come here
and to talk about an issue I know that is extremely important
to you.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ANTHONY D'ESPOSITO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Well, I appreciate you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning to not only Chairman Smith, but other members
of the Committee on Ways and Means. Thank you for giving me and
all of us the opportunity to speak here today, and to advocate
for Congress to lift the current cap on the State and Local Tax
deduction, also referred to as SALT.
Mr. Chairman, I also appreciate your open-door policy to
hear concerns of members from one end of this country to the
other.
My constituents from New York's 4th Congressional District
sent me to Congress to provide meaningful tax relief to local
families. And one way I plan to deliver that relief is by
removing the current SALT cap. Americans are suffering from
sky-high inflation, rising gas and grocery prices, and out-of-
control spending from the Biden Administration. Removing the
cap is one way House Republicans can provide Americans with
financial support.
I am proud to serve as the current vice chair of the House
SALT Caucus, a bipartisan group of representatives determined
to bring real relief to the districts we represent by lifting
the $10,000 SALT cap currently in place for taxpayers filing
their federal income returns.
Since I came to Congress in January, I have advocated for
the lifting of the cap. I joined my fellow Long Islanders,
Congressman Andrew Garbarino and Congressman Nick LaLota, in
sponsoring the amendment to the Fiscal Responsibility Act,
which would have restored the SALT cap to pre-2017 levels for
majority of Americans.
I am also a proud cosponsor of the SALT Fairness and
Deficit Reduction Act, which would significantly raise the SALT
cap, and would require an annual inflation adjustment to the
increased amount beginning after 2023 and extending to 2032,
the period during which the limitation is in effect.
New York House Republican members are working hard to
deliver this needed relief not only for New Yorkers, but for
all Americans, especially those in high-tax states. Raising the
SALT cap will not just benefit high-income earners in New York,
as many would want you to believe. In fact, a study conducted
by the Government Finance Officers Association using IRS data
found that nearly 40 percent of tax filers making between
50,000 and $75,000 in 2015 claimed the deduction. That is
nearly 7.6 million households in the United States of America.
If House Republicans are serious about reducing the burden
of President Biden's fiscal policies, then I urge all of my
colleagues to join me in supporting a lift to the SALT cap.
[The statement of Mr. D'Esposito follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Chairman, I thank you again for letting me
speak to the committee, and I yield back my time.
Chairman SMITH. Representative, thank you for coming and
sharing your opinion. The SALT issue is quite interesting, as
it impacts areas of our nation much differently.
I do want to highlight that your fellow colleague from New
York, Ms. Malliotakis, has definitely--when we were marking up
the American Families and Jobs Act, she was--she is, I believe,
one of the members of your SALT Caucus, as well. She was a huge
advocate, and shared a lot of very good points.
So I appreciate you being here.
Mr. D'ESPOSITO. I appreciate it, Chairman. Thank you for
your time.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HERN. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SMITH. Yes, Mr. Ranking Member.
Mr. NEAL. I want to thank the gentleman for his informed
comments on the SALT deduction. We have had that conversation
here for a considerable period of time. The one thing that I
think everybody has come to recognize, there is hardly an easy
solution for the issue, although we crafted one at one time.
And I hope that you will have a chance to weigh in with members
of the committee.
Mr. D'ESPOSITO. I appreciate that, Mr. Ranking Member.
Mr. HERN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Hern.
Mr. HERN. Congressman, colleague, has there been an update
to that since 2015, on the impact of SALT on the American
people?
Mr. D'ESPOSITO. I believe there has. I don't have the
numbers on me, but I am happy to get it to you.
Mr. HERN. If you could get that, it would be great.
Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Absolutely.
Mr. HERN. If you could get it post-TCJA, that would be
awesome.
Mr. D'ESPOSITO. You got it.
Mr. HERN. Thank you.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Thompson.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I too want to thank you for
raising this issue. But as Mr. Neal said, we crafted a response
to this that would help, and it was not the Democrats that put
SALT removal on the books. So, I think you would be better
served to take the partisan edge off of this issue. There are
folks on both sides who are working hard to address this. Thank
you.
Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Well, I appreciate your comments, but I
wasn't here when this was put into place. I came to office in
January, and that is what I am going to focus on.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I realize that. But there is a
history to this. I was here. I know that history.
Mr. D'ESPOSITO. I have read the books, as well.
Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Thank you.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. It is better to take the
partisan edge off trying to address this issue.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. D'Esposito, thank you.
Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SMITH. I want to thank the testimonies of all the
individuals on the first panel, and you all are dismissed, and
the clerk will please set up panel two.
[Pause.]
Mr. Nunn, I believe you are the first one up.
[Pause.]
I will now recognize Mr.--Representative Zach Nunn, the
gentleman from Iowa. Mr. Nunn is a 6th generation Iowan, and
served for 2 decades in the U.S. Air Force, and is currently in
the Air Force Reserves.
Mr. Nunn.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ZACH NUNN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF IOWA
Mr. NUNN. Well, Chairman Smith and members of the Ways and
Means Committee, thank you incredibly for taking the time to
hear from us, all members of this august body on both the
Democrat and Republican side, to be able to fight for our
communities back home.
You, obviously, are tasked with one of the most challenging
aspects of Washington, D.C. in making sure that our tax dollars
are well-invested, and they are returned to our communities in
a way that is both meaningful but helps to care for so many in
our community.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to commend you for your
leadership on not just this committee, but, importantly, on
making sure that wasteful spending in D.C. is put to a halt,
ensuring that our families and small businesses can be
successful and, like so many of you, that our farm families
have the tools they need to succeed.
As a father of six kids, we have brought on two foster
children into our family. Recently, this year, we were able to
adopt both Jayna and Aliya, two half-sisters that came to our
family.
I am privileged to co-chair the Congressional Caucus on
Foster Youth. I have first-hand experience navigating this
system, and have realized through painful experience how
challenging it can be for so many families in our community.
In April my wife, Kelly, and I brought these two young
ladies into our family, and we have been blessed ever since.
But it was a long and difficult road. This adoption opened our
eyes to the challenges and shortcomings that exist within the
system, despite great efforts by those trying to help this
happen. And while we were fortunate to bring our daughters to
their forever home, many never get that opportunity.
Indeed, learning firsthand through the court experience, we
saw grandmothers who tried to adopt their own grandchildren,
but found the cost was just too high and too expensive,
watching their own family be stuck in foster long-term. Agency
attorney fees, as well as additional expenses, prevent far too
many families in America today from being able to adopt a
child. The average cost to adopt can go anywhere from a minimum
of $8,000 up to $40,000 just to be able to provide a loving
home. Oftentimes, grandparents, aunts, and uncles wanting to
adopt their own biological grandchildren find it nearly
impossible to access the financial assistance necessary to
bring their grandchildren home. And this isn't even just
amongst biological families, but people who want to do the
right thing.
To help with these high expenses, the Federal Adoption Tax
Credit provides families with up to $14,890 per child. This
qualified adoption expense includes everything from adoption
fees, court fees, attorney fees, travel expenses, but, even
more tangible, the mental health, the reunification, the cost
of bringing a new child into a family, oftentimes with other
children.
However, as currently written, this credit benefits only
those who have a high federal income liability, making it
difficult for retirees, low-income, and middle-income families
to adopt, let alone to be able to keep a foster child in their
family.
According to the U.S. Administration for Children and
Families, there are over 400,000 children in foster care, and
over 100,000 waiting for adoption right here in the United
States. Of this, nearly half a million children do not have a
home or a family, causing instability and inconsistency and
lack of care. These numbers will continue to grow if families
here in America can't afford to bring them into their home, and
costs both the taxpayer and these families even more.
And so that is why, Mr. Chairman, I have been proud to
introduce H.R. 2510, the Fight for Families Act. This bill
would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and make federal
adoption tax credits permanent and fully refundable to families
who adopt disadvantaged children. This includes children who
cannot return to their parents' home, as well as children in
which the state has determined that certain factors, such as
their background, age, or medical condition, would prevent a
family from adopting them without financial assistance.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit to the committee for
the record a graphic from the Congressional Research Service
2020 Report on Adoption Tax Benefit.
Chairman SMITH. So ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. NUNN. Thank you, sir.
According to CRS, families with an annual adjusted growth
rate of $100,000 and above receive roughly 66 percent of all
Federal Adoption Tax Credit dollars, yet families with an AGI
of 50,000 or under, those middle-income Americans, received
just under two percent of all credit tax dollars. The majority
of those receiving this credit can already afford to adopt.
The Fight for Families Act incentivizes adoption for all
families to ensure that the families of diverse backgrounds and
kids have access to the Federal Adoption Tax Credit. This small
change in our tax code will have a positive impact on making
sure families are able to stay together in an extended
biological sense, but also to make sure that more people have
the opportunity to bring a child into their forever home.
With that, I want to thank the committee today for their
stellar leadership on all before us. And I urge my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle to help more children find their
forever home by supporting this fundamental bipartisan
legislation.
[The statement of Mr. Nunn follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. NUNN. I yield back my time, Mr. Chair.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Nunn. I would like to
highlight that there is a lot of interest on this committee in
regards to looking at the refundability of Adoption Tax
Credits. Our ranking member, Mr. Danny Davis, has a piece of
legislation for all in regards to adoption tax credits. It is
cosponsored by Republicans and Democrats on this committee. So
there is a huge interest. Thank you for being here.
But I believe Mr. Kelly has a question, as well.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Yes, Mr. Nunn, I want to thank
you for bringing that forward.
I have always believed so strongly in the pro-life issues,
and I always hoped that the pro-choice people would choose
life. I know there is times in people's lives when the
opportunity to give birth is not in the right time at the right
place. But if you can give people an option, if you can give
people an option through adoption or foster care, I don't think
there is any greater message that we can send to the world of
who it is that we are. So thank you so much for doing that.
And I don't want to get into a discussion about abortion
because it becomes something that is a political football, just
that the basics of my beliefs is that life should always be the
first consideration. If we can give people the option, and we
can incentivize that and help them to bear the burden of what
it is that some people face, why don't we look that way? That
would be an incredible opportunity for this nation to really
shine a light on who it is that we are.
So I really thank you for what you are doing, and I think
all our members--well, sometimes we can't talk about it
politically. I know in our hearts we know what is right. So
thank you so much.
And Chairman, thank you for allowing me to speak.
Chairman SMITH. Anything for the chairman of the Tax
Committee. This is important.
So thank you, Mr. Nunn. We will now move on to recognize
Representative Chuck Edwards, the gentleman from North
Carolina.
Mr. Edwards serves North Carolina's 11th Congressional
District, and currently sits on the House Budget, T&I, and
Oversight.
And also, a late happy birthday. I know your birthday was
yesterday. So please proceed, Mr. Edwards.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHUCK EDWARDS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and
committee members. I really appreciate the opportunity that you
are providing me and us to address a committee that we normally
don't get an opportunity to have exposure with.
I would like to take this opportunity to speak on a couple
of issues that are important to the citizens of North
Carolina's 11th Congressional District, and issues that I
believe are critical for the workforce and the economy of our
nation.
Today I would like to bring to your attention an issue with
unemployment law that has played a role in the $163 billion of
unemployment fraud estimated by the Department of Labor since
2020, and something that continues to plague business leaders
in my district.
In 2012 Congress established nationwide work search
requirements for unemployment claimants. These requirements
established the well-known mandate that a claimant must be
available, able, and actively seeking work to be eligible for
unemployment benefits. This provision has commonly been
interpreted to mean a claimant must search for and accept work,
but it leaves out the single most important part of a
meaningful job search, and that is interviewing for the job.
You see, many states conclude that if an unemployment
claimant completes an application, that claimant has met the
work search requirement. And if that claimant turns down work,
they may no longer be eligible for unemployment benefits. But
the fault in this process is if a claimant completes an
application but does never appear or respond to a job interview
request, they cannot be offered a job to accept or to turn
down.
I continue to hear from upset business owners who share
their frustration with the constant scheduling of interviews,
only for an applicant to not show up. For one business that I
am aware in NC-11, and for one position alone, they had 30
candidates apply and schedule an interview within a 60-day
period, with only one candidate actually showing up to the
interview. These no-call, no-show interviews are draining
critical resources for small businesses, and are undoubtedly
linked to the unprecedented unemployment fraud that we have
seen over the last three years.
Another employer in my district asks job applicants when
they come in whether they would like an application or whether
they would like a job. If they simply want to fulfill their
weekly work search requirement, the claimant is given a yellow
application, and the employer knows not to waste any time with
that applicant. But if a claimant actually wants a job, they
receive another color application so the employer knows to give
them serious consideration for employment.
It is time that we stand up for American small businesses
and the integrity of our unemployment system. That is why I am
working on a bill to finally codify showing up to an interview
as a mandatory part of the job search while on unemployment,
and to strengthen audit requirements so that we can better
prevent ourselves against the further abuse of our unemployment
system.
As we approach the halfway point of the 118th Congress, I
strongly encourage you to stand beside me for much-needed
unemployment reforms to help more Americans experience the
dignity of work, and to help employers find the workforce that
they so desperately need.
Lastly, I would be remiss not to take this opportunity to
mention the importance of ensuring distressed census tracts,
including brownfields and Superfund sites, be included in any
extension of the Tax Cut and Jobs Opportunity Zone tax
incentive, especially the rural Opportunity Zone tax incentive
proposed in the recent American Families and Jobs Act tax
package.
Complex contamination footprints frequently leave
brownfields and Superfund sites, like a particular property in
my district, to sit undeveloped for decades. This vital
inclusion of contaminated sites in any future Opportunity Zone
programs will help to guarantee the tax incentive has the
furthest reach possible and will achieve the goal of sparking
economic development across all census tracts and rural
communities that are in need.
Thank you again for allowing me this opportunity to testify
before you today.
[The statement of Mr. Edwards follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. EDWARDS. And I yield the remainder of my time.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Edwards.
I am pleased to recognize Congresswoman Jenniffer Gonzalez-
Colon, the gentlelady from Puerto Rico.
Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon is the delegate from Puerto Rico, the
first woman to do so. And she was previously the youngest
member ever elected to serve in the Puerto Rico House of
Representatives.
So it is a pleasure to have you before our committee.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, A DELEGATE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF PUERTO RICO
Mrs. GONZALEZ-COLON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, all members of this committee, for having us today, and
for the opportunity to discuss how this committee can have an
important impact in economic growth and development of the
island.
Early this year I reintroduced H.R. 3146, a bipartisan,
bicameral legislation that will modify the amount of money
transferred to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands from the
excise taxes collected on rum that is produced in or imported
into the rest of the United States from the two U.S.
territories.
Puerto Rico's rum industry is one of the major drivers of
our economy, producing more than 70 percent of the rum that is
consumed in the United States and 80 percent of the rum that is
consumed around the world. It results in more than $330 million
for Puerto Rico every year, which has been vital to supporting
critical services including health care, education, public
safety, and environmental, and other conservation initiatives.
Traditionally, excise tax collections on imported rum have
been transferred to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands at
the rate of $13.25 per proof gallon. However, only $10.50 per
proof gallon is on the permanent law, which--the remaining
$2.75 per proof gallon, requiring periodic reauthorization by
Congress, a practice that has been taking place for the last
100 years.
My legislation makes permanent the $13.25 per proof gallon
to be covered by law, eliminating uncertainty that both
territories have experienced, including funding cliffs on
several occasions, and ensuring resources continue reaching our
communities and enhancing our long-term sustainable economic
growth.
This legislation will also require that a portion of the
funds be transferred to the Conservation Trust on the island.
Congress last extended the rum cover over for 5 years as
part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, which expired in
December 2021. As such, I ask you consider attaching my bill to
the forthcoming disaster relief legislation or any base bill.
