[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 138 (Tuesday, September 13, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H5380-H5386]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HALT TAX INCREASES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS AND SENIORS ACT
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 858, I
call up the bill (H.R. 3590) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to repeal the increase in the income threshold used in determining the
deduction for medical care, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 858, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Ways and Means, printed in the bill, is adopted, and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 3590
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Halt Tax Increases on the
Middle Class and Seniors Act''.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF INCREASE IN INCOME THRESHOLD FOR
DETERMINING MEDICAL CARE DEDUCTION.
(a) In General.--Section 213(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``10 percent'' and
inserting ``7.5 percent''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 213 of such Code is amended by striking
subsection (f).
(2) Section 56(b)(1)(B) of such Code is amended by striking
``without regard to subsection (f) of such section'' and
inserting ``by substituting `10 percent' for `7.5 percent'
''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2015.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking
minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
General Leave
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3590, currently
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Over the last few months, the American people have witnessed one
ObamaCare failure after another. Major insurers are fleeing the
exchanges, healthcare premiums are continuing to just skyrocket, and
only 7 of ObamaCare's 23 public option co-ops remain. After New
Jersey's announcement yesterday that it will close its co-op, we will
be down to merely 6 at the end of the year. That means nearly three-
quarters of a million Americans have been or will soon be kicked off
their current healthcare insurance.
[[Page H5381]]
Every week, the news about this law gets worse. That is why House
Republicans are taking action right now to protect seniors across our
country from another looming negative consequence of the President's
healthcare law. I am honored today to speak in support of Congresswoman
Martha McSally's Halt Tax Increases on the Middle Class and Seniors
Act.
Before the Affordable Care Act, Americans could find some relief in
their ability to deduct high-cost, out-of-pocket medical expenses from
their taxes, but this important source of relief is about to get
further out of reach for seniors, thanks to ObamaCare.
For Americans under 65 years of age, a provision of the Affordable
Care Act has already raised the previous 7.5 percent income threshold
up to 10 percent. Starting January 1, just 3 months from now, the
provision will go into effect for America's seniors and elderly as
well.
In fact, the American Association of Retired Persons--or AARP, as
many know them--in their letter endorsing this legislation stated that
``56 percent of all returns claiming the deduction had at least one
member of the household age 65 or older.'' In other words, this is
hitting seniors in retirement years, where every dollar matters.
This ObamaCare provision is a tax hike, plain and simple. It makes
paying for care even more difficult for individuals, families, and
seniors who may already be struggling to afford the care they need.
Mr. Speaker, this law gets more unaffordable and burdensome every
day, and it is the middle class and seniors who are being hurt most.
With the Halt Tax Increases on the Middle Class and Seniors Act, we can
repeal this provision and stop another painful ObamaCare tax hike in
its tracks.
I am grateful for Representative McSally's leadership on this
important, bipartisan legislation. I would note that, as AARP said,
more than half of those impacted are seniors. Nearly half are the
middle class. They make between $40,000 and $70,000 a year. Every
dollar in their family budget matters as well.
This solution, this targeted ObamaCare repeal, is another example of
how House Republicans are delivering the patient-focused solutions
Americans deserve. Most importantly, this repeal takes meaningful steps
to make health care more affordable and accessible for the American
people.
I am proud of the leadership of Congresswoman McSally on behalf of
our seniors and our middle class.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous
consent that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi), the chairman of the
Health Subcommittee, be permitted to control the remainder of the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is going nowhere, but there are lessons to be
learned from it being voted on today. It is an exercise Republicans
hope will help them politically, and yet another one of their attempts
to undermine the Affordable Care Act.
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this bill would
increase the deficit by nearly $33 billion over the next 10 years. This
bill does not include any offsets to address this cost. This is a vivid
contradiction of worn-out Republican rhetoric claiming time and time
again to be concerned about the deficit of this country.
