¶ Bill Huizenga – Key Votes
¶ Huizenga Voted To Threaten Southern Californians' Health Care
¶ July 2025: Huizenga Voted For The Final Version Of Republicans’ Reconciliation Bill
7/3/25: Huizenga Voted For The Senate FY 2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill That Cut Medicaid And Other Social Programs To Offset The Bill’s Costs. In July 2025, Edwards voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, the “motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the bill that would permanently extend nearly $4 trillion in expiring individual and business tax cuts, create several new tax breaks and fund border and immigration enforcement and air traffic control upgrades. It would cut Medicaid and other safety net programs to partly offset the cost. Among other provisions, it would raise the statutory debt ceiling by $5 trillion and appropriate more than $448 billion in mandatory funding for Trump administration priorities and other needs, including $153 billion for defense, $89 billion for immigration enforcement, and $89.5 billion for border control and security. It also would increase the state and local tax deduction cap to $40,000 annually for five years for households making up to $500,000 a year until 2030, when it would permanently revert to $10,000.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 218 to 214. [House Vote 190, 7/3/25; Congressional Quarterly, 7/3/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
- HEADLINE: "At Least 17 Million Americans Would Lose Insurance Under Trump Plan" [Washington Post, 7/1/25]
- The Congressional Budget Office Estimated That 11.8 Million People Would Become Uninsured As A Result Of The Medicaid Cuts In Republicans’ Reconciliation Bill. According to the Washington Post, "The bill, which narrowly passed the Senate on Tuesday and now heads back to the House, would effectively accomplish what Republicans have long failed to do: unwind many of the key components of the ACA, President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement, which dramatically increased the number of Americans with access to health insurance. To start, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Senate version of the bill would result in 11.8 million more uninsured in 2034, mostly because of Medicaid cuts, compared with 10.9 million if the House version became law." [Washington Post, 7/1/25]
¶ May 2025: Huizenga Voted For House Republicans’ Budget Bill, Which Would Kick Millions Of People Off Their Health Coverage
5/22/25: Huizenga Voted For The FY 2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill That Included $3.8 Trillion In Tax Cuts Offset By $1.5 Trillion In Spending Reductions To Programs Like Medicaid And The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. In May 2025, Huizenga voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the bill that would provide for approximately $3.8 trillion in net tax cuts and $321 billion in military, border enforcement and judiciary spending, offset by $1.5 trillion in spending reductions, as instructed in the fiscal 2025 budget resolution (H Con Res 14). It would raise the statutory debt limit by $4 trillion and provide for increased spending on defense and border security, spending cuts on social safety net programs, such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It also includes a mix of tax breaks for businesses and individuals; tax increases on universities and foundations; and a phase-down of clean energy tax credits. […] It would reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by requiring states to shoulder more of the cost, expand work requirements for SNAP, extend programs authorized under the 2018 farm bill, and prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture from increasing the cost of the Thrifty Food Program. As amended, it would cap state and local tax deductions at $40,000 for households with incomes below $500,000.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 215 to 214. [House Vote 145, 5/22/25; Congressional Quarterly, 5/22/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
- The House GOP Budget Bill Was Estimated To Increase The Uninsured Population By 8.6 Million By 2034. According to CNN, “The Medicaid and Affordable Care Act provisions in the package could result in 8.6 million more people being uninsured in 2034, according to an early CBO estimate released by Democratic lawmakers. That number is expected to grow with the latest changes.” [CNN, 5/28/25]
- The House GOP Budget Bill Codified A Trump Administration Proposal That Restricted Access To The Affordable Care Act. According to CNN, “The bill also calls for codifying a Trump administration proposal that would make changes to the Affordable Care Act enrollment process, including shortening the open enrollment period and eliminating the ability of low-income Americans to sign up year-round.” [CNN, 5/28/25]
¶ February 2025: Huizenga Voted For A Budget Resolution That Set Up Future Medicaid Cuts
2/25/25: Huizenga Voted For The FY 2025 Budget Framework That Included $2 Trillion In Cuts, Raised The Statutory Debt Limit By $4 Trillion, And Required House Committees To Recommend Legislation That Would Implement Trump’s Agenda. In February 2025, Huizenga voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the concurrent resolution that would recommend a budget for fiscal 2025 and budget levels through fiscal 2034. The resolution would assume minimum savings of $1.5 trillion over 10 years and 2.6 percent economic growth over the same period. It also would require the statutory debt limit to be raised by $4 trillion. It also would authorize the House Ways and Means Committee to increase deficits by $4.5 trillion over 10 years to extend the 2017 tax cuts and implement new tax cuts proposed by the White House. It also would provide instructions for the budget reconciliation process through which separate legislation could be considered and passed in the Senate via a simple majority vote. The measure would deliver instructions to 11 House committees to report legislation that would implement President Donald Trump’s agenda, such as expanding tax cuts and bolstering border security and immigration enforcement. The committees would be required to report their legislative recommendations to the House Budget Committee by March 27, 2025. It also would set a $2 trillion target for the spending cuts to be submitted to the House Budget Committee. The resolution also would stipulate that if the committees don't reach that target, the Ways and Means’ reconciliation instructions to increase the deficit by a maximum of $4.5 trillion would be decreased by the amount the other committees come in below the target. Similarly, it would stipulate that Ways and Means could increase the deficit above the $4.5 trillion level by the amount of savings the committees achieve above the $2 trillion target.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the resolution by a vote of 217 to 215. [House Vote 50, 2/25/25; Congressional Quarterly, 2/25/25; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 14]
- HEADLINE: “What Can House Republicans Cut Instead Of Medicaid? Not Much.” [New York Times, 2/25/25]
- HEADLINE: "House Republican Budget Takes Away Health Care, Food Aid To Pay For Expanded Tax Cuts For Wealthy" [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/21/25]
- New York Times Reported The $880 Billion In Cuts Required By The Republican Budget Proposal Would Have To Come From Medicaid, Medicare, Or CHIP. According to the New York Times, "The budget resolution itself is silent on whether Congress cuts Medicaid, which provides health coverage to 72 million poor and disabled Americans. But it instructs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the program, to cut spending by $880 billion over the next decade. If the committee can’t save at least that much, the entire effort could be imperiled because of the special process Congress is using to avoid a Senate filibuster. Ten other committees have their own instructions to follow, though none have been assigned with cutting nearly as much. It’s not so simple as finding the cuts elsewhere. The special process, known as budget reconciliation, means Republicans will have to find all $880 billion from within the Energy and Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction. That leaves them with fewer options than one might think. […] If Republicans want to avoid major cuts to Medicaid, the largest pot of available money is in the other big government health insurance program: Medicare. […] Even if the committee cuts everything that’s not health care to $0, it will still be more than $600 billion short. The committee could also save around $200 billion by eliminating the Children’s Health Insurance Program, but that option has not been raised by the budget committee or anyone in House leadership. […] Even if all of these cuts, revenues and rule cancellations from outside health care can pass muster, the committee will still be left with hundreds of billions of dollars to cut to hit its goal. Mathematically, the budget committee’s instructions mean the committee would need to make major cuts to either Medicare, Medicaid or both." [New York Times, 2/25/25]
¶ Huizenga Voted To Repeal The Affordable Care Act, Which Helped Nearly 500,000 Michiganders Get Health Insurance
¶ Huizenga has repeatedly voted to repeal the affordable care act
2017: Huizenga Voted For The American Health Care Act That Which Would Result In 23 Million Fewer Americans With Health Insurance By 2026. In May 2017, Huizenga voted for the American Health Care Act which would have significantly repealed portions of the Affordable Care Act by cutting Medicaid, cutting taxes on the rich, removing safeguard for pre-existing conditions and defunding Planned Parenthood. The overall legislation would have in part, also according to Congressional Quarterly, “ma[d]e extensive changes to the 2010 health care overhaul law, by effectively repealing the individual and employer mandates as well as most of the taxes that finance the current system. It would [have], in 2020, convert[ed] Medicaid into a capped entitlement that would provide[d] fixed federal payments to states and end[ed] additional federal funding for the 2010 law’s joint federal-state Medicaid expansion. It would prohibit federal funding to any entity, such as Planned Parenthood, that performs abortions and receives more than $350 million a year in Medicaid funds. […] It would [have] allow[ed] states to receive waivers to exempt insurers from having to provide certain minimum benefits.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 217 to 213. The bill, in modified forms, died in the Senate. [House Vote 256, 5/4/17; Congressional Quarterly, 5/4/17; Kaiser Family Foundation, 5/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1628]
- Legislation Would Result In 14 Million Additional Uninsured Americans In 2018, Rising To 23 Million In 2026. According to the New York Times, “A bill to dismantle the Affordable Care Act that narrowly passed the House this month would leave 14 million more people uninsured next year than under President Barack Obama’s health law — and 23 million more in 2026, the Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday. Some of the nation’s sickest would pay much more for health care. Under the House bill, the number of uninsured would be slightly lower, but deficits would be somewhat higher, than the budget office estimated before Republican leaders made a series of changes to win enough votes for passage. Beneath the headline-grabbing numbers, those legislative tweaks would bring huge changes to the American health care system.” [New York Times, 5/24/17]
2017: Huizenga Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Fully Repealing Obamacare. In October 2017, Huizenga voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, “provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget.” The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
