[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 163 (Thursday, October 27, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H7143-H7149]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MODIFYING INCOME CALCULATION FOR HEALTH CARE PROGRAMS
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 448, I call up
the bill (H.R. 2576) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
modify the calculation of modified adjusted gross income for purposes
of determining eligibility for certain healthcare-related programs, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 2576
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF CALCULATION OF MODIFIED ADJUSTED
GROSS INCOME FOR DETERMINING CERTAIN HEALTHCARE
PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 36B(d)(2) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking
``and'' at the end of clause (i), by striking the period at
the end of clause (ii) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding
at the end the following new clause:
``(iii) any amount of social security benefits of the
taxpayer excluded from gross income under section 86.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 448, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Levin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
General Leave
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on H.R. 2576.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am pleased to come to the floor today and share my time with one of
our committee's newest members, the gentlewoman from Tennessee,
Representative Diane Black. In taking the lead on this legislation,
Mrs. Black has identified an area of poor stewardship of taxpayer
dollars, and she's taken steps to save the taxpayers $13 billion. I'm
happy to support her and this legislation.
H.R. 2576 modifies the income definition for determining eligibility
for exchange subsidies, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance
Program. The legislation conforms the definition of income in the
Democrats' health care law to the standards used by other Federal low-
income programs such as food stamps and public housing.
By aligning this definition with other Federal subsidy programs, the
legislation ensures that taxpayer funds will not be used to enroll
middle class individuals into Medicaid, which is an abuse of the
program's mission, to provide targeted assistance to those who are in
most need of help.
One of the most encouraging outcomes of Representative Black's
legislation is that it has garnered bipartisan support, including the
support of President Obama. In its Statement of Administration Policy,
the Obama administration affirms its support for passage and goes so
far as to say that, and I quote, ``The Administration looks forward to
working with the House to ensure the bill achieves the intended
result.''
Today, I urge my colleagues in the House to vote ``yes'' on H.R.
2576. I encourage our colleagues in the Senate to quickly follow suit.
I ask unanimous consent that Mrs. Black be designated to control the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
[[Page H7144]]
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to a very
distinguished member of our committee, Mr. Crowley, from the State of
New York.
Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my friend from Michigan and the ranking member
of the Committee on Ways and Means for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. As we look at this
redefinition of terms under the Affordable Care Act, let me take a
minute or 2 or 3 and go to the facts on the health care law as it
exists today.
Some people on the other side of the aisle and in the media continue
to refer to this provision that we're talking about today as a glitch.
As we learned from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Tax at the markup
of this bill in the Ways and Means Committee, this provision was not a
glitch.
Again, the other side will report that this was a glitch in the law.
It was not a glitch. It was written into the law deliberately, and
anyone who actually read the bill would have known that. This language
was deliberately put into the health care law to expand affordable
health insurance and will particularly help early retirees between the
ages of 62 and 64, as well as Americans on disability.
{time} 0950
But, again, for those of us who support this law and supported the
passage of this law, we have heard a lot of distortions and a lot of
falsehoods and outright lies about what is in this bill. That is why I
encourage all my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, especially
those of you who are new to Congress who were not here when the bill
was passed, to read the bill. I bet that if you did so, you'd like a
lot about what is in the bill.
There are no death panels in this bill, no government takeover of
health care in this bill, and bureaucrats will not be in the operating
room with your surgeon. These are all falsehoods spread about the law,
and again, people who read the law know that these claims simply are
not true.
But here is what is in the law. I think we need to be reminded. No
longer will insurance companies be able to decide whether or not you or
your family deserve care based on cost or profit-making; no, these
decisions will be made by doctors and patients. That's no glitch.
Children can no longer be denied coverage on their parents' private
health insurance because of a preexisting condition like asthma, which
is very prevalent in my district in the Bronx. This was no glitch.
Children can stay on their parents' private health insurance until the
age of 26, which has led to over 1 million more young adults being
covered this year. It's no glitch.