As the Congressional Task Force on Economic Growth in
Puerto Rico made clear in this recommendation to Congress, and
I quote, ``Failure to extend the provision will cause harm to
Puerto Rico's fiscal condition at a time when it is already in
peril.''
Another bill is H.R. 376, the Puerto Rico Film, Television,
and Theater Production Act. The IRS incorrectly considers
Puerto Rico as a foreign jurisdiction for purposes of federal
incentives available to producers of films, television shows,
and theater performances, making this incentive unavailable for
works produced by American taxpayers in Puerto Rico.
Another bill is H.R. 4026 that will make available in
territories certain tax credits and deductions for the expenses
incurred in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
That law allows a deduction for expenses incurred in removing
barriers and making alterations to make businesses, facilities
more accessible to people with disabilities, and for the
elderly.
To help businesses comply with these requirements, current
laws allow small businesses to take credit on federal income
tax return if they incur it for removing architectural
communication, physical, or transportation barriers that
prevent a business from being accessible or usable by people
with disabilities. Although the ADA is applicable in the
territories, all these credits and deductions are not available
to the territories, as well. H.R. 4026 seeks to address this
situation and improve the quality of independent life of people
with disabilities in the territories by making the credits and
deductions available to taxpayers in the territories.
I will be submitting an addendum to this writing that
includes some of other bills such as H.R. 378, which will make
all Puerto Rico eligible for Opportunity Zones, and H.R. 447,
which will incentivize domestic medical manufacturing in
economically distressed areas across our nation, which is a
bipartisan and bicameral bill.
I will close by marking an open invitation to the committee
to come to Puerto Rico to examine the impact of all this
legislation under your jurisdiction, and hear directly from
residents and stakeholders about this.
[The statement of Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. GONZALEZ-COLON. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Congresswoman, thank you for your testimony
before our committee. Thank you for your hard work, dedication,
and advocacy for the good folks of Puerto Rico.
I now recognize Representative Burgess Owens, the gentleman
from Utah. Mr. Owens is a former NFL draft pick, and was a
Super Bowl champion for my team's rival, the Oakland Raiders.
He is founder of Second Chance for Youth, a non-profit
dedicated to helping troubled and incarcerated youth.
Mr. Owens.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BURGESS OWENS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. OWENS. Thank you so much, Chairman Smith, Ranking
Member Neal, and members of the committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. I am here today to support
legislation which is in the jurisdiction of both this committee
and the Committee on Education and Workforce on which I serve.
I appreciate the time provided so I can be heard on this bill.
I am here today to support H.R. 531, Educational Choice for
Children's Act, or ECCA, which I introduced along with
Congressman Adrian Smith of Nebraska. I first introduced this
bill in the 117th Congress with our late colleague and friend,
Jackie Walorski. Jackie was a joyful champion of policies to
ensure every child had the resources and education they needed
to succeed. This bill will be a fitting tribute to her legacy.
As the child of two educators, I was raised in a family who
believed strongly in the gift of education, its power to create
greater socioeconomic mobility by offering parents and students
more educational options to increase the opportunities to
succeed, to empower the generations to come, to make their
American dream a reality.
Our bill is based on popular state-level policies which has
been proven to work, like the Children First Education Fund in
my home state, and is designed to address the critics of direct
government funding of scholarships. Because ECCA provides a
refundable tax credit to support scholarships, it diverts no
existing funding away from public school systems. It can be
compared to other existing tax programs such as Low-Income
Housing Tax Credit and New Market Tax Credit.
In order to ensure that no governmental participation in
rewarding scholarships for attendance at religious schools,
ECCA tax credits and scholarships are directed through
independent scholarship granting organizations, or SGOs. These
SGOs will both allocate the non-refundable credits to donors,
and select families to receive the scholarships.
To ensure students in all parts of the country, not just
cities and suburbs, can participate, SGOs may also offer
assistance to supplemental educational assistance and supplies
for families in need, not merely school's tuition.
Ignorant and free can never be, to paraphrase, speaks to
the understanding of our founders of the imperative nature of
education. The right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness
summarizes our nation's mission statement and the visions of a
Heavenly Father that puts value on every life, regardless of
race, creed, color, or zip code. It is time for us to look for
innovative ways to ensure that every child has access to our
nation's promise, regardless of zip code, income status, color,
or creed.
Unfortunately, for too many and for far too long, our
children have been denied these rights. In a 2017 report out of
the state of California, 75 percent of the black boys in the
state of California could not pass standard reading and writing
tests. In Baltimore, across 23 schools, 0 percent of students
showed proficiency in math. In Memphis, Tennessee this year, 75
percent of third graders were not proficient in reading. Only
one percent was held back.
Not being able to read, write, think, or to believe in our
country that thrives on success, hard work, merit, risk,
failure, and second chances makes the pursuit of life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness impossible. We are fighting today
for the heart and soul of our nation. We cannot accept that
intellectual and educational failure of our own children is the
norm.
This legislation gives a win-win in this approach, an all-
in in this process, a win for the parents and particularly the
poor minorities, to see their child reach their potential; a
win for educational communities to allow competition and
meritocracy, incentivizing innovation increasing value; a win
for the caring citizen donors with tax write-offs; and a win
for our most precious product, our children, to become happy,
visionary, and productive citizens for our communities and our
country.
I look forward to working with our colleagues on both sides
of the aisle to give these options of H.R. 351 to parents and
children throughout our country. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Owens follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. OWENS. And I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you.
I would like to recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr.
Smith.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just briefly, thank you, Mr. Owens, for your work on this
bill. Obviously, I am a little biased, as well, in favor of the
legislation. But thank you for emphasizing students, the
achievement of students and the empowerment of families.
And in so many communities around the country, I have been
pleased to see the engagement from stakeholders around the
country, namely students who are gathering, who are telling us
themselves, with their families, what the needs are. And I am
glad that we are able to work together on these solutions.
Mr. OWENS. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Owens, education freedom is an
important priority for this committee. And we, over the next
couple of months, will be having hearings in regards to this,
and hopefully your legislation will be a part of that. So thank
you for being here today.
Mr. OWENS. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate it.
Dr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SMITH. Yes, Mr. Ferguson.
Dr. FERGUSON. Thank you.
Mr. Owens, thank you for bringing this forward. I think
what we have seen over the past couple of years is that parents
want a say in their children's education, okay? And that is
going to take a lot of different forms. And this bill provides
some options that parents don't currently have right now.
I think it is important to do this, because when you tell
parents that they aren't in charge of their children's
education it sends the wrong signal, okay? And it just flies in
the face of the things that we love the most, which are our
children. And so I applaud you for bringing this forward.
You know, I am glad to hear the chairman say that, as we
will make this a priority and move forward, that we hope that
this will be part of that. It certainly seems like something
that we can get behind and support.
So thank you for bringing it forward, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you for your consideration of it.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Ferguson.
Mr. OWENS. Thank you.
Chairman SMITH. I now will recognize Representative Dan
Meuser, the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Meuser is the former secretary of revenue in
Pennsylvania. So he knows the responsibility of tax collection.
So I am pleased to have you before the Ways and Means
Committee.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAN MEUSER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. MEUSER. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you very, very much.
And I also want to thank the Ranking Member Neal and all
members of the House Ways and Means Committee for giving me
this opportunity to testify here.
I would like to discuss my bill, the USA Batteries Act,
H.R. 1594, which would repeal a recently imposed tax on
domestic manufacturers, which, of course, hurts good-paying
American jobs and provides an unfair advantage to, frankly,
cheap imports from countries with very weak environmental and
labor laws.
The United States is the world leader currently in lead
battery manufacturing. Unfortunately, the recent change to tax
policy has given foreign manufacturers of such lead batteries
an unfair advantage. As part of the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act, a Superfund tax was levied on 42 chemicals,
including lead oxide, sulfuric acid, and antimony, which are
the primary inputs for lead batteries. These excise taxes,
which had not existed for more than 25 years, suddenly returned
at twice the previously enacted level alongside the Superfund
chemical tax, which has forced American-led battery
manufacturers to pay significantly higher prices for raw
materials than foreign competitors.
Mr. Chairman, this is squeezing domestic manufacturers,
which, of course, forces Americans to buy from countries that,
frankly, have very questionable labor laws.
Additionally, these manufacturers are also faced with
unprecedented economic pressures that I don't need to list
here, supply chain disruptions and workforce challenges.
Lead batteries are used in everything from vehicles,
telecommunications, defense, energy generation, and the list
goes on.
The battery industry is composed of many small businesses,
employing 38,000 Americans across 38 states, with an annual
economic output of $33 billion. Pennsylvania's 9th
Congressional District that I represent is home to two leaders
in lead battery--in the lead battery industry, East Penn and
EnerSys, which, combined, employs more than 20,000 in my
district in Pennsylvania. So battery manufacturers, as well,
can be found across the country in Missouri, Tennessee, and
Washington.
Lead batteries are a sustainable, perhaps even renewable
energy source, as 99 percent of lead batteries are recycled for
use in new batteries or other products. These batteries also
provide 60 percent of the rechargeable battery market, and are
often used in a variety of green applications.
So we must take steps to ensure that the U.S. battery
manufacturers have a fair playing field compared to foreign
manufacturers that are mainly located in China. Currently,
China accounts for 45 percent of the world's total production
capacity of lead batteries, and 75 percent of the world's total
production of lithium ion batteries. Placing burdens on
American battery manufacturers puts us at a distinct
disadvantage with our foreign counterparts, obviously, causing
the U.S. to cede ground in yet another important industry.
To correct this disparity, I respectfully ask the Ways and
Means Committee to advance the USA Batteries Act, which would
simply eliminate the Superfund chemical tax on lead oxide,
antimony, and sulfuric acid, the main inputs in lead batteries.
This would make the raw materials and batteries more affordable
for American manufacturers, doing away with the unfair
advantage, as stated, for foreign counterparts.
In addition to my USA Batteries Act, I would be remiss if I
did not mention the need to restore full R&D tax credit. In
2021 alone, the U.S. battery industry invested $113 million in
R&D to pursue the next generation of battery technologies. I
was glad to see the restoration of the full R&D tax credit,
including the Ways and Means-passed Build It in America Act,
and encourage my colleagues to continue efforts to restore this
important provision for small businesses.
Additionally, bonus depreciation is set to decrease 20
percent annually through 2027, as you are well-aware. And as
you also know, we need to act soon because private-sector
innovation, especially within the small business economy, is at
stake, and could be hamstrung if we--if they are not able to
fully invest in R&D.
So I want to thank you very much for this opportunity to
testify, and I would certainly be happy to answer any
questions.
[The statement of Mr. Meuser follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. MEUSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Meuser. We appreciate your
testimony in regards to a lot of the tax priorities that we are
trying to hopefully get past the finish line before the end of
the year.
But I appreciate all the members of this panel. We will now
dismiss it and then move to panel three.
[Pause.]
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, would it be in
order to move to approve Mr. LaMalfa bill by acclamation?
[Laughter.]
Chairman SMITH. You know, it is a priority, but I don't
think that would be in order at this moment.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. All right.
Chairman SMITH. We will now proceed, with that note, to Mr.
LaMalfa.
You see that you have some friends on both sides up here.
But Mr. LaMalfa, he manages his family-owned farming
business in Northern California, and is a former member of
the--and he is leaving. [Laughter.]
Mr. THOMPSON of California. He heard nothing that we said
about him.
[Pause.]
Chairman SMITH. He is a former member of the California
State Assembly.
And you can proceed when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LaMALFA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. LaMALFA. Thank you, sir. I was just at a family farm
conversation that was going on as I was coming up here, so my
paperwork was in a different spot.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and our
committee members. I really appreciate the opportunity to sit
down with you and talk about the many priorities that we all
have here today, and I know that the committee has an intense
scope of work to take on. So I do appreciate this time you have
allotted for us here.
So I want to talk to you about a really important piece of
legislation for not just myself, but for my neighboring
colleagues and others around the country that have added on
from the initial bill that I introduced with my colleague, Mr.
Thompson. And it really boils down to H.R. 4970, that we are
entitled to Protect Innocent Victims of Taxation After Fire
Act. It has been drafted to halt the imminent taxation of
disaster aid for wildfire victims and survivors of which we
have had so many cases of this in northern California, in my
district and Mr. Thompson's district, and some of our other
neighbors, as well, in the West.
So we have these amazing folks that I get to represent,
these resilient survivors of multiple wildfires across Northern
California. From 2015 to 2018 these fires were sparked, in some
cases, by electrical transmission lines that have destroyed
nearly 30,000 structures, injured hundreds of residents, and
killed more than 130 of our constituents.
In the aftermath, survivors received disaster assistance
from FEMA. So many on this committee probably know under the
Internal Revenue Code of IRS, Section 139, this assistance is
tax free. In fact, the tax code offers a multitude of
additional forms of tax relief to disaster for victims,
including Section 121 for excluding property losses, Section
165 for deducting casualty losses, Section 1033 for deferring
involuntary conversions, Section 213 for deducting personal
medical care costs. Those are a few, but I think you can see
that the current established intent of the U.S. tax policy is
to exclude disaster losses from taxation.
So I bring up these other sections because survivors of the
fires from 2015 to 2018 I mentioned earlier were also
recipients of disaster aid payments from a special settlement
trust created in 2020 when the power utility who caused these
wildfires ultimately went bankrupt. Now, unlike disaster aid
from FEMA, payments from this settlement are interpreted by IRS
to be fully taxable as income. Fire victims will be taxed on
these awards they have received from the utility is the way--is
the direction things are going to go here.
And on top of that, the real insult to the injury, I guess,
would be, despite court-approved lawyers receiving 20--between
25 and 33 percent of each payment of these awards, the
recipients will pay the amount on the lawyers' income on this.
They will pay the full amount on the lawyers' portion of the
income. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what that is like for the
fire victims?
So even then, the effects of this do not stop at the--they
do not end at the taxation component. If the disaster aid is
registered as income, survivors could also face a significant
loss of federal benefits. Supplemental security income, SNAP
benefits, WIC benefits could all be almost eliminated in nearly
these cases if they are interpreted as that their income is too
high to now receive these.
Health care subsidies would be dramatically reduced for
those on the lower-income scale. And believe me, many of these
folks living in this area, these fire victims, are not on the
high-income scale. They are in homes that they could afford to
live in that are, you know, 50 years old or 70 years old that--
they are going to have a hard time, very hard time replacing,
especially since many of them were under-insured for modern
building costs.
So veterans' benefits could be--especially on co-pays for
prescriptions, those could be curtailed. If there was a
possibility of seeking federal student loan, they will have to
some--they will have to look somewhere else.
So if this disaster aid is treated as income, the federal
government's entire social safety net will bail out on these
survivors, again, many of them who are on the low-income scale.
So it is not just exclusive to northern California with my
district and my neighbor's districts there. It has happened
again in both Colorado and in Oregon. Protection offered by
H.R. 4970 extends the guaranteed relief and ease of mind to
wildfire survivors anywhere in the U.S.: California, Colorado,
Oregon, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, Texas, and even now Hawaii.
So it is a pretty simple piece of legislation. These
payments, though not coming from FEMA, are disaster aid.
Survivors don't have the resources to navigate our tax code.
They deserve the simple, singular tax exclusion given to all
other forms of disaster aid.
Notably, the bill includes a no double benefit clause,
which will allow survivors with the resources or knowledge
necessary to use existing tax benefits to do so.
Now, I do want to put a timeline on this is that IRS did a
good and helpful thing in that many of my counties in
California that have suffered disaster, the people in those
particular counties were designated by the IRS delayed their
filing from April 15th until October 15th this year. So there
are many folks that are awaiting the legislation here, hoping
that this could be complete before they have to decide upon
filing October 15.
Are they going to have to include this benefit as income,
or will it be non-taxable? So if they don't include it and it
ends up remaining taxable, then they are going to have
penalties and interest and all that. And if they do pay it,
then they will have to wait for a possible refund of that if it
turns out to be a non-taxable event. So either way, you got
folks who are really caught in the lurch on this thing with
deciding.