Earlier this year, the President requested $1.9 billion to address
the growing threat of the Zika virus in this country. Republicans
ignored this request, disregarded our Nation's top public health
officials, and, instead, combined lower funding levels with poison pill
policy riders.
Nearly 12,000 Americans, including nearly 1,400 pregnant women, have
confirmed cases of Zika in this country. The Centers for Disease
Control and prevention has stated it is running out of resources to
fight the virus. So far, no action.
Zika is an emergency. The Republicans say, Pay for it. Oh, but not a
dime for this $35 billion tax cut. How can we afford to provide for an
enormous tax cut, like the one before us today, but we can't afford to
spend just one-fifteenth of that amount to protect Americans from a
devastating disease impacting families and children?
The opioid epidemic. We passed some important legislation to address
it, but no money, no action to make sure that it would really be
meaningful. But today, we can pass an unpaid-for tax cut of $35
billion?
Flint, Michigan. Thousands of kids were poisoned. Drinking water
still cannot be consumed, and water can't be otherwise used in Flint--
but no action today. No action, but we can pass this $35 billion bill,
unpaid for?
Let's be clear about the ACA, which, once again, the Republicans are
trying to repeal, in part. The ACA was fully paid for--fully. And since
the ACA passed 6 years ago, the majority has failed to offer any
meaningful alternative to the ACA to reduce the ranks of the uninsured
and provide affordable coverage to American families. Their response
has been ``nada,'' in terms of anything meaningful.
According to the JCT data, approximately two-thirds of the tax
benefits from H.R. 3590 will accrue to taxpayers earning $100,000 and
more over the next 10 years.
In 2013, only 6.1 percent of all returns claimed the medical expense
deduction, and only 11 percent of seniors did so. We know that the
higher a household's income, the more likely it is to itemize
deductions. So low-income seniors would receive little or no benefit
from this bill since much of their income comes from Social Security.
For these reasons, the administration has issued a Statement of
Administration Policy. I want to read it because it underlines how, as
I said at the beginning, the Republicans here, once again, are going
through the motions. This isn't going to become law, but it says
something important: don't pay for, be reckless, claim you care, and
also take another step to undo ACA.
I quote from the Statement of Administration Policy:
``The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 3590. It
would repeal a provision of the Affordable Care Act that limits a
regressive, poorly targeted tax break for health care spending. This
repeal would disproportionately benefit high-income Americans, while
increasing national health care spending. Additionally, it would
increase the Federal deficit by $32.7 billion over ten years, according
to the Congressional Budget Office.
``The Administration is always willing to work with the Congress on
fiscally responsible ways to further improve health care affordability
and the Affordable Care Act. The President's Budget offers a number of
proposals to do so. However, H.R. 3590 would be a step in the wrong
direction because it would increase health care spending and increase
the Federal deficit, while doing little to improve the affordability of
health care for middle-class families.
``If the President were presented with H.R. 3590, his senior advisors
would recommend that he veto the bill.''
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1545
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H.R. 3590, the Halt Tax Increases on the Middle Class and Seniors
Act, is a commonsense bill that repeals an onerous tax on 3.8 million
households in America; 3.8 million households in America in 2016 alone.
We should encourage patients to seek the care they need, not to
create more burdens and restrict access to medical care, as this
ObamaCare tax does.
Now, if Americans out there watching listened to the previous speaker
say things like ``politically motivated bill,'' ``undermine Affordable
Care Act,'' ``a contradiction,'' here is the contradiction. This bill
was introduced over a year ago by Congresswoman Martha McSally from
Arizona, but this isn't the first time this bill has been introduced.
It was introduced in the last session of Congress by a gentleman whose
name is Ron Barber, a former Congressman from Arizona and a Democrat.
How interesting. What a contradiction that is.
So, this so-called politically motivated bill, according to AARP--
this is AARP saying this, which supports the legislation--56 percent of
all returns claiming this deduction had at least one member of their
household age 65 years or older. My mom and dad, over
[[Page H5382]]
65, on a fixed income. But, yet, some are opposed to this bill.
