[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12509-12513]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3590, HALT TAX INCREASES ON THE 
                      MIDDLE CLASS AND SENIORS ACT

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 858 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 858

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House 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. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways 
     and Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 858 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 3590, the Halt Tax Increases on the Middle Class 
and Seniors Act and the Restoring Access to Medication Act.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided among the 
majority and minority of the Committee on Ways and Means. As is 
standard with all legislation pertaining to the Tax Code, the Committee 
on Rules has made no further amendments in order. However, the rule 
affords the minority the customary motion to recommit.
  Under the rule, we will be considering a bill to prevent one of the 
most significant tax increases imposed on the American people by the 
Affordable Care Act. The bill advanced through regular order and was 
favorably reported out of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  H.R. 3590, the Halt Tax Increases on the Middle Class and Seniors 
Act, amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the increase in 
the income threshold used in determining the deduction for medical 
care. This increase was created by the Affordable Care Act and is 
another example of how the law is hurtful to average Americans. Our 
Nation's seniors should not bear the burden of paying for the 
Affordable Care Act.
  H.R. 3590 is commonsense policy that will provide relief to American 
families while promoting consumer-driven health care. Under current 
law, Americans aged 65 or older can deduct out-of-pocket medical 
expenses to the extent that such expenses exceed 7.5 percent of an 
individual's adjusted gross income. However, as part of the Affordable 
Care Act, this 7.5 percent threshold will increase to 10 percent 
January 1, 2017, for those age 65.
  H.R. 3590 would restore the pre-Affordable Care Act threshold of 7.5 
percent for all Americans and is a meaningful step toward easing the 
burden of rising medical expenses in communities across the country. 
This will provide broad-based tax relief to middle- and low-income 
families as they continue to struggle in difficult economic times.
  The administration raised the AGI threshold from 7.5 to 10 percent in 
order to help pay for the Affordable Care Act's price tag. The result 
of this policy is an almost $33 billion tax increase over the next 
decade that will be shouldered by the middle class and senior citizens.
  According to Americans for Tax Reform, over 10 million families used 
this tax provision in 2012 with an average of $8,500 in medical 
expenses claimed, and more than half the families that used that 
provision made less than $50,000 a year. This legislation permanently 
lowers the adjusted gross income threshold from 10 percent to 7.5 
percent for all taxpayers, regardless of their age.
  We are reminded daily of the shortcomings of the Affordable Care Act: 
the double-digit health insurance premium increases; less consumer 
choice as insurers abandon the exchanges; and increasingly narrow 
networks across the country. Due to the rising burden for families of 
out-of-pocket costs, the average deductible for an employer-sponsored 
health plan surged nearly 9 percent in 2015 to now more than $1,000. 
Beginning in 2017, the President's health law will increase the tax 
burden on our seniors, and this is a cost many will struggle to bear. 
This increase will have a disproportionate impact on seniors who are 
more likely to take advantage of this deduction.
  According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, the average 
senior spends over $4,888 a year on medical expenses, twice as much as 
the average non-elderly adult. Typically, seniors no longer have an 
increase in income, instead relying on their savings. Congress must 
take steps to strengthen our citizens' ability to save their hard-
earned dollars, not constrain it.
  What is most egregious about the timing of the tax increase hidden 
within the thousands of pages of the Affordable Care Act is the cynical 
nature of its placement.

                              {time}  1245

  When the Affordable Care Act passed in the middle of the night and 
people famously said they had to pass the bill in order for people to 
find out what was in it, they used the maneuver to pay for the high 
cost of the bill by making the so-called benefits of the legislation 
take place immediately and having the costs of the legislation, the 
egregious tax increases that everyone knew would be unpopular, not take 
effect until 7 years after the passage of the bill. But that day is now 
upon us. It is calendar year 2017.
  Those 7 years allowed for three election cycles to take place. 