I appreciate that the IRS did indeed move that time back to
October 15, but it would be really, really helpful for folks to
be able to have this decided by October 15 in some fashion or
another, so this committee listening to this today is very
important to me, very important to those constituents.
[The statement of Mr. LaMalfa follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. LaMALFA. And with that, I will yield there. So thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SMITH. We are glad to have you here.
Mr. Thompson from California.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LaMalfa, thank you for bringing your priority bill
before our committee. And as you know, I share in this with
you.
This committee and the House passed this bill in the last
Congress. It was my bill then, and now with the majority change
it is your bill this time. We worked well together on that last
time. And as I mentioned, it is a priority for both of us this
time. And I have talked to the chairman, the ranking member,
and I think you have tremendous support on this committee.
This is a tragedy that has been multiplied for thousands of
constituents of ours and other districts across our great
country. The idea that you would lose a loved one, you would
lose your business, you would lose your house, and then you get
a settlement that doesn't even pay to make you whole, and then
they tax you for that, it is absolutely outrageous. And we owe
it to every American to address this.
So thanks for bringing it before us, and I will keep
pushing on the committee. And I know you will, too.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your commitment to work on
this.
Mr. LaMALFA. Thank you so much, Mr. Thompson. It has been a
real pleasure to work with you on this.
And as you know, we have 85 deceased people in the Paradise
Camp Fire. And now, as we take on the situation with the
horrible tragedy we have in Lahaina here, that I hope we can
get this rectified for whatever the effects will be.
So thank you so much, committee members, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate it.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. LaMalfa. I do know Mr.
Thompson and also Mr. Steube definitely care about the disaster
tax relief, and it is something that we hope to get resolved
before the end of the year.
I now recognize Dr. Julia Letlow, the gentlelady from
Louisiana. Ms. Letlow is the first woman to represent Louisiana
in the House in 30 years, and is the former director of
education and public safety at Tulane University School of
Medicine.
Ms. Letlow.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JULIA LETLOW, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Ms. LETLOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having me, and
Ranking Member. It is an honor to be here with you all.
I usually don't speak extemporaneously at things like this,
but I just wanted to come and try to share my heart and the
heart of my constituents.
I serve 24--we call them parishes in Louisiana instead of
counties, and that is a lot of geography to get to. And I have
to share with you that wherever I go, wherever small town I am
in, I hear about this complaint more than anything else, and it
is the windfall elimination provision and the government
pension offset.
And so what I have learned in my brief tenure here, a
little over three years, is that sometimes we can implement
things with the most wonderful intentions at heart, but
sometimes those lead to unintended consequences that we never
saw coming. And so I would like to share with you some of the
stories that I hear from my constituents. And these are public
servants, and it affects 17 states across this country. But in
Louisiana alone it is close to three million people.
So when you think about public servants, I think about my
teachers who are teaching our children, I think about our
firefighters or police officers. They are not bringing home
huge salaries, so you can imagine their retirement pension is
not this huge number. These are not wealthy executives coming
to me, sharing their heart with me. These are people like
Kevin, who is a firefighter for his whole career. And you can
imagine, so this penalty has been in place for as long as I
have been alive, a little over 40 years.
So he comes to me. He was making close to 20 to $30,000 a
year annually for his salary. So he did the right thing for his
family. He sought supplemental income. He went to the private
sector and also worked, and put in 40 quarters, paid into
Social Security the whole time. And so then he goes to retire,
and goes to collect his benefits from Social Security, and
finds that they have been slashed by 60 percent. These are our
public servants.
I would also like to share with you a handwritten letter
that I received from Carla from Bunkie, Louisiana. She also
included a picture of her husband that she lost at 60 years old
to cancer. Now, this hit home to me, because I am also a widow.
And when you are widowed, the first thing that comes to your
mind is how am I going to support my family?
And so, because Carla chose in her life to be a teacher in
the public school system, she gave of her time to teach our
children. Simply because of that, she was not eligible to
receive two-thirds of her survivor benefits from her husband's
death through Social Security. Two-thirds. Carla would have
done better by just staying at home and not serving our
children.
I can't tell you--that is 2 of the 40,000 Louisianans and
the 52,000 alone--those are all the stories that I hear of
every day. And so I just want to share them with you. I can
share countless others.
But I also want to work with you to try to find a solution.
I know that something that we implemented over 40 years ago,
that when we put our brilliant minds together, that we can come
up with a solution to fix this for the people that are
suffering, truly. And so I will do anything, please just let me
know. But you all have the means and the and the wherewithal to
fix this for my constituents and for countless others.
And I know it doesn't affect every state, but Americans are
hurting. And that is--I believe they send us to Congress to fix
problems just like this. And so thank you for giving me the
time to share my heart and share the heart of countless other
Louisianans.
And if I may transition to one other thing, I also want to
plug this amazing bill, the Educational Choice for Children Act
from Adrian Smith and Burgess Owens. I am so excited about this
bill. It is the next step for the parents' bill of rights
because it encourages school choice for our parents and gives
that tax credit. So I also wanted to plug that coming from--
higher education is my background, and I don't understand why--
in higher ed we attach money to the student, why are we not
doing that for elementary education? So I also wanted to plug
that.
I forgot to mention too that I also wanted to plug H.R. 82.
It goes back to WEP and GPO. So we finally just got 291
cosponsors to that bill. So I am hopeful that maybe you will
bring it up in this committee. Congressman Garret Graves and
Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger are leading that charge. I
know my constituents and I would be so grateful if you would
also consider H.R. 82.
[The statement of Ms. Letlow follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. LETLOW. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Letlow. I received a text
message from Congressman Graves telling me of the 290th
cosponsor, so you are at 291.
Ms. LETLOW. Yes, sir.
Chairman SMITH. You are updating me more than he is.
I would love to recognize the ranking member, Mr. Neal.
Mr. Neal. Well, I hope the chairman is going to take up the
gentlelady's suggestion on this legislation. We have worked on
this for a long time.
You really did a good job. It is complicated.
Ms. LETLOW. I know.
Mr. NEAL. I mean, it is really complicated.
Ms. LETLOW. Yes, sir.
Mr. NEAL. It is important to recognize that many of the
employees that you have described who are caught in this web--
--
Ms. LETLOW. Right.
Mr. NEAL [continuing]. Previously, they and their
sponsoring organizations opted for that provision of not paying
into the Social Security trust fund----
Ms. LETLOW. Right.
Mr. NEAL [continuing]. Only to discover at a later stage of
life, as you have accurately described----
Ms. LETLOW. Right.
Mr. NEAL [continuing]. That all of a sudden, they are
paying into it.
Ms. LETLOW. Right.
Mr. NEAL. So, I think it is fair to say that there are some
of us who have earned a Ph.D. on this very issue because we
have gone at it for so long.
Ms. LETLOW. That is right.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Brady and I were really close about seven
years ago. I thought we had a solution up until the very
morning of the vote on the House floor on a Friday, when he
came to me and said, ``Look, Rich, I think I have got to pull
this down today. I think it might get defeated on the House
floor.''
Ms. LETLOW. Right.
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Larson has done great work----
Ms. LETLOW. Sure.
Mr. NEAL [continuing]. On this issue. It is a geographic
issue, rather than a philosophic issue.
Ms. LETLOW. Right.
Mr. NEAL. And Mr. Gonzalez is shaking his head because he
is from Texas. [Laughter.]
Mr. NEAL. Mr. Higgins, Mr. Larson, myself, the chairman,
California, it is a substantial issue, and we would like to
address it.
Part of it is the complexity of what has happened in the
congressional scoring system.
Ms. LETLOW. Right.
Mr. NEAL. My colleagues on the other side, it would be
hard, I think, to get them to vote for something that called
for a tax increase down the road. And on our side, scoring,
now, these are both esoteric terms--scoring on our side
conceivably could be used as the argument that somehow we were
in favor of a cut in Social Security. And therein lies the
dilemma.
Ms. LETLOW. Right.
Mr. NEAL. So we have gone back and forth on this for a long
time. Your perspective is very helpful. We want a solution. It
is likely to be something a bit different than what you have
described. And at different intervals Mr. Pascrell has been a
terrific advocate on this issue, but there is pretty broad
bipartisan support based on geography for finding a solution.
And I hope that maybe some of us could put philosophy to
the side and try to address this, because in both instances
that I previously described these are changes that would occur
75 years from now, according to the congressional scoring. But
I think that the enmity that exists in the institution today
gets in the way of what could be a pretty good policy solution.
Massachusetts is part of the challenge here. We want to be
helpful. I have filed legislation that Mr. Brady at least
quietly supported. He filed legislation that I quietly
supported. The problem was trying to get somebody to publicly
support it. But we do want a solution, and I invite you to
participate with us.
Ms. LETLOW. Absolutely.
Mr. NEAL. And I think it would call for all of us to sort
of, as it relates to the prospects of increases or cuts, kind
of lower our voices and try to find a solution.
We have had the Social Security actuaries in, which might
be a good thing for the committee to do again, so that we can
really drill down on what the solution would be. We also
thought that at one juncture that we had a solution from the
Social Security actuaries, where there would be no cuts and
there would be no tax increases.
Ms. LETLOW. Right.
Mr. NEAL. So I invited the gentlelady, who did a really
good job, and I understand the extemporaneous manner in which
you offered it, because it was really well done. We know the
problem, and the solution should not be that elusive. So, I
thank you.
Ms. LETLOW. Thank you, Ranking Member.
Chairman SMITH. I thank the ranking member. I would have to
agree with almost everything you just said. So that is a good
place for us to be.
But I also agree that no American should be penalized
because of their public service or participation, and so a
Social Security replacement program.
So, Dr. Letlow, we appreciate you being before us, and it
is something that this committee is determined to figure out.
So thank you.
Ms. LETLOW. Thank you for your hard work. I appreciate your
time.
Dr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Ferguson, yes.
Dr. FERGUSON. May I make a comment on this?
Chairman SMITH. You should, you are the chair of Social
Security.
Dr. FERGUSON. And I am sure my colleague, Mr. Larson, may
want to weigh in on this, as well. And----
Mr. LARSON. Oh, yes.
Dr. FERGUSON. Dr. Letlow--it is nice to call you that--this
is a complex issue. And for--there are two major issues that I
see here that somehow or another we have got to navigate.
The first one the ranking member touched on, which was the
ridiculous scoring rules that we have put in place for
ourselves that really prohibit intellectually honest
conversations from occurring because things get labeled
something that they are not. And I think, from--if we could do
one thing that would absolutely change the way that this place
worked and help our country, it would be to change the budget
process and the rules that we operate by. It is the most broken
process in America, hands down. That is over there.
The one thing that I would say is that when we look at
this, we can't just address this issue in a vacuum. It has to
be addressed within the context of all of Social Security. And
so, you know, I hope, you know, as we move forward, that we get
the chance to talk about this in the totality of really saving,
you know, the most valued program in America right now.
The real challenge that we have is, as you know, is that we
keep running out of not only time but money to solve these
issues. We just simply--you know, if you look at it, if you
look at our national debt right now, you look at our spending,
all of those things, the--you know, the constrained revenue
coming in and with relation to Social Security, we have got to
look at this in the context of the whole program.
So I agree with the chairman that it is not fair to
penalize our fellow Americans, but we don't want to penalize
all Americans by just addressing this. We want to do it in the
context of the entire Social Security system.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Larson.
Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Representative. I so appreciate your compassion
and your enthusiasm to fix this problem. It probably might
surprise you to know that Congress has not enhanced Social
Security in more than 52 years. In fact, Richard Nixon was the
president the last time the United States Congress enhanced the
program.
Now, this is something that can't be done through executive
order, or otherwise President Biden, who has called for the
direct repeal of both GPO and WEP, this would be done. And it
is not anything that can be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.
It is Congress's responsibility. And imagine, how do you
explain to the people in Louisiana that, yes, we just didn't
vote on it.
Now, in--I believe in your district, what, you have
something like 160,000 Social Security recipients? So if you
look at 160,000 people who have not seen their benefits
enhanced in 52 years, and they turn to you, and then, when you
look at some of the other issues--most notably unfairly, as you
so well articulated--about that spouse, an inability to receive
what her husband paid into the program--these are earned
benefits that people paid for. These are not entitlements,
these are earned benefits. And it is Congress's responsibility
to vote on it. What an incredible thing to ask Members of the
United States Congress to do, to actually vote. If you got a
better idea, put it out there. This is what we are all about.
This is the best economic--Social Security is the best
economic development program that we have. Imagine getting a 2
percent increase in Social Security for everyone in your
district, something that hasn't been done in 52 years. Some
will say, well, in 1983 we changed it. Oh, yes, we did. In 1983
we made it more solvent, but we did so by raising the age,
which cut benefits. So if people are living longer, does it
make any sense to cut their benefits so that they have less to
live on?
And here we have this economic development plan, where
every congressional district is advantaged by it. Imagine all
the recipients in your district just on repeal of WEP and GPO.
But also, there are five million fellow Americans who worked
all their lives, paid into the system, get below poverty level
checks while we are talking about giving out checks to
billionaires, tax deductions to billionaires. And your
neighbors and mine, the people we go to church with, family
members get zip.
Your bill is well welcome. All of these things need to be
paid for, and they should be. The President has proposed we
lift the tax, the cap on people making over 400,000. Wow. They
would then be paying at the same rate that people who are
making 30 or 50,000 are paying. But imagine that. Now, how much
is that? How many Americans does that mean that would impact?
Six-tenths of one percent. And yet Congress has not voted.
This is a simple matter. You don't want to hurt the trust
fund for everybody else, which is why states that aren't
operating under this penalty, that is where they are coming
from. You are going to decrease benefits to my people. So we
need to come together. You have got the right approach and the
passion. I hope you will look at Social Security 2100 and
reform Social Security so that all recipients--this isn't about
Democrats or Republicans or unaffiliates. And across the board
80 percent Democratic, 70 percent unaffiliated, 68 percent
Republicans enthusiastically support enhancing benefits.
Because you know what? Social Security has never missed a
payment. We don't have to go back to 1929. All we have to do is
go back to 2008, 2009 to understand when people saw their
401(k) become a 101(k). Social Security never missed a payment,
not a pension, not a spouse, not a dependent, or a disability
payment.
Thank you for your support. I hope you will take a look at
our bill. But more importantly, I hope Congress will vote.
Sam Johnson on this committee, all he asked for was a vote
on his bill and he couldn't get it, either. We need to vote in
Congress. We can't turn into the Senate that doesn't--that
routinely turns down over 400-plus bills that the House passes,
or doesn't take up any legislation.
Thank you again. You deserve to be commended.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Larson. We would never want
to turn into the United States Senate by any means. [Laughter.]
Chairman SMITH. Dr. Letlow, thank you again for being with
us.
I now recognize Representative Vincente Gonzalez, the
gentleman from South Texas. Mr. Gonzalez is a lifelong resident
of South Texas and a member of the House Financial Services
Committee. He is also the chairman of the Congressional Oil and
Gas Caucus.
Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. VICENTE GONZALEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. VICENTE GONZALEZ of Texas. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman and Ranking Member, for holding today's member
hearing. It is very important, and it is great to hear from
other members that have similar issues.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak before the committee
on legislation that Congressman Carey of Ohio and I recently
introduced, H.R. 5073, the Promoting Domestic Energy Production
Act. This bipartisan piece of legislation would fix a provision
within the Inflation Reduction Act's new book minimum tax to
allow intangible drilling and development costs, or IDCs, to be
considered when computing adjusted financial statement income.
It may sound complicated, but it is really very simple.
IDCs have been included in the U.S. tax code since its
inception, due to the recognition that oil exploration and the
development of wells are capital intensive and have significant
risks involved.