Let me tell you who is for it. AARP, Americans for Prosperity,
National Taxpayers Union, Americans for Tax Reform, 60 Plus,
Association of Mature American Citizens, Campaign for Liberty, Small
Business & Entrepreneurial Council.
Mr. Speaker, I am a proud cosponsor of this bill, and I would like to
thank Congresswoman Martha McSally from Arizona for her passion for
this legislation, her tireless work for this legislation, testifying
before the Ways and Means subcommittee on this legislation, and trying
to help those 3.8 million households in America, many low-income and
middle-income households in America, and bringing this important issue
to light today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms.
McSally).
Ms. McSALLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Tiberi as well as Chairman
Brady. I truly appreciate their willingness to work with me on this
legislation that will peel back this lesser-known tax increase buried
in the Affordable Care Act that is already hurting middle class
families and will begin to hurt seniors early next year.
H.R. 3590, the Halt Tax Increases on the Middle Class and Seniors
Act, is a bill I introduced earlier in this Congress, and it will
protect seniors from this tax hike and it will roll it back for middle
class families.
With the costs of health care rising and becoming significantly
harder for families and seniors to find, this legislation is necessary
to provide relief to Americans with expensive medical bills. Since
2005, healthcare costs have steadily risen faster than inflation in
every year except one.
Additionally, the trend towards rising health insurance deductibles
and premiums are leaving people exposed to increased out-of-pocket
costs. We should be working to reduce this burden, not making it worse;
but that is not what this hidden tax hike in the Affordable Care Act
would do.
Currently, the IRS allows Americans with high healthcare costs to
deduct certain out-of-pocket expenses from their taxes. Prior to 2013,
individuals could deduct out-of-pocket costs that exceed 7.5 percent of
one's adjusted gross income, or AGI. The Affordable Care Act changed
this for Americans under the age of 65 already by moving that threshold
to 10 percent, effectively raising taxes on middle class Americans.
To make matters worse, that same tax increase is scheduled to hit
Americans 65 and older starting January 1, 2017. This is particularly
concerning to me because, according to the Census Bureau's 2014
American Community Survey, approximately 140,000 individuals, roughly
one-fifth of my constituents, are over the age of 65.
Though it has not received much attention, the medical expense
deduction means a great deal to some of the most vulnerable Americans.
According to recent data from the IRS, more than 8 million people use
this deduction, with more than 80 percent earning less than $100,000 a
year and 49 percent earning less than $50,000 a year. This deduction is
extremely important for low-and middle-income Americans who have
already spent thousands in out-of-pocket costs and cannot afford
another shock to their wallets and pocketbooks.
The same goes for seniors, many who already live on fixed incomes and
struggle to make ends meet. According to the AARP, seniors make up 56
percent of all claimants of the medical expense deduction. If the
threshold is raised, many seniors who have saved for their whole lives
and have carefully planned for retirement will suddenly be faced with
hundreds of dollars in extra taxes on top of the out-of-pocket medical
costs they already pay.
That is why I introduced this bill. It is a bipartisan bill to stop
this tax increase for seniors and roll it back for those under 65.
The impetus for this legislation came from one of my constituents in
Green Valley, Arizona. His name is Loren Thorsen. Tragically, Loren
passed away earlier this year, but he knew the importance of raising
awareness of this tax hike and he was committed and passionate to doing
what he could do to stop it. I am honored to be standing here today in
order to advance this effort, Loren's effort, one step further.
In closing, I want to thank the 17 cosponsors, including Chairman
Tiberi, Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins, Congressman Bob Dold, and
Congressman Jason Smith, all members of the Ways and Means Committee,
as well as my colleague, the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Sinema).
I would also like to thank the various supporting groups, including
the AARP, Americans for Prosperity, 60 Plus, Americans for Tax Reform,
the Association of Mature American Citizens, and the National Taxpayers
Union.