Democrats in the House and Senate, and certainly the Democrat in the 
White House, knew that they could not withstand an election after the 
American people discovered all of the new taxes hidden in the 
Affordable Care Act, so they wrote the bill in a way that ensured that 
they could get through their reelections--especially the Presidential 
election in

[[Page 12510]]

2012--without having to defend significant tax increases.
  For Democrats in the House, it didn't work, and the American people 
rose up, and after the 2010 election, Republicans resumed the majority 
of the House less than a year after the Affordable Care Act's passage; 
but the President and Democratic Senators were able to avoid having to 
defend the tax increases that they supported since those increases had 
not gone into effect.
  Well, now the full cost, the full cost of these tax increases is 
about to bear down on American families, and when families across the 
country see how much more of their income is going to be taken out of 
their paychecks and given to bureaucrats in Washington, the anger will 
be as palpable this year as it was in 2010.
  As we have learned, a Washington-centered approach to delivering 
high-quality affordable health care cannot work. While we are committed 
to large-scale reform of the healthcare system, there are people who 
cannot wait, and that is why we are taking action now. H.R. 3590 is 
just one example of the work that our Conference is doing to promote 
Member-driven solutions in order to improve health care for our 
citizens and ensure that they have greater access to quality care at a 
truly affordable price. H.R. 3590 will add on to this progress and make 
certain that we protect Americans from the mounting costs of the 
Affordable Care Act and preserve one of the few tools that they have at 
their disposal to contain high medical expenses.
  H.R. 3590 will help the middle class and help seniors by preserving 
one tool to help soften the blow of rising healthcare costs. At this 
point in time, our citizens cannot withstand another chunk of their 
savings going into the Federal coffers in order to pay for a failed 
experiment that the administration has gone to astronomical lengths to 
prop up. In today's climate of ever-increasing healthcare costs, we 
must do whatever we can to provide relief to taxpayers and put in place 
reforms to promote a return to consumer-driven health care. This 
important legislation can help reverse the trend of Washington-
directed, one-size-fits-all healthcare policy. This bill is concrete 
proof of the actions that can be taken to return power to individuals.
  I encourage our colleagues to stand up for the middle class and 
senior citizens and support H.R. 3590.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for consideration of 
H.R. 3590, and to the bill.
  They say you can't have your cake and eat it too, but that is exactly 
what Republicans are trying to do with this bill. They are trying to 
keep the benefits of ObamaCare and repeal the costs of ObamaCare. They 
are saying we are going to continue subsidies for middle-income and 
lower-income people, every expense associated with ObamaCare, and yet 
we are going to reduce the funding. We are going to increase our 
deficit by over $30 billion.
  At a time when the deficit continues to add to our national debt, 
when many of us are calling for going the opposite direction, trying to 
balance our budget, I am a proud sponsor of a balanced budget 
amendment. Digging this $30 billion hole will make it even harder to 
balance the budget.
  If the Republicans are serious about cutting $30 billion in revenue, 
let's show where they are going to cut $30 billion in costs. Whether it 
is from the Affordable Care Act or whether it is other items, it is not 
intellectually honest to simply say we are going to cut money, but we 
are not going to tell you where it is coming from.
  This bill would add $33 billion to the deficit. And we all like tax 
cuts, Mr. Speaker. I mean, who wouldn't want to cut taxes for 
everybody? It is always a question of: How are you going to pay for it?
  The Republicans failed to pay for this $33 billion in that bill. In 
fact, by giving tax cuts today, they are making our next generation, 
our children, even more beholden to today's debt and the legacy of debt 
that they are leaving for the next generation.
  The revenue generated by this provision is an important part of 
trying to reduce our deficit and balance our budget. Removing that will 
simply create a hole of over $30 billion in a deficit that is already 
over $400 billion.
  H.R. 3590 would increase the deficit by establishing the itemized 
deduction threshold at 7.5 percent for all taxpayers. If Congress 
continues to roll back pay-fors on a law that costs money to implement, 
it is going to continue to increase our deficit. There have been a 
number of other measures that have been brought before this body that 
have also increased our deficit.