- Legislation Called For Repealing The ACA And Replacing It With Parts Of AHCA. According to the Republican Study Committee FY 2018 Budget, “Obamacare is a failed experiment and cannot be reformed; it must be fully repealed. […] The RSC budget fully repeals Obamacare and its distortionary and destructive tax increases. […] On January 4, 2017, the RSC reintroduced the American Health Care Reform Act (AHCRA), the updated version of the patient-centered health care reform legislation that the RSC has sponsored since the 113th Congress. Introducing AHCRA on the second day of the 115th Congress kick-started a process by which the House has begun to fulfill the promise of repealing and replacing Obamacare. The American Health Care Act (AHCA) passed the House on May 4, 2017. This reconciliation bill, while not perfect by any standards, includes many of the principles and policies first put forward in legislation by the RSC.” [Republican Study Committee, Accessed 10/17/17]
2017: Huizenga Voted For A Budget Resolution Designed To Begin The Process Of Repealing The Affordable Care Act, Which Also Assumes A $9 Trillion Increase In The Federal Debt Over The Next Ten Years. In January 2017, Huizenga voted for a budget resolution designed to begin reconciliation instructions to repeal the Affordable Care Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, “the proposed 10-year spending framework culminates in a $1 trillion annual deficit and adds about $9 trillion to the national debt.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the budget resolution by a vote of 227 to 198. The Senate had already passed the resolution. [House Vote 58, 1/13/17; Congressional Quarterly, 1/4/17; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 3]
2016: Huizenga Voted To Override President Obama’s Veto Of A Bill That Repealed Portions Of The Affordable Care Act, Including Eliminating The Act’s Medicaid Expansion In 2018. In February 2016, Huizenga voted to override President Obama’s veto of a bill that according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “scrap[ed] in 2018 the law’s Medicaid expansion, as well as subsidies to help individuals buy coverage through the insurance exchanges.” Additionally, according to Congressional Quarterly the bill would have “repeal[ed] portions of the 2010 health care law and block[ed] federal funding for Planned Parenthood for one year. As amended, the bill would zero-out the law’s penalties for noncompliance with the law’s requirements for most individuals to obtain health coverage and employers to offer health insurance.” The vote was on a veto override, which required a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House, which was 285 in the House. The House rejected the veto override by a vote of 241 to 186. [House Vote 53, 2/2/16; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Real Clear Politics, 12/4/15; Congressional Quarterly, 2/2/16; NBC News, 1/8/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3762]
2016: Huizenga Voted For A Bill That Repealed Portions Of The Affordable Care Act, Including Eliminating The Act’s Medicaid Expansion In 2018. In January 2016, Huizenga voted for a bill that according to Congressional Quarterly, would have “scrap[ed] in 2018 the law’s Medicaid expansion, as well as subsidies to help individuals buy coverage through the insurance exchanges.” Additionally, according to Congressional Quarterly the bill would have “repeal[ed] portions of the 2010 health care law and block[ed] federal funding for Planned Parenthood for one year. As amended, the bill would zero-out the law’s penalties for noncompliance with the law’s requirements for most individuals to obtain health coverage and employers to offer health insurance.” The vote was on a motion to concur with the Senate amendment which indicated final passage. The House approved the bill by a vote of 240 to 181. The Senate had already passed the measure. President Obama vetoed the legislation, which the House failed to override. [House Vote 6, 1/8/16; Congressional Quarterly, 12/3/15; Real Clear Politics, 12/4/15; NBC News, 1/8/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3762]
2015: Huizenga Voted To Repeal Portions Of The Affordable Care Act And To Defund Planned Parenthood For One Year Through A Reconciliation Bill. In October 2015, Huizenga voted to repeal portions of the Affordable Care Act through a reconciliation bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, the reconciliation bill would have “repeal[ed] portions of the 2010 health care law, including: the requirements for most individuals to have health insurance and employers with more than 50 employees to offer it or face penalties, the 2.3 percent tax on the sale of medical devices, the tax on certain high-value employer-sponsored health insurance plans, and the Prevention and Public Health Fund. The measure also would block, for one year, federal funding for Planned Parenthood and would increase funding for community health centers by $235 million in both fiscal 2016 and 2017.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 240 to 189. The Senate later passed a different version of the legislation, which the president vetoed, which failed to be overridden in the House. [House Vote 568, 10/23/15; Congressional Quarterly, 10/23/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3762]
2015: Huizenga Voted To Repeal The Affordable Care Act, As Part Of The FY 2016 Conference Report Budget Resolution. In April 2015, Huizenga voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act as part of the FY 2016 Conference Report budget resolution. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Adoption of the conference report on the concurrent resolution that would reduce spending by $5.3 trillion over the next 10 years, including $2 trillion in reductions from repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul.” The vote was on the Conference Report; the Conference Report passed by a vote of 226 to 197. The Senate also passed the budget resolution. [House Vote 183, 4/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, 5/5/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11]
- Center For Budget And Policy Priorities Said The Budget Would Eliminate Health Coverage For Millions Of Americans. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “The House-passed budget agreement that the Senate will consider next week would repeal health reform and cut Medicaid over the coming decade by roughly half a trillion dollars on top, making tens of millions more Americans uninsured.” [Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/1/15]
2015: Huizenga Voted For The FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Called For Repealing Most Of The Affordable Care Act. In March 2015, Huizenga voted for the FY 2016 budget resolution which called repealing most of the Affordable Care Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, the resolution, “assumes […] that the 2010 health care overhaul is repealed — including its expansion of Medicaid to cover more Americans under the program.” In addition, also according to Congressional Quarterly, the budget resolution calls for the “repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board. […] In repealing the health care law, however, the budget assumes that the reductions made to Medicare by that law would not be repealed; instead, those savings and others would be retained, with the budget calling for them to be used to shore up Medicare rather than ‘paying for new entitlements.’” The vote was on the budget resolution. The House passed the resolution 228 to 199. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 142, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Huizenga Voted For A FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Called For Repealing Most Of The Affordable Care Act. In March 2015, Huizenga voted for a FY 2016 Budget Resolution which called repealing most of the Affordable Care Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, the resolution, “assumes […] that the 2010 health care overhaul is repealed — including its expansion of Medicaid to cover more Americans under the program.” In addition, also according to Congressional Quarterly, the budget resolution calls for the “repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board. […] In repealing the health care law, however, the budget assumes that the reductions made to Medicare by that law would not be repealed; instead, those savings and others would be retained, with the budget calling for them to be used to shore up Medicare rather than ‘paying for new entitlements.’” The vote was on the adopting the substitute amendment. The House passed the amendment 219 to 208 and later passed the budget resolution. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 141, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 86; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Huizenga Voted For A FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Called For Repealing Most Of The Affordable Care Act. In March 2015, Huizenga voted for a FY 2016 Budget Resolution which called repealing most of the Affordable Care Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, the resolution, “assumes […] that the 2010 health care overhaul is repealed — including its expansion of Medicaid to cover more Americans under the program.” In addition, also according to Congressional Quarterly, the budget resolution calls for the “repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board. […] In repealing the health care law, however, the budget assumes that the reductions made to Medicare by that law would not be repealed; instead, those savings and others would be retained, with the budget calling for them to be used to shore up Medicare rather than ‘paying for new entitlements.’” The vote was on the adopting the substitute amendment. The House rejected the amendment 105 to 319. The House later adopted a substitute amendment identical to this except for a change in defense spending and then later passed the budget resolution. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 140, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/30/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 85; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Huizenga Voted To Repeal The Affordable Care Act Through Reconciliation As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Huizenga voted for repealing the Affordable Care Act through reconciliation. According to the Republican Study Committee, the budget would have “fully repeal[ed] Obamacare spending and tax increases through reconciliation.” The underlying budget resolution would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, “provide[d] for $2.804 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2016, not including off-budget accounts. The substitute would call for reducing spending by $7.1 trillion over 10 years compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline.” The vote was on the substitute amendment to a Budget Resolution. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 132 to 294. [House Vote 138, 3/25/15; Republican Study Committee, FY 2016 Budget; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 83; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Huizenga Voted For A Bill Repealing The Affordable Care Act And Requiring Congressional Committees To Come Up With A Replacement In No Specified Time. In February 2015, Huizenga voted for a bill repealing the Affordable Care Act and directing four Congressional Committees to come up with a replacement, without specifying when this must be done. According to Congressional Quarterly, “this bill repeals the 2010 health care overhaul […] and requires House committees to report legislation to replace the health care law. Under the measure, the repeal would be effective 180 days after enactment (rather than retroactively repealed to a date in 2010, as in the introduced version), and it provides that the provisions of law that were amended or repealed by the health care overhaul would be restored or revived as if the overhaul had not been enacted. […] The bill requires four House committees to report legislation within each of their jurisdictions to replace the 2010 health care overhaul: Education and the Workforce, Energy and Commerce, Judiciary, and Ways and Means. It does not, however, specify a time frame or deadline for those committees to act.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill 239 to 186. The Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 58, 2/3/15; Congressional Quarterly, 1/30/15; Congressional Quarterly, Accessed 10/1/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 596]
