Diane Black

Mrs. BLACK

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.

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

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.

Mrs. BLACK. We are ready to close.

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

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.

Mrs. BLACK. I have answered your question.

Mrs. BLACK. As the bill proposes, this would put it into alignment with other Federal assistance programs. That's the intent of the bill.

Mrs. BLACK. That is correct.

Mrs. BLACK. Will the gentleman yield?

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.

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield the customary 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia, Majority Leader Cantor.

Mrs. BLACK

Mrs. BLACK. I thank my colleague from South Carolina for yielding. I'd like to begin by stating that this legislation, H.R. 2576, is about fairness. When the news broke this summer that the Affordable Care Act contained a loophole that would allow middle-class Americans to receive Medicaid benefits, I, like many of my colleagues, was very concerned. The new income formula that determines eligibility for government subsidies health insurance, the modified adjusted gross income, or also known MAGI, deviated from all of the other Federal assistance programs, failing to include Social Security benefits as income. Under the health care law, a married couple with an annual income of over $60,000 could qualify to receive Medicaid benefits. Let me put it in more stark terms. Changing the income formula could result in individuals, whose incomes are up to 400 percent of the poverty level, receiving Medicaid. This is unacceptable. I very strongly believe that it is our duty to ensure that the very scarce Medicaid dollars and resources are there for those who are in the most need. Again, let me State that the Affordable Care Act's income formula for Medicaid, CHIP, and exchange subsidies deviated from the eligibility requirements for all other Federal assistance programs. Supplemental Security Income, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and public housing all--all--include the entire Social Security benefit as income. My bill, H.R. 2576, would add Social Security benefits back into the equation, realigning Medicaid with all the other programs and stopping these improper payments before they occur. It is incorrect to assert that this legislation unfairly targets widows, survivors, and the disabled. This is equivalent to asserting that the public housing or the SNAP are unfairly targeted to widows, survivors, disabled simply because, when accounting for the resource programs, they consider the source of income. The health care law's deviation from the typical method of counting income results in taxpayer dollars being directed to individuals who do not meet the standard definition of low income. According to the current law, a couple who both earned Social Security benefits and have a total income of $22,065 would have a higher income than a couple earning $58,840 for the purpose of determining eligibility for the Federal subsidies in the exchange. This is totally unfair. When asked about the MAGI glitch, CMS actuary Richard Foster said, ``I don't generally comment on the pros and cons of policy, but that just doesn't make sense.'' Foster said the situation keeps him up at night and has previously compared the MAGI formula to allowing middle- class Americans to receive food stamps. Additionally, Richard Sorian, the HHS assistant secretary for Public Affairs, conceded that ``as a matter of law, some middle-income Americans may be receiving coverage through Medicaid, which is meant to serve only the neediest Americans.'' Now, it is important to note that my legislation does not take away a benefit from anyone on the Medicaid rolls today. MAGI would not be in effect until 2014, so it's important that we bring Medicaid back into line with all of the other Federal assistance programs as soon as possible. Additionally, my legislation enjoys bipartisan support. In the Senate, HELP Committee Ranking Member Mike Enzi has a companion bill, and President Obama himself, as has already been noted, recognizes the problem. In his recent debt reduction plan, the President explicitly-- explicitly--proposes that the entire amount of Social Security benefits be included in the definition of income. And, as has already been stated, there was a statement of administration policy put out yesterday, and I want to read that to you: The administration supports H.R. 2576, which could change the calculation of modified adjusted gross income, as defined in section 1401 of the Affordable Care Act, to include both taxable and nontaxable Social Security benefits.

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

Mrs. BLACK

Mrs. BLACK. Thank you for yielding your time, my dear friend from Missouri. It's very good to be here today as Republican women and lifting up seniors. When I think about the seniors in my life, my grandmother and my grandfather, I really hope that my children and grandchildren will think the same way about me. Because when we ask people who are their heroes, so many times what we hear is about their grandmothers and their grandfathers. And that is because they have so much to offer, especially the Greatest Generation--the generation that right now we are trying to protect every benefit that we can for them because they have worked hard and they have put money into the system and they deserve to be cared for. Now, one thing I do know about seniors, having worked with seniors in home health care as a nurse, is they really feel like many times they don't have choices. Our seniors, just because they turned 65, should not be having their choices taken away. We shouldn't think that they can't make good choices. And that's exactly what the health care bill that was passed by the Democrats last year, the Patient Affordability Act, does. It removes the ability for them to make choices. In particular, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, also known as IPAB, is a group of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats that are assigned by the President; and their job will be to cut the costs and limit access for our seniors to care. They will have the ability to deny care and not give choice to our seniors. This is wrong. Our plan, the Path to Prosperity, would give our seniors choice. It would not affect those 55 or older, but it would give those 54 and younger an opportunity to be able to have choice in their program. We address the unsustainable growth of Medicare so the program does not bankrupt us in 10 years so that we can have money in the bank for our seniors as they age. It is only fair and right that our seniors should have choice and that they should have the care that they put into the bank and they so deserve. Let's give seniors their choice. I thank my friend for yielding.

