tv Ways and Means Committee Marks Up Health Care Bill as Congress Awaits Cost... CSPAN March 8, 2017 4:32pm-6:33pm EST
plan is not determined based on an individual's income to ensure that those who need extra help will get it, the credit -- the credit is not tied to medical inflation. so when premiums rise, there is no insulation. it rhymes. premiums rise, there's no insulation. consumers are on their own. the bill repeals cost sharing reduction payments, a vital subsidy to help low-income americans with out of pocket costs. the individual mandate which will fail to keep young and healthy people in the market further driving up premiums. you're not doing anything in here, not one thing to make it attractive for the younger
people to get involved in this. we didn't do very well on doing that, i will admit. you guys aren't doing any better. apparently this passes the test for you, though. while paying a fine to the government is considering tyranny, paying 30% fine to an insurance company is a apparently liberty. so we have a choice of tyranny and liberty. we pay a fine, tyranny. you pay money to the big guys, liberty. even more this bill particularly preys on seniors, mr. chairman. i know you feel deeply about seniors. i know that. i know that. you once again at the behest of unregulated insurance companies free to further price discriminate against the
elderly. a 5-1 age ban are allow to cover less in value. you have to deal with this. you can't just put a bill up that's going to mean hurting some people, costing more for others and then others being left out all together. you can't do it. that's not making things better. that's making things worse. the president promised differently. you're not delivering. when martha, a 55-year-old trump supporter from north carolina, says she's scared, she has a right to be. she voted for mr. trump, who is now our president, because she thought he would make health care more affordable. but under this plan, she's facing over a $5,000 tax hike -- you can't dismiss it. you cannot look away. you cannot say it doesn't exist. >> thank you.
the gentleman's time -- >> why are we going there, mr. chairman? why. >> thank you. the gentleman's time is expired. the amendment is not germane because it violates house rule 16 by creating a contingency dealing with family and personal income taxation whereby the amendment deals with the corporate income taxation issue. point of order is sustained. amendment is not in order. you appeal the ruling? >> let's have a vote on it. i want every one of the members to think about what this bill and the amendment says, mr. chairman, if i may. >> mr. chairman, i move to table the appeal. >> questions on the motion table to appeal all those in favor signify by saying aye. the ayes have it and the motion to table the amendment is agreed to. roll call is requested. clerk will call the roll.
>> mr. chairman, i cannot believe that the members of this distinguished committee are going to vote today, and my vote will be no. >> at this time we are going through the roll call vote at your request. >> people are going to pay more taxes. >> mr. pascral wishes to be recorded as no. >> no. [ the roll call was held ]
taking a break in recess so members can vote on the floor on a democratic motion to adjourn the house today, one of several such motions in protest over the gop health plan. while the recess continues and until members come back, we'll show you some of today's markup here in the house ways and means committee from earlier today. >> mr. chairman, in the less than 40 hours -- less than two days that the bill was released, the republican president and vice president have all indicated that the language we consider today is still open to negotiations and a work in progress. perhaps this is purely lip service to the conservatives wanting to take away from coverage -- >> if i may please state your parliamentary inquiry. >> is this a discussion draft
that we have before us, which these comments seem to indicate, or is this, in fact, the markup of the final bill without any hearing? >> thank you. these are recommendations to the bill. >> is it -- mr. chairman, is it the final -- are we actually deliberating right now the final bill? >> we are dleliberating on the recommendations. >> president trump stated our wonderful health care bill is out for review and negotiation. vice president pence has said it's a framework for reform and that the white house is certainly open to improvements. mr. price has said it's a work in progress. i ask again, is this the final -- is this the final bill or a draft proposal. >> thank you, mr. krcrowley.
>> last month the committee voted along party lines to block my request and to cover up president trump's tax returns. this is an effort to give the committee another opportunity to consider the intervening events since that vote was taken and to incorporate a request regarding president trump's tax returns into this legislation. since we considered the matter last month, our colleague, who i know will want to speak separately on this amendment, has sent a second letter to you, mr. chairman, urging the committee to use its authority under current law to obtain a copy of the tax return and to
review it in closed executive session. the request was signed by 165 members of this house and has for the first time had two republicans step forward to join mr. sanford and mr. jones. in the intervening period since we considered this matter, the need for mr. trump's tax returns has become more urgent. his tax returns could reveal russian entanglements. every new revelation about russian contacts including meetings with the russian ambassador by attorney general jeff sessions heightens the need to see the returns. i will admit that perhaps we have approached this in the wrong direction. the question we should have been asking from the outset to make it easy is will any trump campaign surrogate who did not meet with the russians please raise your hand because this keeps coming out week after week
with revelation after revelation. it is not sufficient to say there's nothing to see here. first it was paul manafort and then ousted national security advisor michael flynn and then attorney general jeff sessions who met with the republican ambassador. if there's nothing to see here, then we need to see the tax return. president trump said at a press conference last month he has no deals with russia. while that may or may not be true, right now he may have never been able to close a real estate deal in russia, we can take him at his own word in his meeting on the david letterman show in 2013 when he said, quote, well i've done a lot of business with the russians. they're smart and they're tough. i would certainly agree with him on the tough part. you can take the word of his son
donald trump jr. who in 2008 said, quote, russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of our assets. we don't have any tax return for 2008 or for many other years of which to evaluate to what extent there is that conflict that exists. accountability ought not to be a partisan issue and it shouldn't be in this committee. there's no issue more important than assuring the confidence of the american people in our democracy and our systems of checks and balances. that's what this is about. we have a statute that goes back decades that authorizes this committee to take a professional review of all of mr. trump's tax returns and of course it will take professional expertise. this is a president who brags about how he has bent the tax code to his whim in the past,
who reportedly for many years didn't pay a penny in taxes. he came off better than the insurance companies will come off after this title is approved. how did he manage he manage to ? what will his tax bill look like if he is now overseeing the internal revenue service and eventually apoints the internal revenue insurance commissioner? will he make a good deal for himself and his family not available to the rest of the american people? there was a recent analysis by one reporter, series of reporters that said that under what they think is in this bill, though they don't have a score, they don't have all the data, that president trump personally stands to rake in almost $7 million from two giant tax breaks that are in this bill. and as we get to the tanning salon section, we can explore whether there's one of those down at mar-a-lago or one of his
other resorts, and he'll benefit from even the tanning division here. at least two tax breaks worth at least $7 million. i think it's important to adopt this amendment. i know mr. pass carell has further relevant comments on it and i'll let him use his own time to discuss them. i yield back. >> thank you. does the gentleman insist on his point of order? >> i know mr. passcarell does. >> i make the point of order that it is not jermaine to the amendment. section 6103 of the tax code regarding confidentiality of tax returns is outside the narrow subject matter of this subtitle which only addresses enumeration. >> mr. chairman? >> thank you. does the gentleman wish to speak out of point of order? >> mr. chairman, i would like to
speak on the point of order, but would yield a part of my time to speak on a part of my time to mr. pass carrell who authored hess letters sent to you. >> thank you for yielding. thank you, mr. speaker. so, speaker, you've stated that in section 6103 of the tax code, that it was designed to protect privacy. but failed to address the full legislative intent of 6103. it was put into the tax code specifically so the ways and means committee would have oversight of the conflicts in the branch of government. the congress recognized it needed this authority after that scandal i talked about in 1923, and in 1924 this legislation --
this tax code change happened. what could be more in line with the spirit of the law than examining a sitting president's conflicts of interest? and the arguments for protecting privacy, and narrowly interpreting the purpose of 6103, that authority rings hollow when you just voted to disclose the confidential tax information of 61 taxpayers in 2014. a disclosure that was in no way essential to presenting your case to the department of justice against lois lerner. we have very short memories, and selective memories, mr. chairman. where were your privacy concerns then? and these are ordinary citizens applying for nonprofit status, not public figures working for
the american people. you also argue that the committee's authority is only to oversee tax administration. there is no such limitation written in section 6103 granting authority to this committee, the ways and means committee, to review tax returns in closed session. as i mentioned, the authority was put in place to examine conflicts of interest. now, mr. trump's conflicts of interest, they go through many, many issues, whether it's as a bigon, whether it's the china trademarks, whether it's -- there's a whole bunch of them here. it's good stuff, mr. chairman, you all the to read about it. mar-a-lago, whatever they call that place down there, in hidden valley. the trump hotel in d.c.