The domestic oil and gas industry requires continuous
financing of labor, equipment, and the advancement of
technologies. For example, when an operator drills a well,
about 85 percent of the costs are intangible, with the largest
share consisting of labor. IDCs allow for independent U.S. oil
and gas companies to recover costs which will be reinvested in
their next operation. Tax deductions for IDCs are not subsidies
for oil and gas companies or anyone else, as some may believe.
Let me be clear. IDCs do not reduce total tax paid over the
lifetime of the operation. In fact, they allow for oil and gas
companies to recover their intangible costs more quickly,
thereby freeing up funds to reinvest in development, which
helps create more American jobs.
There is a long history of bipartisanship support for IDCs
as important tax tools to encourage domestic energy production.
We need to remember that energy security is American security.
We cannot have what happened to Europe recently and is
happening now ever happen to us here. Even as we continue to
transition to cleaner and cleaner energy, we must be reliant on
our own production, rather than foreign sources. And that means
ensuring our domestic oil and gas production does not dwindle.
Our country must be ready to face the energy challenges of
the next few decades. And as President Biden himself
acknowledged during his State of the Union recently, we are
still going to need oil and gas for a while. That is some
common sense. And this common sense bill promotes our nation's
domestic energy production or capabilities, something many of
us have called for in the wake of Russia's unprovoked invasion
of Ukraine. This legislation ensures we keep and create
American jobs, lower energy prices, and decrease our dependance
on foreign energy.
We aren't asking for a handout for the energy industry. We
are asking for the energy sector to receive the same treatment
as other capital-intensive industries. Not doing so puts
American energy at a global disadvantage. Energy independence
is a foundation of a strong nation and economy, impacting
almost everything we do, making the issues of oil and gas
industry face a matter of national security.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
cosponsor H.R. 5073, the Promoting Domestic Energy Production
Act, to ensure domestic energy production can continue to
nurture America to lead the world.
[The statement of Mr. Vicente Gonzalez of Texas follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. VICENTE GONZALEZ of Texas. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Gonzalez, thank you for being here. I
appreciate the work that you have been doing with Congressman
Carey of our committee, as well, and it was a pleasure to have
your testimony.
I now recognize Representative Trent Kelly, the gentleman
from Mississippi. Mr. Kelly currently serves as assistant
adjutant general for the Mississippi Army National Guard. He
has received two Bronze Stars, among many other awards in his
service.
And it is a pleasure to have you before the best committee
in Congress.
Mr. KELLY of Mississippi. I think you have to be tough; I
am surrounded by Gonzalezes from Texas. [Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TRENT KELLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Mr. KELLY of Mississippi. Thank you, Chairman Smith and
Ranking Member Neal, for the opportunity to speak in support of
my bill, H.R. 1755, the Uzbekistan Normalized Trade Act.
My bill would remove Uzbekistan from title 4 of the Trade
Act of 1974--more specifically, the Jackson-Vanik amendment--
and in turn, grant Uzbekistan permanent normalized trade
relations with the United States.
Originally, the Jackson-Vanik amendment was a provision
regarding Jewish immigrants fleeing from the USSR. Because the
Soviet Union no longer exists, the Jackson-Vanik amendment is
outdated and needs to be updated. This provision has become a
roadblock in furthering our relationship with Uzbekistan and,
unfortunately, has devolved into a point of leverage to gain
concessions.
Uzbekistan has made meaningful constitutional reforms
regarding women's rights and free market access, which have
encouraged foreign investment in Uzbekistan. Militarily,
Uzbekistan has assisted the United States in withdrawing from
Afghanistan, and has a robust state partnership with the
Mississippi National Guard.
Building a strong political and economic partnership with
the budding democratic government in Uzbekistan is key to the
United States as the United States seeks to counter Russian and
Chinese influence in the region. Uzbekistan is a regional
leader in the region. While our adversary is preoccupied with
his conflict in Ukraine, this is an opportunity for the United
States to further deepen our relationship with the former
Soviet bloc country.
This bill would help further the domestic and international
interests of both countries. Uzbekistan has made significant
strides to implement strong, robust, diplomatic, and economic
relations with the United States. As a matter of fact, I am
meeting with Senator Safoyev, one of their chairmen in their
Senate, immediately following this meeting. I would be remiss
to point out that Mr. Gonzalez from Texas, the Democrat that
was sitting to my right, is the co-chair of the Uzbekistan
Caucus with me, and has visited, and several members of this
committee have visited Uzbekistan with me.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Neal, for time
to speak today. And I urge the committee to consider H.R. 1755
in its markup.
[The statement of Mr. Kelly of Mississippi follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. We appreciate you
joining us.
I now recognize Representative Tony Gonzales, the gentleman
from the great state of Texas. Mr. Gonzales was a cryptologist
in the United States Navy for 20 years, and with deployments
across the Middle East and Asia. He currently sits on the
Appropriations Committee and the Homeland Security Committee.
Thank you for being with us, Tony.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TONY GONZALES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. TONY GONZALES of Texas. Thank you, Chairman Smith and
Ranking Member Neal, for leading this committee and letting me
testify today. I appreciate the opportunity to share my passion
for helping foster youth.
When I was five years old, my mother and I left an abusive
home in the middle of the night, and we spent time in a
battered women's shelter. Today, thankfully, my mother lives
with me and she helps Angel and I raise our six children.
My wife, Angel, has a similar story. She was a foster child
herself, and makes it a point to try to find ways to fix the
foster care system in a manner that brings everyone together.
Unfortunately, my story does not have the same happy ending
for thousands of children in foster care today. Not only are
foster care standards far from what they should be; thousands
of children in foster care have gone missing from state foster
care systems and cannot be located.
As a member of the Congressional Foster Youth Caucus, I
believe there are ways to address this issue and ensure that
our nation's foster youth receive the care they deserve. This
is why I introduced the Find and Protect Foster Youth Act,
which would help remove obstacles in identifying and responding
to children who go missing while in foster care, which are also
known as runaways.
The issue is that the data on runaways is often inaccurate
and, in some cases, preliminarily closed. Long-term data
analysis suggests the runaways episodes are actually much
higher than what is shown on record. Currently, state and
tribal governments are not required to include plans for
locating any child missing from foster care, nor are they
required to report those findings.
The Find and Protect Foster Youth Act addresses this issue
by requiring the Department of Health and Human Services to
find obstacles in identifying and responding to missing
children in the existing foster care system. The bill seeks to
accomplish this by requiring an evaluation of states' protocols
to determine the location of the missing foster youth; a report
to Congress on the results of that evaluation; and screenings
for children who return to foster care to determine if the
children were victims of sex trafficking during their absence.
This is only a start, and much more has to be done. But I
am grateful for the opportunity that you are giving a voice to
so many that feel voiceless. Thank you, Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Tony Gonzales of Texas follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. TONY GONZALES of Texas. And I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. The ranking member.
Mr. NEAL. I want to thank the gentleman for bringing that
issue to our attention, and the considerate manner in which you
delivered it.
One of the great stories of Congress is how people got
here, and what their backgrounds are, and how they were raised,
which, in most instances, inform our decisions. So I have a
very similar story to the one that the gentleman offered. And
while not wanting to make everybody familiar with it, many
people know of it, much dependent on Social Security survivor
benefits. Grandmothers and aunts were all involved in the
raising of myself and others.
But as you have described it, there are extraordinary
challenges that confront people every single day. But I am
pleased that you were able to bring your own experience and
tell your own story because, in the end, that is what helps
move Congress in the right direction. So I thank the gentleman.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Schweikert.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Tony, one quick question. So this is basically on tracking
foster youth that just have disappeared from the rolls, or--you
know, and my wife and I have gone through the process of
getting certified in our time trying to adopt kids.
But some of the issues around it are much bigger, you know,
these--you know, our incentive on family reunification that
often is not actually the best thing for the child. Do you
think this, or should we try to do something more global?
Mr. TONY GONZALES of Texas. Yes, this is a start. Thank you
for that question.
And what we are seeing is some states track runaways. So
let's say someone is in the foster care system and they run
away, which is more common than people realize. And then, when
they come back, there is nothing that tracks that they were
ever gone from the system. Some states do it, some states
don't. So it essentially goes, ``While you were gone, what
happened to you, why did you leave''----
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. So Tony, you are looking for a
standardization.
Mr. TONY GONZALES of Texas. A standardization----
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Okay.
Mr. TONY GONZALES of Texas [continuing]. That identifies
why they left. In some cases, maybe the foster care--the foster
home that they left wasn't the right setting, or just--and what
happened when you were gone?
You know, it is--usually, they are homeless or they are in
a very vulnerable situation. So it tracks that to identify how
do we prevent foster children from running away, and then, when
they do come back, how do we give them the services they need
if they did experience any trauma while they were gone.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. All right. Thank you, Tony. I know in
Arizona we still have a real shortage of families willing to do
this. So we want to make sure you do it in a way where you are
continuing to get people willing to take kids into their home
and go through the certification process.
So I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Gonzales, thank you for your testimony.
Your bill draws attention to an important topic focused on
protecting our foster youth. That is our responsibility. We
need to get the job done. So thank you for being here.
Mr. TONY GONZALES of Texas. Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you for--all, for your testimonies.
We will now move to panel number four.
[Pause.]
I now recognize Representative Bruce Westerman. He is the
chairman of the House Natural Resources, was a four-year walk-
on football player at some university in Arkansas, and a member
of the Arkansas General Assembly, and is an engineer and
forester by trade.
It is a pleasure to have you in the people's committee.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Smith and
Ranking Member Neal, and it is an honor to be here.
And Go Hogs. You caught me off guard a little bit with that
opening.
It is great to be able to participate and have this
opportunity to visit with my friends in this important Ways and
Means Committee Members Day hearing, and I appreciate you doing
the hearing.
As you know, one effort that I have been proud to lead is
the Trillion Trees Act. It is a bipartisan proposal that seeks
to establish the United States as a global leader in the One
Trillion Trees Initiative.
This bill is--does a lot more than just plant trees. It is
about planting trees, or afforestation. It is also about taking
care of the existing forests that we have to make them vibrant
and healthy. And it is also about using wood products to store
more carbon.
And one way to think of that is wood is kind of like a
battery for carbon. Photosynthesis is the oldest, most
efficient, most effective way of taking carbon out of the
atmosphere. Teddy Roosevelt called trees the ``lungs of the
Earth.'' Through photosynthesis, trees pull in carbon dioxide,
they store the carbon in the wood, and they exhale the oxygen
back for us to breathe.
And the interesting thing is, as we are in this beautiful
hearing room, we got all this nice wooden dais and furniture in
here, 50 percent of this wood was atmospheric carbon at one
point in time. It was atmospheric carbon that a tree pulled in,
converted it into hydrocarbons, stored it in the wood. And as
long as this wood is here, this carbon is stored here.
Now, these trees were sustainably harvested, hopefully.
Where this timber was cut, a new tree grew back and it is out
there storing carbon today in that same space. So it is very
important that we keep forested lands, and that we are able to
utilize the ability of the land to perform photosynthesis
through plants and store the carbon.
But it is also important that we utilize wood products,
kind of like a battery. You know, we talk about carbon capture
and sequestration. Well, nothing captures carbon and sequesters
it better than wood. Some of our oldest structures in the world
are actually wooden structures.
The other part that is such--so fascinating about Trillion
Trees is there was a study done a few years ago that said that
if we planted a trillion trees globally, we would sequester 205
gigatons of carbon. That is an amount equivalent to two-thirds
of all the carbon emitted by man since the beginning of the
Industrial Revolution.
Now, people will argue that number and say, well, that is
too high, or that is too low. But the fact is it is larger
scale than anything else that anybody has talked about, and it
is something that is readily available that we should be
working on.
Now, for all the tree folks out there, there is about three
trillion trees in the world. Scientists tell us there have been
as many as 7 trillion trees, and we have about 300 billion here
in the United States. So we can't plant a trillion trees in the
United States, but we can certainly do our part to plant more
trees and to take care of the forest that we have, and that
leads me to the reason I am here at the Ways and Means
Committee.
I have been working with Representative Ferguson, who comes
from a tree state, the great State of Georgia, and they get it.
They are in Georgia. They know, just like we do in Arkansas,
that we harvest a lot of trees, but we grow more, we are
growing more trees than we are harvesting. So the amount of
wood in Arkansas and Georgia and other states is increasing
every year.
And the greatest threat to deforestation is development.
So--and to prevent--or to keep forests forested, we need to
have markets for those products. And that is why we are
proposing that we don't create a new tax credit, we just make
products like mass timber available for existing tax credits,
such as those under Section 45(l) and under Section 179(d).
Wood is not only a great storer of carbon, it also is a
great insulator. And when you make mass timber, it is really
thick panels that creates a very high insulation value envelope
for a building. So that is the reason I am here.
[The statement of Mr. Westerman follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. WESTERMAN. I am out of time and would be glad to answer
any questions.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Ferguson.
Dr. FERGUSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Westerman, thank you for being here today. As you
pointed out, we have got an excellent opportunity in front of
us to do something really good for the environment and really
good for our economy simultaneously. And when you look at the
ability of Americans to innovate and to create, one of the
things that we can lead the world on is mass timber, and using
that to help with, as you mentioned, the sustainability of our
forest, making sure that we have markets for, you know, for the
end user.
But we are facing some real challenges related to housing
availability right now. Using mass timber in the residential
area looks like it could provide some solutions to that because
you can build houses more quickly and more affordably doing
this as this industry continues to grow and ramp up. So many
times I think mass timber is viewed as building 10-story
skyscrapers. We need to open up these markets for individual
consumers in the home section and also the very small
commercial, where concrete and steel aren't the primary choice
for building.
You bring up something that is very important, and I think
it should be talked about one more time. One of the biggest
challenges that we have with energy usage is the inefficiency
of homes because of poor insulation. And if you can build homes
using mass timber that have a greater--that are--that have a
greater R value, you wind up saving a significant amount of
energy in our baseline load and our baseline capacity in the
energy that we are going to need for a lot of other stuff.
So I am excited about the possibility of making this
product available through the existing tax credit system with
the changes that you have recommended, and look forward to, as
we move forward, to supporting this effort in the committee.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you. Mr. Kelly is recognized.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So you
are sitting beside another guy who knows about timber.
When we talk about Pennsylvania, people say, oh, yes, you
guys, big steel state. No, no, that is not the biggest product
we have. They say, oh, yes, yes, you guys are into coal and
natural gas. I say, well, yes, that is part of the deal.
It is timber, especially--I think, GT, I am right. I think
it is the--black cherry is one of the valued timbers that we
have. But again, the management of this valuable resource.
And Bruce, I really appreciate when you talked about the
contribution again to our environment. You all teaching us
about something we have absolutely no idea about is incredible.
I am so glad you are on the committee, and that you are here
serving in the Congress, because I don't know of anybody who
ever served here before that had the profession that you are
already in.
So I know when Freddie Keller wasn't able to run--Fred
Keller is another guy that was all--it was all about timber, it
was all about wood. And really, just hanging around with him,
and we would talk about it, I was amazed by what I didn't know.
So--and I know GT feels the same way about it, because we have
talked about it many times.
And thank you. Thank you for being here, and thank you for
bringing it up and bringing it to our attention. Thank you.
Chairman SMITH. Ms. Malliotakis.
Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Thank you. I just want to thank the
sponsor for this legislation. I am a proud cosponsor of this
bill. I think it is a practical, common-sense, cost-effective
solution, carbon sequestration.
And also, as my colleague said, it can help the economy, as
well. And so it is a win-win, and I think that it really makes
sense for us to move this bill forward.
And I just appreciate the gentleman's time.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Chairman Westerman. We
appreciate your time in our committee.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Chairman Smith.
Chairman SMITH. I now recognize Chairman GT Thompson, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Thompson is the proud, proud chairman of our House
Agriculture Committee.