  At a time when numerous significant public health crises need to be 
addressed--the Zika virus, opioid addiction, the water in Flint--we are 
actually discussing a bill that increases the deficit by $33 billion 
and doesn't even deal with any of these crises, making it even harder 
to try to find the scarce resources that we have and divert them from 
existing operational programs or other revenue generators to address 
the Zika public health crisis, the opioid addition, or the Flint water 
crisis.
  While H.R. 3590 sets out nice tax cuts, it doesn't pay for them. The 
reality of this bill is that the higher a household's income, the more 
likely it is to get a tax cut. According to the congressional Joint 
Committee on Taxation, if H.R. 3590 were to become law, taxpayers with 
over $100,000 of income would receive two-thirds of this tax cut at the 
expense of their own children, who would then be forced to inherit a 
nation even deeper in debt.
  When you spend money you don't have, that is a future tax increase. 
So effectively what this bill does is it trades a tax cut today for a 
tax increase tomorrow. If you ask me, Mr. Speaker, this country has 
done too much of that already.
  It would be one thing if this tax cut were paid for. We could weigh 
the pros and the cons. We could weigh the costs and the benefits, a $32 
billion tax cut. I agree with what my colleague said. It would be a 
wonderful thing to do. It would be a wonderful way to help families 
afford health care and increase the deductibility level.
  But what's the tradeoff, Mr. Speaker? There are tradeoffs in this 
world. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Where are you going to 
cut $33 billion because this tax cut is so justified? Maybe there is a 
program we can agree to cut. I would probably support it today if we 
decreased defense spending by $33 billion over 10 years and that was 
the pay-for. I wouldn't have a problem with that. I would much rather 
give the money to middle class families than continue to spend more 
than the rest of the world combined on our military.
  And look how cavalier this body is about adding $33 billion to the 
deficit. All in a day's work, Mr. Speaker. Apparently, we are 
impeaching an IRS Commissioner and we are adding $33 billion to the 
deficit. We wonder why, when the American people look at this body, its 
approval rating is so low. Twelve percent is what I saw last. In 1 day, 
we are adding $33 billion to the deficit while not addressing critical 
issues with Zika and Flint.
  In Flint, for example, a year has gone by since a doctor first raised 
a red flag about the city's water supply, and we have not appropriated 
or replaced the corroded water pipes. There is still water being 
trucked in. While Flint families are continuing to rely on bottled 
water, on trucked in water, Congress is increasing the deficit even 
more.
  Or we can examine the abuse of prescription opioids, an epidemic that 
is sweeping this country. Now, we passed a lowest common denominator 
bill, a bill, of course, I supported. It has some good statistics and 
good coordination, but it doesn't substantively do anything to address 
the fact that opioids were involved in 28,647 tragic deaths last year 
alone, the most on record.
  In May, we heard Members from both sides of the aisle come to the 
floor and speak eloquently about how addiction is ravaging families 
back home, and I share those stories from Colorado. But

[[Page 12511]]

when the President submitted a proposal that would have provided $1.1 
billion in funding to actually address this epidemic, Congress did 
nothing. So here we are increasing the deficit by $33 billion, where, 
if we simply took $1 billion of that and addressed the opioid crisis, 
$1 billion of it and addressed Zika, then we could simply use the rest 
to reduce the deficit.
  We are happy to spend money we don't have. The Republicans are happy 
to spend money we don't have when it comes to tax cuts; but when it 
goes to public health, when it goes to lead in pipes, when it goes to 
reducing prescription drug abuse, there is no money for that. Instead, 
this body passed a package of bills with no funding.
  And then there is Zika. In the pantheon of public health emergencies, 
Zika is particularly pressing. Almost 19,000 Americans have already 
contracted Zika, including 1,800 pregnant women. The numbers are likely 
higher because we don't know all of the diagnoses in all of the cases, 
and four or five people only have mild symptoms and might not be 
diagnosed.