No mandates on any employer with under 50 employees--none, zero. No
mandating to any employers with under 50 employees, also deliberate by
the writers of this bill. Prescription drugs for seniors are being made
more affordable, and this year, seniors get deep discounts on their
brand-name drugs if they fall into the prescription drug coverage gap,
a black hole that seniors fall into if they need more than a few
thousand dollars' worth of medications annually, which millions of our
seniors do. It was no glitch--no glitch.
And, finally, something else in the bill--people will know if they
read it: Young families with private health insurance can no longer be
denied coverage or care under the disgusting term known as ``lifetime
limits.'' If a young mother gives birth to a severely ill child, there
are no lifetime limits. Yes, the practice of telling young parents that
not only is their newborn severely ill but that their private insurance
company won't pay for any more hospitalization care because it's too
costly is over. That's no glitch. Those parents will be able to get
their sick child the care that he or she needs without selling their
home, without declaring bankruptcy, and without having to fight their
health insurance company tooth and nail to provide for their child.
Rather, they can focus on their child's well-being. It's no glitch.
It's in the law. Democrats put it there deliberately.
What I can't understand is why my Republican colleagues will continue
to work to rip away health care, from private insurance to Medicare and
Medicaid. But they refuse to even acknowledge that they, themselves,
benefit from taxpayer-funded health care in this Congress. I have a
bill that will require every Member of Congress to publicly disclose if
they are receiving the taxpayer-subsidized health care benefits that
are provided to all Federal Government employees, including Members of
Congress. My bill has not been brought up for a debate or a vote yet,
even though it's a simple bill to make more information available to
the American people about the benefits that we in Congress enjoy.
Finally, I want to address another serious issue about this bill and
how it could affect tens of millions of middle class Americans. During
the committee debate on this bill, it was certified by the nonpartisan
Joint Committee on Taxation that Social Security benefits generally are
not added back in determining one's modified adjusted gross income for
other benefits that they receive, such as IRA contributions, student
loan interest, and adoption tax benefits. But we are changing that
definition today for consideration of who can obtain tax credits to
purchase private health insurance. I argued, and no one corrected me
during that debate, that this bill could be the Republicans' first step
on a slippery slope to limit middle class Americans' ability to claim
certain deductions for retirement security, college tuition expenses,
and even adoptive assistance--yes, the first step on the Republican
plan to raise taxes on working class families. And this morning, my
fears are being proven correct. Right now, the Oversight Committee is
discussing a report they wrote questioning the tax cuts provided to
working families to afford health insurance in the Affordable Care Act.
They don't argue that the tax cuts are too limited or too weak; they
actually argue that the tax cuts are too generous to working families
and that too many Americans will benefit from tax cuts that will make
obtaining private health insurance cheaper. The Oversight Committee
report states that the health care law will ``take millions of people
off the tax rolls.'' And let me continue from the report that says
Americans receiving these tax cuts in the health care law will have
their taxes reduced and ``will no longer pay the cost of government by
contributing federal income taxes.''
What that means is because the tax cuts in the law will lower taxes
for people so they can afford health insurance. It's amazing how tax
cuts for millionaires are sacrosanct, but tax cuts for working people
so they can get affordable health care coverage so their kids can see a
doctor are somehow evil. Let's end the hypocrisy with respect to health
care and Medicare for our constituents and end the lies about the
Affordable Health Care Act, and let's not pass this bill.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 1 minute to the
gentleman from Virginia, Majority Leader Cantor.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that many businesses across this country are
feeling the ill effects of the regulatory and tax burdens placed upon
them by continued policies coming out of Washington and this
administration. Small businesses in particular, the backbone of our
economy, face a cloud of uncertainty. This uncertainty prevents
entrepreneurs from taking a risk, from starting a business and from
creating jobs.
Mr. Speaker, House Republicans want to work with our colleagues
across the aisle, and we want to help empower these small businessmen
and women to, once again, be the engine that drives our economy. This
is the focus of the House Republican plan for America's job creators,
Mr. Speaker. This is about jobs.