argentina. a relationship that the president has with the president of argentina, mr. mccray. very interesting. you should read about it sometime. the defense department rentals. the "apprentice" show. the dakota access pipeline. the dubai golf course. i hope i said that right, mr. chairman. the dominican republic. the canadian hotel. we just heard about it last week. but let me just bring it back home, on january 11th, president trump, our president, the president of the united states of america announced he would place control of his assets in the hands of his two adult sons and a longtime associate. the plan would also supposedly terminate new foreign deals. undermined by a recent
renouncement that the organization would move forward with expanding its golf course in scotland. i'm not a golfer, mr. chairman, so i don't know too much about that. trump wemt on to assert that being president exempts him from having conflicts of interest. how in the heck do you like that. the director of the office of government ethics, certainly no lackey, recommended divestiture from his business holdings. and said, trump's efforts were meaningless, saying, quote, i don't think divestiture is too high a price to pay to be the president of the united states. and i'm sure you agree with that, mr. chairman. but i won't ask you. trump continues to benefit from his business empire, regardless of who is in charge of the day-to-day operations. as long as this is the case, the
possibility that outside actors will attempt to influence his policies by supporting or denying his business interests will be a very, very, very serious danger. >> thank you. the gentleman's time has expired. before i am prepared to rule, i know mr. pascarel you are sincere in your position that you and others sent to me in your letter. i would like to enter into the record the response from senator hatch and myself that basically points out what you would request would be an abuse of authority of the tax writing committee. >> mr. chairman -- >> with that, i am prepared to rule. >> mr. chairman -- will you yield at the time? >> not at the time. >> i am prepared to rule, it violates house rule 16, by creating an unrelated
contingency releasing tax returns. >> mr. chairman, would you yield now? >> the order is sustained. the amendment is not in order. >> on that, i would an appeal of the ruling of the chair. >> an appeal of the ruling chair has been made. a motion to table has been made. the question is on the motion to table the appeal of the chair. all in favor, signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed, no. >> no. >> mr. chairman, can i ask you a question? >> roll call vote. >> if i may continue to finish through this process. >> all right. >> so a roll call is requested. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. johnson?
>> aye. >> mr. johnson aye. mr. nunez? mr. nunez eye. mr. tea berry? mr. tea berry aye. mr. reichert? mr. reichert eye. >> mr. smith of nebraska? >> aye. >> miss jenkins? mr. paulson? aye. mr. marchant? >> aye. >> ms. black? >> aye. >> mr. reed? >> aye. >> mr. kelly? >> aye. >> mr. renasy? >> aye. >> mr. means? >> aye. >> ms. nome? >> aye. >> mr. holding? >> aye. >> mr. smith of missouri? >> aye. >> mr. rice?
>> aye. >> mr. schweikert? >> aye. >> miss walarski? >> aye. >> mr. kovello? >> aye. >> mr. bishop? >> no. >> mr. bishop? >> aye. >> mr. neil? >> no. >> mr. levin? >> no. >> mr. lewis? >> no. >> mr. doggin? >> no. >> mr. thompson? >> no. >> mr. larson? >> no. >> mr. blumenauer? >> no. >> mr. kind? >> no. >> mr. passkarel? >> no. >> mr. crowley? >> no. >> mr. davis? >> no. >> miss sanchez?
mr. passkarel, would you like to talk about the substitute? >> mr. chairman, i said this was going to be a long, tedious process, mr. chairman. and i know you have the responsibility today of maintaining order, and getting through a very difficult task of presenting the bill, which is the alternative to the affordable care act. please believe me when i tell you, my sympathy is with you. please believe me when i tell you at any time the subject matter of the president's taxes come up, his tax returns, it is meant without hart-felt wish that we will get through that as well. so i'm not here to conflict in
any way conflicting what your responsibilities are. i respect you too much for that. i don't agree with the responses you've given me in my letters, but that's beside the point right now. we are not going to go away, mr. chairman. and we're going to expand, as i predicted we would do. many members have come to me on your side of the aisle that will not vote with us, be it in this committee, or on the floor of the house. but they agreed that the president should provide us his tax returns. when you look at the ethics committee chairman saying what he did about the president's response to all of this, it's almost cavalier that the president's done what he's done. and i'm just trying to get to the facts of the matter. there are just too many conflicts here that i'm bringing before the house.
which i haven't even opened up and talked about yet. when i bring them up, there might be some folks here that are going to be embarrassed about it. i chose to do this the objective way. you know that. i didn't go to the newspaper in the first letter i sent to you. i didn't have a press conference. i chose to talk to you eyeball to eyeball. because i think that's how we do things in patterson, new jersey, eyeball to eyeball. i asked for your good faith. you can dismiss this all you want. but it goes to the very heart of everything we're talking about. conflicts of interest. when we are supposed to be here working for the people. i don't think it's delaying time. i don't think this is obstruction. i'll ask you again, publicly, to
reconsider your position. it is time that we have to stand up, mr. chairman. it is time that mr. trump does what every president has done since gerald ford. nothing more, nothing less. but we will get to the center of these conflicts of interest. that the president has not divested himself is a scandal in itself. and we have every right, since we're talking about checks and balances, and in extending our own authority and power under the constitution of the united states to look into these matters. and for you to argue, which you have every right to do, that we're going too far and we're creeping into the president's secrets, i find humorous, since
you set the pace in 2014, when you looked at 61 tax returns, private citizens trying to get their own exemptions. you know, mr. chairman, i told you this could be easy or it's going to be difficult, but we are not going to stop. i will spend every ounce of energy in my body working on this. i'm not here to distract, and i'm not here to disrupt, mr. chairman. i'm here to try to get your confidence. i want you to have confidence in what i am requesting, so that you will take a second look at it. that's my objective. no secrets. there are no secrets here. the only secrets that exist are with the president of the united states of america. and you are defending that, he hold those secrets. you are defending that he has
every right to keep that in force. there is no law that the president plust do this. 125 standout conflicts of interest. we have every right to examine that. some day somebody's going to ask you for your income tax returns. maybe an opponent. >> time is expired. >> maybe opponents. >> mr. pascarel? >> mr. chairman, we're all familiar with the movie the manchurian candidate. i suggest you see the movie. and a movie called the cyber erian candidate. the magazine "new yorker" in an article written by adam davidson, i don't have it with me, but at some point i will ask to have it -- i'll ask to have
it entered into the record, mr. chairman. but there's an interesting story about the trump tower in asha baton. i think it pertains to the president's taxes. for those of you not familiar, it's a former soviet state. it has been determined as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. their transportation minister zia mamadow earns a salary of $12,000 a year. but he's a billionaire. one of the wealthiest ologarks in the soviet union. his family were the main sponsors and builders of the trump tower in baku in asha bashon.