  In pregnancies, Zika, as we know, can be especially devastating and, 
I might add, costly to taxpayers for the lifetime of the child. A fetus 
is susceptible to severe cognitive impairments caused by the virus, 
including microcephaly. So far there are upwards of 20 cases of 
microcephaly in the U.S., and that number is set to increase with the 
prevalence of Zika, which only Congress can act to stem.
  The administration declares Zika to be a public health emergency in 
Puerto Rico, where one in four people are estimated to become infected 
over in the next year. Florida is grappling with an upsurge in cases, 
prompting the CDC to issue its first ever domestic travel warning 
within our own country to our own State of Florida.
  We need to learn more. The virus has been around for decades, but few 
comprehensive studies exist as it made the transition from Africa to 
South America. We know very little about the likelihood a fetus will 
contract Zika or what the factors are that affect that and the long-
term implications of exposure to the virus as an infant.
  This knowledge gap isn't for lack of qualified talented researchers. 
I was fortunate to visit the CDC's Division of Vector-Borne Diseases 
with Representative Buck just a few weeks ago to see firsthand the 
research they are doing into viruses such as Zika, but they need the 
ability and the resources to focus on this imminent public health 
crisis.
  At a CDC laboratory, the Division of Vector-Borne Diseases relies on 
Federal funding to produce cutting-edge science that saves lives. If 
this body were to approve the requested amount to fight Zika, it is 
likely we would know already a lot more about this scary virus.
  Relevant to my district is another recent and unprecedented outbreak 
of a mosquito-borne virus: West Nile. At 28 human cases, it is the 
highest incidence of the virus in the State. Cities such as Los 
Angeles, Dallas, and Phoenix are also being hit hard. That is also 
directly affected by the public health for vector-borne viruses.
  Funding will also be essential to reduce the building diagnostic 
backlog or develop a simpler method of testing. The testing process for 
Zika is cumbersome and costly. In places with local transmission like 
Florida and Puerto Rico, results have started to take upwards of a 
month to come back, leaving families in an ongoing chronic state of 
uncertainty and agony. Appropriating dollars to deal with this 
emergency is critical to develop a vaccine.
  With public health experts pleading for funding to combat Zika, 
President Obama sent Congress a $1.9 billion funding request to combat 
the virus on February 22. Well, now it is September 13, 204 days since 
the request, and thousands of victims later. While the Senate approved 
$1.1 billion to combat the virus, House leadership has not shown any 
appetite for this measure. In the meantime, agencies like Health and 
Human Services are desperately trying to transfer money from other 
accounts just to make ends meet.
  I am frustrated, Mr. Speaker, that here we are discussing a bill that 
adds $33 billion to our deficit that we don't have when we can least 
afford to do so, when we are not even talking about these much smaller 
ticket items that are urgent and that are emergencies. It is 
frustrating that this body continues to promulgate a double standard 
around offsetting the cost of legislation.
  Expenditures and revenues are two sides of the same coin. If you 
reduce revenues by $2 billion, it has the exact same impact on the 
deficit as increasing expenditures by $2 billion. They are the same 
thing. Yet here we are creating massive fiscally irresponsible holes in 
our deficit, moving further away from ever balancing it, when we are 
not even looking at these much smaller ticket items that are much more 
important and are critical emergencies. We are discussing a bill that 
adds $33 billion to our deficit.
  We continue to avoid dealing with Flint, with opioids, and with Zika, 
at a small fraction of the cost of this bill, Mr. Speaker. Just give us 
10 percent of the cost of this bill--$3 billion--and think of the 
progress we can make on Flint and opioids and Zika. Instead, we are 
spending $33 billion in tax expenditures to increase our deficit by 
over $33 billion. This isn't the way to balance the budget. This isn't 
the way to run a country.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that would allow those 
with outstanding student debt to refinance their existing high interest 
rates to lower interest rates. Mr. Speaker, every one of us has 
constituents who are struggling with student debt. This legislation 
gives us an opportunity to provide immediate relief.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I think what is frustrating in consideration 
of this deficit-busting, irresponsible, Republican tax-and-spend bill 
is a double standard. We have a bill before us that would increase the 
deficit by over $33 billion, yet we are not even allowed to consider 
these much smaller ticket items that are pressing national emergencies.