There are some who repeatedly claim that they want to vote on a jobs
bill. Well, we passed one yesterday on a bipartisan basis. And today,
we'll have another chance, and we will pass another. Currently, the
House has passed 16 bills focused on job creation that are sitting idly
in the U.S. Senate.
Mr. Speaker, the President has traveled the country telling
Americans, ``we can't wait'' to pass some jobs bills. Well, we aren't
waiting. We continue to pass jobs bills. Perhaps it's time for the
President to deliver the ``we can't wait'' message to the other body in
the Capitol.
[[Page H7145]]
Today, the House will take another step in solving our jobs crisis by
repealing the 3 percent withholding rule. Under this rule, Federal,
State, and many local governments will be required to withhold 3
percent of all government payments made to contractors and suppliers.
The impact of this rule will be huge accounting burdens on governments
and potentially harmful cash flow disruptions for suppliers,
contractors, and subcontractors. Those are dollars, Mr. Speaker, that
could otherwise be used to grow a business or hire more workers.
{time} 1000
The cost of this law would then be felt by State and local
governments and by universities like Virginia Commonwealth University,
which told me it is an ``unreasonable burden on an institution of
higher education,'' that it is an unreasonable burden on heavy
equipment dealers and on other businesses across the country.
Compliance costs would move capital that otherwise would be used to
hire additional workers to the government.
Many of my fellow Virginians in the county in which I live will be
severely impacted. For example, if this law had been in effect in 2009
and 2010 in the county of Henrico, Virginia, an estimated $15 million
would not have reached small businesses that are already operating
within small margins of profit.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the time to be adding additional costs to
our job creators. In May of this year, my county manager stated, ``The
effect of this law may also be harmful to the economy with a
significant amount of money being directed to the Federal Government
instead of to businesses that will potentially use those funds to
create jobs and grow their business.''
By passing another jobs bill, House Republicans are helping companies
cope with this era of uncertainty. This is another bipartisan and
commonsense solution to support the small business men and women so
that they can support and begin to regenerate our ailing economy.
In this past week, Mr. Speaker, we passed the long-awaited free trade
agreements and the Veterans Opportunity to Work Act. Next week, we will
further help entrepreneurs access capital with the Access to Capital
for Job Creators Act.
The President says, We can't wait.
We agree. It's time to get America working again. We call upon the
Senate, not only to act on this jobs bill, but on the other 16 jobs
bills that currently sit idly in the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Michigan.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. CROWLEY. I thank my colleague from Michigan for yielding.
I just want to note for the record that the majority leader did not
challenge my point that, if this bill passes, it will, in fact,
increase taxes on the middle class.
Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am here today to speak on my bill, H.R. 2576, which would save $13
billion by ensuring that Medicaid dollars go to those who are most in
need.
When the Affordable Care Act was passed, it created a new income
formula that determines the eligibility for government-subsidized
health insurance. The Modified Adjusted Gross Income, more commonly
known as MAGI, deviated from other Federal assistance programs in
failing to include Social Security benefits as income. Let me repeat
that: the new income formula for Medicaid, CHIP, and exchange subsidies
deviated from the eligibility requirements for other Federal assistance
programs. Supplemental security income, Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Programs, also known as food stamps, Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families, and public housing all include--all include--the
Social Security benefit as income.
Congress didn't know that then, but we know now that the Affordable
Care Act had the unintended consequence of allowing a couple with close
to $60,000 in income to qualify to receive Medicaid benefits. Let me
put it in more stark terms. Changing the income formula could result in
individuals whose incomes are up to 400 percent of the Federal poverty
level receiving Medicaid. This is unacceptable, and I very strongly
believe that it is our duty to ensure that the very scarce Medicaid
resources will be there for the most in need.
It is incorrect to assert that this legislation unfairly targets
widows, survivors, or the disabled. This is the equivalent of asserting
that public housing or the SNAP unfairly target widows, survivors or
the disabled simply because, when accounting for resources, these
programs consider the source of income.
