Adrian Smith

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the hard work, resilience, and achievements of Nebraska distance running standout, Madison Seiler. As a high school freshman running for my alma mater, Gering High School, Maddie was a top-four finisher in class B at the Nebraska State cross country meet and a member of the State class B girls State championship team. The following year, she won her first individual State championship as a sophomore. Prior to her junior season, Maddie suffered a serious ankle injury which required surgery. Despite missing the entire summer training period and all but one competition leading up to the district and State championship races, she began running just 45 days after surgery and overcame improbable odds to repeat as individual State champion in 2021. It was an extraordinary achievement. This October, Maddie's determination and discipline once again led to another individual State championship, and in doing so, she became just the 13th runner in Nebraska high school cross country history to be a three-time State champion. Maddie is an honor roll student, and her family and community are incredibly proud of her. Go Bulldogs.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, if I might, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. This is probably his last time managing a bill, and I thank him for his dedication and diligence as ranking member. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this bill. I think it is one of the most unnecessarily divisive efforts in modern history. It has been rushed to the floor with no notice, no hearing, no markup, and certainly no opportunity to amend it. We are only here as an excuse for Democrats' last-minute rush to weaponize private taxpayer information against their opponents. Much of the oversight of the Presidential audit program Democrats claim to have been seeking could have been conducted without accessing or releasing anyone's confidential tax information. The Inspector General and the Joint Committee on Taxation could have provided an analysis of the start and completion dates of Presidential audits without Democrats obtaining or releasing confidential tax information. The JCT could have provided us an analysis of the efficacy of Presidential audits without Democrats obtaining or releasing the private tax returns. Instead, we are debating a bill which will never be considered in the Senate or become law, but solely to paper over the bad decision that Democrats made only two nights ago. Let's defeat this bill today and start over in January with a bipartisan effort to ensure the Presidential audit program is working as intended, making sure the President and his family are following the law, without rushing to cancel anyone's 6103 protections.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, today, I join Representative Mike Flood to honor the life and service of former Nebraska State Senator Pat Engel, whom we served alongside during our time in the Nebraska Legislature. Born in South Sioux City, Nebraska, Pat was a man of faith who applied his sharp mind to a life of service to his community and never stopped serving. After his early military career concluded with Active Duty as an Air Force intelligence officer stationed in Germany, he chose to return with his young family to South Sioux City. There, as a prolific volunteer, he earned a reputation for his good nature and compassion for others as he served on two local school boards, numerous volunteer organizations, and as Dakota County commissioner. In his 16 years in the legislature, Pat defined what it is to be a public servant. He was well liked. He had a special gift to work and connect with anyone, and I will always remember his cheerful way, even when issues were difficult. He was known for bringing people together. Pat and his wife, Dee, were married for almost 68 years and had five children. Family, community, and love for his home State meant the world to Pat. He will be missed.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Wenstrup for the time and thank both him and Dr. Davis for the work they have done to get this bipartisan bill to the floor. I rise in strong support of this 5-year reauthorization of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting program, which honors our late colleague and friend, Jackie Walorski. Jackie spent every day working in this body to improve the lives of families in Indiana and across the country, and enacting this bill, which enhances the ability of States and communities to help at-risk new parents care for and support their children, I think is a fitting tribute. I led the last MIECHV reauthorization 5 years ago when I chaired the Human Resources Subcommittee, and this bill actually enhances everything that MIECHV does right. It is a preventative program which keeps kids out of the child welfare system and saves money. It uses fact-based methods to ensure our support dollars are well spent. It asks States to provide matching funds, so they have some skin in the game when utilizing this funding, and it is paid for within our committee's jurisdiction without raising taxes. MIECHV is a model for how our safety net should work, and I strongly support this bill.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Bulk Infant Formula to Retail Shelves Act. I appreciate my colleague, Suzan DelBene, for working together to help lead this bipartisan effort to further address our Nation's ongoing infant formula shortage. It is very disappointing that the administration knew of this looming shortage for months, actually, before they developed a strategy. So here we are, 9 months into the crisis, and as yet, as of August, 30 percent of our Nation's baby formula was out of stock nationally for 6 weeks in a row. This is simply unacceptable. I am glad that we can work together to correct this. We must use every tool available to increase domestic manufacturing, including responsibly importing FDA-approved base powder used to manufacture formula when needed. The Bulk Infant Formula to Retail Shelves Act builds on the bipartisan work done in the Formula Act and supports domestic manufacturing by allowing formula base powder to be imported duty-free through the end of the year. I will continue to work with my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee to use trade tools to strengthen critical supply chains like infant formula. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity that we can work together to remove barriers to getting nutrition to especially young children. As a father of pretty young kids, I can appreciate the fact that it is pretty scary for families not being able to find formula when they previously could. I think that when we talk about supply chains, as was discussed as well, we have got a lot of work to do ahead of us, and that we can hopefully bring about more affordable results for the American people. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the first sponsor of H.R. 8137, a bill originally introduced by Representative Walorski of Indiana, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding me time. As Mr. Burgess pointed out, if we defeat the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to make in order my amendment to strike funding for IRS enforcement activities. The administration's own Treasury Department has said this funding would be used to hire 87,000 new IRS agents. This has been verified. These agents will be focused on targeting American families, small businesses, farmers, and ranchers with audits. Families and small businesses are struggling. That is no secret. Inflation is at 8.5 percent. Food and gas prices are at record highs. Despite this bill's name, reasonable economists agree it will do nearly nothing to actually reduce inflation, especially in the near term. Small business pessimism about costs and access to workers is at all- time highs, and audits would only compound this misery. Estimates put the starting cost to a small business being audited in the range of $10,000 to $75,000. Ridiculous. That is the last thing our small businesses need, the vast majority of whom follow the law. They are law-abiding individuals and law-abiding businesses. My amendment makes the following changes to the bill. It strikes the $45 billion for enforcement activities, which include legal and litigation support, digital asset monitoring, and enforcing criminal statutes. Those are audit activities. It strikes $25 billion for operation support, which includes rent payments, printing, postage, and other administrative activities to support the new auditors. It also strikes $104 million for the Office of Tax Policy at IRS, the office which creates new tax regulations. It strikes $153 million for the U.S. Tax Court, where cases related to these new audits would be heard, and it strikes $50 million for Treasury to implement these changes. Now, let me tell you what this amendment would not do. This amendment leaves in place $3.2 billion for taxpayer services to help address the backlog of nearly 20 million unprocessed returns. We agree this backlog is a serious problem, and taxpayers need better customer service. It leaves in place $4.8 billion for badly needed IRS systems modernization. According to the CBO, the bill would still reduce the deficit if we adopt this amendment while leaving every other provision of the package intact. Unless there are Senate Democrats who believe auditing families and small businesses is the single most important part of this bill, they should have no problem expeditiously passing it again. Because we would only make in order this one single amendment, if we defeat the previous question, it will only delay final passage of the bill by about 20 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I have many serious concerns about this bill that the rule makes in order, which I will discuss later. I find it particularly troubling the Democrats think auditing thousands of more American families and small businesses is the solution to inflation. Let's defeat the previous question and help assure law-abiding Americans that the IRS isn't going to show up at their doors.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, in this exchange here, the claims being made that this bill will just do so many wonderful things for our country and that they are holding harmless folks making less than $400,000. The CBO just reported that at least $20 billion in savings from this bill will come from families making less than $400,000 a year, hardly what has been stated by the folks advocating for this bill. We know that the facts point out that it is 87,000 new employees, including agents, over at the IRS, and these full-time equivalents would take place by 2031. I am not sure where those folks come from, necessarily. I know it has been stated that this would fill vacancies or answer retirements for the next few years. But why do we need new money for that? That should already be budgeted. Certainly, these agents at the IRS have law enforcement authority. They have badges that let them walk around the magnetometers at the airports. Certainly, I would assume they are armed, as well.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates 78 to 90 percent of new revenue from unreported income will come from folks earning less than $200,000 per year. I think we need to be very cautious as we move forward and grow an agency that even President Clinton pushed back on when he was President, realizing that the agency was harassing the American people.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear that if Secretary Yellen were accurate when she said that inflation was transitory, we would have no reason to be here right now. Obviously, she has backed off those comments based on realities, and that is what we need to focus on. Now, the realities and the facts are not what some hopes might be for some legislation on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record documents from the CBO, the JCT, the GAO, and the Department of the Treasury. CBO has received a number of questions regarding our estimate of an amendment offered by Senator Crapo during the floor debate on H.R. 5376 last weekend. That amendment, #5404, would limit the use of additional funds for the Internal Revenue Service. If the amendment had been adopted none of the additional funds could have been used to audit taxpayers with taxable incomes below $400,000. CBO did not complete a formal cost estimate in advance of consideration of the amendment but the agency did provide the following information to the Senate Budget Committee: CBO estimates that the amendment 5404 would have the following effects: No effect on outlays in the one or ten year budget windows; would reduce outlays in the five year budget window. No effect on revenues in the one year budget window; would reduce the ``non-scorable'' revenues resulting from the provisions of section 10301 in the five and ten year budget windows. No effect on outlays after 2031 but would decrease the ``non-scorable'' revenue resulting from the provisions of section 10301 after 2031. CBO has not completed a point estimate of this amendment but the preliminary assessment indicates that amendment 5404 would reduce the ``non-scorable'' revenues resulting from the provisions of section 10301 by at least $20 billion over the FY2022-FY2031 period. Thanks, Leigh Angres, Director of Legislative Affairs, Congressional Budget Office.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this legislation. When I recently visited with a manufacturer in my district whose products are highly dependent on access to chips, they told me that chips only comprise 5 percent of their supply chain challenges. Chips are one of 10 sectors where China is seeking to break American dominance. This bill does not address our issues with China. It certainly doesn't address the other nine issues where China is also seeking to break American dominance. For the same cost of these chips provisions, we could enact better R&D policy, ensure interest expensing, and bring IP back to the U.S. Broad-based policies would help all sectors of our economy. I am as disappointed by what is not in this bill as I am disappointed with what is in it. I am disappointed this bill doesn't include reauthorizations of noncontroversial trade policies which waive tariffs on manufacturing inputs for our domestic manufacturers and ensure fair treatment of U.S. products when we export them to developing countries. Renewing these longstanding policies would help address our supply chain crisis, yet House Democrats refuse to bring reasonable reauthorizations to the floor. This bill falls short. It is the wrong bill at the wrong time, and I will be voting ``no.'' I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks).