the original bill for that hotel was supposed to be $195 million. built in the middle of nowhere, in bakou. nowhere near the resort areas slg or the waterfront properties. literally in the middle of nowhere, in train yards. in may of 2012, prior to mr. trump running for president, the trump organization joined, in cooperation with mr. mamadow and his family in the construction, lending his name to that building. allen garten, trump's lawyer, said according to mr. davidson, at the bakou hotel project raised no ethical issues for donald trump because the company, the trump entity, the company had never engaged directly with mamadow. merely, mr. trump was a licensed
score of his name. they earned $2.8 million, solely for the rights of his name. but there were other lucrative contracts that were signed and entered into, including the contract to manage the hotel for an undisclosed fee. an undisclosed fee. we don't know what that income to the president was, because it's undisclosed. we'd have to see his taxes to know what they were. american companies, including hotels, that do business overseas, before they invest, they conduct rigorous risk assessments, background checks. they take a close look at what they are investing in. and the enormous resources that they extend to find out just what the practices of the companies they're engaging with overseas are. this is standard practice for any american corporation doing business overseas. the mamadow family has ties to the revolutionary guard.
the largest sponsor of terrorism in the world. the iranian hostage days. the iranian company, a construction firm, it is run -- they were engaged to build this hotel. it is run by the irg, the iranian revolutionary guard. the u.s. government accused -- has accused of criminal activity, drug trafficking, money laundering and terrorism. trump has proposed -- the president has proposed to condemn the irg as a terrorist group organization. but all this is hidden because of confidentiality and privileged information. just like his taxes.
before the corruption act of 1977, it's been violated. it is a violation even if it's done unknowingly, even if they didn't know they were in violation of it, they've been in violation of it. that's why we need to see the tax returns, mr. chairman. there are too many questions to the former russians, and now the iranian guard. >> foreign corrupt practices forbids american companies from participating in a scheme to reward a foreign government. >> your time is expired, mr. pascarel. before i ask for other amendments, is mr. neil recognized? >> i'd like to yield my time. i yield my time to mr. pascarel.
>> mr. chairman? the corrupt practices act forbids american companies from participating in a scheme to reward a foreign government official in exchange for material benefit or preferential treatment. it also makes it a crime to unknowingly benefit from a partner's corruption if it could have discovered illicit activity but avoided doing so. k-1, the form that we need to find out who the partners are, that is in your tax returns, mr. chairman. 2012, mr. trump referred to the foreign corrupt practices act as a horrible law. that, quote unquote, should be changed. saying that if american companies refuse to give bribes, get this, you'll do business nowhere. this is amazing.
this is what the present president of the united states who's pushing this sham bill today. this is what he said. i didn't say it. he said it. he said it. an assistant dean at george washington university law school stated, corruption warning signs are rarely more obvious, and i hope you were listening to mr. crowley from new york. never more obvious. and yet we're sitting here trying to figure out how we're going to help out those executives that run many of these insurance companies, while rome burns. and we can't get the president's tax returns. not yet. it's going to be embarrassing when those tax returns come out. they're coming out sooner or later.
they're coming out sooner or later. i may have nothing at all to do with how they get out, but they're going to get out sooner or later. and then we're going to see how many people voted time and time and time again to deep six it, the request. to deep six it. all of you come from districts like i do. we are all accountable. i am. and you have to be accountable, mr. chairman, because you do have the character to do this. i yield back. >> mr. chairman? >> mr. neil, you control the time. >> i yield the balance of my time to mr. crowley. >> i thank the gentleman. mr. chairman, i've spoken about one particular deal. we know the deal in florida where mr. trump purchased a property for $40 million, sold two years later without any improvements. no one had lived on the property for two years. for an additional $60 million to
a russian ala gart. too many questions, too many questions, and not enough answers as to what happened, what transpired. you know, i think pim people -- no one begrudges anyone from making a buck in an investment. i expect these are women that have the wherewithal, the finances to put up $40 million on speculative property in florida. and then sold two years later for $60 million more. some have suggested that it's part of a money laundering scheme by the russian ala gart. i know how much the estate is under attack right now. i have to give credit to davidson and those doing these in-depth research into these transactions, because mr. chairman, they shed an awful lot of light about how much we don't know about president trump's finances.
quite frankly, mr. chairman, i agree with my friend from florida -- from new jersey. that we will not end this. this is not going to go away. we will continue this until my colleagues join us in this effort, on behalf of the american people, to disclose to the american people, that the commander in chief of the armed forces, the president of the united states owes it to the american people to show his work, to show how he's made his money, and to show what connections do or don't in fairness to the president, do or don't exist between him and russian ala garts. and mr. putin as well. the american people want to see this information. even people, mr. chairman, who voted for mr. trump believe that he should give his taxes over to the american people for scrutiny. with that, i yield back the balance of my time.
>> thank you, mr. crowley. i know, again, you and mr. pascarel are sincere in this position. whether you support those trump -- those returns being released or not, using this tool would be an abuse of authority given the ways and means and finance committee chairman. this provision was granted only to enable to get the responsibility to make sure the tax code is properly administered. that's the key, properly administered. these taxpayer protections are embedded in the section ordered to ensure privacy and prevent the abuse of taxpayer information. mr. levin confirmed this in 2014. that investigation, just to remind everyone, confirmed that the irs misled congress and the american people, to target americans based on their
investments, in the three counts of the violations of law and the constitution. so to conclude, whether you support releasing the returns or not, i will not allow washington to return to the battle days when government officials use their powers to intimidate, harass, and destroy their political enemies. the liberties and privacies are still rights worth protecting. and i intend it to protect them. are there any amendments to the amendment in the nature of at 10
i yield to mr. chairman, if you want to answer that. >> mr. levin, as a history of a reminder, those of us who were here over seven years ago, received an 800-page bill from you and the majority at midnight. with this committee convening mere hours later. did you have a cbo score on that massive bill? absolutely not. and you dismissed all efforts to obtain one. this is -- now, you yielded to me. >> i will. >> let's yield a moment more. so today we have a mere 50-plus page provision, most of which has passed the house before. we've made it clear, like you, we expect cbo to have a thoughtful, thorough, comprehensive score to us. before this recommendation goes
to the budget committee comes to the house floor. i yield back. >> thanks. could i respond? >> yes, sir. >> first of all, there was a hearing on our bill. secondly, there was a preliminary estimate on our bill provided by cbo. >> it was on the concept. >> no, it wasn't. >> it was. >> it was reflected in the draft legislation. and so they provided this july 14th preliminary analysis, which has a lot of provisions, or specifications in it, including estimates -- >> mr. levin, we are beyond 30 seconds of the time. if someone else would -- >> maybe somebody else will yield to me. >> to speak on the amendment?