The health care law's deviation from the typical method of counting
income results in taxpayer dollars being directed to individuals who do
not meet the standard definition of ``low income.'' According to the
current law, a couple that is on Social Security benefits and has a
total income of $22,000 a year would have a higher income than a couple
earning $58,000 a year for the purpose of determining their eligibility
for Federal subsidies in the exchange. I am not the only one who thinks
so.
At the July 14 Budget Committee hearing, I asked Richard Foster, the
CMS chief actuary, about the income eligibility issue. He said, ``I
don't generally comment on the pros or cons of policy, but that just
doesn't make sense.'' Foster had previously compared the MAGI glitch to
allowing middle-income Americans to qualify for food stamps.
Additionally, Richard Sorian, who is the HHS Assistant Secretary for
Public Affairs, conceded, ``As a matter of law, some middle-income
Americans may be receiving coverage through Medicaid, which is meant to
serve only the neediest Americans.''
Primarily, my bill is about fairness. We must accurately account for
poverty in Federal assistance programs. My commonsense, bipartisan
solution has a companion bill in the Senate, which is sponsored by HELP
Committee Ranking Member Mike Enzi; and H.R. 2576 passed out of Ways
and Means with bipartisan support.
As has already been reported, President Obama, himself, recognizes
the problem on page 41 of his recent debt reduction plan where he
explicitly proposes the entire amount of Social Security benefits be
included in the definition of ``income.''
Mr. Speaker, we must bring Medicaid back into line with other Federal
assistance programs and limit improper payments to those who should not
receive Medicare benefits.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a colloquy with
the gentlelady.
You suggested this change of MAGI as it pertains to tax credits that
are eligible to the middle class under the Affordable Care Act; is that
correct?
Mrs. BLACK. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CROWLEY. I yield to the gentlelady from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACK. That is correct.
Mr. CROWLEY. Are you also going to make that same suggestion that we
change the adjusted gross income for eligibility for the purposes of
IRA contributions?
Mrs. BLACK. Sir, we're talking about social benefit programs.
Mr. CROWLEY. I understand that. We're talking about tax credits for
health care.
You don't want to make certain individuals eligible for those tax
credits; isn't that correct? Your attempt here is to not make certain
people who under the Affordable Care Act today would be eligible for
certain tax credits ineligible; is that correct?
Mrs. BLACK. As the bill proposes, this would put it into alignment
with other Federal assistance programs. That's the intent of the bill.
Mr. CROWLEY. My question is either ``yes'' or ``no.'' You can answer
your way, but it's a simple question.
Under the Affordable Care Act, would the people who can receive tax
credits today be denied those tax credits if your bill were to pass
today?
Mrs. BLACK. I have answered your question.
Mr. CROWLEY. If you will continue with me under my time, would you
then suggest that we now do that for
[[Page H7146]]
other areas of the Code not pertaining to the lower class or the poor
in this country? I'm not suggesting we do that. I'm talking
specifically of the middle class.
Should we extend that logic or maybe enhance your bill to include IRA
contributions, student loan interest and adoption tax credits, which
are focused on the middle class?
Again, we're not talking about the poor. They're covered. We're
talking about individuals who are struggling to survive right now in
this economy, who are struggling to put food on their tables, to pay
for their student loans or their children's student loans, to put away
money for retirement, who maybe have the opportunity for the first time
in their lives to afford health insurance. Under your bill, you would
take those credits away. Are you suggesting that we take them away?
It's a slippery slope. You start here. Let's just look at the overall
Tax Code. We'll change major portions then.
{time} 1010
What about the IRA contributions that that person would be making?
What about the student loan interest, the adoption tax credits? Should
we also limit their ability to take advantage of those provisions of
the law?
The silence is deafening. The silence is deafening because the
reality is, Mr. Speaker, this is a slippery slope. You take away
opportunities for the middle class to afford health insurance under the
Affordable Care Act by whittling away at it. It's the middle class who
are hurt here.