2014: Huizenga Voted To Repeal The Affordable Care Act, As Part OF Rep. Paul Ryan’s Budget Proposal. In April 2014, Huizenga voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2015 to 2024. According to The Hill, “Rep. Paul Ryan’s final House budget includes a full repeal of ObamaCare. […] Ryan did not lay out the parameters of a replacement, or say what would happen to those who have already obtained coverage under the new healthcare law. But Ryan, seen as a future GOP White House hopeful, said the law was a ‘costly mistake’ that needed to be replaced.” The House adopted the budget resolution by a vote of 219 to 205, but the Senate did not. [House Vote 177, 4/10/14; The Hill, 4/1/14; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 96]
2014: Huizenga Voted To Repeal The Affordable Care Act. In April 2014, Huizenga voted for the Republican Study Committee’s proposed budget resolution for fiscal years 2015 to 2024. According to the Republican Study Committee, “The RSC budget fully repeals Obamacare and provides no funding for it over the next ten years. This reduces spending by $2.066 trillion over ten years and follows through on the commitment of House conservatives to reverse the Administration’s unconstitutional federal government takeover of the nation’s health care system.” The House considered the RSC budget as a substitute amendment to House Republicans’ FY 2015 budget resolution; the amendment was rejected by a vote of 133 to 291. [House Vote 175, 4/10/14; Republican Study Committee, 4/7/14; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 615; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 96]
- RSC Budget Proposed Replacing ACA With Its Own “American Health Care Reform Act.” According to the Republican Study Committee, their budget would “[i]mplement real patient-centered health care reform that would lower costs and improve access with the RSC's American Health Care Reform Act. […] Republicans aren't simply opposed to Obamacare, and we are not blind to the problems that existed pre-Obamacare. Rising costs, limited access to the health care marketplace, and a serious need for medical malpractice reform were issues that existed both before and after Obamacare. The American Health Care Reform Act (AHCRA), the only comprehensive Obamacare alternative to be endorsed by a majority of House Republicans, was born from this realization.” [Republican Study Committee, 4/7/14]
- Washington Post’s Wonkblog: AHCRA “Likely To Cover Fewer People Than Obamacare.” According to a Sarah Kliff post on the Washington Post’s Wonkblog, “The Republican Study Committee put out a new proposal Wednesday, billed as legislation that could replace the Affordable Care Act. Dubbed the American Health Care Reform Act, H.R. 3121 starts by repealing President Obama's health law and standing up a whole other set of reforms in its place. The component parts are likely to cover fewer people than Obamacare.” [Washington Post’s Wonkblog, 9/19/13]
2013: Huizenga Voted To Repeal The Affordable Care Act. In May 2013, Huizenga voted for a bill that, according to the Congressional Research Service, “Repeals the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, effective as of its enactment. Restores provisions of law amended by such Act. Repeals the health care provisions of the Health Care and Education and Reconciliation Act of 2010, effective as of the Act's enactment. Restores provisions of law amended by the Act's health care provisions.” The bill passed by a vote of 229 to 195. The bill was placed on the Senate Calendar but no further action was taken. [House Vote 154, 5/16/13; CRS Summary of H.R. 45, 5/16/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 45]
- The Bill Was The 37th Attempt By House Republicans To Repeal The Affordable Care Act. According to Daily Beast, “Yes, H.R. 45 has zero chance of surviving the Senate, much less the president’s veto pen. Yes, the House had already voted 36 times to repeal the law in part or in its entirety. […] But just because Vote No. 37—this one spearheaded by former presidential candidate and noted stateswoman Michelle Bachmann—was futile does not mean it was pointless. No, siree. As the GOP leadership’s office was at pains to lecture reporters this week, Obamacare remains broadly unpopular, and therefore Republican lawmakers have an obligation to the public to keep fighting the good fight. ‘This is a drumbeat,’ party strategist John Feehery told me the morning of the vote. ‘When Obamacare starts really hitting people, the Democrats will rue the days that they voted not to repeal.’” [Daily Beast, 5/17/13]
2013: Huizenga Voted For Repealing The Affordable Care Act As Part Of The FY 2014 Ryan Budget. In March 2013, Huizenga voted for repealing the Affordable Care Act, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023. According to the House Budget Committee, the budget would “Repeal the President’s health-care law.” The resolution passed the House by a vote of 221 to 207, but died in the Senate. [House Vote 88, 3/21/13; House Budget Committee, 3/12/13; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
2013: Huizenga Voted To Repeal The Affordable Care Act. In March 2013, Huizenga voted to support repealing the Affordable Care Act, as part of the Republican Study Committee’s proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023. According to the Republican Committee, the budget would “Repeal the President’s health-care law.” The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the RSC’s proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 104 to 132 with 171 Democrats voting present. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Repeating a strategy from last year, 171 Democrats voted “present” to push Republicans to vote against the RSC plan to make sure it did not have enough support to replace the Ryan plan.” [House Vote 86, 3/21/13; Republican Study Committee, 3/18/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 35; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
2012: Huizenga Voted To Repeal The Affordable Care Act. In July 2012, Huizenga voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would [have] repeal[ed] the 2010 health care overhaul law, which requires most individuals to buy health insurance by 2014, makes changes to government health care programs and sets new requirements for health insurers. The bill would [have] restore[d] the provisions of law amended or repealed by the health care overhaul, and repeal certain provisions of the health care reconciliation law.” The vote was on passage of the bill, which the House approved by a vote of 244 to 185. The bill died without any further substantive action by the Senate. [House Vote 460, 7/11/12; Congressional Quarterly, 7/11/12; Congressional Actions, H.R. 6079]
2012: Huizenga Voted To Repeal The Affordable Care Act As Part Of The FY 2013 Ryan Budget. In March 2012, Huizenga voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2013 to 2022. According to the House Budget Committee, the budget would “repeal the President’s health care law.” The vote was on passage; the resolution passed by a vote of 228 to 191. The Senate later rejected a motion to proceed to consider the House-passed budget resolution. [House Vote 151, 3/16/12; House Budget Committee, 3/20/12; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 112]
2012: Huizenga Voted To Repeal The Affordable Care Act. In March, 2012, Huizenga voted to support repealing the Affordable Care Act, as part of the Republican Study Committee’s proposed budget resolution covering FY 2013 to 2022. According to the Republican Committee, the budget would “Repeal ObamaCare to eliminate $636 billion in additional spending over ten years.” The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the RSC’s proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 136 to 285. [House Vote 149, 3/29/12; Republican Study Committee, 3/12; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1003; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 112]
2011: Huizenga Voted For FY 2012 Ryan Budget, Which Would Have Repealed The Affordable Care Act. In April 2011, Huizenga voted for repealing the Affordable Care Act, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2012 to 2021. According to the House Budget Committee, the budget would “repeal[] the government takeover of healthcare.” The vote was on passage; the resolution passed by a vote of 235 to 193. [House Vote 277, 4/15/11; House Budget Committee, 4/5/11; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 34]
2011: Huizenga Voted To Repeal The Affordable Care Act. In April 2011, Huizenga voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act as part of the Democrats’ proposed budget resolution covering FY 2012 to 2021. According the text of the budget resolution, “It is the policy of the House that the law of the land should support making affordable health care coverage available to every American family, and therefore the Affordable Care Act should not be repealed.” The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the House Democrats’ proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 166 to 259. [House Vote 276, 4/15/11; Congressional Record, 4/15/11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 259; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 34]
2011: Huizenga Voted To Repeal The Affordable Care Act. In April 2011, Huizenga voted to support repealing the Affordable Care Act, as part of the Republican Study Committee’s proposed budget resolution covering FY 2012 to 2021. According to the Republican Committee, the budget would “Repeal ObamaCare to eliminate $677 billion in additional spending over ten years.” The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the RSC’s proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 119 to 136. In a tactical move, 172 Democrats voted “present” in order to force Republicans to either vote against their own proposal or else it would supersede Paul Ryan’s budget. According to the Huffington Post, “After time for the vote expired, Republicans held it open so that enough of them could switch their votes to prevent the RSC budget from passing.” [House Vote 275, 4/15/11; Republican Study Committee, 4/7/11; Huffington Post, 4/15/11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 258; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 34]
2011: Huizenga Voted To Block The Implementation Of The Affordable Care Act. In February 2011, Huizenga voted for a bill that would have, blocked implementation of the Affordable Care Act. According to the Tulsa World, the bill contained an amendment to H.R. 1 that was “sponsored by Rep. Dennis Rehberg, R-Mont., to the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act. The amendment would bar spending on efforts to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or title I or subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act. The House passed the bill by a vote of 235 to 189. The Senate extensively amended the legislation and passed the bill, but it was not taken up again by the House. The final version of the fiscal year 2011 funding bill stripped the rider that defunded the Affordable Care Act. According to Roll Call, “Democratic aides argued the Senate Democrats' unity is a sign of just how successful the Nevada Democrat was in negotiating for his Conference’s priorities and said it will help him with the debt limit. The final deal stripped the most significant riders, such as defunding the health care law, and protected Democratic spending priorities, including health care research and Head Start.” [House Vote 147, 2/19/11; Tulsa World, 2/27/11; Roll Call, 4/18/11; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
2011: Huizenga Voted To Repeal The Affordable Care Act. In January 2011, Huizenga voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, “would [have] repeal[ed] the 2010 health care overhaul law, which requires most individuals to buy health insurance by 2014, makes changes to government health care programs and sets new requirements for health insurers. The bill would restore the provisions of law amended or repealed by the health care overhaul, and repeal certain provisions of the health care reconciliation law.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 245 to 189; however, the Senate did not take any action on it. [House Vote 14, 1/19/11; Congressional Quarterly, 1/19/11; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
¶ nearly 500,000 michiganders relied on the aca for health insurance
2026: 497,064 Michiganders Enrolled In Affordable Care Act Marketplace Plans.