  Children in Flint still can't bathe or drink tap water because of 
toxic lead; families in New Hampshire are receiving little help for the 
opioid addictions ravaging their communities; pregnant women in south 
Florida are living in fear of the serious health consequences and birth 
defects related to Zika; and yet there is $33 billion for a tax cut for 
the wealthy.
  What piece am I missing here, Mr. Speaker? How is it that there is 
$33 billion for a tax expenditure, but there is not even $1 billion or 
$2 billion or $3 billion to address these pressing issues like Zika or 
lead or opioids?
  A dollar is a dollar. Whether you expend it as a decrease in revenue 
or an expenditure, it has the exact same economic impact. It increases 
our budget deficit, already over $400 billion; and here we have a bill 
that would increase it by over $30 billion.
  If we are going to move towards balancing the budget, Mr. Speaker, of 
course, we need to look at expenditures and we need to look at 
revenues. That is the only way you are ever going to get there. And it 
is the exact wrong direction to be decreasing net revenues without even 
talking about what expenditures you are going to cut.
  Again, it would be one thing if we knew what the tradeoffs were, if 
this bill had an offset for the $33 billion and we said: You know what? 
This is a worthy tax cut.
  The gentleman made a good case for it. Of course, we want to increase 
deductibility of healthcare expenses. I don't think there is a single 
person in this body who wouldn't want to do it.
  The question is: What is the tradeoff? Where is that $33 billion 
going to come from?
  And let's work together to find a way to pay for it. Right? I mean, 
let's look

[[Page 12512]]

at spending less on our military rather than spending more than the 
rest of the world combined.
  You know what? If we cut just $3 billion a year from our bloated 
military budget, we could fully pay for this tax cut. Sign me up, Mr. 
Speaker. That would be paid for, and I would support it.
  There might be other areas that we could find to work together to pay 
for this tax cut, but when you are asking us, Mr. Speaker, to say: You 
know what? I want to pay for this tax cut by mortgaging your children's 
future, you are not going to get a lot of takers among us fiscally 
responsible Democrats.
  I guess Republicans don't care about the deficit, don't care about 
mortgaging the future, don't care about leaving our kids further in 
debt. But you know what? Democrats do. That is why I oppose this bill. 
Our children are already inheriting an enormous legacy of debt. The 
last thing we should be doing is adding $33 billion more to that.
  I have nothing against this particular expenditure. If there is a way 
to pay for it, we could do that. We could work with Republicans on it. 
I would be happy to work with Republicans on it. There are always 
tradeoffs in life. Nothing comes free. There is no expenditure that is 
free. There is no reduction in revenue that is free. A dollar is a 
dollar. Families across our country know that when they are balancing 
their checkbooks at the end of the month. They know that if they spend 
more money or they get a bonus at work, it goes into the same pot. And 
if they get a cut in their salary, that means they have less money to 
spend.
  That is what it should mean to this Congress. If we are going to be 
taking in $33 billion less, we should spend $33 billion less. We should 
pay for any tax cut or expenditure on the revenue side and make sure 
that it doesn't go to mortgaging our children's future by increasing 
our already bloated budget deficit and contributing to our national 
debt.
  If it wasn't so serious, Mr. Speaker, it would almost be humorous 
when we hear around raising the debt ceiling time from our Republican 
friends, Oh, we don't want to increase the debt ceiling, oh, no. The 
debt ceiling. The debt ceiling. We are not going to increase the debt 
ceiling.
  Well, you know why the debt ceiling reaches its cap, Mr. Speaker?
  The reason the debt ceiling needs to be increased is because Congress 
spends more than it has.
  It is too late to complain after the fact, Mr. Speaker. It is too 
late to complain after the fact. If you, Congress, spend more than you 
take in, yes, you are going to need to increase the debt ceiling. It is 
not rocket science. I think even my kindergartener could do the math. 