It is great to have you here.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GT THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Well, Chairman Smith, thank
you so much, Ranking Member Neal, and members of the House
Committee on Ways and Means. Good morning, and thank you for
providing the opportunity to share my priorities for the 118th
Congress.
And after spending nearly three decades as a therapist,
rehabilitation services manager, and a licensed nursing home
administrator prior to coming to Congress, I have seen
firsthand the importance of access to quality health care in
rural communities.
Today I would like to discuss a couple pieces of
legislation before this committee that removes some of these
obstacles and increases access, affordability, and quality of
care for patients across the country.
The first, H.R. 4315, the Medicare Orthotics and
Prosthetics Patient Centered Care Act, which would strengthen
Medicare for beneficiaries who use orthotics and prosthesis by
reducing waste, fraud, and abuse within the Medicare program,
and expanding access to these critical devices.
Medicare currently reimburses the drop shipment of custom
orthotics and prosthetics directly to a Medicare beneficiary's
home without any clinical guidance, training, or intervention
from a provider or supplier. This leads to rampant waste,
fraud, and abuse within Medicare as dropship devices may not
fit a patient's needs, do not work as advertised, may not be
able to be operated without professional guidance. And quite
frankly, with ill-fitting devices it can cause ulcerations and
further expensive medical complications.
Now, this legislation prohibits the drop shipment of all
prosthetic limbs and custom fabricated or custom-filled
orthotics, potentially saving Medicare billions of dollars, and
ensuring that these beneficiaries have appropriate access to a
health care practitioner to provide the necessary guidance.
H.R. 4315 also expands access to replacement orthosis for
Medicare beneficiaries. Currently, Medicare does not generally
cover the replacement of a custom-fitted or custom-fabricated
orthotic within the reasonable use lifetime of the orthotic.
This forces beneficiaries to wait a long period of time before
being eligible for replacements, and undeniably delaying access
to medically necessary care.
This bill would also allow Medicare to reimburse for a
replacement orthotic device if the current orthotic device is
broken or a new one is medically required.
Finally, H.R. 4315 implements a zero-cost regulatory fix to
allow certified or licensed orthotists or prosthetists to
provide off-the-shelf orthotics directly to Medicare
beneficiaries by exempting them from competitive bidding. Under
the present system, orthotists and prosthetists without a
competitive bidding license are required to send patients in
need of an off-the-shelf orthosis to a colleague that has a
competitive bidding license, adding an unnecessary barrier to
care. This change brings orthotics and prosthetics in line with
other providers like physical and occupational therapists and
physicians.
Also, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services also
exempt those individuals from the competitive bidding process.
So it is a precedent within the industry.
I respectfully urge the committee to provide for
consideration of the Medicare Orthotics and Prosthetics Patient
Care Centered Act to reduce waste in Medicare and increase
access to these devices for patients across the country.
Now I would also like to turn to an issue impacting access
to care for thousands of Medicare beneficiaries. As you may
know, current Medicare law requires that patients have an
inpatient stay of at least three days in order for Medicare to
pay for prescribed care at a skilled nursing facility. There is
a mounting concern and evidence that too many Medicare
beneficiaries and their families are being saddled with
insurmountable surprise, out-of-pocket costs for stays at
skilled nursing facilities because hospitals are caring for
these patients under outpatient observation status.
This billing technicality has significant repercussions for
beneficiaries who are left facing either enormous unexpected
post-hospital bills, or avoiding the care and treatment their
doctors have recommended. We saw the temporary waiver of the
three-day rule during the COVID-19 pandemic, and now it is time
to take it a step further.
H.R. 5138, Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act, is a
bipartisan legislation that ensures Medicare covers this
doctor-recommended post-acute care by counting the time spent
under observation status towards the requisite three-day
hospital stay for the coverage of skilled nursing care.
I certainly respectfully request that the committee give
full and fair consideration to H.R. 5138, and I have included
in my written comments that have been submitted some additional
priorities under the jurisdiction of this esteemed committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to be able to be here and
participate in your Member Day.
[The statement of Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, for your
presence.
I am pleased to now recognize Representative Buddy Carter,
the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. Carter is a pharmacist by
trade, and ran a pharmacy for over 30-plus years before coming
to Congress.
We are pleased to have you before us.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BUDDY CARTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. CARTER. Thank you. I started when I was 10, so that
explains that.
Anyway, Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to testify
today at this Member Day hearing so that I can discuss before
the committee some pieces of legislation that I am leading and
I believe are important.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss my bipartisan bill,
the Protecting Patients against PBM Abuses Act that will
protect patients and pharmacies from harmful PBM practices that
are making health care inaccessible and unaffordable for
millions of America.
First, before I begin, I would like to put into context how
powerful PBMs are. Three PBMs control eighty percent of all
prescriptions processed in the U.S. They own or are owned by
insurers and have vertically consolidated their businesses to
own everything and everyone between themselves and the patients
including doctors, pharmacies, group purchasing organizations,
and more. Yet PBMs do nothing more than process claims. They
are just paper pushers, I like to say. They bring no value to
the health care system whatsoever.
It is time for Congress to do its duty and stop these PBMs
from gaming the system, and return the dollars they profit back
to patients. That is why I urge the Committee to support the
Protecting Patients Against PBM Abuses Act.
PBMs currently get compensated by charging fees calculated
as a percentage of the cost of the medicine. This incentivizes
PBMs to push the price of medicines higher by blackmailing for
formulary access, or they choose higher-priced medicines to put
on their formulary. When PBMs have incentives to follow
medicines with a higher list price, it can lead to higher costs
for patients who face cost sharing and deductibles and co-
insurance that is typically based on list price.
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that across the
selection of so-called specialty generic drugs, Cigna and CVS
prices were at least 24 times higher, on average, than roughly
what the medicines manufacturers charge. This can also mean
patients have fewer and higher choices when PBMs disfavor
generic or lower-priced brand competitors.
Delaying action on this any longer results in increased
costs for patients. This is about patients. It is about patient
cost.
If we can de-link administrative fees paid to PBMs from the
price of medicines, this proposal will help to correct those
misaligned incentives and bring relief to patients in the
pharmacy counter.
Representative Lisa Blunt Rochester and I are proposing
this bipartisan bill that will help patients afford their
medicine and protect them from harmful PBM practices.
Another critical part of this bill is that it prohibits
PBMs from reimbursing non-affiliated pharmacies at a rate less
than they reimburse their own pharmacies. I think all of you
are familiar with what I am talking about, so I am going to
move on.
I understand that this committee has not advanced the
Protecting Patients Against PBM Abuses Act, but I would like to
work with this committee to ensure that it is ready for
consideration in a future markup.
Another piece of legislation I would like the committee to
consider is H.R. 655, the Disaster Reforestation Act. As those
on the committee may be aware, Georgia is our nation's number-
one forestry state. This industry is important, providing
thousands of jobs. Unfortunately, our nation's family forest
landowners face threats on multiple fronts. As we have seen
recently, natural disasters and fires constantly pose dangers
to significant investments they make in maintaining forest
land.
The Disaster Reforestation Act would amend the tax code to
allow forest owners to deduct the full market value of their
timber prior to the loss caused by the federally declared
natural disaster as long as they replant. We don't want them
becoming condos, we want them to replant and keep our forests
in place.
I would also like to express support for the Help
Independent Track Succeed Act, or the HITS Act. The HITS Act
would allow independent artists and songwriters to fully
expense the cost of making new music on their taxes. This is
similar to how qualified film and television production
expenses are allowed to be expensed, which we have seen thrive
in states like mine.
I would also like to mention something very important to
me, and that is the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax is incredibly
popular. This is because the American people are completely
dissatisfied with the current tax code. It is a convoluted,
absurd system that punishes hard work. As a result, some 85
percent of Americans are frustrated by the complexity of our
tax code.
H.R. 25, the Fair Tax, will eliminate the Federal income,
payroll, and estate and gift taxes, replacing them with a
revenue-neutral national 23 percent--not 30 percent, 23
percent--consumption tax, consumption tax. You decide on what
you are going to pay. This is a good and great proposal that I
hope that you will look at, this committee will look at.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your attention to
these matters. They are all important.
[The statement of Mr. Carter follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. CARTER. And I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Representative Carter, it is a pleasure to
have you here. With your long priorities of legislation in our
committee, it appears you probably are serving on the wrong
committee.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I take offense to that. I serve
on the A committee, that is Energy and Commerce, the most
diverse and oldest committee in Congress. But I have a great
deal of respect for the Ways and Means Committee because of
your consideration of these bills that I brought before this
committee today. I cannot tell you the admiration I have for
this committee. [Laughter.]
Thank you all.
Chairman SMITH. I would have to----
Mr. CARTER. Thank you, thank you.
Chairman SMITH. I would have to say, Representative, you
are under oath, and lying under oath is not acceptable in this
committee. [Laughter.]
So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Carter.
I now recognize Representative Victoria Spartz, the
gentlelady from Indiana. Mrs. Spartz is a great example of the
American dream.
And it is a pleasure to serve with you in Congress. And I
know that you have spent a lot of time as an accountant, and a
real estate broker, and an adjunct professor before you came
here. Thanks for being before our committee.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. VICTORIA SPARTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA
Mrs. SPARTZ. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Unfortunately, as a CPA who knows numbers, I see too many
problems here. But I do appreciate your willingness to look at
very, very important issues that are really not very sexy
issues that you go on TV and talk about it, but important issue
for every American where we have a huge problem. It is health
care. It is an issue with competition and value in health care.
One of seven Americans is in debt collection due to medical
debt. We have one-third of our spending where we have over 30
trillion of debt and running 1.5 trillion shortfalls, and we
are going to be double within 10 years, and one-third of it
related to health care.
Federal government created this problem. It is not a
problem created by lack of competition or a monopoly problem, a
natural monopoly. That is a monopoly created by perverse
incentives and barriers of entries that were created by Federal
Government. So now Congress has to resolve this problem to the
American people if we want the American people to have
innovative solutions that are going to improve their lives and
going to improve our situation with that. And it is going to
save some funds like Medicare that are going bankrupt.
We can talk about all of this, you know, appropriations. We
can talk about reconciling our debt. We will never reconcile
this debt without dealing with health care. And we will not be
able to solve it just providing more choices, because if you
have a couple oligopolies on the market, the choices will be
very limited. There is not going to be competition.
So I appreciate you willing to look at this issue. I also
appreciate that we had Speaker McCarthy last year put a Healthy
Future Task Force, and I actually served on the Subcommittee on
Affordability. And we looked at some solutions, and
specifically looked at one area. There are a lot of aspects of
health care, but one area, over 50 to 60 percent of all spend
is related to hospitals and doctors, 50 percent. So we can talk
about which is important, talk about drugs, pharmaceutical. We
have to have more competition there.
That is roughly five, 10 percent majority-related we are
not willing to talk. And it is a tough conversation, because we
have very tough special interest groups, love it. They are
building Taj Mahals, have billions on Wall Street, and paid
billions to their executives. And I am not against them making
money. But the problem is we are subsidizing it by taxpayers
and bankrupting the country. It is unacceptable.
And our debt and spending is a national security issue. And
it is irresponsible for us, you know, to pass it on to future
generations. I know it wasn't created by just this Congress. I
completely understand every Congress punted this issue. But we
are reaching a point where we cannot do it any longer. So I
appreciate this Congress being willing to do it. I truly do.
So I will put a package together with several bills. There
are three of the bills, you know, in front of your committee.
And I will briefly say what they do and why they are important.
So I look at the areas where can we eliminate some of the, you
know, distortions that we created as a government. So I have
three of the bills.
You know, one of them, H.R. 2862, Empowering Patient Choice
of Medical Care Act, where we have so much politics, where
bureaucrats and government decide which services should be
performed inpatient, which outpatient. Each administration
comes and starts mingling, and then it is all politics. We
should let doctors and competition decide. People have
liability, they know better what is better for you, and where
services need to be performed. And politicians and bureaucrats
sitting in D.C. do not know that better.
Another bill is Preventing Hospital Overbilling of Medicare
Act. What hospitals are doing right now, they purchase
practices and they were able, for the same doctor practice that
they purchase, to overbill and bill facilities fees with--
actually, it is not allowed. It is defrauding, really, Medicaid
of billions of dollars, over 100 billion over--and this fund is
going bankrupt within 5 years. It is irresponsible. We need to
save Medicare to seniors that we promised. So we have to stop
allowing these practices. And I think this is what is dealing
with that.
And the third bill is dealing with non-profit hospitals,
so-called tax-exempt entity. We need to tighten the standards.
I mean, actually, President Obama tried to do it unsuccessfully
in the Affordable Care Act. And I still say, you know, this
entity is not paying taxes, not local, not state. You know,
they are not providing any charity care, no property taxes, and
provide less charity care, you know, than, actually, some for-
profit entity. So at least we need to tighten and define the
standard how you can be qualified for that because, I mean, the
next business I am going to have is going to be non-profit
because you don't pay taxes and don't provide value. I think
IRS wants it, and this committee needs to look at that, even--
want to even give them status. So it is actually tighten that
standard a little bit. And it says something needs to be--
because that is a Congress decision. It needs to happen.
I appreciate your consideration. I would really appreciate
your support of these bills. Thank you.
[The statement of Mrs. Spartz follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman SMITH. Congresswoman, thank you for being here.
Thank you for your passion on some very important issues to our
country and our country's finances.
I now recognize Representative French Hill from Arkansas.
Mr. Hill is the vice chairman of the House Financial Services
Committee, and also serves on the Foreign Affairs and
Intelligence Committee, and my neighbor to the south.
It is great to have you.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRENCH HILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time and the
invitation to have a Member Day. We are grateful to the
leadership of this committee for letting us come and advocate
for our ideas for this important committee.
I would like to talk today about the Social Security
Disability Insurance Return to Work Act that I intend to
introduce shortly. This is legislation that I have introduced
in the past four congresses, along with my fellow Arkansan,
Senator Tom Cotton, to strengthen the SSDI program and keep it
solvent for current and future generations.
SSDI is critical to a state like Arkansas, where more than
130,000 Arkansans receive benefits under this program. That is
about 7.5 percent of our state's population relying on this
important program.
But nationally, the number of recipients receiving SSDI
payments has also grown dramatically from 1970, 2.7 million
Americans, to now 8.8 million Americans in 2022. Over that same
period spending on SSDI has grown from $3 billion to over $143
billion annually, meaning that the monthly payment recipients
are receiving has nearly doubled, even when accounting for
inflation.
My bill aims to strengthen SSDI and ensure that the program
remains viable to support future generations for citizens that
truly require these services. In 2021, fewer than 66,000 total
beneficiaries left the program because they had found gainful
employment that disqualified them from receiving any additional
benefits. That, Mr. Chairman, is just 0.7 percent of the 8.8
million SSDI recipients.
Each American has the capacity to contribute productively
to their community and our economy. We must work with both
employers and employees to encourage capable beneficiaries to
leave the program and return to the workforce. This is like the
private sector's approach on short-term versus long-term
disability that private companies offer their own employees.
SSDI should be crafted to reflect both short-term and long-term
approaches to assistance. Those who do regain their
independence and experience have more fulfillment in their
lives, improved health, and better economics.
My bill is straightforward. It creates classifications to
assess a beneficiary's need to continue receiving benefits and
measures continued increases, continuing disability assessments
along the way, notifying recipients about the Ticket to Work
Program when they first receive their benefits and then every
six months afterwards.
It also proposes to amend the Work Opportunity Tax Credit
Program to include qualified SSDI beneficiaries.
By creating reasonable timelines for those expected to
improve, incentivizing them to return to the workforce, SSDI
can continue to serve as a temporary reprieve for those with
work-prohibited disabilities, allow beneficiaries to earn more
income, and facilitate a return to the workforce for millions
of Americans, something that we desperately need across our 50
states.