[KFF, Viewed 4/22/26]
¶ Huizenga Voted Three Times Against Extending ACA Premium Tax Credits For Three Years
1/8/26: Huizenga Voted Against Extending The Affordable Care Act Tax Credits For Three Years. In January 2026, Huizenga voted against, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the bill, as amended, that would extend for three years, through the end of calendar year 2028, the enhanced tax credits to subsidize premiums for health insurance purchased on the Affordable Health Care Act health insurance markets. It would allow taxpayers whose household income exceeds 400 percent of the federal poverty line to receive tax credits for three more years. The measure would retroactively take effect Jan. 1, 2026.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 230 to 196. [House Vote 11, 1/8/26; Congressional Quarterly, 1/8/26; Congressional Actions. H.R. 1834]
- 17 Republicans Voted For Passage Of The “Clean” Extension, Following A Procedural Vote The Day Before That Had Support From Nine Republicans. According to Politico, “Seventeen Republicans joined Democrats in passing legislation Thursday that would revive enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies for three years, rebuffing opposition from GOP leadership. The 230-196 vote follows a procedural vote Wednesday to advance the bill, where nine Republicans joined Democrats in favor of moving forward.” [Politico, 1/8/26]
- Speaker Johnson Called The Bill “Really Bad Policy” And Said He Wished That Not Everyone Had A Vote. According to Politico, “Johnson’s office, in a last-ditch effort Thursday morning to undermine the effort, blasted out a memo accusing ‘Democrats [of] want[ing] to expand a COVID subsidy system already flagged for massive fraud and abuse, with absolutely zero reforms.’ After the vote Thursday evening, Johnson said in an interview of the Republicans who defected, ‘I think it’s a really bad policy, and I wish they hadn’t, but everybody had a vote.’” [Politico, 1/8/26]
1/8/26: Huizenga Effectively Voted Against Extending The Affordable Care Act Tax Credits. In January 2026, Huizenga voted against, according to Congressional Quarterly, the “adoption of the rule (H Res 780) providing for consideration of the bill (HR 1834). It would consider as adopted the McGovern, D-Mass., substitute amendment that would extend, through 2028, the enhanced tax credits to subsidize premiums for health insurance purchased on the Affordable Health Care Act health insurance markets. The rule would direct the clerk to transmit to the Senate a message that the House has passed HR 1834 no later than one calendar day after passage.” The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 224 to 202. [House Vote 10, 1/8/26; Congressional Quarterly, 1/8/26; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 780; Congressional Actions. H.R. 1834]
1/7/26: Huizenga Effectively Voted Against Extending The Affordable Care Act Tax Credit. In January 2026, Huizenga voted against, according to Congressional Quarterly, the “motion to discharge from the House Rules Committee the rule (H Res 780) providing for consideration of the anticipated ACA tax credit extension vehicle (HR 1834).” The vote was on the motion to discharge the rule. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 221 to 205. [House Vote 4, 1/7/26; Congressional Quarterly, 1/7/26; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 780; Congressional Actions. H.R. 1834]
¶ Huizenga Votes Threatened Medicare Benefits
¶ Huizenga voted for house republicans’ reconciliation bill, which would trigger $500 billion in medicare cuts, absent future congressional action
May 2025: Huizenga Voted For The FY 2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill That Included $3.8 Trillion In Tax Cuts Offset By $1.5 Trillion In Spending Reductions To Programs Like Medicaid And The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. In May 2025, Huizenga voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the bill that would provide for approximately $3.8 trillion in net tax cuts and $321 billion in military, border enforcement and judiciary spending, offset by $1.5 trillion in spending reductions, as instructed in the fiscal 2025 budget resolution (H Con Res 14). It would raise the statutory debt limit by $4 trillion and provide for increased spending on defense and border security, spending cuts on social safety net programs, such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It also includes a mix of tax breaks for businesses and individuals; tax increases on universities and foundations; and a phase-down of clean energy tax credits. […] It would reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by requiring states to shoulder more of the cost, expand work requirements for SNAP, extend programs authorized under the 2018 farm bill, and prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture from increasing the cost of the Thrifty Food Program. As amended, it would cap state and local tax deductions at $40,000 for households with incomes below $500,000.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 215 to 214. [House Vote 145, 5/22/25; Congressional Quarterly, 5/22/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
- HEADLINE: "Trump And GOP’s Tax Bill Would Force Cuts To Medicare, CBO Says" [Washington Post, 5/21/25]
- Congressional Budget Office Estimated That The House Republican Reconciliation Bill Would Trigger Nearly $500 Billion In Cuts To Medicare. According to a letter the Congressional Budget Office sent to Rep. Brendan Boyle, "Today the Congressional Budget Office transmitted an estimate of the budgetary effects of the 2025 reconciliation bill, as ordered reported by the House Committee on the Budget on May 18, 2025. 1 CBO has not yet completed estimates of the effects of interactions among the titles of the legislation. This letter responds to your questions concerning the sequestration (the cancellation of budgetary resources) in accordance with the Statutory Pay‑As‑You‑Go Act of 2010 (S-PAYGO) that would occur if an enacted bill raised deficits by $2.3 trillion over 10 years. Under S-PAYGO, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to maintain 5- and 10-year scorecards that it updates with the estimated cumulative changes in revenues and outlays generated by newly enacted legislation. […] The 4 percent maximum reduction in Medicare spending would apply to sequestration orders for years after 2026. If OMB ordered a sequestration of $230 billion for each year through 2034, the ordered reductions in Medicare spending would increase to about $75 billion in 2034 and would total roughly $490 billion over the 2027–2034 period." [Letter to Rep. Brendan Boyle – Congressional Budget Office, 5/20/25]
July 2025: Huizenga Voted For The Senate FY 2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill That Extended $4 Trillion In Expiring Tax Cuts, Added New Tax Breaks, Appropriated $448 Million In Defense, Border, And Immigration Enforcement Funding, And Cut Medicaid And Other Social Programs To Offset The Costs. In July 2025, Huizenga voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, the “motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the bill that would permanently extend nearly $4 trillion in expiring individual and business tax cuts, create several new tax breaks and fund border and immigration enforcement and air traffic control upgrades. It would cut Medicaid and other safety net programs to partly offset the cost. Among other provisions, it would raise the statutory debt ceiling by $5 trillion and appropriate more than $448 billion in mandatory funding for Trump administration priorities and other needs, including $153 billion for defense, $89 billion for immigration enforcement, and $89.5 billion for border control and security. It also would increase the state and local tax deduction cap to $40,000 annually for five years for households making up to $500,000 a year until 2030, when it would permanently revert to $10,000.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 218 to 214. [House Vote 190, 7/3/25; Congressional Quarterly, 7/3/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
¶ Huizenga Has Previously Voted for Massive Medicare Cuts
2017: Huizenga Voted For The GOP FY 2018 Budget Resolution, Which Started The Process Towards Tax Reform And Called For Cutting Medicare By $473 Billion. In October 2017, Huizenga voted for a budget resolution that would have, according to The Hill, “The spending blueprint is key to Republicans’ efforts to pass tax reform because it includes instructions that will allow the plan to avoid a Democratic filibuster. […] The budget, meant to outline spending for the fiscal year, was widely viewed as a mere vehicle for passing tax reform. […] The budget would allow the Senate GOP’s tax plan to add up to $1.5 trillion to the deficit over a decade, a proposal that has raised concerns with fiscal hawks in the GOP. Its instructions call for the Senate Finance Committee to report a tax bill by Nov. 13. Still, the document outlines the Senate GOP’s political vision. It maintains spending at 2017 levels for the year, but would then cut nondefense spending in subsequent years, leading to a $106 billion cut in 2027. It would also allow defense levels to continue rising at their current rates, reaching $684 billion at the end of a decade. The resolution also proposes $473 billion in cuts to Medicare’s baseline spending over a decade and about $1 trillion from Medicaid, though those provisions are not enforceable without additional legislation.” The vote was on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment. The House agreed to the motion, thereby agreeing to the budget by a vote of 216 to 212. [House Vote 589, 10/26/17; The Hill, 10/19/17; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2015: Huizenga Voted To Make $430 Billion In Unexplained Cuts To Medicare, As Part Of The FY 2016 Conference Report Budget Resolution. In April 2015, Huizenga voted for the FY 2016 conference report budget resolution which, according to the Congressional Conference Report, “The agreement proposes the same amount of Medicare savings reflected in the Senate-passed fiscal year 2016 budget as a target to extend the life of the Hospital Insurance trust fund and tasks the committees of jurisdiction in the House and Senate with determining the specific Medicare reforms needed to bring spending levels under current law in line with the budget.” According to Bloomberg, the Senate’s original budget, “avoided a plan to partially privatize Medicare that the U.S. House of Representatives embraced in its budget [and] instead call[ed] for $430 billion in spending cuts without explaining where they would be made.” The vote was on the Conference Report; the Conference Report passed by a vote of 226 to 197. The Senate also passed the budget resolution. [House Vote 183, 4/30/15; Conference Report, 4/29/15; Bloomberg, 3/27/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11]
- Politico Reported That Senate Republican FY 2016 Budget “Calls For Finding $430 Billion In Cuts From Medicare, But Offers Few Details On How To Achieve Those Savings.” According to Politico, “The overall budget, written by Enzi in his first budget as chairman, slashes $5.1 trillion in spending over 10 years — achieving the GOP’s goal of balancing the budget within a decade. The budget also relies heavily on a war contingency fund to boost military spending — a move that allows Republicans to go around the strict spending caps outlined in a 2011 deficit deal. It calls for finding $430 billion in cuts from Medicare but offers few details on how to achieve those savings. It also proposes cuts to Medicaid and welfare programs, while not increasing taxes. The budget also gives reconciliation instructions to two key committees that would be charged with replacing Obamacare.” [Politico, 3/27/15]
- Bloomberg Reported That Senate Republican FY 2016 Budget “Avoided” House Budget’s “Plan To Partially Privatize Medicare, […] Instead Calls For $430 Billion In Spending Cuts.” According to Bloomberg, “Senate Republicans avoided a plan to partially privatize Medicare that the U.S. House of Representatives embraced in its budget. The Senate plan instead calls for $430 billion in spending cuts without explaining where they would be made. Some Senators worried that the House approach on Medicare, unpopular with voters, would damage them politically in 2016. Next year, Republicans must defend 24 Senate seats compared with 10 for Democrats, a reversal from the past two elections when significantly more Senate Democrats were on the ballot. The Medicare provisions will now be the subject of a House-Senate conference committee next month.” [Bloomberg, 3/27/15]
¶ 2011: Huizenga Supported The Cut, Cap, And Balance Plan, Which Would Have Resulted In Massive Cuts To Medicare