It is addition and subtraction. Yet here we are saying: You know what? 
Let's cut government revenues by $33 billion.
  Well, you know what, Mr. Speaker?
  If this bill were to become law, we would reach the debt ceiling even 
earlier. And, of course, Congress would have to blow the lid on the 
debt ceiling and increase the national debt. It is math. It is simple 
math, Mr. Speaker, and families across our country understand simple 
math. They balance their checkbooks.
  My home State of Colorado requires a balanced budget every year, just 
as many other States across the country do. I support a balanced budget 
amendment here. I think that Congress, like families across our 
country, like our States, should balance our budget. But even in the 
absence of that requirement, Congress should act responsibly to do it. 
And this bill is the opposite. It increases our deficit by over $30 
billion. It doesn't pay for it. It mortgages our children's future for 
a tax expenditure today. It is the wrong way to go for our country.
  So while, of course, my Democratic colleagues and I share concern 
about ensuring access to affordable health care and would be happy to 
talk about tradeoffs that are involved with any reduction in revenues, 
H.R. 3590 is simply not the way to do it.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous 
question and to vote ``no'' on this restrictive, misguided rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, there is perhaps a fundamental, philosophic difference 
between the gentleman and myself. Taxes that are taken from people are 
just that: it is money that is taken from people under penalty of law. 
These are not expenditures of the government that we are talking about. 
We are talking about taking people's money from them, sometimes 
forcibly. And in this case, in order to fund what?
  Well, I don't know how many people here remember when the Affordable 
Care Act passed late that night in March of 2010. I don't know how many 
people were paying attention to section 9013 of the law, for which they 
either voted ``yea'' or ``nay.'' But let me just remind people what 
section 9013 said.
  Mr. Speaker, this is one of the underlying problems that the 
Affordable Care Act has had since the git-go. You ask yourself: Why is 
a law that is giving people stuff so marginally unpopular? And why has 
that unpopularity persisted over all of this time?
  Well, one of the reasons for that is the coercive nature of the 
Affordable Care Act. I mean, the fact that there is an individual 
mandate: You have to buy it, or we are going to penalize you through 
the Tax Code.
  But one of the other reasons was the very duplicitous way in which 
this bill was passed: We are going to give you stuff today, and then we 
are going to figure out kind of how to pay for it later.
  But just listen to the language of section 9013 that was voted on in 
this House late in the night in March of 2010:
  ``(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 213 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking `7.5 percent' and inserting 
`10 percent'.''
  Okay. Well and good. We follow that. That is what we have been 
discussing.
  The next section:
  ``(b) Temporary Waiver of Increase for Certain Seniors.--Section 213 
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 
the following new subsection''--okay. And now here comes the new 
subsection:
  ```(f) Special Rule for 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016.--In the case of 
any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2012, and ending before 
January 1, 2017, subsection (a) shall be applied with respect to a 
taxpayer by substituting `7.5 percent' for `10 percent' if such 
taxpayer or such taxpayer's spouse has attained age 65 before the close 
of such taxable year.'.''
  Mr. Speaker, if there was ever a case of hide the ball, if there was 
ever a case of let's not be honest with people about what we are 
actually passing, this bill was it.
  So today we are going to consider a bill from the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Ms. McSally) to protect seniors from this tax increase that is 
on automatic pilot. The skids are greased, and it is going to hit 
people January 1, 2017, if the Congress doesn't do something.
  Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of an 
important bill to undo one of the most harmful tax increases on the 
middle class created by the Affordable Care Act.
  I want to thank Ms. McSally for this legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

            An Amendment to H. Res. 858 Offered by Mr. Polis

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1434) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide 
     for the refinancing of certain Federal student loans, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in

[[Page 12513]]

     the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and 
     reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then 
     on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately 
     after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of 
     rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 1434.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia). The question 
is on ordering the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. 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, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________