And bin that nature of a substitute . And then the court will distribute the amendment. Des gentleman from connecticuts it is recognized. Mr. Chairman. En to submit for the record with the Washington Post with alzheimers disease with the g. O. P. Tax bill for in those plans. And to have those devastating effects i am more than 800,000 americans and the letter as well from several organizations the alliance for aging research than National Disability rights the Sclerosis SocietyLutheran Services for america than of those that have come out against the elimination of the medical expense. Without objection. But spencer who with 71. And those who love written me personally submitting their comments for the record. Because our time is limited today. So medical expenses have been allowed to be deducted it is so critical for many of our seniors. The claims of medical expense deduction . Seniors in need of longterm care . Pears with the special needs child, multiple sclerosis, a cancer, 116,000 claim this deduction averaging 11,114,000 of qualified medical expenses. With that elimination is the 1. 6 billion per chip for the connecticut taxpayers a levels. To say this is a tax loophole for the rich but it is a middle and class deduction. At the 8. 8 million 6. 3 million have incomes of 75,000 arrests or less her if you are wealthy you must be very sick to have expenses in over 10 percent of your income of those tax filers these are friends and families facing devastating illnesses with children and spouses meeting full time and longterm care. I will repeatedly say you have got to tell the same friends and neighbors better impacted by this. Well be forced everyone to go on the Medicaid Program . So they on the book since the 40s i had a mother who had multiple sclerosis. I know how this can impact of the families and their desire to do whatever they can. That is why that is so right on when they talk about this. So those letter claiming this is less than 50,000. So this is a direct result. So why be your own this side so those that will join us. So with that Tax Deduction they previously enjoyed. Recognized for three minutes. Here we are 16 minutes into end after todays because of the gentleman from connecticut is a true friend but theyre not defending once again. That legislation produces taxes for americans in every income level with a simple tax code to benefit my constituents every stage of their life. It is so fundamental is untouchable. In then to pay in the entitlements. So earlier this year to put forth solutions of all americans and health care was right for them including the increasing amount to provide additional funds of the population including seniors. As part of the comprehensive Health Reform earlier without medical expense deduction under obamacare but with tax reform it is no longer vital things together tax benefits that all americans provided in this bill. But what was critical was the progrowth policy and payroll tax revenues to increase the solvency of the trust fund would also generations to come to rely on this program and i yield back. The health care in elections suggest they include the number one issue that i cannot support enough the amendment that goes to the issue of the hca was not the status quo. To lower the threshold for eligibility for medical expenses and deductions. Those with health care expense is our little help to the tax code. Eliminating this entirely the help that they receive through the tax code will now be redirected to those i referenced one of the constituents from new jersey to use is the deduction that totaled more than 12,000 each year. 20,148. 7 million americans claim the medical expense deduction with 50,000 or less than 74 50 years or older so repealing this is a tax increase on Senior Citizens if republicans got their way and it would skyrocket and those House Republicans and control that out of pocket cost by 2026. It is like an oil painting. Not just peace is an isolation. With those out of pocket for those that our lucky enough to still have insurance no longer getting help through the tax code but guess who will continue to prosper . I urge my colleagues to support the amendment is brilliant. Mr. Chairman it is so fascinating they were persuaded during the passage of the Affordable Care act why would they propose to make medical expenses more difficult . That is exactly the plan to move the deductibility at 10 percent that was their idea. Something that they did violence to i dont have an answer for that purpose there is no answer. It is absurd and inconsistent. Parenthetically if the hca were working as it was proposed this discussion will not be necessary. By listening to this image that these proposals are not to be viewed in isolation. In those to keep more of their own money during the duration of their lifetime . Those that our episodic. I will yield my time to mr. Larson but i will vote what we are talking about is of 117 billion is available for citizens to have to deduct those expenses to get those multinational corporations you dont give their fair share. Where under this deduction for glasses or guide dogs. Or childbirth classs for prosthetic limbs because this committee refuses to do anything of any type with the price gouging from pharmaceutical companies companies, people down in texas are calling me concerned about the rage as price she has to pay for insulin. Until we have a committee that is willing to stand up to the pharmaceutical industry to do something beyond giving them more corporate giveaways like this bill does. The gentleman is correct her cry would point to and did to the status quo and is it relates to the relief you bet i am to make sure they have those services that they have been receiving since the 40s. So yes we want to preserve that. So to have that payment for reading and prescription eyeglasses so what happens . To that compassionate conservatism . Your nofaults of their own it it doesnt matter what particular tax bracket you are in so we should understand the status quo with respect to the ability to deduct these from the expenses you incur remains and the tax code. So to squeeze into corporate interest is