I would urge all Members to join me in supporting this bill in order
to ensure we protect the American people from another harmful
healthcare tax increase that they simply cannot afford.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of our committee.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy
for permitting me to add my voice to this discussion. I think we are
all deeply concerned about impacts that we have on our constituents,
whether it is in terms of tax, expenses in terms of health care, or
challenges in their day-to-day life.
What is deeply concerning to me is an inability for us to step back
and look at these things in a broader context to be able to prioritize
and deal with these items in a way that actually provides some sense of
balance.
Now, I will be the first to admit that I had some reservations about
some of the funding elements that were part of the Affordable Care Act.
I would not have used exactly the same structure, but bear in mind that
the investment in the Affordable Care Act has provided significant
healthcare subsidies for millions of Americans, which my friend and
colleague, Congressman Levin, can go through in great detail. But what
we are looking at here are three problems.
One, if this bill were to move forward, it would invest $33 billion,
either added to the deficit or cutting other programs.
Now, I think it is important to bear in mind that this Congress has
been tied in knots, unable to come up with a billion or two to deal
with the Zika crisis, the infections that are taking place, the
potential of an epidemic starting in places like Florida and Puerto
Rico, but putting people at risk around the country. This is an
immediate healthcare crisis.
Congress is paralyzed, and we can't come up with a billion or two,
let alone $33 billion over the next 10 years. We have watched, on an
ongoing basis, people picking away at items of the Affordable Care Act,
which was developed as a comprehensive package that had things that
some people supported, some people were opposed, but collectively was
able to provide these benefits that resulted in having the lowest
uninsured rate in American history. We are watching people starting to
try and pick away at elements here that either add to the deficit or
undermine the integrity of the Affordable Care Act.
Now, one of the things that has been frustrating for me is that we
had a complete collapse of the legislative process. There were many
things that we could have done to refine and improve the Affordable
Care Act. Nobody would have designed the bill exactly like it went
through, but that is what happened when the Senate Republicans stopped
legislating, and we used the reconciliation package to take what we
had, enable it to go forward with the expectation over the course of
the last 6 years we would be working together to refine it, like we
have done with every single major piece of social legislation in our
history.
We work on it. None of these things are perfect. We refine it. We
look at the changes that can come forward and try to improve it for the
American people. That has not been what has happened in the 6 years
that my Republican friends have been in charge of the House of
Representatives.
I have deep affection and respect for my friend, Mr. Tiberi. We work
on lots of things together. One thing we haven't been able to work on
in 6 years is an opportunity to refine the Affordable Care Act, to be
able to work together cooperatively to build on it.
We have had an agenda. I lost track at 65 the number of times the
votes were to repeal it, not to be able to work together.
[[Page H5383]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. But to repeal it and to get rid of it, to try to
highlight--in fact, there were a number of votes that have taken place
to actually make it worse, to have a bigger impact on low- and
moderate-income families, have a bigger cliff for people who have
changes in their economic circumstances, to have a larger penalty
rather than smoothing, refining, and making it better.
We have an opportunity to be able to deal meaningfully with things
that will improve the health of the American people. If we don't agree
on the refinement of the Affordable Care Act--I am hoping that we might
have a more responsible and slightly better Congress next time, but
there are things we could do right now in areas of medical research. I
mentioned Zika.
We have opportunities to move forward. This takes off the top
something that has been in the legislation for some time that focuses
one element, but doesn't improve the quality of health care; that
doesn't deal with refining and strengthening the Affordable Care Act;
that doesn't deal with the crisis of Zika; doesn't beef up medical
research.
We have many priorities. We have many opportunities. The easiest
thing in the world to do is come in and try to cut taxes, add more
deductions, make changes, particularly if we are not going to pay for
those changes, if we are just going to add to the deficit greater
borrowing for the future.