I am committed to protecting SSDI for those who remain
unable to work, and supporting those who show improvement as
they strive for greater freedom and opportunity for their
families, themselves, and their careers.
With Congress finally demonstrating some modest commitment
to ending perpetual huge budget deficits, this body will be
forced to make thoughtful looks at how we spend taxpayer
dollars, evaluate what programs are working and worth that
investment, and thinking about new critical safety nets that
can be improved and operate much more effectively for our
citizens. Congress has long abdicated its oversight
responsibility for Social Security and the Social Security
Disability Program. This must change.
I hope this committee will consider changes to the SSDI
program as we consider ways to improve the impact of the
Federal Government's contributions, and fulfill the promises
that we have made to our country's most vulnerable citizens.
I thank the Chair. I thank the ranking member and the
members of the committee, and it is really a great service that
we do in Congress, where we have members off committee be
hosted by our colleagues and have a Member Day, and I want to
thank you, Mr. Chairman, for doing that, and it is an honor to
serve with you.
[The statement of Mr. Hill follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. HILL. I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Representative, it is a pleasure for you to
be here. We have had a lot of conversations. I have had
personal conversations with your own governor in Arkansas in
regards to SSDI, and your Social Security administrator has
actually even came up here and talked with us. And we are
hopeful to have a subcommittee hearing very shortly in regards
to a lot of your items that you are referring to.
Mr. Schweikert.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Victoria, if there is ever a chance you could send one
of your staffers over, we would love to do a whiteboard with
them.
And French, I know of a company that has been trying to
work with the SSDI population in regards to job placement. Will
your legislation actually help sort of facilitate that type of
connectivity of available populations to jobs?
Mr. HILL. It certainly would because it engages, Mr.
Schweikert, that population of people who could self-identify
that they would be willing to go back to work under certain
conditions. And I think the tax credit idea is helpful with
that.
Also knowing that they are not penalized if they want to
make that effort, and connecting them back to work. And it is
my philosophy I have had that in private business we have
short-term disability programs that are typically paid for by
the company, they are no cost to the employee, and then you buy
at a very modest premium long-term disability. But we don't
take that approach to the----
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. But you have talked about this for a while.
But it is both the combination, okay, here is an incentive for
the employer to take this population, but the other thing is
the actual mechanism to connect the employee to an employer
with whatever their issues are, because work is very different
today than it was 30 years ago.
Mr. HILL. Right.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. So----
Mr. HILL. Well, I will say in conclusion, look, I have met
with the Federal Social Security offices in Arkansas. I
certainly know the director of the state's program that the
chairman referenced. And there is tremendous frustration by our
own federal employees in this program. I encourage every
member, go interview your Social Security office somewhere in
one of your counties in your district and ask them, do they
think this program is helping people who truly need it, or has
it just opened up to a payment for people who know how to work
the system?
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, there was a trivia point a
couple of years ago in a hearing in here that there was, like,
three or four counties in the United States that actually had
more people receiving this benefit than actually working. And I
need to go dig that back up.
French, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. HILL. I am grateful to the chairman. I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Representative.
You are all now dismissed from the panel, and we will move
to panel number five.
[Pause.]
Perfect. I now recognize Representative Marilyn Strickland,
the gentlelady from Washington State.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARILYN STRICKLAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Ms. STRICKLAND. Thank you, Chairman Smith and Ranking
Member Neal, for having us here today for Member Day.
First, I would like to recognize and thank this committee's
important oversight of paid family and medical leave. Back home
in Washington State, we have paid leave, and new parents have
the peace of mind knowing that they can care for their newborns
at a very critical period of their life without having to worry
about missing a paycheck.
We can also take time to care for family members with
serious health conditions. Washingtonians with temporary
serious health conditions can use the state's program to
continue to pay their bills while they heal.
For our military service members, our state program lets
them spend time with a family member who is soon to be deployed
overseas, or is just returning from overseas deployment.
Paid leave is a great relief to families in my home state,
and it would be a great relief to families across the entire
nation. That is why, from day one, I have been a cosponsor of
Congresswoman DeLauro's Family Act, H.R. 3481, which will
provide paid family and medical leave at the national level.
Military deployments, surgeries, newborns, these are
stressful times. And the Family Act is our opportunity to
relieve some of that stress and give our constituents security,
the security of knowing that they can be with their spouse who
just got back from an overseas deployment. It is okay to get
that procedure they have been holding off on because they will
not miss out on a paycheck.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that you advance this
very important issue.
Another way we can provide peace of mind and security to
our constituents is by empowering them to make their own health
care decisions. That includes making reproductive health care
safe, affordable, and available to those who want it. But it
also includes making sure that kidney patients and all who need
dialysis can get it how and where they need to.
As a strong advocate for kidney health, I am proud to be
working with Chairman Smith and Representative Carol Miller on
the Improving Access to Home Dialysis Act. This bill will
provide for reimbursement through Medicare for in-home
assistance, and produce recommendations for improving access to
home dialysis for communities of color. Many patients who need
dialysis lack access to reliable transportation, resulting in
missed treatments and worse health outcomes. By empowering
patients to get dialysis where they choose, our communities
will be healthier and safer.
I want to thank Chairman Smith and Rep. Miller for their
partnership, and I thank former Representative Bobby Rush for
his leadership on this very critical issue.
And then lastly, I ask that you consider H.R. 2788, the
American Investment in Manufacturing Act, or the AIM Act, to
bring needed tax relief to small businesses. American
manufacturers need help, and they cannot afford to wait.
Prior to 2022, businesses could deduct 30 percent of
Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation, and Amortization,
known as EBITDA. And that was not only a national standard, but
it is an international standard. American businesses relied on
this deduction to pay off loans and continue to invest in
themselves and their employees. This will help them increase
manufacturing capacity and be competitive on the global market.
The businesses now will be unable to deduct depreciation and
amortization at the worst possible time. With supply chain
shortages, higher material costs, and higher rates for loans,
there are now barriers to expanding capital-reliant
manufacturing.
The AIM Act, led by Representatives Adrian Smith and Joe
Morelle, will make it easier for capital-intensive companies,
especially manufacturing, to finance growth. As you know, the
manufacturing economy is crucial to growing our domestic
workforce, enhancing our competition, and ensuring future
economic growth across the entire country.
President Biden and his Administration are committed to
returning manufacturing jobs back here to America, to our home.
This bill aligns with these goals by allowing American
manufacturers to onshore even more manufacturing jobs, and
supporting the over 450,000 Americans employed in
manufacturing. This bill could mean the difference between
leading or falling behind in the global marketplace.
The AIM bill has bipartisan support and, Mr. Chairman, I
respectfully ask that you advance this legislation.
[The statement of Ms. Strickland follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. STRICKLAND. Thank you very much for your time today,
and I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Representative, for being here.
Mr. Schneider.
Mr. SCHNEIDER. I just want to say thank you for taking the
time to come and present your thoughts. It is very much
appreciated.
Ms. STRICKLAND. Thank you.
Chairman SMITH. We will now recognize Representative August
Pfluger, the gentleman from the great State of Texas. Mr.
Pfluger is a graduate of the Air Force Academy, and spent 20
years as a decorated fighter pilot.
It is great to have you before the best committee in
Congress.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. AUGUST PFLUGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. PFLUGER. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
Member. That might be debatable, but for today, during the
purposes of this discussion, absolutely. No, thank you for
providing the Members the opportunity to share our priorities
for this Congress.
I am proud to represent the world's largest secure supply
of energy, the Permian Basin. It accounts for over 40 percent
of all crude oil production and almost 20 percent of natural
gas production, and the region is absolutely the epicenter of
our domestic energy production and a geostrategic tool for
national security.
Last Congress, some lawmakers pushed to remove essential
provisions for energy producers like Intangible Drilling Costs,
IDCs, which are a crucial tool for weathering a volatile and
unpredictable industry. The ability of independent oil and gas
exploration and production companies to deduct IDCs in the same
way other businesses deduct business expenses is absolutely
crucial, and key to a company's ability to lower the cost of
capital for domestic production activity.
The Inflation Reduction Act imposes a book minimum tax on
American companies, but companies are still able to reduce
their taxable income by the amount of depreciation deductions
they have--they are already receiving through traditional
corporate income tax. However, the oil and gas industry who
utilize IDCs, is treated punitively by the corporate
alternative minimum tax. This is just one of the many issues
that the corporate alternative minimum tax poses for energy
producers specifically in the oil and gas industry.
IDCs are not loopholes, they are not credits, they are not
subsidies. In fact, the expensing of IDCs allows companies to
recoup such costs as labor, equipment, rentals, pad
preparation, and other expenditures for which there is no
salvage value. In fact, over 80 percent of IDCs are associated
with labor costs.
Our nation's tax code is designed to levy taxes on net
profits, not dollars used for ordinary and necessary costs or
capital expenditures. The elimination of the current expensing
of IDCs would drastically increase the cost associated with
these high-risk and high-cost projects, and would result in
less domestic production of our own energy, jeopardizing our
nation's economic and national security.
Unfortunately, there are many punitive policies that this
body must address. And thank you, by the way, Chairman, for
doing that work.
For decades, millions of retired public servants, including
police officers, firefighters, and teachers, have had their
Social Security checks unfairly docked because of an antiquated
formula. Every month retired public servants risk their
benefits being reduced due to a windfall elimination provision.
At a time when so many are already struggling to keep up with
inflation, this money goes a long way.
And our public servants deserve better. Those who have
spent decades paying into Social Security should not be treated
differently because they made a decision to serve their
community.
I am proud to support Jodey Arrington's legislation, H.R.
5342, to update Social Security's formula to fully compensate
our teachers, firefighters, and police officers for the time
they worked in the private sector and the taxes they paid into
the system. And I urge the committee to take action on this
bipartisan legislation.
Lastly, it is imperative that our Congress and the Ways and
Means Committee work to advance trade policies that prioritize
American agribusinesses. Due to the previous Administration's
commitment to freer and fairer trade agreements, we made
significant market improvements, and it is imperative we
continue to ensure American agricultural exporters, and many
other sectors of our economy receive the full benefit of the
improved trade deals with vigilant enforcement.
Additionally, we must be in constant pursuit of new global
markets for our farmers and ranchers. With worldwide demand for
food on the rise, we must ensure that there is no better--that
there is no one better equipped to lead the charge of feeding a
hungry world than American producers.
For several years, American business owners, farmers,
ranchers, and energy producers have faced the threat of having
the tax code weaponized against them and being left behind in
the global marketplace. It is important that we work to bolster
American competitiveness domestically and internationally, and
I look forward to working with you.
The last thing I will say is thank you to this committee
for helping out with a tax policy, the death tax policy, by
increasing those provisions. And I know that we are coming up
against, in the next year or so, that law again, the
supercharged death tax. And any changes to step-up in basis
will be detrimental not only to agricultural producers, to
families, but to Main Street businesses, and especially to the
energy industry.
Chairman, I appreciate the work that you have done.
Everything that I have talked about here today I believe is a
national security issue. The production of our own energy, the
production of our own food, the ability for families to--that
know how to do agriculture business to be able to continue to
do that is so vital. We cannot be dependent on our adversaries
for energy and for food. And this committee absolutely stands
in the gap to protect our domestic production.
[The statement of Mr. Pfluger follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. PFLUGER. With that, thank you for allowing me to speak
to you. I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Congressman. Our priority on
this committee is to make sure that our country is secure when
it comes to our energy, our food, and our health care. We
cannot be reliant on countries, especially the ones who love to
burn our flags. So we appreciate you being here.
I now recognize Representative Mike Waltz from the great
State of Florida. Mike is the first Green Beret to be ever
elected to Congress. He has been awarded four Bronze Stars, and
was a White House and Pentagon advisor in the Bush
Administration.
It is a pleasure to serve with you. Thank you for being
here.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE WALTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. WALTZ. Thank you, Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ranking
Member Neal. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in
support of my two bills under your committee's jurisdiction.
The first is H.R. 1568, the Moving Americans Privacy
Protection Act. This bill is bipartisan and it is bicameral,
and it would require U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, CBP, to
remove Personally Identifiable Information, PII, including
Social Security numbers and including passport numbers, from
cargo manifests before public disclosure. The legislation
passed the Senate under unanimous consent this March.
Currently, in kind of the current environment, CBP requires
manifest sheets which include PII in order to disclose and
document the cargo of incoming vessels for obvious customs and
security purposes. The original intent of the requirement was
to increase competition, facilitate better public analysis of
import trends, allow port authorities and transportation
companies to more easily identify potential customers and
changes in the industry.
However, in recent years the PII of relocating
individuals--importantly, Mr. Chairman, including military
members who are moving from overseas--their PII, their Social
Security numbers, their passport numbers are being released
publicly. That has resulted in identity theft, credit card
fraud, and makes collection by our adversaries, from terrorist
organizations to foreign intelligence organizations, easy. They
literally just have to log into CBP's website and collect the
PII of not just our military members, but any American who is
identified on these manifests.
So, I mean, I think the fix here is obvious and necessary.
And all we are asking is that that PII be stripped before
public disclosure for all of the reasons listed.
So this bill is supported by the American Trucking
Association, the International Association of Movers, the
Military Officers Association of America, and the National
Association of Realtors, among others. And I ask for the
committee's support.
The second bill, H.R. 529, is Extending the Limits of U.S.
Customs and Waters Act to extend the customs waters territory
of the United States from 12 to 24 nautical miles from the
baseline from the coastline of the United States. This bill is
also bipartisan, it is also bicameral, and it would update
several existing laws and extend the U.S.'s contiguous zone
from a 12 nautical mile limit of the U.S. customs and waters to
24 nautical miles.
And by extending CBP's jurisdiction to the nearshore
waters, it would double its area of operation, and it would
align CBP's maritime operations offshore with what the Coast
Guard already has and with what NOAA already has. So Coast
Guard and NOAA adopted these extensions several years ago; CBP
did not. This bill would rectify that mistake.
And with modern technology, just as an aside, the
performance and speed of maritime vessels, particularly those
fast boats and others used by illegal or illicit smugglers, is
exceeding the abilities of our law enforcement, particularly
when they are restricted only to 12 miles. So by extending
these waters out to 24, it aligns all of our law enforcement
entities and it gives CBP double the amount of time to
interdict illicit drugs, human trafficking, fentanyl, all of
those illicit activities that are happening at our close line.
And I will just conclude with this, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member. You know, we talk a lot about--and rightly so--
about our 2,000 miles of southern border. Our coastline in the
United States is 95,000 miles. Right now, just in the
Caribbean, the--between the Navy, the Coast Guard, and Customs
and Border Patrol, they are only able to interdict 10 percent
of what they identify on radar. So 90 percent of what they
identify on radar as illicit activities gets through. And this
would be helpful to rectify that.
[The statement of Mr. Waltz follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. WALTZ. I ask for your support in marking this up, and I
thank you for your time today.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate all of
your really important pieces of legislation, and hopefully we
can get something done.
So I now recognize Representative Maria Salazar, the
gentlelady from Florida. Ms. Salazar is the daughter of Cuban
exiles, a five-time Emmy Award journalist, and is the only
U.S.-Spanish language journalist to have ever interviewed Fidel
Castro.
It is a pleasure to have you before our committee.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Ms. SALAZAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman--it is my pleasure to
be here--and for allowing me to participate in this very
important hearing.
Trading has always been one of the strongest competitive
advantages of our country because of the size of our economy
and the dynamism of our marketplace. We foster capitalism, we
embrace democracy, and we export our moral values. But
unfortunately, at this hour we are not the only ticket in the
hemisphere; we have watched China aggressively enter both
established and emerging markets. We, the United States, were
motivated to trade for profits with the Chinese because their
communists are motivated to acquire power. We have seen their
tactics, offering low-quality goods, utilizing slave labor, and
destroying the environment.