wrong. [inaudible conversations] i thought i was second. I appreciate the amendment when he tries to do so my friend used a couple of words so does that mean they are deductible when the claims are qualified . I want to make sure the American People realize you can claim it. Said jeff qualified medical expenses but with a tax return is not deductible because it doesnt mean that. Is a possibility . Under present law there is a floor to have total qualified expenses then you could clean the excess above the floor that is about 10 of adjusted gross income. Said average Median Income and so first you have to get that threshold which is 10 which is 11,000. And that standard deduction of a couple is 12,000. And getting into the weeds but then 24,000 of expenses before you even get the deduction if you take that 2 percent of 116 and the 12,007. That is before you ever get a true deductions. Said take the total of all itemized deductions. Face up to get through that 24,000. So to get that deduction then you get the true deduction so we can say these are deductions so they dont meet that standard. So that didnt daunt total itemized deductions if they exceeded the same but a typical nursing home care with alzheimers is roughly 98,000 per year. A lot of families are divesting themselves of assets of all income levels to qualify for shortterm medicare qualification. Theyre not supposed to but with those 21,000 returns i took medical expenses and average reductionist 10,200,500 so this is definitely impacting middleclass working families. This is a radical change in policy better planning for that eventuality. The longterm care policies stocks right now. Insurance is virtually nonexistent so now you take away with those have been planning for and to repeal the deduction. The point is well taken. This is on the brink of financial ruin. And asking unanimous consent to be included in the record an article appeared from the Washington Post saying base figures planning to live with alzheimers disease the g. O. P. Tax plan britains those plans. As an expert in this area the series are fascinating. But what would have been great to have somebody sitting there aarp it would have been great those said impacted. Of 24200500 or less. These are real people. This will only impact dave minimum amount of people. These are your friends and your family in your community to said year did not come under our percentage if you lose that exemption then you are not worthy. This is why i want to make sure the history to have the math correctly. This exemption used to be a 7. 5 of adjusted gross income. Before that was 5 and 3 . That movement at 10 came in the statute when . So at the time of the hca to move that tax deductibility beyond a t i in that phase in . But those rules with taxpayer spouse over age 65 and. S 7. 5 so that was the general rule 10 percent regardless of taxpayer age with the effective date. So that was the statuary mechanism . When did this than come into effect . Last year. And with the ac a referred to as obamacare. To ratchet up that percentage of a gi. Now what is happening with the tax reform package that the agi adjustment especially for the people in arizona if we are now with 10 percent then how much of my calculation would actually have Access Medical expenses with those calculations with that analysis to see the Population Dynamics . If you would like to know those taxpayers over the next several years . The hca has already created. Net knowhow that with me at the table i can get that to you later today. Am looking for intellectual consistency because those that supported this now we offer amendments for the other direction. Just a little bit of consistency. Now your recognized to speak on the amendment. And strongly support the amendment so in my state of illinois 373,160 individuals claimed the medical expense them less than 75,000. With 191,000. Those of their reported income of 50,000 or less and in my district alone 15,000 with that medical expense deduction. It is almost to the dollars so this isnt necessarily for those Senior Citizens to other places throughout the country. I yield back. I yield my time. And to go back to mr. Larsons district you first half to get above the 10 threshold before you have deductible medical expenses. Absolutely correct. Once you get above that it is above the itemized deductions. The in my friend mr. Larsens district they were proposing a four person household of a average savings of 4,100 in taxes so the question is if comes down to with the average household im not talking about blamed or qualified but the claimed deduction on their tax return but if it doesnt go over the standard scott not a deduction. If you qualify which ive heard my friends use it as a deduction. The question would be, and i appreciate my friend the question comes down to mr. Larsen rather than the tax of 4,096 on the average. When you go back to how many people on average . 3 . Approximately 6 . We are talking about a small number in the higher tax bracket. The top half of the income distribution. You are recognized to speak on the amendment. It is unbelievable that the plan would eliminate. Yes the claimants must but it is the most expected difficult medical problems. No one knows when the more serious illness will occur. My state over 1 million taxpayers claim it, the average deduction was 10,413 nearly half of californians who claim this deduction reported an income of 50,000 per year or less. That savings can make a difference that allows families to give loved ones the best care they can at the most critical time of their life, so this elimination will hurt, like a mother that gave birth to twins that have to be hospitalized for months and are overjoyed when they come home but they required ventilators, feeding pumps and oxygen and have to have the necessary monitoring equipment. The contributions cannot afford the payments and weekly chicopee trips to require the outofpocket expenses for the 10 of the income. Its the only way she and her family could stay. Why should this mother be penalized for the corporations and the rich can get richer and i will yield the rest of my ti time. I want