This is cotton candy. This is not serious legislation. There are no
tradeoffs involved here. It is just making it out of whole cloth,
moving forward and letting somebody else bear the consequences. I don't
think that is what we should be doing. I do think there are people who
are serious about reducing the deficit. I think there are people who
are serious about improving health care for the American people. There
are people who are deadly serious about dealing with the Zika crisis.
There are things that we could be doing cooperatively to make things
better and focus on priorities. This bill is not that. This bill is
cotton candy, unpaid for; cut taxes and let the consequences fall to
somebody else.
I think we can do better. I hope we do better. I hope people get this
out of their system and make their point. I understand it. In a perfect
world, there are things that we would have done differently.
{time} 1600
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I have great affection for my colleague from
Oregon as well, but today we are making this piece of legislation, this
thing called the Affordable Care Act, better. In fact, JCT says that,
in 10 years, nearly 10 million households in America will be paying
this new tax--again, moderate- and low-income households. For those 10
million people, we are making it better.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Dold). He is from suburban Chicago, a member of the Ways and Means
Committee, and has been active in supporting this legislation and
helping get it passed out of committee.
Mr. DOLD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for yielding the
time. I also want to join him in saying to my colleague and good friend
from Oregon that I welcome the opportunity to try to dive in to the
Affordable Care Act to make it better, and I look at the legislation
that is in front of us as a step to be able to do some of those things.
Now, again, this is just one step, so I don't believe that it is
cotton candy because, as we look at premiums that are going right
through the roof, deductibles that have gone sky high, hardworking
American taxpayers are looking and saying: What is going on?
Mr. Speaker, the debate today, which I am pleased to join, about H.R.
3590, the Halt Tax Increases on the Middle Class and Seniors Act, is a
commonsense piece of legislation and a bipartisan piece of legislation
that actually is talking about rolling back a tax that was put into the
Affordable Care Act. What is interesting is that this tax, in essence,
enabled people to be able to deduct expenses that were over 7.5 percent
of their adjusted gross income. Think about that. That is a pretty
sizeable amount of resources.
So as of 2013, Mr. Speaker, the Affordable Care Act raised the floor
of this 7.5 percent to 10 percent. They raised it on individuals--
hardworking American taxpayers--that are out there that are trying to
get by and make ends meet to provide a better life for their family.
Currently, seniors age 65 and older still are able to deduct those
that are above 7.5 percent of the adjusted gross income. But that is
not going to be for very long because, beginning in 2017, they are also
going to lose that ability, and it is going to go up to 10 percent.
Here is why that seemingly very small change is a big problem.
Individuals, families, and seniors claiming this deduction are already
spending a large amount of resources of their personal income on
medical bills. Those who depend on this deduction most often have
complex, high-cost health conditions.
The bill in front of us today will fix the Affordable Care Act's
counterproductive tax increase that has already been imposed on
individuals and families, and it will protect seniors from facing the
same tax increase by permanently allowing everyone to deduct qualified
medical expenses above the pre-ACA level, the Affordable Care Act
level, of 7.5 percent.
This isn't cotton candy, I hope. I certainly hope this isn't cotton
candy, as my friend from Oregon said. This is a meaningful and, I do
believe, important piece of legislation as families all across our
country are looking at healthcare costs that are going through the
roof, and they are saying: Wait a second; can I please get some relief?
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 40 percent of those who
would receive immediate relief from this piece of legislation, from
this bill, make between $40,000 and $75,000 per year. This is not
millionaires and billionaires--$40,000 to $75,000 a year.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. DOLD. Additionally, according to the AARP, 56 percent of all tax
returns claiming this as an expense are seniors, have a senior in the
household making that claim. Fixing this counterproductive tax puts in
place, I believe, the right message that we want people to be able to
pay for their medical expenses.
Ultimately, what we are doing is we are seeing these costs continue
to rise. I know I am not the only Member of Congress that hears it from
their constituents. In talking to my colleagues, frankly, on both sides
of the aisle, I know they hear it. The costs are going up, premiums and
deductibles.
