Jim Bridenstine

Mr. BRIDENSTINE

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Oklahomans who even as we speak this evening are laboring to find and rescue all those affected by this afternoon's severe tornadoes in Moore and other areas in the great State of Oklahoma. At this time, we don't know the full extent of the damage and the potential human toll, but we are inspired. We're inspired by those who are sparing no effort to assist their neighbors and even many people they don't know. Disasters like the Moore tornado bring out the best in the people of Oklahoma. I pray for each victim of these storms, for all of the emergency first responders and the ordinary citizens who are stepping forward to help in any way they can. We are grateful for everyone working to secure the affected area and to account for every man, woman, and child.

Mr. BRIDENSTINE

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. I'd like to thank the gentleman from Indiana for allowing me to speak on this issue on behalf of my constituents. I can say very clearly that I support H.R. 45, ObamaCare repeal, and I can tell you why. Under ObamaCare, we're looking at a minimum of about $500 billion in new taxes. We're talking about taxes on pharmaceuticals and taxes on medical devices. We're also talking about taxes on payroll, things that have nothing to do with medicine; taxes on the sale of real estate; taxes on other capital gains. There will be 21 new taxes, and $500 billion is the conservative estimate. Some people say it's going to be $1.1 trillion in new tax revenue. Guess what? It's not enough. There's also going to be $500 billion in new borrowing over the first 10 years of ObamaCare. And it's still not enough. So we're going to rob $716 billion from Medicare at a time when seniors are finding it hard to find providers who are willing to accept Medicare as it is. This is hugely problematic for the people in my district. Let's talk about the employers. Employers are seeking ways to reduce their staffs below 50 people. They're laying people off. No kidding. I talked to an employer just a few weeks ago in my district. He's got 57 employees. He's now trying to get down to 49. He's also trying to figure out ways to make his staff part-time. He's trying to get his staff under 29 hours so he has less than 50 full-time equivalents, as they refer to them now. This is going to be a disaster for the employment prospects of the people in my district. Let's talk about how this is administered. It's going to be administered by the IRS. So everyone has to have the health insurance that perfectly conforms to what the President wants them to have. It used to be that there was a time when my wife and I had insurance, where we had a high deductible and a low premium. We had a little bit of savings. We wanted to save money on our premium, and so we were willing to accept the high deductible. We were willing to accept a little bit of risk upon ourselves to save money. That's not available anymore under ObamaCare. All that will be enforced by the IRS. So if you have that high-deductible, low-premium policy, or if you have a policy that they call a ``Cadillac plan,'' you're going to be penalized. These penalties have been ruled by the Supreme Court to be taxes, but let's be clear that they are penalties for not conforming to what the President wants you to have in insurance. That penalty, if you don't have the right health insurance, is going to be 2\1/2\ percent of your income, eventually. So if you make $50,000 a year, your penalty is $1,250, assessed by the IRS when you do your taxes. Or you could pay the premium. If you want the comprehensive health care that ObamaCare requires you to have, that premium is likely to be around $7,000, or you can pay the penalty of $1,250. What are most people going to pay? They're going to pay the penalty. Why? Because under ObamaCare, they can't exempt you for a preexisting condition. So you can pay the penalty, and then when you get sick you can go to the doctor and get the health insurance you need and then get healthy; and then when you're healthy, you can drop your health insurance again. This creates an adverse selection. This is a big problem. If you want to see health insurance premiums skyrocket, let's only insure the people who are sick; and that's exactly what this bill does. Let's talk for a second about the expansion of Medicaid under ObamaCare. I'm very proud of the State of Oklahoma for not expanding Medicaid under ObamaCare. This is a teaser rate. This is a time when the Federal Government comes in and they say, We're going to fully expand your Medicaid expansion up to 138 percent of the poverty line for the first 3 years, then we're going to pull the rug out from under you. The State of Oklahoma is going to be faced with challenges. What are we going to cut? Maybe we'll cut education, maybe we'll cut the Department of Transportation in the State of Oklahoma, or maybe we'll raise taxes. This is just another way for the Federal Government to addict States to a program that ultimately they're going to pull the rug out from under the program and the State of Oklahoma is going to be forced to carry this load. I'm very proud of Governor Mary Fallin for not expanding Medicaid under ObamaCare. I'd like to thank the gentleman from Indiana for allowing me to express my views. I fully support H.R. 45, the repeal of ObamaCare.

Mr. BRIDENSTINE

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 684, the Marketplace Fairness Act. Imagine if a State had the authority to reach beyond its borders into another State and compel a business in the other State to collect and remit taxes. Imagine a business being forced to collect and remit taxes for over 9,600 different local tax jurisdictions, and being open to audit by 50 different States, yet only having representation in one of those tax jurisdictions. This law would overturn a foundational American principle of no taxation without representation. Imagine the same business losing market share to offshore businesses that cannot be compelled by Congress to collect taxes for local jurisdictions in the U.S. Now, imagine that business either closing its doors or leaving the country in order to compete. The unintended consequences of the Marketplace Fairness Act have not been considered. I understand why some people support it, but this bill is not the right solution.

Mr. BRIDENSTINE

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Madam Chair, I rise today to support H.R. 444, the Require a PLAN Act. It is perfectly appropriate for the President to present a budget that balances within 10 years. If he does not, this bill would require him to tell us when his budget might balance. Trillion-dollar deficits for the foreseeable future are harming seniors, the poor, and middle- income families who are struggling to make ends meet. Here is how: Our deficits are financed by Treasury bonds, most of which are being purchased by the Fed with newly created money. This drives up the price of bonds and keeps interest rates artificially low. Seniors on fixed incomes, who have saved their whole lives, now cannot make a fair interest on their savings. In addition to squeezing the incomes of our seniors, creating money to fund deficits also drives up prices, which has a disproportionate adverse effect on the seniors, on the poor, and on middle-income families. Creating money out of thin air to fund the President's spending must stop. The first step is to stop the reckless spending by having the President present a plan to balance the budget. This is a simple request with no reasonable excuse for opposition. I support H.R. 444, the Require a PLAN Act, to protect our seniors, the poor, and middle- income families.