We're not talking about the poor; we're not talking about the least
amongst us. We're talking about the middle class that under the
Affordable Care Act would have the opportunity to afford insurance for
the first time, and this legislation, this legislation, I can't even
say as well intentioned as it may be, it is not well intentioned.
There is nothing about this bill that is well intentioned. It is
simply to take away a provision that this Congress and our President
made available for the first time in people's lives. They want to take
it away for the middle class.
Let's put everything aside--that's what we're doing today--and I'm
suggesting maybe this is just the first step, that maybe the next step
will be limiting the ability of individuals to put away money for
retirement in their IRA, limiting the availability for students or the
parents to pay for a college education, and lastly, and probably most
egregious, the adoption tax credits, taking them away. I mean, that's
where this is going.
I thank my colleague from Michigan once again for yielding me the
time.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is difficult to recognize the argument on this when we have
bipartisan support. And once again, I want to read the Statement of
Administration Policy that came out on October 25 from the executive
office of the President, and it reads:
``The administration supports passage of H.R. 2576, which would
change the calculation of modified adjusted gross income, as defined in
section 1401 of the Affordable Care Act, to include both taxable and
nontaxable Social Security benefits. Beginning in 2014, this income
definition will be used to determine financial eligibility for Medicaid
and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and for premium tax
credits and cost-sharing reductions available through Affordable
Insurance Exchanges. The administration looks forward to working with
the House to ensure the bill achieves the intended result.''
I think that speaks for itself.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, October 25, 2011.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 2576--Modify Income Calculation for Eligibility for Certain Health
Programs (Rep. Black, R-TN, and 3 cosponsors)
The Administration supports passage of H.R. 2576, which
would change the calculation of modified adjusted gross
income, as defined in section 1401 of the Affordable Care
Act, to include both taxable and non-taxable Social Security
benefits. Beginning in 2014, this income definition will be
used to determine financial eligibility for Medicaid and the
State Children's Health Insurance Program, and for premium
tax credits and cost-sharing reductions available through
Affordable Insurance Exchanges. The Administration looks
forward to working with the House to ensure the bill achieves
the intended result.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Does the majority have additional speakers? If so, I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
Mr. HERGER. I applaud my good friend from Tennessee for her
leadership. This should not be a difficult question. Even the President
supports this.
I believe the Medicaid expansion and premium subsidies in last year's
health care overall are wasteful and should be repealed, but even for
those who support these policies, there's no reason to ignore an entire
category of income. Under current law, a person with $30,000 in Social
Security benefits and $20,000 in other income would get a much larger
health insurance subsidy than a person who earns $50,000 in wages.
That makes no sense, and it's a disincentive to work. Let's treat
everyone fairly and vote for this bill.
Mr. LEVIN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. I want to thank Congresswoman Black for her
leadership on this very commonsense issue, so commonsense at a time
where it seems like Democrats and Republicans and the President in
Washington rarely agree on anything, we all agree on this, on closing
this loophole in the President's health care plan that really should
have never been there in the first place.
We got good news last week when the President rescinded another big
flaw in the President's health care plan, when he gave up on the CLASS
Act. It was a plan for nursing home care and later care for elderly
that was financed in a way that even Senate Democrats labeled it a
Ponzi scheme. Thankfully, that's been repealed.
Today we're here to repeal another loophole in a really nonsensical
part in the President's health care plan for couples who make more than
the national average in income, $64,000 per year. Today, under the law,
they can qualify for Medicaid. That's a program for the very poor in
America. That's a program we don't have enough money for as it is.
And at a time when 25 million people are either out of work or can't
find a full-time job, shouldn't our hard-earned tax dollars go to those
who can't afford anything rather than those who are blessed with $5,000
or more a month to make ends meet; at a time, again, it seems to me,
that a couple making four times the Federal poverty level shouldn't be
able to draw down the dollars that you and I pay to help those who are
truly needy in America, who, by the way, are growing by the day?
I will say my good friend from New York is very passionate about this
issue, and I appreciate his passion, but this isn't about young kids
paying off college student loans. This is not about couples struggling
to make ends meet. This is about making sure couples making as much as
$64,000 a year don't use the money that we reserve for our poorest in
America.