2011: Huizenga Voted For The “Cut, Cap And Balance” Plan That Would Drastically Cut Federal Spending To Balance The Budget, All In Exchange For Raising Debt Limit. In July 2011, Huizenga voted for the so-called “Cut, Cap and Balance” legislation. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, “Along with the balanced-budget amendment provisions, the House passed ‘cut, cap, balance’ bill proposes drastic cuts in fiscal 2012 spending and setting future spending limits. Specifically, it would set fiscal 2012 discretionary spending at $1.019 trillion, the level set in the House's budget resolution for the year (H Con Res 34), and cap annual federal spending at 19.9 percent of gross domestic product by fiscal 2021, down from an estimated 22.5 percent for fiscal 2012.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 234 to 190. The bill was tabled in the Senate. [House Vote 606, 7/19/11; Congressional Quarterly Today, 7/22/11; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2560]
- CBPP Said The Cut, Cap And Balance Bill “Would Necessitate Deep Cuts” To Social Security And Medicare, “Big Cuts” To Social Security And Medicare Would Be “Inevitable.” According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “The legislation would inexorably subject Social Security and Medicare to deep reductions. The measure does not cut Social Security or Medicare in 2012. And it does not subject them to automatic cuts if its global spending caps are missed. It is inconceivable, however, that policymakers would meet the bill’s severe annual spending caps through automatic across-the-board cuts year after year; if they did, key government functions would be crippled. Policymakers would have little alternative but to institute deep cuts in specific programs. And as noted elsewhere in this statement, before the debt limit could be raised, Congress would have to approve a constitutional balanced budget amendment that essentially requires cuts even deeper than those in the Ryan budget. Reaching and maintaining a balanced budget in the decade ahead while barring any tax increases would necessitate deep cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. After all, by 2021, total expenditures for these three programs will be nearly 45 percent greater than expenditures for all other programs (except interest payments) combined. Big cuts in these programs would be inevitable.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/16/11]
- CBPP Said Cut, Cap, And Balance “One Of The Most Ideologically Extreme Pieces Of Major Budget Legislation To Come Before Congress In Years.” According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “The ‘Cut, Cap, and Balance Act’ that the House of Representatives will vote on next week stands out as one of the most ideologically extreme pieces of major budget legislation to come before Congress in years, if not decades. It would go a substantial way toward enshrining Grover Norquist’s version of America into law.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/16/11]
- Center For American Progress Said Cut, Cap, Balance Means “Simply Massive Cuts” To Social Security And Medicare. According to the Center for American Progress, “There is no way around the basic arithmetic. The only way to achieve that level of spending is by radically altering some fundamental public programs and services. A federal spending cap may sound innocuous but it is simply massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid by another name.” [Center for American Progress, 7/18/11]
- Cut, Cap, And Balance Would Require More Extreme Cuts Than Ryan Budget Plan. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “The constitutional balanced budget amendment that the House Judiciary Committee began considering June 2 and is expected to pass next week, is a highly ideological measure that would force Congress to enact the Republican Study Committee’s extreme budget plan or something similar to it. Even the House-passed budget plan of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan would not pass muster under the proposal; the more draconian Republican Study Committee (RSC) budget or a close equivalent would be required.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 6/6/11]
- The National Committee To Preserve Social Security And Medicare Said Cut, Cap And Balance “Would Require Draconian Spending Cuts Of Such A Magnitude As To Force Policymakers To Severely Slash Medicare, Medicaid, And Many Other Programs While Opening The Door To Massive New Tax Cuts.” According to The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare: “As a result, these proposals would require draconian spending cuts of such a magnitude as to force policymakers to severely slash Medicare, Medicaid, and many other programs while opening the door to massive new tax cuts. What is most alarming to our members is that the amendment would negatively impact Social Security by essentially nullifying the trust funds as a source of funding for the payment of benefits.” [Letter - National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, 7/18/11]
¶ Huizenga Repeatedly Voted to Raise the Medicare Eligibility Age
2017: Huizenga Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Raising The Medicare Eligibility Age. In October 2017, Huizenga voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, “provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget.” The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
- The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Called To Increase The Medicare Eligibility Age. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, "The RSC budget would reduce Medicare spending by nearly $900 billion over a decade. It would do so by converting Medicare to a premium support system starting in 2022 for new beneficiaries, increasing means testing, and aligning the program’s eligibility age with the Social Security normal retirement age, among other reforms." [Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, 9/11/17]
2015: Huizenga Voted For The FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Called For Increasing The Medicare Eligibility Age To 67, Beginning In 2024. In March 2015, Huizenga voted for the FY 2016 budget resolution which called for changing Medicare for future beneficiaries to a voucher system. According to Congressional Quarterly, “To reduce the growth rate of Medicare costs in the future […] the budget would also begin raising the age for eligibility so it corresponds with Social Security's age requirement, eventually reaching the age of 67. The current eligibility age for Medicare is 65.” The vote was on the budget resolution. The House passed the resolution 228 to 199. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 142, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
- CBPP: Increasing Medicare Eligibility Would Leave Many 65- And 66-Year-Olds Uninsured. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “This change, which is not mentioned in the 73-page booklet on his plan that Chairman Ryan released, would put many more 65- and 66-year-olds who don't have employer coverage and can’t afford insurance into the individual insurance market — where the premiums charged to people in this age group tend to be very high — leaving them uninsured. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/7/11]
- Increasing The Medicare Eligibility Age Would Raise The Costs Of Healthcare Across The Economy. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “[R]aising Medicare’s eligibility age would not only fail to constrain health care costs across the economy; it would raise them. Medicare provides health coverage more cheaply than private health insurance plans because it has lower administrative costs and pays less to providers. Raising the Medicare age would shift costs to most of the 65- and 66-year olds who would lose Medicare coverage, to remaining Medicare beneficiaries, to employers that provide coverage for their retirees, and to states. These cost increases would, in total, more than offset the savings to the federal government.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/12]
2015: Huizenga Voted For A FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Called For Increasing The Medicare Eligibility Age To 67, Beginning In 2024. In March 2015, Huizenga voted for a FY 2016 Budget Resolution which called for changing Medicare for future beneficiaries to a voucher system. According to Congressional Quarterly, “To reduce the growth rate of Medicare costs in the future […] the budget would also begin raising the age for eligibility so it corresponds with Social Security's age requirement, eventually reaching the age of 67. The current eligibility age for Medicare is 65.” The vote was on the adopting the substitute amendment. The House passed the amendment 219 to 208 and later passed the budget resolution. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 141, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 86; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2014: Huizenga Voted To Raise The Medicare Retirement Age From 65 To 67, As Part Of Rep. Paul Ryan’s Budget Proposal; The Increase Would Be Phased In Starting In 2024 And Completing In 2035. In April 2014, Huizenga voted for House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2015 to 2024. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Starting in 2024, the Ryan budget would raise Medicare’s eligibility age — now 65 — by two months per year until it reaches age 67 in 2035.” The House adopted the budget resolution by a vote of 219 to 205, but the Senate did not. [House Vote 177, 4/10/14; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/8/14; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 96]
- Because Ryan’s Plan Would Also Repeal The ACA, Seniors Aged 65 And 66 Without Employer Coverage Would Face High Premium Costs Due To Their Age – Or Might Be Unable To Obtain Any Insurance Due To A Pre-Existing Condition. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “At the same time, the plan would repeal health reform’s coverage provisions. Consequently, 65- and 66-year-olds would have neither Medicare nor access to health insurance exchanges in which they could buy coverage at an affordable price and receive subsidies to help them secure coverage if their incomes are low. This change would drive 65- and 66-year-olds who don’t have employer-sponsored coverage into an individual insurance market that would be poorly regulated (since the Ryan plan repeals the Affordable Care Act’s insurance reforms) and would charge older individuals extremely high premiums. People of limited means would be affected most harshly because they would not be able to afford private coverage. In addition, 65- and 66-year-olds with a pre-existing medical condition often would not be able to purchase coverage at any price. As a result, many 65- and 66-year-olds would find themselves uninsured.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/8/14]
- Loss Of Relatively Healthy 65- And 66-Year Olds From Medicare Would Raise Premiums For Remaining Medicare Beneficiaries. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “All remaining Medicare beneficiaries would pay higher premiums because the removal of 65- and 66-year-olds, who are typically healthier than Medicare beneficiaries overall, would leave Medicare beneficiaries costlier to cover, on average.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/8/14]
2012: Huizenga Voted To Increase The Medicare Eligibility Age To 67 By 2034 As Part Of The FY 2013 Ryan Budget. In March 2012, Huizenga voted to increase the Medicare eligibility age to 67 by 2034, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2013 to 2022. According to the Congressional Research Service, “The budget proposal would gradually increase the Medicare eligibility age to 67. Beginning in 2023, the age of eligibility for Medicare would increase by two months each year until it reached 67 in 2034.” The vote was on passage; the resolution passed by a vote of 228 to 191. The Senate later rejected a motion to proceed to consider the House-passed budget resolution. [House Vote 151, 3/16/12; CRS Report #R42441, 3/29/12; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 112]
- CBPP: Increasing Medicare Eligibility Age Would Leave Many 65- And 66-Year-Olds Uninsured. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “This means 65- and 66-year-olds would have neither Medicare nor access to health insurance exchanges in which they could buy coverage at an affordable price and receive subsidies to help them secure coverage if their incomes are low. This change would put many more 65- and 66-year-olds who don’t have employer coverage into the individual insurance market, where the premiums charged to people in this age group tend to be extremely high — thereby leaving many of them uninsured.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/20/12]
- Increasing The Medicare Eligibility Age Would Raise The Costs Of Healthcare Across The Economy. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “raising Medicare’s eligibility age would not only fail to constrain health care costs across the economy; it would raise them. Medicare provides health coverage more cheaply than private health insurance plans because it has lower administrative costs and pays less to providers. Raising the Medicare age would shift costs to most of the 65- and 66-year olds who would lose Medicare coverage, to remaining Medicare beneficiaries, to employers that provide coverage for their retirees, and to states. These cost increases would, in total, more than offset the savings to the federal government.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/12]
