Jason Smith

Mr. SMITH of Missouri

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack), my good friend.

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), my good friend.

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the great gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Guest).

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the chairman of the Budget Committee that--maybe his staff has not presented it to him--the Congressional Budget Office this morning--this morning--confirmed that people making less than $400,000 a year will face more audits. You keep saying: Let the facts be real, no scare tactics. The facts from the Congressional Budget Office are that, in fact, your legislation is increasing more audits on people who make less than $400,000 a year. I put it in the Record. You can read it there. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the great gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Pennsylvania an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker), who is a great leader on the Budget Committee.

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that by doubling the size of the IRS, working people in America, 85,000 more families in the State of Texas, will face additional audits--these are families who make less than $200,000--because of doubling of the IRS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde), who definitely has experience with the IRS.

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the great State of Iowa (Mrs. Hinson).

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Feenstra).

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The solution to the inflation crisis that the Democrats have set forward is to spend hundreds of billions of more dollars and to tax all hardworking Americans once again. You cannot spend your way out of inflation, and you cannot tax your way out of recession. But that is the recipe that the one-party, Democrat rule in Washington, D.C., has suggested for the hardworking Americans who are barely surviving to put food on their table, clothes on their backs, and gasoline in their cars. I will point out to the chairman that his President's budget outlined an additional $80 billion for the IRS. Highlighted in that budget he wanted 87,000 IRS agents. That is where the number is coming from, from your President, who provided a budget. I know in the Budget Committee, we have never had a hearing on budget for the last 3\1/2\ years. That is probably why you didn't know 87,000 auditors were in the President's budget. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record analysis from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, which confirms that the bill increases taxes by $10.6 billion on individuals making under $200,000 in 2023 and increases taxes by $32.6 billion across all incomes.