Ultimately, we want to provide good, quality coverage and health care
to families, hardworking taxpayers, and seniors all across our country.
This is a commonsense, bipartisan piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to step forward and support this
legislation.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Arizona (Ms. Sinema).
Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Levin for yielding, and
I thank Congresswoman McSally for working with me on introducing this
bipartisan legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3590, the Halt Tax
Increases on the Middle Class and Seniors Act.
As the cost of health care shifts onto households, Congress must act
to make sure that hardworking families can make ends meet. This bill
provides commonsense and needed relief for hardworking Arizona
families. It lowers the adjusted gross income threshold for claiming
the medical expense deduction back to 7.5 percent and prevents a
looming tax hike on Arizona seniors.
According to a 2014 CRS report, medical expenses are the second
largest deduction for taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes of under
$50,000. Middle-income families who itemize deductions are more likely
and more able to claim this deduction than high-income earners.
According to 2014 IRS data, 98 percent of those claiming this
deduction have incomes less than $200,000, and 84 percent claiming this
deduction make
[[Page H5384]]
less than $100,000 a year. More than half of those who claim this
deduction earn less than $55,000 a year. So if we talk dollars, 94
percent of the dollars that go back to hardworking families to cover
medical expenses went to filers who earn under $200,000 a year.
While the annual growth in healthcare spending has slowed to
historically low rates, the out-of-pocket costs for hardworking
families continue to rise. This legislation provides modest relief for
middle class families and seniors, and that is why it is strongly
supported by the AARP.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arizona for her
bipartisan work on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R.
3590.
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. Black), who is a leader on the Ways and Means Committee
on healthcare issues.
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Halt Tax Increases
on the Middle Class and Seniors Act, and I thank the sponsor, Ms.
McSally, for her work on this important legislation.
Under ObamaCare, more Americans have been pushed into high deductible
plans that force them to incur massive out-of-pocket costs before
insurance kicks in. Yet, just as Americans are shelling out more for
health costs, ObamaCare upped the amount of money you have to spend on
medical expenses in order to qualify for a tax deduction.
Seniors initially got a reprieve from this ObamaCare tax hike, but
that ends next year. This means that, on top of dealing with
ObamaCare's cuts to Medicare, the harmful medical device tax, and the
looming threat of the law's Independent Payment Advisory Board--or,
commonly called, IPAB--seniors will also be forced to adjust to a new
tax rule that hits them right in their pocketbook. This is yet another
example of how the President's healthcare law hurts the very people
that it pretends to help.
Mr. Speaker, I have always said that, until we can repeal and replace
ObamaCare altogether, we must act to ease the damage of this law
wherever possible. That is why I am supporting today's legislation.
This bill repeals the ObamaCare tax increase and reinstates the
previous threshold of medical expenses as a portion of income that
qualify for a tax deduction. It just makes sense that, if Americans are
already paying more for their health expenses, Washington shouldn't
pile on with a tax hike to make matters worse.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McCarthy), our majority leader.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his work in this House
and for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, many words have been said on this floor about ObamaCare,
about losing doctors and insurance, about losing jobs and hours at
work, and about premium increases and deductibles so high it makes
insurance nearly worthless.
Do you know what? It is all true. ObamaCare only makes worse two of
the biggest problems holding America back: jobs and cost of living. For
America to succeed, we need good-paying jobs for people to make ends
meet, and we need costs for services like health care to be low enough
so people can afford it.
I have spoken too many times, Mr. Speaker, on how ObamaCare is
hurting job growth and keeping people from full employment. I wish I
didn't have to keep talking about it, but as long as people continue to
be hurt by this law, they need a voice. With insurers dropping out of
the marketplace in droves, insurance premiums are going up, some by as
much as 50 percent more than the year before.
On top of that, before ObamaCare, the rule was that if you spent 7.5
percent of your income on medical expenses, you could start deducting
however much you paid above that from your taxes. The idea was that, if
you are really sick, the last thing you need is government making your
medical costs even more difficult.