2011: Huizenga Voted For FY 2012 Ryan Budget, Which Raised The Medicare Eligibility Age To 67 By 2033. In April 2011, Huizenga voted for increasing Medicare eligibility to 67 by 2034, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2012 to 2021. According to CBO, “Starting in 2022, the age of eligibility for Medicare would increase by two months per year until it reached 67 in 2033.” The vote was on passage; the resolution passed by a vote of 235 to 193. [House Vote 277, 4/15/11; CBO, 4/5/11; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 34]
- CBPP: Increasing Medicare Eligibility Would Leave Many 65- And 66-Year-Olds Uninsured. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “This change, which is not mentioned in the 73-page booklet on his plan that Chairman Ryan released, would put many more 65- and 66-year-olds who don't have employer coverage and can't afford insurance into the individual insurance market — where the premiums charged to people in this age group tend to be very high — leaving them uninsured. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/7/11]
- Increasing The Medicare Eligibility Age Would Raise The Costs Of Healthcare Across The Economy. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “[R]aising Medicare’s eligibility age would not only fail to constrain health care costs across the economy; it would raise them. Medicare provides health coverage more cheaply than private health insurance plans because it has lower administrative costs and pays less to providers. Raising the Medicare age would shift costs to most of the 65- and 66-year olds who would lose Medicare coverage, to remaining Medicare beneficiaries, to employers that provide coverage for their retirees, and to states. These cost increases would, in total, more than offset the savings to the federal government.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/12]
2011: Huizenga Voted For Raising The Medicare Eligibility Age To 67 By Two Months Every Year. In April 2011, Huizenga voted to support raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67 by increasing the eligibility age by 2 months each year as part of the Republican Study Committee’s proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2012 to 2021. According to the Republican Study Committee, “To address the increased demands on Medicare, this budget proposes raising the age of Medicare eligibility by two months every year beginning with those born in 1952 until the eligibility age reaches 67 for those born in 1963. This proposal would not affect individual currently 60 years old and older.” The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the RSC’s proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 119 to 136. In a tactical move, 172 Democrats voted “present” in order to force Republicans to either vote against their own proposal or else it would supersede Paul Ryan’s budget. According to the Huffington Post, “After time for the vote expired, Republicans held it open so that enough of them could switch their votes to prevent the RSC budget from passing.” [House Vote 275, 4/15/11; Republican Study Committee, 4/7/11; Huffington Post, 4/15/11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 258; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 34]
- CBPP: Increasing Medicare Eligibility Age Would Leave Many 65- And 66-Year-Olds Uninsured. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “This means 65- and 66-year-olds would have neither Medicare nor access to health insurance exchanges in which they could buy coverage at an affordable price and receive subsidies to help them secure coverage if their incomes are low. This change would put many more 65- and 66-year-olds who don’t have employer coverage into the individual insurance market, where the premiums charged to people in this age group tend to be extremely high — thereby leaving many of them uninsured.” [CBPP, 3/20/12]
- Increasing The Medicare Eligibility Age Would Raise The Costs Of Healthcare Across The Economy. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “raising Medicare’s eligibility age would not only fail to constrain health care costs across the economy; it would raise them. Medicare provides health coverage more cheaply than private health insurance plans because it has lower administrative costs and pays less to providers. Raising the Medicare age would shift costs to most of the 65- and 66-year olds who would lose Medicare coverage, to remaining Medicare beneficiaries, to employers that provide coverage for their retirees, and to states. These cost increases would, in total, more than offset the savings to the federal government.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/12]
¶ Huizenga Voted In Favor of Turning Medicare Into a Voucher System
2015: Huizenga Voted For The FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Called For Changing Medicare For Those Who Enter The Program Beginning In 2024 To A Voucher System. In March 2015, Huizenga voted for the FY 2016 budget resolution which called for changing Medicare for future beneficiaries to a voucher system. According to Congressional Quarterly, “the current fee-for-service Medicare program and its benefits would remain in place for people who enter the program before 2024. For new Medicare enrollees beginning in 2024, the budget envisions Medicare competing against private health care plans in a ‘premium support’ system where individuals would choose which health insurance plan they want for coverage through a new Medicare exchange, with the government making premium-support payments to the health plan to help pay for an individual's insurance premium.” The vote was on the budget resolution. The House passed the resolution 228 to 199. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 142, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Huizenga Voted For A FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Called For Changing Medicare For Those Who Enter The Program Beginning In 2024 To A Voucher System. In March 2015, Huizenga voted for a FY 2016 Budget Resolution which called for changing Medicare for future beneficiaries to a voucher system. According to Congressional Quarterly, “the current fee-for-service Medicare program and its benefits would remain in place for people who enter the program before 2024. For new Medicare enrollees beginning in 2024, the budget envisions Medicare competing against private health care plans in a ‘premium support’ system where individuals would choose which health insurance plan they want for coverage through a new Medicare exchange, with the government making premium-support payments to the health plan to help pay for an individual's insurance premium.” The vote was on the adopting the substitute amendment. The House passed the amendment 219 to 208 and later passed the budget resolution. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 141, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 86; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2012: Huizenga Voted Against The FY 2013 Democratic Budget, Which Stated That Medicare Should Not Be Turned Into A Voucher Program. In March 2012, Huizenga voted to oppose preventing Medicare from becoming a voucher program as part of the Democrats’ proposed budget resolution covering FY 2013 to 2022. According the text of the budget resolution, “It is the policy of the House that the Medicare guarantee for seniors and persons with disabilities should be preserved and strengthened, and that any legislation to end the Medicare guarantee and shift rising health care costs onto seniors by replacing Medicare with vouchers or premium support for the purchase of private insurance should be rejected.” The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the House Democrats’ proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 163 to 252. [House Vote 150, 3/29/12; House Budget Committee Democrats, 3/26/12; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1004; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 112]
2011: Huizenga Voted Against The Democrats' Budget Proposal, Which State That Medicare Should Not Be Turned Into A Voucher Program. In April 2011, Huizenga voted against preventing Medicare from becoming a voucher program as part of the Democrats’ proposed budget resolution covering FY 2012 to 2021. According the text of the budget resolution, “It is the policy of the House that the Medicare guarantee for seniors and persons with disabilities should be preserved and strengthened, and that any legislation to end the Medicare guarantee and shift rising health care costs onto seniors by replacing Medicare with vouchers or premium support for the purchase of private insurance should be rejected.” The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the House Democrats’ proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 166 to 259. [House Vote 276, 4/15/11; Congressional Record, 4/15/11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 259; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 34]
¶ 2009-2013: Huizenga Voted In Favor of Paul Ryan's Proposal to Replace Medicare With A “Premium Support Plan”
2013: Huizenga Voted For Replacing Medicare With A Premium Support Plan As Part Of The FY 2014 Ryan Budget. In March 2013, Huizenga voted for replacing Medicare with a premium support plan, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023 According to the House Budget Committee, “Beginning in 2024, for those workers born in 1959 or later, Medicare would offer them a choice of private plans competing alongside the traditional fee-for-service option on a new Medicare Exchange. Medicare would provide a premium-support payment either to pay for or to offset the premium of the plan chosen by the senior.” The resolution passed the House by a vote of 221 to 207, but died in the Senate. [House Vote 88, 3/21/13; House Budget Committee, 3/12/13; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
- CBPP Said Ryan’s Medicare Policies in FY 2014 Budget Were “Essentially The Same As Those In Last Year’s Ryan Budget.” According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “The Medicare proposals in the 2014 budget resolution developed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) are essentially the same as those in last year’s Ryan budget.” [CBPP, 3/15/13]
- A Similar Provision in Ryan’s FY 2013 Budget Created A Medicare Exchange Where Beneficiaries Could Choose From Private Insurance Or A Fee-For-Service Model. According to CRS, “Individuals who become eligible (based either on age or disability) for Medicare beginning in 2023 would be given the option of enrolling in a private insurance plan or a traditional fee-for-service option through a newly established Medicare exchange. These plans would be required to offer standard benefits that are at least actuarially equivalent to traditional fee-for-service benefits, and to accept all people eligible for Medicare who apply regardless of age or health status. [CRS, 3/29/12]
- Ryan’s Budget Would Have Benchmarked Premium Support Amount To The Second Lowest Premium On The Medicare Exchange. According to the House Budget Committee, “The benchmark plan would be either the second-least-expensive private plan or fee-for-service Medicare, whichever cost less. If a senior chose a more expensive plan than the benchmark, he or she would pay the difference between the subsidy and the monthly premium. And if a senior chose a plan less expensive than the benchmark, he or she would receive a rebate for the difference. Medicare would offer higher payments depending on the patient’s health history and the cost of living. And it would require private plans to cover at least the actuarial equivalent of the benefit package offered by the fee-for-service option.” [House Budget Committee, 3/13]
- Ryan’s Budget Would Have Resulted In Increased Out-Of-Pocket Premiums For Seniors If The Cost Of Insurance Rose Quicker Than GDP Growth Plus 0.5 Percent. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Since under the Ryan budget, Medicare would no longer make payments to health care providers such as doctors and hospitals, the only way to keep Medicare cost growth within the target of GDP growth plus one-half percentage point would be to limit the annual increase in the amount of the premium-support vouchers. As a result, the vouchers would purchase less coverage with each passing year, pushing more costs on to beneficiaries. Over time, seniors would have to pay more to keep the health plans and the doctors they like, or they would get fewer benefits.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/15/13]