Mrs. BLACK

Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, this bill is not about a mother's right to choose, as the President and the congressional Democrats would lead us to believe. Rather, this is about ensuring that the proper restrictions are in place in order to assure that taxpayer funds are not used to fund abortion or abortion coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Mrs. BLACK. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding. For over 30 years, the Hyde amendment, in conjunction with a patchwork of other policies, has regulated the Federal funding of abortions under programs such as Medicaid; and together, these various policies ensure the American taxpayer is not involved in funding the destruction of innocent human life. And despite the assurances from President Obama, the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act will allow Federal funds to subsidize abortions for the first time since 1976 through State high- risk pools and community health centers. While the President's Executive order was an attempt to reassure Congress after the Stupak amendment did not make it into the bill's final version, the fact of the matter is that the Executive order is not law and it can change all too easily. This bill will prohibit funding for abortions and abortion coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordability Act. This legislation also protects the conscience rights for health care workers such as myself by providing that Federal agencies and State and local governments funding by PPACA may not discriminate against health care entities that refuse to be involved in abortion.

Mrs. BLACK

Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, as our servicemembers return home from Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress must continue to focus on assisting in their transition back to civilian life. For many of these individuals, the wounds of war are not easily forgotten and it is imperative that we stand by these soldiers. As the wife, mother and daughter of servicemen I have a strong appreciation for the contributions of our United States military personnel and I am a constant advocate for improving military and veteran benefits. That is why I am a co-sponsor of H.R. 2433, the ``Veterans Opportunity to Work Act of 2011.'' H.R. 2433 provides unemployed veterans and active duty members who are about to retire with comprehensive training opportunities and employment assistance. It achieves these goals by: extending training benefits to unemployed veterans to teach them new skills for high- demand jobs; making career and transition courses mandatory for servicemembers leaving the military; strengthening re-employment protections for National Guard and Reservists; and improving licensing and credentialing processes for new veterans. Recently I held a veterans job fair in my district and got to meet with some of these brave men and women as they looked for jobs. It is an honor to be able to help veterans while at home and this bill serves as a chance for us to help our veterans back home from Washington, DC. Ensuring that our servicemen are well taken care of is one of our Nation's greatest responsibilities and I am pleased we will take up legislation today that will do just that.

Mrs. BLACK

Mrs. BLACK. I thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding. Madam Speaker, the tragic death of Tad Mattle that took place in Huntsville, Alabama, on April 17, 2009, serves as a sad reminder of the broken immigration system that we have here in the United States. We see stories like this in our local newspapers and on our local and national news. They're reminders that we have a serious illegal immigration problem in our country and the need to take action to secure our borders. As a member of the Immigration Reform Caucus, I believe that while we are a nation of immigrants, we are first and foremost a nation of laws. I'm a cosponsor of a number of comprehensive bills that would help combat illegal immigration. One bill, the CLEAR Act, would authorize State and local law enforcement to assist in the enforcement of the U.S. immigration laws, which means that they can investigate, apprehend, and transfer over to ICE officials illegal aliens in the United States. Another bill that I'm cosponsoring goes after sanctuary cities, denying State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funding for any State or local government that has in place any law, policy, or procedure that breaks Federal immigration law. The SAVE Act is another great bill. The SAVE Act would increase Border Patrol and investigative personnel, encourage recruitment of former military personnel and use of Department of Defense equipment, calls on the administration to develop a national strategy to secure our borders and, finally, directs authorities to check against terrorist watch lists those persons suspected of alien smuggling and smuggled individuals. Defense of our country and securing our borders is one of the primary responsibilities of government, and I believe that those who enter this country illegally are not only breaking the law, but risking the very security of this country. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mrs. BLACK

Mrs. BLACK. I thank my colleague from South Carolina for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I'm here today as a member of a right-to-work State and a cosponsor of this legislation to speak out against NLRB's actions against Boeing in South Carolina and NLRB's assault on the right-to- work States. Not only are the NLRB's actions a gross intrusion of government on private business, but this suit, if allowed to proceed, would have a chilling effect on the business growth in all right-to- work States like Tennessee. In my home State, the unemployment rate is at a staggering 9.8 percent. And in some of my counties, we are well over a double digit in unemployment. Too many Tennesseeans are out of work, and I don't want companies with good-paying jobs to feel like they can no longer move a facility to Tennessee for fear that there will be an NLRB lawsuit. The actions of NLRB set a very dangerous precedent that the Federal Government can tell a private company in which State they can or cannot locate. Policies like this could very well drive a company to leave the United States and go overseas where agencies like this don't exist. That is why I stand here today in strong support of the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act. This is an important first step not only to put NLRB on notice that their actions will be checked by Congress, but also to ensure that NLRB cannot dictate which State an employer can locate jobs in the United States. At a time when 14 million workers are unemployed, we must get Federal agencies like NLRB out of the way and clear the path for job creation.