>> mr. chairman? >> one moment. >> the gentleman from ohio insists on a point of order. >> i do insist on my point of order because it's not jgermane to the amendment. >> thank you. does the gentleman point of order or yield to a colleague? >> i'll yield to -- i think the ranking member is going to speak, and then yield to me. >> mr. chairman, i would like to yield to mr. levin. >> actually, i think it's the other way. >> i thought a number of us would be able to speak on this.
i'm looking on a table, preliminary analysis of the insurance coverage specifications provided by the house tri-committee group. preliminary analysis of these specifications go into detail on each of the important coverage provisions. so what you have used as an argument against a cbo analysis is not at all defensible. we had hearings, we had numerous hearings, we had preliminary provisions that you saw. essentially it is in sharp contrast to what's being done today. and there's never been a single hearing on this bill. and you don't want to wait for cbo. so mr. chairman, it will come
next week. i would like to ask you again, what is the reason why the majority here and energy and commerce, why you are not waiting the cbo report before we mark up this bill? what's the reason? why don't we have all of that information available? it's a nonpartisan group with someone i think you appointed. what are you afraid of? what are you afraid of? are you afraid of the answers to the questions that i've proposed? the rate of uninsured will go up? if there will be a lower tax credit for numerous people, millions? that they'll be disruption of the private insurance market? that the impact of eliminating
expanded medicaid will hurt millions and millions of families? and that the impact of ending, or capping medicaid on long-term care, and kids who have special needs and other children that that impact will be substantial? why not wait for full information for the light of day, and instead proceed in darkness? i yield the balance of my time to our ranking member. >> thanks, mr. levin. mr. chairman, we're reminded on the statistical information that there were 79 reform hearings in the last two years. 100 hours in hearings. 181 witnesses from both sides. and i checked last night with
staff, and i was told that during the course of the markup, that we embraced the aca, that there were regular narratives that were presented to us as the process moved along from cbo. this idea of acting without cbo information is simply not true. 72 hours of the number that occurred when the bill was placed online for review as well. i participated in a town hall meeting. there were 3,000 of them that we held across the country. and the numbers are even more staggering when you get to the senate. but there were also 239 republican and democratic amendments of which 121 were accepted. in the senate, there were eight days of markups with 135 amendments in the finance committee.
47 bipartisan hearings, and open dialogues with 300 amendments during a 13-day markup in their committees. 25 consecutive days in the senate they discussed the health reform bill that we eventually embraced. this idea that we had not followed script is simply misstated. there were also marking this important note 147 republican amendments in the final senate bill. i yield back my time. >> so i'll finish with my 13 seconds, mr. chairman. you don't answer. you're afraid of sunshine. and we will insist that it be spotlighted, and the public is going to react, i assure you. >> mr. levin, i'm prepared to rule on the germaneness of the
amendment. let's not rewrite history here. you claim had a cbo estimate. you did not vet a letter. it wasn't even based on the bill. it was based on specifications by a three-committee working group. and it turned out to be the estimates were wildly wrong. so if you're asking us to follow the democrat approach of a bad bill received with a bad cbo analysis preceded by a badly estimated cbo letter, we are not following that approach. we are going to allow cbo to have a thorough, deliberate analysis of this 50-plus page provision, as well as energy and commerce. we will have that for analysis before this bill ultimately goes to the house. on the amendment itself, i'm prepared to rule. the amendment is not germane to the amendment in the nature of a substitute because it violates a house rule.
the cbo made publicly available estimates that go beyond the scope of this subtitle. the final order is sustained. the amendment is not in order. do others wish to -- >> roll call? >> roll call. >> mr. teaberry? mr. teaberry moves to table the ruling, and the question is on the motion to appeal. the chair's ruling, all of those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> no? >> no. >> roll call? >> roll call is requested. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. johnson? >> aye. >> mr. nunez? >> aye. >> mr. teaberry? >> aye. >> mr. reichert?
>> aye. >> mr. rosskin? >> aye. >> mr. buchanan? >> aye. >> mr. smith of nebraska? >> aye. >> ms. jenkins? mr. paulson? mr. marchant? >> aye. >> ms. black? >> aye. >> mr. reed? >> aye. >> mr. kelly? >> aye. >> mr. renasi? >> aye. >> mr. means? >> aye. >> ms. nome? >> aye. >> mr. holding? >> aye. >> mr. smith of missouri? >> aye. >> mr. wright? >> aye. >> mr. sh wikert? >> aye. >> miss ma larkey? >> aye. >> mr. provelo?
>> aye. >> mr. bishop? >> aye. >> mr. neil? >> no. >> mr. levin? >> no. >> mr. lewis? >> no. >> mr. dockette? >> no. >> mr. thompson? >> no. >> mr. larson? >> no. >> mr. blumenauer? >> no. >> mr. kind? >> no. >> mr. pascarell? >> no. >> mr. crowley? >> no. >> mr. davis? >> no. >> ms. sanchez? >> no. >> mr. higgins? >> no. >> miss sewel?
>> no. >> miss sewel, no. >> the clerk will report the vote. >> 23 yais, 16 nays. >> there being 23 ayes, 16 nos, the vote is agreed to. >> mr. chairman? >> yes, sir. >> it requires to include that -- >> yes. without objection. are there any further amendments? mr. collier, you're recognized. >> mr. teaberry, you can spend a moment. point of order has been reserved. the court will distribute the amendment. may i ask the gentleman to suspend while the clerk distributes.
>> so the gentleman from new york is recognized for five moments. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i recognize also mr. teaberry's reserving the right to agree. but you may be familiar with the particular amendment, in fact, i have a copy here, if you don't mind a moment, mr. chairman, to make a slight change.
mr. brady of texas, i'm just going to put mr. crowley of new york in his place. mr. chairman, the lack of transparency in this process, here we are to mark up on one of the most important issues facing our constituents and our nation, and having had less than 48 hours, in fact, less than -- about 40 hours since this bill has been revealed. not to mention that we haven't had a single hearing on this bill. but it comes after republicans kept a draft of the bill under armed guard protection, sending even their own members in search of the capital in vain looking for the bill. americans should not have to play a game of hide-and-seek to find out the fate of their health care coverage. how is the american public supposed to have a fair hearing when we don't even have a full airing of the facts?
it is completely unacceptable that we don't have completed estimates from independent arbiters. we don't know how many people are getting kicked off their coverage. although we know people will be kicked off their coverage. we don't know how much the republican plan will cost. though we know it will cost the american people billions and billions and billions of dollars. i guess i'm not really surprised, they've been trying to hide a bill that rips health care coverage from middle class americans, and give it away to millionaires and billionaires. they're trying to pull one over on the american people, and i'll tell you what, americans are just too smart for that. the american people will see through the republican smoke and mirrors and realize their secret plan will give americans less coverage, and it will cost them a hell of a lot more money. even republican members, members of your own party have said that this is not the way to govern. calling this lack of transparency completely unacceptable.