Mr. CROWLEY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Not at this time.
And I appreciate the gentleman from New York's effort on this. This
is not about taxing millionaires and billionaires.
In fact, let me yield for just a moment.
Mr. CROWLEY. I appreciate it. And in friendship, while the gentleman
is a fair Member of the other side of the aisle, we work very well
together on a number of issues.
You make out the point about $64,000 a year as being--I won't say
wealthy.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Oh, no.
Mr. CROWLEY. But you are suggesting maybe on $64,000 a year that
people are living a little bit of the high life.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Actually, I was making the point that the very
poor need our resources.
Mr. CROWLEY. Will the gentleman continue to yield?
[[Page H7147]]
Mr. BRADY of Texas. I tell you what, maybe we can continue this
conversation off the floor. I know you feel strongly.
Mr. CROWLEY. I was just suggesting, in my district in Queens, New
York, or in the Bronx, $64,000 doesn't get you very far. It just
doesn't.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. For those who are making $20,000 a year, it goes
even less far.
Reclaiming my time, we've had great discussions about this, but,
again, Medicaid should be for those who are very poor.
This loophole is being closed, and thankfully the President agrees
with us. The Senate Democrats and Republicans join with us to close
this loophole. That has to tell you that this is a loophole that
Republicans and Democrats, the White House all agree needs to be
closed.
Again, I thank Congresswoman Black for her leadership on this
commonsense issue, and I urge support.
Mr. LEVIN. Is the majority ready to close?
Mrs. BLACK. We are ready to close.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from New York, and then I will
close.
Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman from Michigan once again.
It's been said on the floor, once again, this bill has bipartisan
support. I don't doubt that it probably will at the end of the day, but
somehow that's the magic formula for doing the right thing. I would
suggest there are many things that were done on this floor that enjoy
bipartisan support. The Iraq war, unfortunately, had bipartisan
support. I was one of those who supported it. I think many today would
suggest that maybe that wasn't the right thing to do.
{time} 1020
Just as an example, the point I was making with my friend, the
gentleman from Texas, this magic number of $63,000 or $64,000 as being
a wonderful income, not if you live in Queens or the Bronx; you're
barely making it. I'm not talking about people who are destitute. I'm
not talking about people who are suffering. We know they exist. Many of
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to do away with
the Medicaid system. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle would like to do away with the Medicare system. I'm not
suggesting that you're talking about this in the bill.
But what I am suggesting, though, is that you think that people
making $63,000 or $64,000 are living high on the hog. They're not. Not
in my district they're not. They can barely afford their home. They can
barely afford to send their children to school. They can barely afford
to put food on the table, and many of them cannot even afford ownership
of a health insurance policy to take care of their children let alone
themselves. And that's what I'm talking about, giving people that
opportunity.
I don't care if the President is going to sign this bill. It doesn't
make it right. It doesn't make it right. We should not be degrading. We
should not be degrading hardworking Americans, middle class Americans
who are trying to do the best for their families.
This bill should have never gotten out of committee, and it shouldn't
be on the floor in the manner it is.
I thank the gentleman from Michigan for again yielding.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized
for 14\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. First of all, I'm glad that the majority leader came to
the floor to talk about jobs. This set of bills is not a jobs bill. To
call it that is a pure smoke screen. I quoted Mark Zandi before: ``I
don't think it's meaningful in terms of jobs. It's more trying to clean
up something that needs cleaning up.'' That's the 3 percent withholding
bill.
The Majority Leader called upon the Senate to act, to act on bills
that essentially would allow mercury to continue to be accessible. And
other bills that are called jobs bills, deregulation where it's
necessary to regulate, that's a jobs bill? And the Majority Leader
called again on the Senate to act.
We haven't had a single hearing here in the House on the President's
jobs bill. Not a single hearing.
The President has proposed to cut the payroll tax in half for 98
percent of the businesses. A complete payroll tax holiday for adding
workers; extending 100 percent expensing, not a single hearing on that.