Mrs. BLACK

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, on amendment rollcall Nos. 622, No. 623, No. 624, No. 625, No. 626, No. 627, No. 628 as well as rollcall No. 629 for final passage of H.R. 2551, I am not recorded because I was attending to a family matter. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``Yes''--Representative Melvin Watt Amendment; ``Yes''--Representative Nan Hayworth Amendment; ``No''--Representative Paul Broun Amendment; ``Yes''--Representative Marlin Stutzman Amendment; ``No''--Representative Glenn Thompson Amendment; ``No''--Representative James Moran Amendment; ``No''--Representative Rush Holt Amendment; and ``Yes''--Final Passage of H.R. 2551.

Mrs. BLACK

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, on amendment rollcall No. 615, No. 616, No. 617, No. 618, No. 619, No. 620 as well as rollcall No. 621 for final passage of H.R. 1315, I am not recorded because I was attending to a family matter. Had I been present, I would have voted: No-- Representative Sheila Jackson Lee Amendment No. 4; no--Representative Brad Miller Amendment; no--Representative Sheila Jackson Lee Amendment No. 3; no--Representative Carolyn Maloney Amendment; yes-- Representative Scott Rigel Amendment; no--Democrat Motion to Recommit; and yes--Final Passage of H.R. 2551.

Mrs. BLACK

Mrs. BLACK. Last week, President Obama got up on his bully pulpit and he told the House Republicans it was ``time to eat our peas'' as a part of the debt deal. The President said that to us, yet he has not come forward with a detailed written plan of his own. All we hear from the White House is about job-killing tax increases and a mystical dollar amount of cuts with no actual concrete figures on how to achieve it. The President has yet to put his plan on the table, even though the Congress has been asking for a scorable plan from him for months. In fact, he did not even respond to a request from myself and 76 of our freshman members who wrote to him and asked him over a month ago to come to the table and put pen to paper. And yet, even in the absence of a plan from the White House, the President is now threatening to veto a cut, cap, and balance before it was even brought to the floor for debate. And this isn't the first time that the President has rejected a good plan put together by the House of Representatives. Not only did the House provide a plan in the Path to Prosperity, our House Republican budget, but here we are today, about to vote on Cap, Cut, and Balance, which represents a solution to the current debt ceiling debate. For someone who claims he wants to solve this issue, he has rejected every good proposal that has come his way. Mr. President, it is time to eat your peas. I urge my colleagues to vote for Cut, Cap and Balance. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mrs. BLACK

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 601, for final passage of H.R. 33, I was previously detained for a family matter. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mrs. BLACK

Mrs. BLACK. My name is Diane Black, and I represent the Sixth Congressional District in Tennessee. I am hearing more and more from women in my district. More and more women are decision makers in their households. As a matter of fact, statistics show us that 84 percent of women are primary decision makers today. They set their budgets. They buy groceries. They take their children to school and to doctors, and they also work outside the home. I hear from women all over my district who are on the front lines, and they say that the economy is making life tougher and that they are constantly trying to do more with less. They tell me that when they go to the grocery store, how much the rising food prices are cutting into what they buy. Gas is more expensive, and their budgets are shrinking, and their choices are limited because Washington is deciding for them. As these past few years got harder, government stood in the way of our economy getting back on track. And in Tennessee, we have an unemployment rate of 9.6 percent. I also hear from women in my district whose husbands are looking for jobs, and these women are working two jobs to make ends meet, a struggle that is very real to me. As a nurse for over 40 years, I worked two jobs when my children were little and our family was trying to better ourselves, as my husband was working on his degree. I worked not only as a nurse, but I also had a school for children in my home. My fellow GOP women here tonight, we are all with similar stories of struggles and challenges and working hard for our families. Government needs to get out of the way and allow businesses to grow so that jobs are created and America gets back on track. I am a Republican woman, and I am proud of that. I am proud to say that I am not only protecting children and their families but also am working to make sure that our country gets back on track so that we have jobs that will allow these families to be strong and grow. I believe that I'm not only speaking for myself, but also for the women back home and across this country.