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the good gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I will take a moment to recognize our colleague, Jackie Walorski. We come back to the Capitol with very heavy hearts. Just over a week ago, we lost Jackie and two of her staffers, Emma Thomson and Zachery Potts, while they were in their public service. I was lucky enough to serve with Jackie on the Ways and Means Committee and worked with her numerous hours. I know that the Ways and Means Committee will miss her dearly. The people of this body will miss her dearly. I know that the people of Indiana will miss her very dearly. Mr. Speaker, I will say that Jackie was one of the hardest working public servants that I have ever met, and when she gave you her word, it was written and carved in stone. For that, she will always be in our hearts. Mr. Speaker, as we turn to the legislation before us today, this week, we found out inflation remains at a 40-year high, having risen 13.7 percent since Biden became President. Real wages have decreased by 4.5 percent. Americans are suffering. Are we here debating how to alleviate that suffering? No. We are debating what Democrats call the Inflation Reduction Act, which everyone from the Congressional Budget Office to 230 different economists--even Senator Bernie Sanders--says will not actually reduce inflation. When you strip away the fake sunset policies, this bill spends $745 billion and adds $146 billion to our debt. It adds $54 billion worth of debt just in the first 5 years, and 80 percent of their ``budget deficits'' don't even begin until after the year 2029. So lots of spending up front, lots of debt up front, and then maybe savings 8 years from now. How is that going to put out the fire of inflation when the price of groceries is up 13.1 percent over the past year? Senators Manchin and Schumer, Secretary Yellen, and former President Obama are all on record saying you don't raise taxes during a recession. But that is exactly what this bill does. It includes $599 billion in new taxes and budget gimmicks. Half of the tax burden falls on taxpayers making less than $400,000 a year. The choice this bill puts in front of families making less than $200,000 is clear. Put the government at the center of your healthcare decisions or face a $10 billion tax burden. But it gets worse. This bill doubles the size of the IRS. It doubles the size of the IRS, so it can target and audit more middle-class families and snoop into their bank accounts. I am not sure how subjecting Americans to more audits solves the inflation crisis. Mr. Speaker, in my home State of Missouri, this bill would quadruple the number of audits, 18,000 more audits on hardworking Americans who make less than $200,000 a year. Of course, that is not the only point of this bill. This is about Democrats' Green New Deal agenda. My colleagues on the other side will come down here today not to talk about inflation, not to talk about gas prices but to instead talk about the hundreds of billions of dollars that is being spent on radical environmental projects. And you know what, they will be exactly right. Half of the spending--over $400 billion--goes to things like: $3.4 billion for tree equity. Tree equity, that surely is going to bring down gas prices; $7.5 billion for new luxury electric vehicles in tax credits for families who make up to $300,000 a year. That should definitely curtail inflation; $27 billion for a national climate bank slush fund at the EPA. That should definitely help our supply chain crisis; A $362 million handout to corporate America to make their office buildings much greener. That will definitely help secure our southern border. Mr. Speaker, Democrats believe they can spend their way out of inflation and tax their way out of a recession. It will only make the suffering Americans face today that much worse. This bill is simple. It is welfare for the wealthy environmentalists and big corporations, paid for by increased taxes and audits on middle- and low-income taxpayers. These hardworking Americans are the ones that have been forgotten under the one-party Democrat rule in Washington. The Washington and wealthy elites win again. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which confirmed that this bill will raise the cost of new prescription drugs for all Americans. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, August 4, 2022. Re Additional Information About Prescription Drug Legislation. Hon. Jason Smith, Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman: This letter provides additional information that you and your colleagues requested about subtitle I of the reconciliation recommendations of the Senate Committee on Finance regarding prescription drug legislation. You asked about how provisions involving inflation rebates and the negotiation of drug prices would affect launch prices for new drugs and the introduction of new generic drugs. You also asked how a provision to stabilize premiums as a part of the redesign of Medicare's benefits would affect the federal budget and premiums. Effect of the Inflation-Rebate and Negotiation Provisions on Launch Prices The Congressional Budget Office projects that the inflation-rebate and negotiation provisions would increase the launch prices for drugs that are not yet on the market relative to what such prices would be otherwise. That effect would primarily be driven by the inflation-rebate provisions (sections 129101 and 129102), which would begin to apply to prices within 12 months of a given drug's entering the market. Under those provisions, manufacturers would have an incentive to launch new drugs at a higher price to offset slower growth in prices over time. The negotiation provision (section 129001) would have less of an impact on launch prices, CBO expects: Although the ceiling for a drug's negotiated price is based on its price from a prior year, negotiation could not occur until drugs were on the market for a number of years--at least 7 for small-molecule drugs and 11 for biologics. Higher launch prices would primarily affect spending for drugs in the Medicaid program, CBO projects, because an increase in that program's basic rebate brought about by the higher launch prices would only partly offset those prices. Higher launch prices would also tend to affect spending for drugs covered by Part B of the Medicare program because that program's payments for those drugs are based on the average sales prices. Over time, slower price growth would attenuate the effect of higher launch prices. In the commercial and Medicare Part D segments of the market, spending would be less affected by higher launch prices, CBO estimates, because manufacturers would have more flexibility to manage rebates to maximize their revenues in those sectors. Effect of the Negotiation Provision on the Introduction of New Generic Drugs CBO has not analyzed the effects of the negotiation provision on the introduction of new generic drugs. In projecting the effects of the negotiation provision, CBO estimated the share of spending that would be subject to negotiation each year and the average reduction in prices that would stem from the negotiations. But the agency did not analyze how the provision would affect prices or spending on specific drugs, nor did it quantify any impact on the introduction of new generic drugs. Effects of the Premium-Stabilization Provision Under the premium-stabilization provision (section 129201), the federal government would subsidize any growth in beneficiaries' base premiums for Medicare Part D exceeding 6 percent from one year to the next over the 2024-2029 period. The provision subsequently would lower the base premium percentage (the percentage of the average cost of standard Part D coverage that is used to calculate beneficiaries' premiums) to ensure that premiums did not grow by more than 6 percent between 2029 and 2030. That subsidy and subsequent reduction in premiums would increase federal spending by roughly $40 billion over the 2024-2031 period, CBO estimates. Beneficiaries' spending on premiums would be lower under the premium-stabilization provision than it would be without it. That estimate is an average effect among the possible paths of premiums that CBO considered when modeling the uncertainty of future outcomes. Under some of those paths, premiums would grow by less than 6 percent a year, and the provision would have no cost; under others, premiums would grow faster, and the provision would generate costs. I hope this information is useful to you and your colleagues. Please contact me if you have further questions. Sincerely, Phillip L. Swagel, Director.

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record notice from the Congressional Budget Office that we received just this morning, as a matter of fact. Yes, the bill in front of us and the numbers it claims does include additional audits on individuals making less than $400,000 a year. 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 Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Colorado.