Preventing up to 280,000 teacher layoffs, not a single hearing on
that. Don't call on the Senate. The majority leader should call on the
House himself and the committees to hold hearings on these bills.
The infrastructure bill, a bipartisan national infrastructure bank,
not a single hearing.
And then unemployment insurance, at the end of this year, in next
month, a million people will lose their unemployment benefits if we
don't act and extend the Federal program; and a million and a half by
mid-February. So I call upon the House to act.
A $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring the long-term unemployed,
not a single hearing. No action. I suggest to the majority they not
look to the other body, but to look to themselves.
So I'm glad the Majority Leader came here. Now, I want to say just a
word about the bill right before us. Mr. Crowley has suggested that we
look at the facts, and I think we should. Before we vote, I think all
of us want to know what we're voting on. And essentially this revision
of the modified adjusted gross income provision in terms of potential
impact on health care, according to the Joint Tax Committee and the
CBO, will likely have this effect, and I want everybody to understand
it: between 500,000 and a million individuals will no longer be
eligible for Medicaid. That's their estimate. Of those who no longer
are eligible for Medicaid, about 500,000 will be eligible for tax
credits unless the Republicans ever succeeded in eliminating them. But
of that additional number, between 500,000 and a million, about 500,000
people as a result, if this bill becomes law, will likely lose their
health coverage altogether unless they had available to them insurance
through their employer. That's the estimate of the Joint Tax Committee.
We're talking about vulnerable populations here. We're talking about
early retirees, and we're talking about the disabled. And we need to
understand those facts as presented by the Joint Tax Committee and by
CBO.
A second problem here is that essentially we're using a provision
relating to health to address a business tax problem. It is a problem
for the government and for the business community in the 3 percent
withholding provision which we should repeal.
But we should understand the implications. The Ways and Means
Committee has traditionally said don't do it that way. Let's also
remember that we're going to have before us a provision relating to
physician reimbursement rates in Medicare, and we're going to have to
find the funds to pay for it. And essentially what would be doing now
is to use up a provision that impacts health and lose the possibility
of using it in terms of improving health programs, such as
reimbursement.
The last point I want to make is we tried to present an alternative,
an alternative within business taxation. It relates to the taxation of
the oil and gas industry. Mr. Blumenauer earlier talked about things
that were kind of done in the dark of night and this provision, the 3
percent, if it wasn't the dark of night, it wasn't fully in the
daylight.
But the oil and gas provision in section 199 was added, indeed, in
the dark of night. It provided some tax benefits to the oil and gas
industry in a bill that related to manufacturing when oil and gas did
not fall within that purview. And it was essentially put in in the dark
of night, and it would be much preferable to address that issue and pay
for the bill that needs to pass rather than essentially starting on a
path that Mr. Crowley has described that, according to CBO and the
Joint Tax Committee, is likely to lead up to half a million people
having no health coverage at all.
Everybody should understand that price, and then everybody can make
up their own mind, but they should understand what's involved here.
This is not a technical change. It isn't a glitch. It is a tax
definition, by the way, as Mr. Crowley has pointed out; and it also
applies to other areas where I think we need to be very careful in
terms of its application.
So those are the facts and everybody can make up their own mind. But
let's
[[Page H7148]]
not pretend this is a jobs bill when the majority here has essentially
had a deaf ear to bringing up the jobs bill presented by the President.
And let's not pretend that this will have no impact on health insurance
and health coverage for lots of people who are the early retirees and
the disabled.
{time} 1030
These, by and large, are not wealthy people. And there are examples
given that are true in the extreme. But for the mainstream in this
country, the early retirees and the disabled, they're not on the
fringes in terms of income, in terms of wealth.
These are the facts. I hope as everybody comes to vote on this bill--
this second bill--they will look at the facts and make up their own
mind.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Tennessee is recognized
for 17 minutes.