this is just another instance of republicans breaking the promise to the american people. in 2010, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle felt the need to put out a pledge to america that promised full open and transparent debate on important issues facing congress. the document -- and i'm reading from their pledge here -- said, quote, no more hiding legislative language from the minority party, opponents and the public. legislation should be understood by all interested parties before it is voted on, end quote. but hiding from the public and dissenting views is what the republicans have been doing here. i'm offering an amendment that should be -- mr. chairman, you offered this during the markup of the affordable care act, also known as obamacare. it was found in order during that markup, and there was a vote on it, mr. chairman. so i recognize mr. teaberry's right to reserve the right to object. but i want to remind the chairman that it was found in order, and germane, and voted on during the markup of the affordable care act.
the same amendment you offered requiring full transparency for the american people, which we gave them during our markup, and the process of the implementation of the affordable care act. i understood you voted in opposition to that bill. but even you would have to recognize that we gave you the opportunity to offer your amendment. the sense of congress. we accepted that right to offer that amendment. and we had a full vote on it. it simply states that we here in congress should have to certify that we, members of congress, have read the bill. i'm not going to ask all my colleagues whether they read the bill or not. but i'm simply going to read the amendment itself. it is sent to the house of representatives before any member votes on this bill that members shall cause to be printed in the congressional record a statement indicating whether that member has read this bill in its entirety, and two, this bill should be
publicly available on the internet, in its entirety, for at least 72 hours before a vote is held. on this bill. i would note for the record that when we passed the affordable care act, 30 days was given on the draft of the bill. and i kind of wondered why i was asking the question whether this is a draft or the final bill. if it was just a draft, then i could maybe excuse it. but i think it's actually the final bill. it's had less than 72 hours displayed on the internet. in fact, it's had less than 48 hours in our hands. so, mr. chairman, i would ask respectfully, as we respectfully recognized your sense of solution, that you recognize this and we have a vote on this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. chair, i make a point of order, not because of the rich irony of what my friend just talked about -- >> it's pretty rich, thank you very much. >> pretty rich.
i remember that day at 11:57 p.m., that the democrats finally released their 794-page amendment in the nature of a substitute. right before the 9:00 a.m. markup to that over 1,000-page bill that later became a 2,000-page bill, with not an ounce of a score. the fact that this is a 57-page document we are looking at today, 5-7, not 5-7-0, 5-7-page document that was released two days ago. so i am making an order to the amendment, because it is not germane to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. it violates house rule 16, clause 7, because this sense of congress relates to the reading of an unspecified bill.
right now, we have an amendment in the nature of substitute that is not a bill, but a recommendation to the budget committee. >> what purpose is mr. davis to wish to be recognized? the gentleman is recognized for purposes of offering his amendment. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> mr. rosscam, recognized to reserve a point of order? >> i reserve a point of order, mr. chairman. >> the order has been reserved. the clerk will distribute the amendment. i ask the gentleman to suspend while the clerk distributes.
million adults, 17.9% of all adults in the united states with some type of mental illness. in 2015. ensuring federal support to address substance abuse and mental health problems is a long bipartisan history. my amendment with representative blumenauer and chu and sanchez would provide coverage for substance abuse and mental health services, by preventing enactment if the institute of medicine finds a reduction in coverage are increased in out-of-pocket costs for mental health and substance abuse treatment services would occur. this is a safety amendment to protect the services that both sides see as critical to our communities. illinois in general and cook county specifically have made
great progress helping millions of illinoisans with mental health and substance abuse problems. help increase child health care. it's key to prevention, and reunification for families involved with foster care. the child care association of illinois whose members are child welfare providers, that are lettered to the illinois governor, explaining how limitations in medicaid and restrictions on substance abuse and mental health services threaten to undermine their ability to protect children from abuse and neglect. similarly restricting access to substance abuse and mental health services would harm illinois's ability to address its opioid epidemic and overburden the criminal justice system. the state would have to replace an estimated $80 million per
year in federal medicaid resources paid for in community based services that currently helps people get treatment instead of incarceration. incarceration, and promote successful reentry. importantly, 19 illinois sheriffs, prosecutors and police chiefs joined [ inaudible ] sent to congress urging us to protect addiction and mental health treatment because lack of treatment undermines their efforts to make our communities safer and now i would yield to representative chu. >> yes. thank you, mr. davis. thank you for introducing this amendment. it's imperative that we don't lose the progress that we made in guaranteeing that americans have access to comprehensive
mental health services. i know this because mental health treatment saves lives and i know this because i was a clinical psychologist who counseled people with drug abuse and addiction, those who were victims of rape abdomestic violence and people who were suicidal. that's why every time i hear a debate over whether plans should cover mental health services i think of those people who so desperately sought help. that's why i'm so thrilled when i saw the affordable care act required plans to cover basic mental health services. in january i spoke with kelly, a young woman from pasadena who recently graduated from ucla and was working multiple jobs to make ends meet. soon after graduation, she experienced a death in the family and became estranged from her parents. that led to a deep spiraling depression. kelly told me she contemplated suicide on more than one occasion but thankfully, because her insurance plan covered
mental health services, she was able to receive the therapy and medication that she needed. when we spoke, she said plainly without that coverage i would not be alive today. under the gop plan before us, kelly would not be guaranteed affordable mental health benefits and what these so-called axis to benefits she couldn't afford, kelly would be on her own. i want to be sure that any plan we put forth today will cover people like kelly who work hard and who pay their bills, but who can be struck by mental illness through no fault of their own. >> -- a co-sponsor and i yield the rest of my time. >> dr. davis, all time has expired. >> -- it's not germane, it violates house 16, rule 7
because it goes beyond the narrow subject matter of the chairman's amendment and the nature of the substitute which is remuneration by addressing mental health. the amendment is outside this committee's jurisdiction. >> does the gentleman from illinois offering the amendment wish to speak on the point of order? >> to suggest illinois is experiencing an epidemic of violence and many people recognize mental illness as a part of that, and i would hope that we would see fit to have this amendment be in order. >> thank you, dr. davis. i assure you that members from both sides of the aisle share your interest and desire for mental health care for americans. i'm prepared to rule. the amendment is not germane. it violates house 16, clause 7
by introducing subject matter outside the scope of the amendment in nature of substitute. it's also outside the committee's jurisdiction. foi point of order is sustained. the amendment is not in order. >> i would appeal the ruling. >> dr. davis appeals the ruling of the chair. mr. teaberry? >> i move to table the appeal. >> all those in favor signify by saying aye? those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the motion to table is agreed to. >> mr. chairman, i would request a recorded vote. >> roll call is requested. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. johnson. >> aye. >> mr. nunes? >> aye. >> mr. t ix iberi? >> aye. >> mr. reichert?
mr. roskam. >> aye. >> mr. buchanan? >> aye. >> mr. smith of nebraska? miss jenkins? mr. paulson? >> aye. >> mr. marchant? >> aye. >> miss black? mr. reed? mr. kelly? mr. renacci? >> aye. >> mr. meehan in. >> aye. >> mr. holding? >> aye. >> mr. smith of missouri? mr. rice? >> aye. >> mr. schweikert? >> aye. >> mr. carbelo?
mr. bishop? >> aye. >> mr. neal? >> no. >> mr. levin? >> no. >> mr. lewis? >> no. >> mr. doggett? >> no. >> mr. thompson? >> no. >> mr. larson? >> no. >> mr. blumennauer? >> no. >> mr. kind? >> no. >> mr. pascrell? >> no. >> mr. crowley? >> no. >> mr. davis? >> no. >> miss sanchez? >> no. >> mr. higgins? >> no. >> miss sewell? >> no. >> miss delbene? >> no. >> miss chu? >> no.