to thank you for giving me an opportunity to talk about his view because we have no experts and i dont need claims that hes an expert on this one certainly not an expert about the number of people in the state of connecticut who file individually as i said repeatedly it is 41 of over 700,000 people in the state of connecticut who do so and to add insult to injury, you have the individual deductions. So, as it piles up in the state of connecticut as i explained to the Committee Earlier it was averaging 11,000 meanwhile you ask us and the seniors to pay for 5,000 Healthy People who will be benefited from the estate tax bill. Thats what we are talking about. Where are the specifics for that . The thank you mr. Chairman. I take a little offense to my colleagues on the other side in the way that we dont care about the Senior Citizens that we sit with anand talk with. I dont care about the individual on their deathbed as a volunteer in hospice and staying with those people i dont care about those people because of the tax. But me tell you what i can try to summarize for the American People. We have two seniors making about 24,000 a year, they are low income seniors, about 20,000 worth of medical expenses. Under todays code, a 24,000, or 4,000 worth of taxable income still subject to tax. What do we do . We take the 24,000 coupled and expand the deduction to 24,000 under the new code that is in this code and doesnt care about a lot of people back home in my opinion. What we do is say 24,000dollar income minus the newest standard deduction that we increased, what does that produce . Zero taxable income, zero. Under the existing code with 20,000 is a lot of medical expense. Under the existing code they have to pay a tax would we do is do the best we can. I understand what you are trying to do, that republicans wont care about the wealthy and corporations. Let me tell you something, i care a lot about people. Its why im here and im trying to improve their situation on a daytoday basis. Basis. To insinuate i am some evil republican is offensive. You care about people, too. I know you do. What we are trying to do is make their lives a little bit easier, simpler, not sen and not send io washington and left them enjoy their lives as best they can as we go through this process. Ms. Sanchez. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record and article from the la times to hit the middle class. Without objection, so ordered. I would also like unanimous consent to put my record in the interest of time and at this time i would yield time to my colleague mr. Blumenauer. I heard my colleagues say its kind of following the path of democrats because the limitation was restricted when we approved the care act. The Affordable Care act, which we paid for, was the largest expansion and that was a huge benefit for a wide range of americans including the orderly. Contrast that with wiping it out altogether not to give more health care to people, but to make active cuts for the most welloff. The inheritance tax is the the difference is telling. Millions of health care which you are trying to take away versus wiping out deductio the n and tiger lee for senior citizen. I would like to reclaim the remainder of my time. I think the gentle lady and i am prepared to close. I would like to close by asking is it guaranteed that those in the states with 11 million will get a tax break from this bill . Is it guaranteed if the bill becomes law that they will get a tax break . The the bill retains the top individual rate. Its not guarantee that there will be benefits. Those at the state over 11 million im sorry, my apologies. In the bowling the estate. That is the point we are trying to make and i will state again i think that you are all honorable and thats why we are asking you not to do this. We are asking that we go back to the status quo so that we do not have Senior Citizens paying for a state tax relief. Time is expired. Question on the agreement offered by mr. Larson. All those in favor signify. Those opposed, no. In the nature of the amendment in the substitute. I resort to the point of order. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank my friend as a cosponsor of the amendment. The amendment is very simple. To save 2. 15201 billion of the bill. It never crossed my mind it would consider the bill to repeal the amendment and the Charitable Organization began earlier this year. It was too crazy, unbelievable. When i reached the end of the bill i was shocked. We spend hours and organized training and studying because they have a moral respect against the indefensible policies. It was never about a party or candidate put together our shared values, hopes, dreams, families of the world. This bill before us will put neighbors against neighbors and volunteers against volunteers. Until the last stability in our country. You may not remember the house tried to repeal the amendment and i remember it like it was yesterday. It will free us from politics in our heart of hearts. To put the good of the nation before the campaigns. Help us and save us for what we might do today. Is there a republican. Are you going to any republicans on this . Thank you very much mr. Chairman. At the lyndon b. Johnson amendment that the republicans would appeal is work that president johnson did recognizing the great importance of preserving the independence and integrity of religious organizations and charities. More than 4500 charities and over 100 religious leaders voiced their support for maintaining the amendment. There is a cost reflected in the table from joint tax, over 2 billion with the lost. As a mega church of mega attacks and that is where this would lead to. This tax bill will be formed, not reform the tax law for the houses of worship. It threatens to destroy the congregations from within over disagreements on the partisan politics. It assures an unholy alliance. Pastors and people of faith know that there is nothing free about the pulpit that is bought and paid for by Political Campaign contributions are beholden to partisan interests. They are designed to transcend partisan politics. They noted the houses of worship need to b