Mrs. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This bipartisan solution would bring Medicaid back into line with
other Federal assistance programs and ensure that the program is there
for those who most need it. Furthermore, according to the CBO and the
Joint Tax Committee estimates, this bill would save taxpayers
approximately $13 billion over 10 years. And considering our $14
trillion in national debt, closing this loophole as soon as possible is
a good policy on a number of levels. I am delighted that both the
President and other Members across the aisle support this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARCHANT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 2576. This bill
would count the entire Social Security benefit, rather than just the
portion that is taxable for income tax purposes, as income for
determining eligibility for Exchange subsidies, Medicaid, and CHIP.
This bill is both good policy and good economics. The 2010 health
care law uses a uniform definition of modified adjustment gross
income--or ``MAGI''--to determine eligibility for Exchange subsidies,
Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP. By using a
uniform basis of eligibility, the current health law doesn't properly
take account of the entire Social Security benefit. This understates
the resources available to some households; which thus allows some
individuals to game the system.
To illustrate, allow me to cite a report by the Associated Press,
dated June 21, 2011. In the report, the Chief Actuary for federal
health programs, Richard Foster, determined that ``a married couple
could have an actual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid''
under the current definition. There is no sound logic to this. In the
same article, Foster adds, ``I don't generally comment on the pros and
cons of policy, but that just doesn't make sense.''
In addition, CB0 and JCT have estimated the bill would reduce the
deficit by $13 billion over ten years.
H.R. 2576 is good policy and good economics. I urge my colleagues to
support this bill.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2576,
legislation brought forth by House Republicans today. It is being
considered in order to pay for the previous bill that eliminates a
Republican-written provision in law requiring a 3 percent withholding
tax on payments to government contractors.
H.R. 2576 changes a provision of the new health reform law that
defines income for purposes of qualifying for financial help obtaining
health insurance. The effect of the bill is to reduce the number of
Americans eligible for financial assistance with their health insurance
costs. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that, if
enacted, it will cause up to a half a million people to lose access to
affordable health coverage.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will gleefully point to
support by the Administration as a compelling reason to support this
legislation. I respectfully disagree and believe the Administration is
dead wrong on this one.
First, the Administration decided on its own--without consultation
with Congress who wrote the Affordable Care Act--that this definition
of income was a ``glitch'' in the law. They are wrong.
This definition excludes non-taxable Social Security income from the
definition of income. As a result, it helps to assure that more people
who obtain Social Security between ages 62 through 64 and people who
qualify for Social Security because of severe disabilities have access
to affordable health coverage. That wasn't a glitch. It was
intentional. Making the change proposed in this bill saves money by
kicking these very vulnerable people out of eligibility for financial
help with their health insurance costs.
It's also important to note that we intentionally picked up this
exclusion from the definition of income because this exclusion is
typically applied for purposes of qualifying for other tax credits and
benefits.
While I oppose this bill on its own merits, I also take issue with
its pairing with the 3 percent withholding legislation. Yesterday, Ways
and Means Ranking Member Levin went to the Rules Committee with an
alternative way to finance the 3 percent withholding bill. His
alternative would have offset the cost of this business tax cut by
closing a tax loophole improperly enjoyed by oil and gas industry
giants. Yet, Republicans prohibited his amendment from being brought to
the floor for our consideration today.
Clearly, Republicans believe the needs of the highly profitable oil
and gas industry outweigh the need for early retirees and people with
disabilities to afford health insurance.
With H.R. 2576, Republicans are forcing these vulnerable people to
pay for yet another tax break for business. It's the wrong thing to do
and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 448, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 262,
nays 157, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 813]
YEAS--262
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Farr
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
[[Page H7149]]
NAYS--157
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--14
Ackerman
Bachmann
Clay
Giffords
Grimm
Hinchey
Miller, Gary
Polis
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryan (OH)
Turner (NY)
Visclosky
Wilson (FL)
Young (AK)
{time} 1058
Messrs. ROTHMAN of New Jersey, GARAMENDI, ELLISON, and LARSON of
Connecticut changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. WELCH changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 813, I had district work that
required my presence. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________