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will be brief in my remarks here. I know that you have heard several concerns expressed about this entire process, and I would certainly share those concerns. I do think that this is a great opportunity to address a bipartisan issue that is important across America. But it appears this bill was negotiated quickly, in secret, and outside the committees of jurisdiction. Neither outside stakeholders nor Members who have worked extensively on telehealth policy were consulted, as far as I can tell, and the closed rule under which this is being considered has precluded any opportunity to improve or amend the bill. An issue this important deserves an open and transparent process that follows regular order, allowing Members to offer input and highlight important needs which might otherwise have been overlooked. We call this legislating. If we had worked together on the Ways and Means Committee with our Energy and Commerce friends and had included the various ideas and innovations, this would have been a true and real bipartisan bill. I am confident that the telehealth extension we are considering today would be even better, as has been mentioned by my colleagues. In fact, back in May, I introduced a bipartisan bill almost identical to this one called the Connecting Rural Telehealth to the Future Act. That bill extended all the provisions included in the FY22 omnibus through at least 2024 and also included provisions to ensure critical access hospitals can continue to provide telehealth services to their patients. It also corrects a flaw in the CARES Act which shortchanges federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics which offer telehealth services. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record two letters from the National Rural Health Association and the National Association of Rural Health Clinics expressing their support for both the aims of H.R. 4040 as well as the need to extend critical rural health provisions from the Connecting Rural Telehealth to the Future bill. National Rural Health Association, July 26, 2022. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Minority Leader, House of Representatives. Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader McCarthy: The National Rural Health Association (NRHA) applauds the House of Representatives for prioritizing telehealth flexibilities by scheduling a vote on H.R. 4040, the Advancing Telehealth Beyond COVID-19 Act of 2022. This legislation will extend important telehealth flexibilities enacted in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, and extended for 151 days post-public health emergency in the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA), 2022, until December 31, 2024. NRHA supports the extension of telehealth flexibilities to show providers that telehealth is here to stay but urges rural friendly tweaks to the legislation. NRHA is a non-profit membership organization with more than 21,000 members nationwide that provides leadership on rural health issues. Our membership includes every component of rural America's health care, including rural community hospitals, critical access hospitals, doctors, nurses, and patients. We provide leadership on rural health issues through advocacy, communications, education, and research. As the text is currently written, H.R. 4040 includes the extension of distant-site status for Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) and Rural Health Clinics (RHC) at their current reimbursement level. While continuation of this flexibility is necessary, the reimbursement level for virtual services is significantly lower than in-person services under current statute. Should reimbursement remain as it is currently written, by 2028 there will be nearly a $100 discrepancy between services provided in-person and virtually at RHCs. NRHA believes this will cause rural communities to utilize these important services less often than their urban and suburban counterparts moving forward and will cause harm to an already fragile rural safety net. To remedy this discrepancy, NRHA urges this text be amended to incorporate reimbursement updates as reflected in Section 9 of H.R. 7876, the Connecting Rural Telehealth into the Future Act, introduced by Representatives Adrian Smith (R-NE) and Terri Sewell (D-AL). Incorporating this legislative text will bring payment parity between in-person and virtual care at RHCs and FQHCs and ensure that rural communities have access to the same health care delivery methods as their urban and suburban counterparts. NRHA applauds the House of Representatives for acting on telehealth to show providers long-term stability. However, to ensure that rural providers, and their patients, can properly utilize these services tweaks are needed. Sincerely, Alan Morgan, Chief Executive Officer.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, these organizations fully understand the vital role that rural health clinics and FQHCs and critical access hospitals play in ensuring access to care for those in rural and underserved areas. Even with the passage of this bill, the future of telehealth after the government-designated public health emergency is uncertain. More work needs to be done to assess what has worked well over the last 2 years, what can be improved, and what can safely be left behind. While I do encourage Members to vote ``yes'' on this bill, I hope in the future we can work in a true bipartisan fashion under regular order to address the gaps that we know exist in policy and set a long-term, sustainable course for telehealth well beyond 2024. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Hern), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell).

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Steel).

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte).

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I think we have had a good discussion here today. I think we have laid out that we are acting in good faith, supporting an issue, moving it forward, but also posing the scenario that there are so many other things we can do to address the very matter that we are taking up here today. The surrounding details about how this bill came up and everything, I think it is problematic for the institution. But the fact of the matter is, we have an issue here that we need to address. I hope that we can work to continue to make it permanent in the future so that we can encourage investment, as was outlined previously, and encourage bending of the cost curve, ultimately, on healthcare, which is lacking at this point in time. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill, and I urge a different kind of cooperation moving forward. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.