>> the clerk will report the vote. >> 20 yea, 16 noes. >> the motion to table is agreed to. are there further amendments? the amendment in the nature of substitute? miss sewell, you are recognized for purposes of offering your amendment. mr. tiberi? point of order has been reserved. clerk will distribute the amendment. i ask the gentle lady to suspend while the clerk distributes.
gentle lady from alabama is recognized for five minutes for her amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, my amendment restricts the bill from being, going into effect unless the secretary of health and human services determines that no rural hospital will close and jobs be lost at rural hospitals. in many of the small communities in my district, rural hospitals are the largest employer. they are intricately linked to
the local economy and the lifeline of the communities. i will oppose any piece of legislation and suggest we all do so that threatens coverage for rural people and the revenue base for local hospitals. the republican repeal bill repeals the medicaid expansion offered under the affordable care act. medicaid -- and funds medicaid through a block grant to the states per cap. it shifts $370 billion in cost to states over a decade. i have to say, mr. chairman, my home state of alabama cannot withstand a cut of this magnitude while continuing to provide even limited coverage to the medicaid population. rural providers will be among the first to pay for cuts to medicaid. of alabama's $1.9 billion state match for fy 2016, the state's general fund provided only $722
million while health care providers supplied $1.2 million through an assessment. alabama is the only state where hospitals fund 100% of the state match for its medicaid hospital program. mr. speaker, i have to tell you that it is heart-wrenching for me to talk with my rural health care providers. since january, i have had three town hall meetings and a meeting with all of my rural health providers, and the stories are eerily the same. so many of the rural hospitals in the state of alabama and around this country have really been impacted by rising costs of health care and uncompensated care, and so why i really oppose this bill is because of the large numbers of folks who will be thrown off the roll because of it in the state of alabama. the disparity between costs and access for rural americans is profound.
the seventh district of alabama has 14 counties and the state only has four critical access hospitals. only one of which is in my district. our governor did not expand medicaid and the state is one of the most socioeconomically disadvantaged states in the country when it comes to the medicaid program. in six of the 14 counties i represent, there are fewer than five primary care physicians county-wide. we have more payday lenders in some of the small towns than we do family doctors. access to quality health care is definitely a problem. so is getting transportation and the federal government currently pays 70% of the medicaid program. i have a rural hospital administrator who because she is struggling so hard at the hill hospital in york, alabama, she is operating in a negative margin that she sometimes has to pay her workers from her own paycheck. the only department that actually operates not in the red is the detox unit of the hospital.
make no mistake, the republican plan will only exacerbate these trends in rural america by shifting more costs to consumers. under the current law, an average person in jefferson county, birmingham, alabama, would receive a tax credit of $4,480. under the house repeal plan, they would receive a tax credit of $3,000. that is a decrease of $1,480 or 33% decrease in the amount of subsidy, financial assistance that any person who actually gets on this repeal plan would have to face. unfortunately, rural america cannot take another hit. this plan, while expansive in many ways, is really not -- does not yield -- does not favor rural america. rural america, there are very
few wealthy forecast. i ha folks. one of the farmers in my district, had he known the affordable care act was obamacare probably wouldn't have gotten it but he had never had health care insurance before but because of the affordable care act, not only did he not lose his hand when he got on the affordable care act and his hand was stuck in a hay baler, he also didn't lose his farm. i just think we need to be very cautious of the fact that many folks in this new bill cannot afford to have -- be kicked off health care and cannot afford the cost of the new insurance plan. so -- thank you. >> the time of the gentle lady has expired. mr. tiberi? >> point of order. the amendment is not germane to the amendment in the nature of the substitute. the amendment violates house rule 16, clause zep becau7 beca
goes beyond the subject matter of the chairman's amendment in the nature of a substitute which is remuneration by addressing hospitals, the amendment is also outside this committee's jurisdiction. >> thank you. does the gentle lady offering the amendment wish to speak on the point of order? >> i do, mr. speaker. you know, the republican repeal plan will force americans to pay more for less coverage. president trump promised that it would not affect medicaid and medicare and it does both. a broken promise. this bill only helps you if you are wealthy or healthy or both. it also makes middle class americans pay more to give tax cuts to the wealthiest americans. i yield the rest of my time to congressman kind, who also represents rural america. i think that it's really important that we acknowledge that certain sectors of the population just cannot embrace such high cost of health care insurance and it's unfortunate that we are giving such huge tax cuts to wealthy folks and not
taking care of our own. mr. kind? >> i thank my friend from alabama for yielding. i wish to speak in favor of the amendment. my name is on the amend the. if there is one nature that has lit up my phones in regards to this repeal attempt it's from rural providers in my congressional district. they are scared to death, the spike in charitable and uncompensated care due to the fact that under this legislation, you are proposing tax increases on working families, making it harder for them to afford their premium tax obligations as well as significant cut-back in medicaid funding which disproportionately affects rural providers. because we never had one hearing on this, i want to at least ask unanimous consent to have included in the record at this time an article that appeared in "newsweek" dated january 22nd, 2017 written by two emergency medical physicians titled "rural america could be the hardest hit by repeal of obamacare."
i think -- >> i would ask unanimous consent. >> i think they set forth in clear terms what the devastating consequences could be to rural providers with what's before us today. also, the providers are worried about the elimination of 34b drug discount program which we made them eligible for under the affordable care act which has provided them substantial cost savings in rural areas. and furthermore, the risk pools that exist in rural america are much more difficult. these insurance pools tend to be smaller, more volatile, they experience higher cost of services and there is less competition from insurance plans in these rural areas. couple that with making it more expensive for people living in rural america to afford health plans, couple it with eliminated medicaid funding to the states and reducing and capping it in future years. this puts an unusual strain on rural providers not just in our
districts but in any rural district throughout the country. so there are better approaches in order to fix the health care system. what we ought to do is recognize what's currently working, what isn't working, fix what isn't and working together to reduce health care costs for all americans. that's what i'm hearing from people back home. not an attempt to use obamacare has a political punching bag, trying to throw that out because clearly if we want to be honest with the american people, there are good and important features in the affordable care act that we should not touch, that should continue. but there are also things that aren't working as well. there's a way for us to bridge the gap that exists when it comes to health care policy and find those areas that aren't working and fix them together while keeping the main focus on trying to make health care more affordable for all americans. i think that's what people back home have been telling me at least what they would like to see done, and not just this attempt to completely revamp one-fifth of the u.s. economy overnight.