- If So, Seniors Would Have To Pay More Or Receive Less Benefits With Each Passing Year. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Since under the Ryan budget, Medicare would no longer make payments to health care providers such as doctors and hospitals, the only way to keep Medicare cost growth within the target of GDP growth plus one-half percentage point would be to limit the annual increase in the amount of the premium-support vouchers. As a result, the vouchers would purchase less coverage with each passing year, pushing more costs on to beneficiaries. Over time, seniors would have to pay more to keep the health plans and the doctors they like, or they would get fewer benefits.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/15/13]
2012: Huizenga Voted To Replace Medicare With A Premium Support Plan As Part Of The FY 2013 Ryan Budget. In March 2012, Huizenga voted to replace Medicare with a premium support plan, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2013 to 2022 According to the House Budget Committee, “For those workers currently under the age of 55, beginning in 2023, those seniors would be given a choice of private plans competing alongside the traditional fee-for-service option on a newly created Medicare Exchange. Medicare would provide a premium-support payment either to pay for or offset the premium of the plan chosen by the senior.” The vote was on passage; the resolution passed by a vote of 228 to 191. The Senate later rejected a motion to proceed to consider the House-passed budget resolution. [House Vote 151, 3/16/12; House Budget Committee, 3/20/12; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 112]
- Ryan’s Budget Created A Medicare Exchange Where Beneficiaries Could Choose From Private Insurance Or A Fee For Service Model. According to the Congressional Research Service, “Individuals who become eligible (based either on age or disability) for Medicare beginning in 2023 would be given the option of enrolling in a private insurance plan or a traditional fee-for-service option through a newly established Medicare exchange. These plans would be required to offer standard benefits that are at least actuarially equivalent to traditional fee-for-service benefits, and to accept all people eligible for Medicare who apply regardless of age or health status. [CRS, 3/29/12]
- Ryan’s Budget Would Have Benchmarked Premium Support Amount To The Second Lowest Premium On The Medicare Exchange. According to the House Budget Committee, “The second-least expensive approved plan or fee-for-service Medicare, whichever is least expensive, would establish the benchmark that determines the premium-support amount for the plan chosen by the senior. If a senior chose a costlier plan than the benchmark plan, he or she would be responsible for paying the difference between the premium subsidy and the monthly premium. Conversely, if that senior chose a plan that cost less than the benchmark, he or she would be given a rebate for the difference. Payments to plans would be risk-adjusted and geographically rated.” [House Budget Committee, 3/20/12]
- Ryan’s Budget Would Have Resulted In Increased Out-Of-Pocket Premiums For Seniors If The Cost Of Insurance Rose Quicker Than GDP Growth Plus 0.5 Percent Causing Seniors To Pay More Or Receive Less Benefits. According to the Congressional Research Service, “The proposal suggests that program cost growth would be mitigated through the competitive bidding process; however, should that not occur, the proposal would limit annual per capita premium support increases to nominal GDP growth plus 0.5 percent. Should actual costs exceed this amount, Medicare beneficiaries would pay increased premiums to make up the difference. The proposal would limit the impact of these increases for low-income enrollees, with Medicaid continuing to pay for the out-of-pocket expenses for dual-eligibles (those who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid), and additional funding would be provided in savings accounts for those who meet certain low-income limits but do not qualify for Medicaid. As a result, the vouchers would purchase less coverage with each passing year, pushing more costs on to beneficiaries.” According to the Center on Budget and Policy priorities, “Over time, seniors would have to pay more to keep the health plans and the doctors they like, or they would get fewer benefits” [CRS, 3/29/12; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/28/12]
2011: Huizenga Voted For FY 2012 Ryan Budget, Which Replaced Medicare With A Premium Support Plan. In April 2011, Huizenga voted for replacing Medicare with a premium support plan, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2012 to 2021. According to the Congressional Research Service, “Under the new system, Medicare would pay a portion of the beneficiaries’ premiums, i.e., provide ‘premium support.’ The payments would be adjusted for age, health status, and income and would be paid directly by the government to the insurance plan selected by the Medicare beneficiary. In addition, plans with healthier enrollees, would be required to help subsidize plans with less healthy enrollees.” The vote was on passage; the resolution passed by a vote of 235 to 193. [House Vote 277, 4/15/11; CRS Report #R41767, 4/13/11; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 34]
- Wall Street Journal Reported The Ryan Plan “Would Essentially End Medicare.” According to the Wall Street Journal, “Republicans will present this week a 2012 budget proposal that would cut more than $4 trillion from federal spending projected over the next decade and transform the Medicare health program for the elderly, a move that will dramatically reshape the budget debate in Washington. […] The plan would essentially end Medicare, which now pays most of the health-care bills for 48 million elderly and disabled Americans, as a program that directly pays those bills. Mr. Ryan and other conservatives say this is necessary because of the program's soaring costs.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/4/11]
- Under Ryan’s Medicare Plan, Size Of Premium Support Payment Would Be Reduced In Line With Each Recipient’s Income. According to CBO, “The premium support payments [in the Ryan budget] would also vary with the income of the beneficiary. People in the top 2 percent of the annual income distribution of the Medicare-eligible population would receive 30 percent of the premium support amount described above; people in the next 6 percent of the distribution would receive 50 percent of the amount described above; and people in the remaining 92 percent of the distribution would receive the full premium support amount.” [Congressional Budget Office, 4/5/11]
- The Budget Would Index The Premium Support Amount To Overall Consumer Prices. According to the CBO, “[T]he proposal would convert the current Medicare program to a system under which beneficiaries received premium support payments—payments that would be used to help pay the premiums for a private health insurance policy and would grow over time with overall consumer prices.” [Congressional Budget Office, 4/5/11]
- April 2011: CBO Estimated That, In 2022, When Voucher Plan Went Into Effect, Ryan’s Medicare Plan Would More Than Double A Typical 65-Year-Old Medicare Beneficiaries’ Out-Of-Pocket Costs, Increasing Them By $6,350 Per Year. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “CBO also finds that this beneficiary's [a typical 65-year-old] annual out-of-pocket costs would more than double — from $6,150 to $12,500. In later years, as the value of the voucher eroded, the increase in out-of-pocket costs would be even greater.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/7/11]
- 2013: CBO Issued New Analysis Of Premium Support Plans Using “Detailed Modeling” Of Key Actors, Said April 2011 “Limited” Analysis Of Ryan Plan Did Not Capture Its “Full Effects” On Beneficiaries’ Payments. According to the Congressional Budget Office, “CBO has previously estimated the budgetary effects of revamping Medicare as a premium support system. But those earlier analyses were limited in at least two key respects: They did not include detailed modeling of beneficiaries’ choices among alternative insurance plans, and they did not include detailed modeling of insurers’ behavior regarding bids or payments to health care providers. Thus, none of those analyses captured the full effects of a competitive system on federal spending or payments by beneficiaries. The analysis in this report incorporates such modeling. In addition, this report differs from some previous analyses by CBO in considering different illustrative options for a premium support system instead of a specific proposal.” [Congressional Budget Office, 9/18/13]
- CBO Said Plans Analyzed In 2013 Using “Substantial Improvements” In CBO Capabilities, But Noted Those Plans “Differ In Important Ways” From 2011 Proposal, Such As Having The Federal Support Amount Fixed Instead Of Determined By Bidding. According to the Congressional Budget Office, “The treatment in this report is substantially different from the rough analysis of a specific premium support proposal published by CBO in April 2011. Not only have there been substantial improvements in CBO’s modeling of the behavior of beneficiaries and insurers, but the options examined in this report differ in important ways from that earlier proposal. For example, the earlier proposal included a grandfathering provision, and CBO estimated that only 4 percent of Medicare spending in 2022 would be accounted for by premium support payments under that proposal. The proposal also specified a federal contribution that was initially fixed (rather than determined through bidding) and that would keep pace with the consumer price index for all urban consumers (at a rate that CBO estimated would be substantially slower than the rate of growth in Medicare spending under current law). Moreover, because of the simple formula for determining federal spending in that proposal, CBO projected such spending over a longer period than it does in this report.” [Congressional Budget Office, 9/18/13]
- CBO Said 2011 Analysis Of Ryan Plan Found Higher Costs Than 2013 Analysis Of Other, Similar Plans Because Ryan Plan Eliminated Traditional Medicare Entirely And CBO Had Lowered Its Estimates Of Private Health Insurance Premium Growth. According to CBO, “CBO’s estimates of the total payments by beneficiaries and of combined federal spending and beneficiaries’ payments for the 2011 proposal were much higher than the estimates for the two options in this report primarily because CBO projected for that earlier report that health care spending covered by private plans would be much higher initially and would grow faster than the agency currently estimates. The difference arose from two main factors: First, the earlier proposal did not include the Medicare FFS program as a bidding plan in the premium support system. Because that program was not present to put downward pressure on the rates paid to providers by private insurers, CBO projected, the premiums of private plans would be substantially higher than they would be under the premium support options discussed in this report. Second, more recent information has led CBO to make a downward revision in its projections of the future growth rate of private health insurance premiums.” [Congressional Budget Office, 9/18/13]
2011: Huizenga Voted For Replacing Medicare With A Premium Support Plan. In April 2011, Huizenga voted to support replacing Medicare with a premium support plan, as part of the Republican Study Committee’s proposed budget resolution covering FY 2012 to2021. According to the Republican Study Committee, “Beginning in 2017, the RSC proposes giving all current Medicare beneficiaries the option to voluntarily opt‐in to a menu of private insurance plans. Beneficiaries choosing to remain in the traditional Medicare program would be free to do so and to continue enjoying the same benefits they currently receive [...] Voluntary enrollees in the newly created private insurance market would receive “premium subsidies” to help offset the cost of their health insurance policies” The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the RSC’s proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 119 to 136. In a tactical move, 172 Democrats voted “present” in order to force Republicans to either vote against their own proposal or else it would supersede Paul Ryan’s budget. According to the Huffington Post, “After time for the vote expired, Republicans held it open so that enough of them could switch their votes to prevent the RSC budget from passing.” [House Vote 275, 4/15/11; Republican Study Committee, 4/7/11; Huffington Post, 4/15/11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 258; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 34]
¶ Huizenga Voted to Raise the Social Security Retirement Age And Make Massive Cuts To Social Security
¶ Huizenga Voted To Raise The Social Security Retirement Age
2017: Huizenga Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In October 2017, Huizenga voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, “provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget.” The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