Well, I am sure you will be surprised, but ObamaCare wasn't happy
with lowering your taxes, so they moved it up. President Obama and the
Democrats in this Congress that passed this terrible bill raised taxes
on the sickest people in America, those who spend the most on medical
expenses.
Now, I don't understand how they could accept this. I know they
didn't read the bill before they passed it, but now they can try to do
something about it. They can make one thing right. Martha McSally's
bill today, part of the House's Better Way agenda, brings that
threshold back down to where it was before, 7.5 percent.
Now, it doesn't solve the problem, but at least it gives the American
people a break. Seniors and the middle class, those facing the highest
medical bills, will all finally get some relief.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I don't see how anyone in this body can be
against this. We all know ObamaCare is failing. We all know the
American people and our country can't afford this law. So let's pass
this bill and help those that need it the most.
Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany). Dr. Boustany is the Tax Policy Subcommittee
chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, but more importantly, an
expert on healthcare policy, due to his life's work as a physician.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Tiberi for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Halt Tax Increases on
the Middle Class and Seniors Act. This is a critical piece of
legislation that addresses one--just one--of many contradictory and
damaging provisions of ObamaCare.
ObamaCare was passed in 2009 in a very partisan way, and we have seen
steady increases in health insurance premium rates, double-digit
increases year upon year, as well as out-of-pocket deductible costs
that Americans must cover before their health insurance coverage even
kicks in. Now, we have to do something about this.
Unfortunately, many American families have had to forgo the ability
to deduct the majority of their total medical expenses since 2013 when
this ObamaCare provision took effect for those under age 65. Yet to
make matters worse, on January 1, 2017, America's cash-strapped seniors
will also be hit with this harmful provision.
Today, more than 56 percent of those claiming the medical expense
deduction are aged 65 or older. This is punitive. This is damaging. It
is destructive, and it is unacceptable.
{time} 1615
That is why I stand in support of Representative McSally's critical
piece of legislation, which will afford American families and seniors a
small measure of the financial relief they desperately need right now.
For people on a fixed income this is difficult. We should be doing
everything we can to help them and not hurt them and especially protect
them from the ravaging consequences of this horrible law that has
devastated and really wrecked our health care system.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill,
and I urge passage.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think we are fortunate that the majority leader spoke. It is very
clear from his remarks what this is all about, at least in good
measure, or I should say bad measure.
This is another effort to attack ACA, the healthcare reform bill. Let
me just mention the latest information we have about ACA that came out
in today's Census report. Prior to the ACA, there were nearly 50
million uninsured in the United States. That was disgraceful, and the
Republicans twiddled their thumbs while those uninsured remained
uninsured.
That number dropped to 29 million in 2015. The uninsured rate fell
sharply in 2015 from 10.4 percent to 9.1 percent. Four million fewer
Americans were uninsured in 2015 than in 2014--4 million--and it was
the fifth straight year the uninsured rate has fallen since health
reform's enactment in 2010.
[[Page H5385]]
The bill, in terms of this provision, has been in effect for
nonseniors for several years. It won't go into effect as to seniors
until next year. If there is a need to look at ACA, it can be done next
year. Why the rush here? It is because we are just a couple of months
away from an election.
I want to say one thing about the balance here in terms of this
provision. If you look at the information that we received from the
Joint Tax Committee on the distributional effect, here is what it would
look like in 2024. This bill would provide less than $100 million in
tax relief for those earning less than $40,000, while providing over
$2.7 billion in tax relief for those earning over $100,000. That shows
another real problem with this bill.
I want to close by just talking about the lack of any kind of
perspective, any kind of balance, and any real sensitivity.
Essentially, this House majority is saying this: pay-for money for
Zika, pay for it; pay-for money for the people of Flint; pay-for money
to carry out and implement opioid legislation. But don't pay for this
tax bill, don't pay for it--$33 billion.
