[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12537-12543]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 12538]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 12539]]

  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 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.

[[Page 12540]]


  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.
  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.

[[Page 12541]]

  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 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.

[[Page 12542]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 12543]]

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
     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.

                          ____________________