[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.''

                          ____________________