with that i yield back to my friend from alabama if she has more time to spare. >> i would like to yield the remainder of my time to the gentle lady from washington. >> thank you. i'm pleased to support this amendment. i think it's incredibly important that we make sure that rural communities and underserved communities still have access to care. i'm proud to represent one of the most diverse districts in congress with large areas of farmland, rural towns in the sky valley all the way up to the canadian border. as many of my colleagues know, families who live in rural communities already face a number of substantial barriers to health care, often having to travel long distances to reach the nearest hospital or urgent care center, sometimes even to reach the primary care physician. the last thing we should do is putting access to health care farther out of reach for middle class families in rural america. i have heard these concerns directly from a local hospital
in my district which serves thousands of low income patients living in rural parts of the county. they told me that democratic reforms have helped thousands of residents access their doctors and preventive services and that if republicans succeed at repealing the affordable care act, quote, their access will disappear. this amendment is very important. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. >> at this time i'm prepared to rule. i would point out in my rural texas district, that's where the strongest opposition to obamacare resides because they often have no or any choices in health care plans. the costs have skyrocketed for them. they often can't see their local doctor or hospital, all the networks are toward the bigger city. so ending the damage that's been done by obamacare and actually giving them health care tailored to what they need in washington is a key goal of our bill. amendment is not germane to the amendment and nature of substitute because it violates
house rule 16, clause 7 by creating a contingency that is outside the scope and subject matter of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. the point of order is sustained. the amendment is not in order. >> i missouri ove to appeal the mr. chairman. >> the question is on the motion to table be appealed. all in favor signify by saying aye? those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion to table is agreed to. >> mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. >> recorded vote is requested. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. johnson? >> aye. >> mr. nunes? >> aye. >> mr. t irk iberi? >> aye. >> mr. reichert? >> aye. >> mr. roskam? >> aye.
>> mr. buchanan? >> aye. >> mr. smith of nebraska. miss jenkins. mr. paulson? >> arngs ye. >> mr. marchant? >> aye. >> miss black? >> aye. >> mr. reed? mr. kelly? mr. renacci? mr. meehan? >> aye. >> miss noe meshm? >> aye. >> mr. holding? >> aye. >> mr. smith of missouri? >> aye. >> mr. rice? >> aye. >> mr. schweikert? >> aye. >> miss walorsky? >> aye. >> mr. carbelo? >> aye. >> mr. bishop? >> aye. >> mr. neal?
>> no. >> mr. levin? >> no. >> mr. lewis? >> no. >> mr. doggett? >> no. >> mr. thompson? >> no. >> mr. larson? >> no. >> mr. blumenauer? >> no. >> mr. kind? >> no. >> mr. pascrell? >> no. >> mr. crowley? >> no. >> mr. davis? >> no. >> miss sanchez? >> no. >> mr. higgins? >> no. >> miss sewell? >> no. >> miss delbene? >> no. >> miss chu? >> no. >> mr. smith of nebraska? >> aye. >> miss jenkins? mr. reed? mr. kelly?
>> the gentleman is not recorded. >> how do you wish to be recorded, mr. reed? >> aye. >> mr. reed, aye. >> the clerk will report the vote. >> 23 yeas, 16 nays. >> the motion is agreed to. are there further amendments? miss sanchez, for which purpose do you seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the gentle lady, mr. tiberi reserves a point of order. point of order has been reserved. the clerk will distribute the amendment. ask the gentle lady to suspend while the clerk distributes.
may i inquire of the gentle lady from california? >> yes. >> since this amendment isn't germane to this section, would later in the subtile relating to this, would the gentle lady like to withdraw and offer it later? >> no, mr. chairman, i would like to offer the amendment at this time. >> the gentle lady from california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. on behalf of working families across this country i'm pleased
to offer this amendment along with my colleagues from the committee, mr. larson, mr. davis and miss delbene. my amendment would finally repeal the dreaded high cost plan excise tax or as it's been commonly referred to the cadillac tax once and for all. i figured since this bill repeals all taxes and gives tax give-aways we might as well do this one which actually helps working families. the cadillac tax is a 40% excise tax assessed on the cost of any plans that exceed $10,200 per individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage. this tax does not just affect high value plans. it will hit workers, retirees and families with ordinary coverage and those with chronic conditions that are expensive to treat. last year, congress passed a two-year delay to establish a new start date of 2020 but the end of this tax cannot come soon enough. unfortunately, the trump broken promises health care bill offers
tax breaks for the 400 wealthiest americans but refuses to extend a tax cut that would actually help working families. my amendment to repeal the cadillac tax will benefit the 177 million americans and their families with employer sponsored insurance. these are good, hard-working middle class americans who just want a fair shake and a level playing field, not a handout like the one that republicans are trying to give to the wealthiest income earners in this country. why haven't the republicans included it in the trump broken promises health care bill? it's a policy supported by over 300 members of the house in the last congress. that's over 70% of congress and i will tell you, it's been a long time since congress saw approval numbers in the 70s. so let's include this simple amendment to finally give working families a well-deserved break and stop kowtowing to the millionaire and billionaire class once and for all. i would ask unanimous consent to
submit for the record a letter from the international brotherhood of teamsters asking for repeal of this tax. i would like to yield time to my colleague and co-sponsor, susan delbene. >> thank you. i'm pleased to support this amendment from miss sanchez repealing a tax that democrats and republicans agree doesn't work. the cadillac tax is a perfect example of how we could be working together to make targeted improvements to our health care laws rather than the damaging changes that we are considering today. the original design of the cadillac tax was intended to be a narrowly targeted tax on the most quote, extravagant, end quote, plans in order to rein in out of control health care costs. instead, this tax will hit working families because of a variety of factors beyond our control like age, geography or occupation. as written, the cadillac tax
would kick in for families at double the rate of individual plans and what we have learned, though, is that families' costs are often much more than double those of individuals. so it's left to working families and children to carry an outsized share of the tax burden and we all know this is wrong. so we should be working together now to repeal this tax as we have been working on before. unfortunately, we are debating a bill that does nothing to improve access to care or curb costs in the health care system. we are not fixing what needs to be fixed. we are impacting working families across our country and mr. chairman, i also would like to submit for the record a letter from the afl-cio supporting our efforts to repeal the cadillac tax from this legislation. i ask that it be included in the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. so i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back to miss sanchez.