All of this shows the bankruptcy of the House majority, bankrupt in
terms of sensitivity to an action for the overwhelming needs of the
people of this country, whether it is Zika, whether it is the opioid
epidemic, whether it is Flint, or other issues. And also in terms of
bankruptcy just spiraling this Nation towards more and more debt, a
party that once said it cared but, once again, just goes forth
recklessly.
I urge very much that we vote ``no'' on this. We are going through
the motions, but motions that are very ill-conceived and motions that
will be reckless if ever carried out. That will not happen because the
Senate will not act, and it will not happen because if the Senate ever
did, the President would veto and his veto would be sustained.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let's go through the latest of the ACA. I concur. More Americans have
insurance today. Many have it through Medicaid. In my State, we tried
to apply for a Medicaid waiver program that the administration denied.
In my district, there are people who have Medicaid today, but that
doesn't mean they have better health care.
In fact, you could have insurance, but not have access to your
doctor. You can have insurance, but not have access to the hospital
where your doctor practices. That is an increasing problem throughout
my district. You could have insurance, but the deductible is too high.
You could have insurance, but the premiums are going up.
In fact, the average proposed rate hike in the individual market is
24.3 percent. In the 17 States that have approved final rates for next
year, the average increase is 26 percent. You are paying more
oftentimes and getting less. That is an update that I haven't heard
from the other side. Paying for it. Picking away at it.
In December of 2015, just last year, this Congress voted in a
bipartisan way to delay the medical device tax, to delay the excise tax
on high cost employer health care plans, known as the Cadillac tax,
delay the tax on health insurance, none of it paid for, and, oh, by the
way, signed by President Barack Obama.
Ladies and gentlemen watching today--Bob and Betty Buckeye in Ohio--
this must be a surreal debate that you are listening to. Yes, this
Republican bill, sponsored by Martha McSally, was first introduced by a
Democrat last session of Congress, a Democrat from Arizona. But yet,
today, someone will make this partisan.
That is unfortunate to the 3.8 million households, Mr. Speaker, who
would be positively impacted by this bill if it became law this year,
or the 10 million households, most of whom are middle class and low-
income. That is why the AARP supports this bill.
This is about commonsense legislation. This is about helping regular
people. This is about fixing a problem within the Affordable Care Act,
which has been bipartisan until today, apparently.
With healthcare costs continuing to rise, Mr. Speaker, Congresswoman
Martha McSally takes a step in the right direction with this bill by
providing relief from ObamaCare taxes. Among all of the harmful
policies included in the President's health care law, this one is
really unsettling because it targets our sickest Americans and our
seniors.
The only way you benefit from this is if you have thousands of
dollars of out-of-pocket costs. We could strive to make it easier for
these people, most of whom are middle- and low-income, to afford their
complex and expensive care. But instead, the Affordable Care Act makes
it more difficult. This is easy. This shouldn't be partisan. This is
common sense.
Join me, Congresswoman McSally, and groups like the AARP in
supporting this commonsense legislation to help our most vulnerable.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 858, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
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 SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage of the bill will be followed by 5-minute votes
on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 5587 and the motion to
suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 729.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 261,
nays 147, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 502]
YEAS--261
Abraham
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bera
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Esty
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graham
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Kuster
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nolan
Norcross
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palmer
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
[[Page H5386]]
Westerman
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--147
Adams
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (FL)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Moore
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
O'Rourke
Pallone
Perlmutter
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Ribble
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--23
Brady (PA)
Cicilline
DesJarlais
Duckworth
Fincher
Guinta
Guthrie
Hinojosa
Israel
Johnson, Sam
Kirkpatrick
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Meeks
Meng
Palazzo
Payne
Pelosi
Reed
Rush
Schiff
Scott, David
Sewell (AL)
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1648
Messrs. SIRES and ELLISON changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. NOLAN 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.
____________________