Let me tell you, in the last 20 years they have secured a
very robust presence in Latin America through a Trojan Horse
strategy that has become the number-one trading power in the
region. I am going to repeat it to you. Did you hear me? Our
hemisphere is being invaded by China, and they are now the
number-one trading power in the region.
Twenty years ago they traded twelve billion dollars. Twenty
years later, last year, they hit four hundred and fifty billion
dollars. That is a 3,000 percent increase, a 3,000 percent
increase. Right now, China has free trade agreements with
Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru, and another one with Uruguay
is on the way.
South America, specifically in South America, they have
surpassed the United States as the top trading partner. We are
talking about the Chinese are the top trading partners in South
America. Ten years from now, China's trade with Latin America
will be seven hundred billion dollars. That is trade, not
loans.
In the last 20 years, China has lent almost 150 billion to
the region. And of course, not only that, they are lending
money, but they are helping our enemies: Cuba, Venezuela and
Nicaragua. Twenty-one Latin American countries have signed into
China's nefarious Belt and Road Initiative. Today they control
key ports in Peru, railroads in Argentina, airports in
Honduras, dams in Ecuador, and critical rare earth materials in
Bolivia. This is a major security risk for the United States.
Needless to say, they are bad actors with bad intentions.
We are the opposite.
But I have good news, and that is the reason why I am here
today. It is called the Americas Act. And what does it do? It
puts the United States of America back on top. It sends the
message to every Latin American country that I have visited
personally as a news reporter, ``If you play by the rules, if
you fight political corruption, and if you reduce your
dependance on China, you will join''--you, meaning Latin
American country--``you will join what is called the gold
standard of international trade called USMCA. Mexico has it.
Canada has it. You could have it, too.''
I am honored to have worked with the creator of this
monumental legislation, Senator Bill Cassidy. Our intention is
to unleash unprecedented prosperity throughout the region, and
the bill has five pillars.
Trade and partnership. You, Latin American country, will
have the opportunity to join the United States, Mexico, and
Canada in a free trade agreement with all its benefits, and
have access to $60 billion in investment capital from the
United States.
Near-shoring and Reshoring. The bill creates a program to
help American industries relocate from China, either back to
the United States or to any other country in our hemisphere.
There will be loans, grants, and tax incentives to help
companies move back home.
Number three, strategic investment. Those $60 billion that
I just mentioned will create an unbreakable supply chain from
Patagonia in Argentina to Alaska in the United States to make
sure we are not dependent on China any longer. Let's suppose we
get another COVID. God permit it will not happen, but we will
have antibiotics. We will not have to be dependent on the
Chinese.
In addition, we will get cheap, affordable energy coming
from our hemisphere partners, whether it will be Guyana or
Ecuador or Texas, it doesn't matter. It is in our hemisphere.
Transparency and rule of law, number four. For our
neighbors we will make it easy to do business with you in a
clean, transparent, non-corrupt way. In other words, the
American way. To give confidence to the American business
sector that you can invest and it will be secured, you invest
in Latin America. In other words, accountability will be
guaranteed.
And finally, we are going to be promoting American values.
We are going to establish the American University of the
Americas to promote United States values and increase
educational opportunities to Latin America.
If we employ this framework, we will win the trade war in
our backyard. But if, on the contrary, we sit back, we will
watch Mandarin replace English, and English will not be spoken
in Latin America any longer.
Finally, with this legislation, Senator Cassidy, myself,
and the United States Congress will be sending a very clear
message to our neighbors in the hemisphere: We want to work
with you as much as you want to work with us.
Hispanics, Latin Americans prefer the Americans over the
Russians or the Chinese any day of the year. Now it is up to
Latin Americans to behave accordingly so they can be part of
the club of the top economic players.
I look forward to work with you, Mr. Chairman, in making
this legislation a reality, and being able to stop the
situation we have on the border because we need to keep those
Latin American boys and girls home.
[The statement of Ms. Salazar follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. SALAZAR. I thank you very much for the opportunity, and
yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Congresswoman, for being here
today. It is a priority of this hemisphere in regards to
trading partners. That is why my very first congressional
delegation that I led as chairman was to Mexico, Ecuador, and
Guyana, because it is extremely important for our presence and
to continue to grow.
Your numbers that you gave in regards to China increasing
3,000 percent is unacceptable, and we have to do something as a
Congress to address that. So thank you for being here.
Ms. SALAZAR. And I do want to say that Latin Americans
would do business with the Americans at any time, any place
over the Chinese and the Russians, and I know it very well.
And I thank you for the opportunity to put this together.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you. I now recognize Representative--
or chairman--Mark Green from Tennessee for being before us. He
is the great chairman of our House Homeland Security.
And pleased to have you.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Chairman Smith, and it is great to
see you in the chair. I recall us rehearsing the night before.
Those were fond memories.
And thank you, Ranking Member Neal, for this opportunity to
testify to the committee about my bills addressing the
concerning conditions of our rural health care systems.
I know that many of you have heard the same sobering
stories from constituents, physicians, hospitals,
administrators, and parents. Our rural hospitals are entering a
financial and workforce crisis. As an emergency care physician
and the former CEO of an emergency department management and
staffing company, I know firsthand how desperate the situation
has become, and it has only gotten worse in the recent years.
My home state of Tennessee is greatly impacted by rural
hospital closures and limited access to emergency medicine.
According to U.S. News and World Report, Tennessee has seen
more hospital closures than any other state besides Texas. In
fact, the Tennessee Hospital Association estimates that as many
as 45 percent of Tennessee's hospitals are at risk for closure.
This is an impending disaster, not just for the loss of
care in those communities, but also the loss of jobs. Often the
hospitals are the largest employer in their communities.
In order to combat this worrying trend, I have introduced
three pieces of legislation as part of my broader rural health
care initiative.
Firstly, let's start with H.R. 1128, the Rural Health Care
Access Act, which is endorsed by the National Rural Health
Association and the National Association of Rural Health
Clinics. This bill targets rural hospital closures by expanding
the Federal definition of critical access hospitals. According
to the American Hospital Association, over 130 rural hospitals
across the country closed their doors from 2010 to 2021. And
according to a GAO report from December 2020, the median
distance of travel rural patients drive to receive care
increased by 20 miles, adding an ever-expanding barrier to
essential inpatient and emergency care.
The Rural Health Care Access Act repeals the 35-mile rule
arbitrarily selected, I might add, that prevents many rural
hospitals from receiving a critical access hospital designation
if they are less than 35 miles away from another hospital. This
bill does not change any other requirement for hospitals to
receive critical access designation. The 35-mile rule is the
only change we are making to federal law.
Hospitals that wish to receive this designation will still
have to be designated as rural, only provide acute care, and
primarily host patients for less than 96 hours. These critical
access hospitals receive cost-based reimbursement from
Medicare, greater flexibility for staffing and service
requirements, and access to a variety of grant opportunities.
This bill will help reduce the financial vulnerability of
these rural critical hospitals, which often provide essential
medical services in rural communities like the ones that I
represent.
My second piece of legislation is specific--targets a
specific issue in hospital systems: emergency departments. H.R.
1129, the Rural ER Access Act, would repeal Federal regulation
that prohibits freestanding emergency departments from
operating more than 35 miles from a hospital.
This 35-mile rule--again, arbitrarily selected--was
instituted in the 1990s to monitor the safety of ER patients.
HHS was concerned that if ERs opened too far from a self-
standing hospital, then emergency patients would not have other
medical options, should the self-standing ER department fail in
its mission to treat and triage. However, speaking as an ER
physician who practiced medicine in rural areas across the
nation, I know how advanced our medical technology is today,
and I know how desperate some situations are. This antiquated
rule is now hindering patient access, rather than saving
patient lives.
By eliminating this mileage requirement, freestanding ERs
would be able to provide frontline emergency care to rural
communities that most desperately need it. During an emergency,
these facilities can provide a crucial safety net, especially
in rural communities where the nearest hospital is many miles
away.
Furthermore, keeping an ER, should a hospital have to
close, keeps jobs in a community.
We also need to address the workforce burnout amongst
medical providers by enacting H.R. 5213, the Reducing Medical
Unnecessary Delays in Care Act. This legislation is endorsed by
the Medical Group Management Association and the American
Academy of Family Physicians, and it seeks to unburden our
doctors from the bureaucratic red tape that is prior
authorization.
According to the Medical Group Management Association, 72
percent of medical groups report that clinicians assigned to
complete their peer-to-peer reviews by the plans are not from a
relevant specialty to the treatment or disease in question,
resulting in dangerous delays and flat-out denials.
In order to combat this worrying trend and reduce
unnecessary delays in care, this bill would reform the practice
of prior authorization in Medicare and Medicare Advantage. If
my legislation becomes law, only board-certified physicians in
the relevant specialty would be the ones making the important
decisions about care.
Specifically, it would also direct Medicare, Medicare
Advantage, and Medicare Part D plans to comply with
requirements and restrictions, and must be based on medical
necessity and written clinical criteria.
And I am going to break from my script for just a second to
say this. When a physician reaches out to a health insurance or
Medicare for permission to do a procedure that it wants to do
for its patient, they are oftentimes talking to someone who has
no medical license, no care, and that individual makes the
medical decision to take something off the table that the
physician can use to heal that particular disease process. That
is a medical decision.
If there are five ways to heal something, and the insurer
or the Medicare-Medicaid patient--or administrators take three
of those away, that is a medical decision. And what this bill
does is it says a physician that normally treats that type of
disease should be the one making the decision at Medicare and
Medicaid.
With all these bills--what all these bills do is aim to
restore our rural health system and save our doctors from
needless paperwork. With this committee's help, I am excited to
get our medical system back on track.
And finally, Mr. Chairman--and I know I have gone a little
long--as a representative of Music City, I want to mention the
Help Independent Tracks Succeed Act, HITS Act, which I have
cosponsored the past three congresses, and is so crucial for
independent creators in Nashville who author and produce the
hits we know and love.
This bill makes much-needed reforms to the tax code to
ensure these creators receive the same treatment that other
creative industries already get. I hope the committee can mark
up this legislation in the near future.
[The statement of Mr. Green follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. GREEN. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Chairman. This past Monday I
spent a whole day traveling throughout my congressional
district in just listening sessions, roundtable after
roundtable in health care. And rural health care, access to
health care, is my top priority. And I love your common-sense
pieces of legislation in eliminating arbitrary caps for
critical access hospitals and freestanding clinics. It doesn't
make sense that a bureaucrat was able to just make sure that
those were implemented.
Whenever I look at the Boot Hill of Missouri and I see that
a hospital closed in Kennett, but it could not be a critical
access hospital because another hospital just in another county
was less than 35 miles, it has huge impacts, and I hope Members
of Congress will wake up and do something right.
But thank you for being here.
With that we will go to the next panel, panel number six.
[Pause.]
Thank you all. I now recognize Mr. Rudy Yakym, the
gentleman from Indiana. Mr. Yakym is a fourth-generation
Hoosier who filled a seat that was previously held by a dear
friend of this committee, Mrs. Jackie Walorski. She let us know
what she thought about Hoosier country all the time.
So it is a pleasure to have you here.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RUDY YAKYM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA
Mr. YAKYM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity that you and Ranking Member Neal are providing
those of us not on the Ways and Means Committee to present the
priorities of our constituents.
I am proud to represent the hard-working Hoosiers of
Indiana's 2nd district. We are home to a dynamic economy,
including some of America's top manufacturers, medical
innovators, farmers and ranchers, and so much more. They all
have a stake in our country's policies pertaining to tax,
trade, health care, and economic opportunity.
Many of the members of this committee knew my predecessor,
Jackie Walorski, a cherished and respected Ways and Means
member who was taken from us all too soon. And if you knew
Jackie, many of the priorities that I will be highlighting will
sound very familiar.
The 2nd District is the epicenter of the recreational
vehicle industry. About 85 percent of RVs on the road come from
Elkhart County and the surrounding area inside my district.
That is why one of my top priorities is the passage of my bill,
H.R. 3624, the Travel Trailer and Camper Tax Parity Act.
The exemption of floorplan financing from interest
deductibility changes in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act solved an
issue for many car and equipment dealerships across the
country. However, it inadvertently left out non-motorized,
towable RVs, which are about 88 percent of RVs sold. This has
forced RV dealers to maintain two separate sets of books, one
for motorized and the other for non-motorized RVs. H.R. 3624
would correct this unintended consequence, and allow dealers to
focus less on unnecessary paperwork and more on selling RVs to
Americans looking to explore the natural beauty of our great
nation.
Another priority is the reauthorization of the Generalized
System of Preferences, or GSP program. As you might imagine, an
RV has a unique and complex supply chain. The industry buys
American whenever it can, but there are certain things that it
simply can't. Luan wood is an example of this. It is a tropical
wood found almost exclusively in southeast Asia. Luan is water
resistant and lightweight, which makes it ideal for the lining
of an RV. It outperforms the other types of plywood on the
market, providing superior durability and fuel economy.
Luan entered duty-free under GSP starting in 2019. However,
since the program expired at the end of 2020, RV manufacturers
resumed paying over $1 million a month in unnecessary tariffs.
I support a long-term extension of GSP to help RV manufacturers
in my district, as well as other companies seeking to diversify
their supply chains away from China.
A third priority is Mr. LaHood and Ms. DelBene's bill, H.R.
3238, the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act. Inflation,
supply chain disruptions, and rising interest rates have made
it more and more difficult to find affordable housing. I am a
proud cosponsor of the LaHood-DelBene bill because it would
enhance a proven tool that has successfully encouraged private
investment in affordable housing.
Finally, across my district I hear about the need for tax
certainty. I hope we can work toward permanent, stable tax
policy to give families a certainty to plan their finances, and
businesses and farmers the certainty to plan investments.
[The statement of Mr. Yakym follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. YAKYM. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify,
and I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Yakym. We appreciate you
being here and pushing priorities that your predecessor had
fought for for a long time.
So I now recognize Representative Carbajal, the gentleman
from California. Mr. Carbajal sits on the Committee of Armed
Services, T&I, Agriculture. And T&I is where he serves as the
ranking member of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation
Committee.
So thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. SALUD CARBAJAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. CARBAJAL. Thank you, Chairman Smith and members of the
committee. I am here today to encourage your committee to
consider and pass a bipartisan bill that I wrote with my
colleague, Republican colleague Lori Chavez-DeRemer from
Oregon, as well as small business owners on the central coast
of California.
I am sure there are many people here today that will claim
that their bills are simple and straightforward. But our bill,
the Child Care Investment Act, really is. We are just trying to
make sure that the Federal child care tax incentives already in
our tax code are actually working.
We already have a current tax credit set up to help
businesses offer child care as an incentive when hiring and
retaining workers. We just want to update it and expand the
ways they can provide that child care. Yes, we already have a
tax structure set up for families to save for child care tax-
free. This legislation updates the cap on the child care FSAs,
which in this case are called Dependent Care Assistance Plans,
to keep up the current cost of care.
Keep in mind, these caps have not been updated since the
1980s, and we already have tax credits to help working families
who may be struggling to cover child care expenses. We just
want to make sure this tax credit is updated and keeping up
with inflation.
The Child Care Investment Act has the support of multiple
different Chambers of Commerce from my district, as well as the
First Five Years Fund, the Bipartisan Policy Center, and the
Early Care and Education Consortium. And it is my understanding
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is also supportive of these types
of policies. And did I mention it is bipartisan?
Child care, without a doubt, is a pressing economic issue.
It keeps families out of the workforce if they can't find the
care they need. It prevents businesses from hiring, expanding,
or operating at the levels they want if they cannot find the
workers they need. As this committee considers updating our tax
code to support our small businesses and working families, I
hope you will consider including this common-sense, bipartisan
bill.