>> thank you. reclaiming my time i would like to yield some time to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. larson. >> i thank the gentle lady and especially thank her for her hard work and dedication and would also like to give joe courtney from connecticut a great deal of credit who, from its inception, has been the lead sponsor against the dreaded cadillac tax. i would just note, mr. chairman, you noted at the outset of this that this was a program here today to provide relief and rescue, and i think it does provide relief and rescue for the trump cabinet, wilbur ross with a net worth of $2.5 billion. betsy devos, $2.2 million. i could go on and on. meanwhile, firefighters, police officers, rank and file union members get left out of the equation and that's why we feel so strongly about the bill
proposed by miss sanchez and i thank her for her support. >> thank you. all time has expired. does the -- mr. tiberi is recognized? >> mr. chairman, i make a point of order to the amendment. i'm trying to follow along with the amendment here, mr. chairman. on the motion to get rid of the cadillac tax, but the amendment offered by miss sanchez has page 15, line 9 through 10, this remuneration section doesn't even have 15 pages. i think you kind of alluded to that earlier and so it clearly, the amendment which ironically, mr. larson, you might remember this, we on this committee, mr. brady and mr. johnson, mr. nunes, mr. reichert and mr. roskam, proposed eliminating the cadillac tax before it even got off the ground.
the democrat cadillac tax. so we have attempted to get rid of this for a long time and we will. we delay it until 2025. this amendment clearly violates house rule 16, clause 7, because as i said, it's not even within the remuneration section. >> will the gentleman yield? >> it doesn't address the issue of cadillac tax within -- i would be happy to. >> well, i appreciate all the efforts that the gentleman has made and again, as i said to him earlier, i think a number of us here, you heard mr. kind's remarks before, that we think we ought to be sitting down collaboratively and working towards a constructive solution instead of this back and forth. what troubles us on this side with respect to the cadillac is that there's no tax, there's no sense of urgency on behalf of working men and women in this country, but apparently, we need
to relieve and rescue mr. ross and miss devos, mr. tillerson, et cetera. >> >> reclaiming my time, those gentlemen were nowhere near this debate in 2009. i was and warned about the cadillac tax to no avail, as the chairman has said as well. >> will the gentleman yield? >> mr. tiberi -- >> clearly it violates house rule 16, clause 7. >> does the gentle lady offering the amendment wish to speak on the point of order? >> i do, mr. chairman. >> you are recognized. >> picking up the thread where mr. larson left off, the cadillac tax most certainly would impact the majority of people that are impacted by that are working americans. they are -- struggling americans. they are people that deserve our efforts to try to help provide them with some relief. the remainder of this bill has huge tax give-aways because it repeals taxes for insurance
company executives, for billionaires, for pharmaceutical companies, for the tanning industry, just about everybody else except for middle class americans. hard-working men and women who go to work day in and day out, they are the glue that hold our communities together, they are cops and teachers and firefighters and teamsters. they are what keep our economy humming. yet we can't find the time or the political effort to even talk about reducing taxes for them. instead, this bill is this huge give-away to the people who least need the help and it's off of the backs of those who most need the help. so you know, the amendment is intended to highlight the fact that it's highly ironic a president who ran on a campaign of trying to help working men and women is actually doing the exact opposite in this bill. you know, the republicans, my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle seem all too willing to dance to his tune and march in lockstep with him instead of doing what they have talked about wanting to do for quite some time which is repealing the cadillac tax. now, we knew when we passed aca that it was not going to be perfect. we knew that down the line, once it was in practice, there might be areas where we needed to fine-tune or fix some things with aca. but we could never get the other side of the aisle to sit down with us and actually have those discussions on how to make aca better. they were so entrenched and so opposed to aca that it was repeal or nothing. well, now you are at a crossroads where you want to repeal the aca and you have this broken promises health care act you are putting forward which doesn't even come close to providing the kind of coverage that it should, doesn't help those that are struggling in this country. again, tends to give goodies away to the people who least need them.
so i think that we ought to consider repealing the cadillac tax in this bill, if you are serious about showing the american people that you care about middle class families and working families that are struggling, and with that i will yield some time the my colleague, mr. crowley from new york. >> i thank the gentle lady. mr. chairman, a question. do we know how many people would benefit from removing the cap from insurance executives in terms of the tax rate they will be provided under this bill? do we have an estimate of how many people would actually be affected by that? >> the committee had asked that question earlier and i said that i would try and see what information my colleagues might have. i don't have anything yet, mr. crowley. >> is it safe to say it's probably no more than hundreds? >> i don't want to -- >> you think it's in the thousands? >> i shouldn't guess. >> is it reasonable to think
it's less than 1,000 people? >> i don't want to guess, mr. crowley. >> is it reasonable to believe relief from the cadillac tax would affect tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people? >> in terms of the cadillac -- i thought you were talking about -- >> i am. two separate issues. >> okay. the cadillac tax, i have some information on from our baseline projections. if we project that the high premium excise tax would potentially affect seven million policy holders in 2020. >> let me write that down. seven million. i wrote down the number seven million policy holders who have exposure to the cadillac tax at some time in the future. is that correct? >> in year 2020. >> sometime in the future. we immediately are going to alleviate the pain and the suffering that insurance executives have right now by
lifting the cap in terms of deductions they are eligible for. but we are going to not have in the underlying bill something that would relieve seven million hard-working americans right now. >> mr. crowley, present law, remember, the cadillac tax does not apply until -- >> i understand that. but there's actually no movement afoot within this measure right now, their bill, to address the issue of those seven million people. that's the point i'm making, rhetoric rhetorically. nothing to help seven million hard-working american right now but help top executives at insurance companies right now. just so american people understand where the priorities lie for mr. trump and the republican party. >> i am prepared to rule. while i am pleased democrats are suddenly outraged at their own bill, at their own tax, republicans on this committee predicted you would be hurting
hard-working families, many of them in union households and we heard from mr. tiberi and mr. kelly and mr. meehan and miss re mr. reed and many others about the damage this would do. the cadillac tax is repealed until 2020. we propose to repeal it even further until 2025. had you not voted unanimously to impose this damaging tax we wouldn't be here today. the amendment is not germane to the amendment in the nature of the substitute because it violates house rule 16, clause 7 by addressing the cadillac tax, the democrat cadillac tax which is outside the subject matter of this amendment in the nature of a substitute. the point of order is sustained. the amendment is not in order. are there other amendments? >> i would like to -- pardon me,
i would like to appeal the ruling of the chair. >> move to table the appeal. >> the chair's ruling, all those in favor, signify by saying aye? those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. >> i would ask for recorded vote. >> recorded vote is requested. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. johnson? >> aye. >> mr. nunes? >> aye. >> mr. tiberi? >> aye. >> mr. reichert? >> aye. >> mr. roskam? >> aye. >> mr. buchanan? >> aye. >> mr. smith of nebraska? >> aye. >> miss jenkins? mr. paul seson? >> aye. >> mr. marchant? >> aye. >> miss black? >> aye. >> mr. reed? >> aye. >> mr. kelly? >> aye.
>> mr. renacci? >> aye. >> mr. meehan? >> aye. >> miz noem? >> aye. >> mr. holding? >> aye. >> mr. smith of missouri? >> aye. >> mr. rice? >> aye. >> mr. schweikert? >> aye. >> miss wolorski? >> aye. >> mr. carbelo? >> aye. >> will bishop? >> aye. >> mr. neal? >> no. >> mr. levin? >> no. >> mr. lewis? >> no. >> mr. doggett? >> no. >> mr. thompson? >> no. >> mr. larson? >> no. >> mr. blumenauer? >> no. >> mr. kind? >> no. >> mr. pascrell? >> no. >> mr. crowley? mr. davis? >>