[The statement of Mr. Carbajal follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. CARBAJAL. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Representative. I appreciate
your attendance today in regards to this piece of legislation.
Providing for working-class families is a huge priority of
mine as chairman. And I look forward to looking into more of
this legislation.
Mr. CARBAJAL. Thank you.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Wittman, it is a pleasure to have you
before the House Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. Wittman is the gentleman from Virginia. He is a member
of the House Natural Resources Committee, the Select Committee
on China, and the Armed Services Committee.
It is a pleasure to have you.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Dr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thank you so much
to the committee for allowing me to speak today on H.R. 1477,
the Freedom to Invest in Tomorrow's Workforce Act.
We see the world around us today, and we know we have to
have a strong, well-rounded, and properly skilled workforce in
order to make sure we are successful in what has become a
global competition. In this increasingly technical world where
we have to digitize things, and where we know that advanced
skills are critical, it is vital that we have workforce
development opportunities for folks to be able to develop those
skills. We know, if they are going to have those well-paying
jobs, we know if they are going to be able to support their
families, we know if they are going to add to economic growth
in their communities they have to have these skills.
If we look at America's workforce today, we see that, of
the jobs in the future, 60 percent of those jobs will not
require a two or four-year degree, but they will require post-
secondary education. Much of that education is very
specialized.
Another element we have to remember, too, is that we think
sometimes, I think, disparagingly on that additional training
that is needed post-high school or post-secondary education. We
look at it and go, oh, that is only hundreds of dollars here or
there. That is not a big difference.
Mr. Chairman, for an individual or a family that is working
on a fixed income, hundreds of dollars might as well be
thousands of dollars. It denies them the opportunity that they
need to get the skills and education that allow them to
advance. We want them to have those opportunities.
If you look at the statistics, let's take the Virginia
Department of Labor Statistics from 2021. We saw that 72
percent of Virginians surveyed said that they were interested
in completing training that would enhance their job-related
skills. Despite the decline of what is being offered now by
employers--employers are offering much fewer opportunities to
get that advanced education necessary to advance your skill
set--it is clear that the American people want options in order
to pursue this additional training, and that is the main reason
why I introduced the Freedom to Invest in Tomorrow's Workforce
Act.
This education--or excuse me, this legislation--makes
certification and credentialing programs eligible for 529
savings account use. So it is not just now, under this bill,
limited to two and four-year degrees, it would be for any post-
secondary education.
It would also include things like not just tuition, but
also exam costs, supply costs related to workforce training.
Many times when you are, let's say, go to a welding course, you
need to bring certain tools and supplies with you. This allows
those accounts to be used for more than just two and four-year
degrees.
Under the Freedom to Invest in Tomorrow's workforce Act,
too, the credentialing and certification programs that would be
eligible are also ones that are certified. They are certified
under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and
accredited by the National Commission on Certifying Agencies,
the American National Standards Institute, or ones that are
identified by the Department of Labor regulations or
guidelines, and these will be deemed as eligible uses.
So it puts specific limitations on it. I know folks have
said, well, you have to worry about some programs just being
there to take students' money. No, this is going to assure that
these are credentialed programs that provide value, provide
education that results in a certification or credential that is
necessary in a field in order for somebody to get enhanced job
opportunities. This distinction, I think, really reduces the
uncertainty for 529 savings account users and for regulators so
we know that, if it is eligible, parents don't have to worry
about, ``are their dollars going to a use that is going to
provide value for their child?''
Mr. Chairman, I am really committed to the success and
development of our workforce, and I believe that this will do
an incredible amount to be able to do that.
There is a group called Tomorrow's Workforce Coalition. It
is over 500 different organizations. They are in full support
of this bill. We have approaching 70 cosponsors for the bill.
This is really, I think, gaining traction because people look
at this and go, yes, why can't we use those 529 savings
accounts, the dollars that parents set aside tax free?
Mr. Chairman, as I talk to parents across not just
Virginia, but across the nation, I ask them by a show of hands.
I said, ``When you begin saving for your child,'' which most of
the time is when they are in middle school, ``how many of you
know where your child is going to be in their process of
selecting post-secondary education when you start saving?'' Not
a single hand in the room goes up. But they want to make sure
that those dollars that they save and have the tax advantage to
can be used for anything that their child wants to pursue, even
if they are not sure what it is early on, and that it may not
be a two or four-year degree program.
So I would urge strongly the committee to reflect upon
where the needs are of our workforce, where the desires are of
our working families, of our parents, of industry, of folks
that say, ``This is what we need for a workforce, this is what
parents want to have an opportunity for their children.'' This
is what we need to do to make sure those resources are
available to assure that our families continue to have those
opportunities, and our workforce grows with those skills.
So I would urge the committee to seriously consider H.R.
1477, the Freedom to Invest in Tomorrow's Workforce Act, and
should consider any changes to the 529 savings account as part
of a process that will result in more opportunities for
individuals and for our workforce in the future.
[The statement of Mr. Wittman follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Dr. WITTMAN. So, Mr. Chairman, thanks again. Thanks for the
opportunity, and thanks for the consideration.
Chairman SMITH. Congressman, thank you. Thank you for being
here. I am a strong believer that there are many different
educational paths for Americans to take, and we need to make
sure that our tax code does not incentivize one path more than
the other. They all should be treated the same. So I appreciate
your testimony today.
It is good to now recognize Representative John James to
the House Ways and Means Committee. Representative James is
from Michigan, graduated from the United States Military
Academy, and served eight years in the Army, participating in
multiple tours of duty in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and is an
Apache pilot.
We are glad you are here.
[Pause.]
I think your microphone is off. Just got to push the
button.
Mr. JAMES. A rookie mistake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN JAMES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, there is a hopelessness crisis in
this country. Americans feel like everything is broken, nothing
is working for them. That is why a recent polling shows 74
percent of Americans feel like we are heading in the wrong
direction.
I am in my district and I talk to families who are deeply
disenchanted with the government. They wonder if anyone is
working for them. They wonder if anybody cares. Well, I know we
care. And Mr. Chairman, I echo your sentiments that there
should be many pathways to prosperity, particularly through
education. And I am here to urge support in those sentiments of
H.R. 531, Educational Choice for Children Act, and my bill,
H.R. 4520, Reignite Hope Act.
First, education. We must put our children first, not
teachers' unions, not D.C. politicians, our children. I want
all schools to be successful, Mr. Chairman: public schools,
private schools, charter schools, home schools, vocational
schools. I truly believe that where parents have choice,
children have a chance.
Parents deserve to send their children where they will be
safest and most successful, where they will have outcomes that
are not determined by their zip code. Because we all in this
body, in our Republican majority, believe that a quality
education is a basic civil right. So regardless of our
political stripes, party stripes, party ideology, one thing is
clear: school choice goes the farthest in addressing this
hopelessness epidemic, and it ranks high among Americans,
especially American parents.
In fact, a recent study found that school choice has
support of 80 percent of Republicans, 60 percent of Democrats,
and 69 percent of independents. I don't know a single parent
out there who doesn't want more choice when it comes to their
child's education. For this reason, I am proud to sit here
today and voice my strong support for H.R. 531.
H.R. 531 isn't just a bill, it is a game changer for
millions of children around the country, many of whom have no
other option. In fact, we have seen the impact of choice at the
state level, with 25 states greenlighting similar programs to
provide families with more choice, not less. Not only is this
bill common sense, it is a no brainer. It is also good policy.
It is the right thing to do. And it is about time that Congress
and the President get on board with the desires of the parents
of this nation.
When this bill was brought to my attention, I was excited
to cosponsor for several reasons. This bill checks all the
boxes.
For starters, the Educational Choice for Children Act has
garnered more support than any other school choice bill
introduced in Congress ever.
Second, this bill doesn't require any new spending. I
repeat, no new spending. There is something that we need to do
more of here in Washington.
Third, this bill doesn't increase the size or scope of
government.
Lastly, it tells the Department of Education to take a
hike, empowering students and their parents, where it should
be, at the lowest level in this nation. And it is about time.
The choice is clear. Congress can do nothing, leaving
millions of families and their children behind, or we can come
together to put our families and students first, not special
interests, and vote to send this bill to the President's desk.
Families deserve a choice, and our students deserve a fighting
chance. Anything less is unacceptable, un-American.
I urge my colleagues to support not only H.R. 531,
Educational Choice for Children Act, but also my bill which is
the Reignite Hope Act.
The Reignite Hope Act, H.R. 4520, endeavors to increase
child tax credit to 3,500 for each child ages zero to five, and
4,500 to each child ages six to 17. This is to help both
parents who are struggling to make ends meet during these
inflationary times, and also help care workers to be able to
afford to do the most important job in the world: to look after
our children.
It also provides a $3,500 tax credit for incentivizing the
hiring of critical needs employees, helping boosting sectors of
the economy desperate for workers: nurses, caregivers, public
safety officers. That is right, the police officers,
firefighters, EMS who put their lives on the line, and our
caregivers who look after the mentally infirm, our children,
and also our elderly would be getting a boost.
Tax credits target areas in the greatest need in our
Opportunity Zones all across the country, but specifically in
my county, which has 17 of these zones in six communities:
Clinton Township, Eastpointe, Mount Clemens, Roseville,
Sterling Heights, and Warren, making this a district focus and
an America first policy.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time to speak with you here
today, and I urge the support of my colleagues on these two
bills.
[The statement of Mr. James follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Congressman, for being here.
We do plan over the next couple of months to have a hearing
in regards to education freedom, which is extremely important
for all Americans. And so I think you will be happy where we
are leading with that.
Mr. JAMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SMITH. I now recognize the Representative Clay
Higgins, the gentleman from Louisiana. Mr. Higgins is an Army
veteran and law enforcement officer serving on the House
Homeland Security Committee and Oversight and Accountability
Committees.
It is great to have you with us, Mr. Higgins.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLAY HIGGINS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for taking your
personal time to allow members to speak before your committee
on our individual bills. We recognize it is incredibly time-
consuming, and requires great dedication from you. So thank you
for giving me a chance to speak for a minute.
There is an appropriate role, Mr. Chairman, for regulatory
enforcement and authority reflective of that enforcement within
the federal government. But there is a requirement to balance
the rights of our individual citizens across the country and
every sovereign state to feel safe and secure in their
properties, their business, their residence, et cetera. They
should not feel threatened by their federal government.
So my bill, H.R. 4416, called the No Funds for Armed
Regulators Act of 2023, was born of my own interactions with
constituents that, to my horror, I discovered once I came to
Congress seven years ago this is a far too regular theme, where
regulators from--especially from the IRS, the DoL, and the EPA
will roll into a private business or, in many cases, a farm in
an unmarked police car. It is unexpected, an unannounced visit.
This farmer sees this car coming up the long gravel
driveway, recognizes maybe it is a police car, but what are
they doing here? And two unknown agents get out, and they are
armed, and they have quite an attitude in most cases, my
investigation has revealed, and they are there to enforce this
regulation or that regulation. And that individual American at
that time is fearful and intimidated, and it is an unnecessary
intrusion into their lives and oppression of the sanctity of
their business and their home in the interest of enforcing a
regulation.
So a regulator has every right to perform within the
parameters of the law to do his job. He doesn't have to be
armed. That is a bridge too far for these armed agents from the
IRS, EPA, DoL rolling into a private American's life,
frightening that American, scaring that family. It is uncalled
for. It is literally the most extreme weaponization of the
federal government against American people.
If a regulator thinks he has a problem with American
citizens, he can call local law enforcement. It used to happen
all the time, all the time. If a regulator was going onto land,
wasn't exactly sure how to get there, maybe long gravel roads,
et cetera, especially in agricultural areas, they would call
the sheriff's office. The sheriff's office would send a deputy
and escort them out there. No problem. That family, that farmer
knows that sheriff, recognizes that car. That is his sheriff,
that is his deputy. That is much more of a peaceful engagement.
But things have changed over the last several years, and it
is the responsibility of Congress to fix it. So quite simply,
my bill would disarm these armed regulators that do have a job
to do. But just like your city code enforcement or your county
code enforcement, could you imagine your city code enforcement
having a report that say the gate on the fence around your pool
was off the hinges? So can you imagine an armed team showing up
at your home, rolling into your backyard to observe your broken
gate and giving you a citation? That is the kind of regulatory
enforcement we are dealing with that we have to put the brakes
on.
My bill would spend less money from the federal government
and help to restore the sanctity and individual rights and
freedoms of individual Americans across the country. I urge
broad bipartisan support to this bill. It should pass Congress.
It is the right thing to do. And I am prayerful that my
colleagues will support the bill.
[The statement of Mr. Higgins follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to
speak.
Chairman SMITH. Mr. Higgins, thanks for your testimony.
A few years ago I was visiting a business in our
congressional district, and I will never forget that after we
toured the business we went into the office. And all of a
sudden, two regulators walked in while I was there, armed with
their badges. And the faces on those business owners that I saw
when they walked in, fearful of what was going on, and they
happened to be with Revenue. So I have seen it firsthand of how
it can displace a regular propane distributor minding their own
business, and it wasn't even there for them.
So thank you. Thank you for your testimony, and thank you
for this legislation.
I am pleased to recognize Mr. Matt Rosendale from the great
State of Montana. Matt was a member of the Montana House and
Montana Senate.
And I think you served as majority leader when you were
there, and also as the auditor of Montana before you came to
Congress. So it is a pleasure to have you in the House Ways and
Means Committee.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MATT ROSENDALE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA
Mr. ROSENDALE. It is a pleasure to be here for my maiden
voyage before you, Chairman Smith. I appreciate it.
And very similar to my colleague from Louisiana, I too have
a piece of legislation that I would like to introduce that
describes and tries to eliminate the ability for our regulators
to be armed.
My bill would prohibit President Biden's weaponized
Internal Revenue Service from using taxpayers' dollars to
purchase firearms for the agents. Recently, 20 IRS agents with
full body armor and ARs conducted a raid at the Highwood Creek
Outfitters in Great Falls, Montana. Not the ATF, the IRS. There
was one ATF agent in attendance with them, but there were 20
IRS agents.
I am convinced that this was done not only to intimidate
the owner of that facility, but they were completely armed and
outfitted with body armor and took possession of his property
for the day. This was to intimidate the customer base that he
had long established in the City of Great Falls for many years,
so that they could say, you better not mess with the IRS or
this can happen to you as well. Very concerning to myself, and
to the entire community, and to the residents of Montana.
Biden's IRS has no business intimidating hardworking
Montanans. Why Does the IRS Need Guns Act would require that
the IRS transfer all firearms and ammunition in the agency's
possession to the General Services Administration within 120
days. From there, firearms and the ammunition can be auctioned
off to federal firearms licensees, with the proceeds being used
to reduce the out-of-control federal deficit that we all are
trying to address right now.
Additionally, my legislation would shift the IRS Criminal
Investigations Division within the Justice Department.
The Biden-controlled IRS spent over $5 million on weaponry
and tactical gear in 2021, and just last year began advertising
job postings which listed, and I quote, ``carry a firearm and
be willing to use deadly force'' as a major duty. This should
scare every United States citizen.
The American people are dealing with rising prices and a
wide-open border. They do not deserve to be threatened or
harassed by overzealous armed taxmen.
[The statement of Mr. Rosendale follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. ROSENDALE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman SMITH. Thank you all very much. I want to thank my
colleagues for being here today.
As I have said previously, the Ways and Means Committee
does not traditionally allow for non-committee members to
participate in the committee's process, and I wanted to change
that. I wanted to make sure we heard from the Members'
priorities throughout our entire conference, and today has been
very beneficial to me, as being chairman, to hearing directly
your passion and why you care about the issues that we have
before you. And hopefully, we can get some things done.
Please be advised that members have two weeks to submit
written questions to be answered later in writing. Those
questions and your answers will be made part of the formal
hearing record.
With that, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:01 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]