- The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Called To Raise The Social Security Retirement Age To 69 Years Old. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, "The RSC budget would eliminate Social Security’s long-run shortfall and make the program sustainably solvent by adopting Representative Sam Johnson’s (R-TX) ‘Social Security Reform Act,’ which would slow initial benefit growth for higher-earners, gradually raise the normal retirement age to 69, and means-test annual cost-of-living adjustments, which would be calculated based on the chained Consumer Price Index (CPI)." [Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, 9/11/17]
2011: Huizenga Voted For Raising The Social Security Eligibility Age To 70. In April 2011, Huizenga voted to support raising the Social Security eligibility age, as part of the Republican Study Committee’s proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2012 to 2021. According to the Republican Study Committee, “Specifically, we propose slowly increasing normal retirement age to 70 years of age. This would be accomplished by increasing the normal retirement age in two‐month‐per‐ year increments for workers currently under 60 years old. Specifically, this proposal would increase the full retirement age to 66 years and 2 months starting with those born in 1952. Then, the full retirement age would increase in two‐month increments per year, reaching 67 for those born in 1957 or later. For those born in 1975 or later, the full retirement age would remain at 70 years old.” The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the RSC’s proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 119 to 136. In a tactical move, 172 Democrats voted “present” in order to force Republicans to either vote against their own proposal or else it would supersede Paul Ryan’s budget. According to the Huffington Post, “After time for the vote expired, Republicans held it open so that enough of them could switch their votes to prevent the RSC budget from passing.” [House Vote 275, 4/15/11; Republican Study Committee, 4/7/11; Huffington Post, 4/15/11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 258; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 34]
- Raising The Social Security Retirement Age To 69 Years And Eight Months Would Push 1.5 Million Future Retirees Into Poverty. According to the Urban Institute, “Overall, increasing the NRA to 69 and 8 months and the EEA to 65 […] does not hit lower-income groups harder than others, it does push more retirees below the poverty level. As compared to currently scheduled benefits, raising the retirement age would increase the share of retirees with incomes below the wage-indexed poverty level in 2050 from 14.4 percent to 16.2 percent, an increase of 1.5 million people. [Urban Institute, 1/30/07]
- Raising The Social Security Retirement Age to 70 Would Reduce The Financing Gap For Social Security By 25 Percent. According to the National Academy of Social Insurance a gradual increase in the retirement age to 70 would cause a -25% change in the financing gap of social security.” [National Academy of Social Insurance, January 2013]
- The Financing Gap Was The Difference Between Revenues And Outlays For Social Security. According to the National Academy of Social Insurance, “The program has sufficient funds to pay full benefits until 2033. Eventually, as more Americans retire, Social Security is projected to face a long term financing short fall. If that were to happen, revenue continuing to come in to the program from payroll taxes and taxation of benefits would cover about 75 percent of scheduled benefits. The projected financing gap can be closed by raising revenues, reducing benefits, or some combination of both.” [National Academy of Social Insurance, January 2013]
- CBPP Said Eligibility Age Increase Was “An Across-The-Board Cut In Benefits For All Retirees” No Matter What Age An Individual Retires. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “[A]ny increase in the full retirement age amounts to an across-the-board cut in benefits for all retirees regardless of the age at which they file — including people who do not retire until 67 or even 70.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/17/11]
¶ 2011: Huizenga Supported The Cut, Cap, And Balance Plan, Which Would Have Resulted In Massive Cuts To Medicare
2011: Huizenga Voted For The “Cut, Cap And Balance” Plan That Would Drastically Cut Federal Spending To Balance The Budget, All In Exchange For Raising Debt Limit. In July 2011, Huizenga voted for the so-called “Cut, Cap and Balance” legislation. According to Congressional Quarterly Today, “Along with the balanced-budget amendment provisions, the House passed ‘cut, cap, balance’ bill proposes drastic cuts in fiscal 2012 spending and setting future spending limits. Specifically, it would set fiscal 2012 discretionary spending at $1.019 trillion, the level set in the House's budget resolution for the year (H Con Res 34), and cap annual federal spending at 19.9 percent of gross domestic product by fiscal 2021, down from an estimated 22.5 percent for fiscal 2012.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 234 to 190. The bill was tabled in the Senate. [House Vote 606, 7/19/11; Congressional Quarterly Today, 7/22/11; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2560]
- CBPP Said The Cut, Cap And Balance Bill “Would Necessitate Deep Cuts” To Social Security And Medicare, “Big Cuts” To Social Security And Medicare Would Be “Inevitable.” According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “The legislation would inexorably subject Social Security and Medicare to deep reductions. The measure does not cut Social Security or Medicare in 2012. And it does not subject them to automatic cuts if its global spending caps are missed. It is inconceivable, however, that policymakers would meet the bill’s severe annual spending caps through automatic across-the-board cuts year after year; if they did, key government functions would be crippled. Policymakers would have little alternative but to institute deep cuts in specific programs. And as noted elsewhere in this statement, before the debt limit could be raised, Congress would have to approve a constitutional balanced budget amendment that essentially requires cuts even deeper than those in the Ryan budget. Reaching and maintaining a balanced budget in the decade ahead while barring any tax increases would necessitate deep cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. After all, by 2021, total expenditures for these three programs will be nearly 45 percent greater than expenditures for all other programs (except interest payments) combined. Big cuts in these programs would be inevitable.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/16/11]
- CBPP Said Cut, Cap, And Balance “One Of The Most Ideologically Extreme Pieces Of Major Budget Legislation To Come Before Congress In Years.” According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “The ‘Cut, Cap, and Balance Act’ that the House of Representatives will vote on next week stands out as one of the most ideologically extreme pieces of major budget legislation to come before Congress in years, if not decades. It would go a substantial way toward enshrining Grover Norquist’s version of America into law.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/16/11]
- Center For American Progress Said Cut, Cap, Balance Means “Simply Massive Cuts” To Social Security And Medicare. According to the Center for American Progress, “There is no way around the basic arithmetic. The only way to achieve that level of spending is by radically altering some fundamental public programs and services. A federal spending cap may sound innocuous but it is simply massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid by another name.” [Center for American Progress, 7/18/11]
- Cut, Cap, And Balance Would Require More Extreme Cuts Than Ryan Budget Plan. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “The constitutional balanced budget amendment that the House Judiciary Committee began considering June 2 and is expected to pass next week, is a highly ideological measure that would force Congress to enact the Republican Study Committee’s extreme budget plan or something similar to it. Even the House-passed budget plan of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan would not pass muster under the proposal; the more draconian Republican Study Committee (RSC) budget or a close equivalent would be required.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 6/6/11]
- The National Committee To Preserve Social Security And Medicare Said Cut, Cap And Balance “Would Require Draconian Spending Cuts Of Such A Magnitude As To Force Policymakers To Severely Slash Medicare, Medicaid, And Many Other Programs While Opening The Door To Massive New Tax Cuts.” According to The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare: “As a result, these proposals would require draconian spending cuts of such a magnitude as to force policymakers to severely slash Medicare, Medicaid, and many other programs while opening the door to massive new tax cuts. What is most alarming to our members is that the amendment would negatively impact Social Security by essentially nullifying the trust funds as a source of funding for the payment of benefits.” [Letter - National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, 7/18/11]
¶ Huizenga Voted In Favor Of Privatizing Social Security
2013: Huizenga Effectively Voted Against Prohibiting The Use Of Funds To Privatize Social Security. In September 2013, according to Congressional Quarterly, Huizenga voted against the “motion to recommit the joint resolution to the House Appropriations Committee and report it back immediately with an amendment that would fund military personnel accounts, the Social Security Administration's administrative expenses, the Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services program management account and the Veterans Benefit Administration's operating expenses through Sept. 30, 2014. It also would bar the use of funds provided by the bill to implement a system that would privatize the Social Security program, reduce the insurance benefits it provides or to establish a Medicare voucher plan that provides limited payments to purchase health care in the private sector. It also would increase funding for the Essential Air Service by $2.7 million and decrease the Transportation Department Planning, Research and Development account by the same amount.” The vote was on the motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 190 to 228. [House Vote 477, 9/20/13; Congressional Quarterly, 9/20/13; Congressional Actions, H.J. Res. 59]
2011: Huizenga Voted Against Democrats' Budget, Which Stated Opposition To The Privatization Of Social Security. In April 2011, Huizenga voted to oppose preventing social security privatization as part of the Democrats’ proposed budget resolution covering FY 2012 to 2021. According the text of the budget resolution, “It is the policy of this resolution that Social Security should be strengthened for its own sake and not to achieve deficit reduction. Because privatization proposals are fiscally irresponsible and would put the retirement security of seniors at risk, any Social Security reform legislation shall reject partial or complete privatization of the program. ” The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the House Democrats’ proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 166 to 259. [House Vote 276, 4/15/11; Congressional Record, 4/15/11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 259; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 34]
¶ Huizenga Voted Against Cheaper Prescription Drugs for Michiganders
¶ 2022: Huizenga Voted Against The Inflation Reduction Act
August 2022: Huizenga Voted Against The Inflation Reduction Act. In August 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Huizenga voted against concurring in the Senate amendment to the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, “comprising a package of climate, tax and health care provisions.” The vote was on a motion to concur. The House concurred with the Senate by a vote 220-207, thus the bill was sent to President Biden for final signage. President Biden signed the bill and it ultimately became law. [House Vote 420, 8/12/22; Congressional Quarterly, 8/12/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5376]
- The Inflation Reduction Act Allowed Medicare To Negotiate Prices For Certain Prescription Drugs. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "Negotiations are underway between HHS and the participating drug companies of the first 10 prescription drugs selected for negotiation in the first cycle of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program. The first 10 drugs selected treat conditions such as blood clots, diabetes, heart disease, heart failure, autoimmune diseases, and chronic kidney disease." [U.S. Health and Human Services, Inflation Reduction Act Of 2022, Viewed 7/1/24]
- The Inflation Reduction Act Required Drug Companies To Pay A Rebate To Medicare If They Raised Prices Faster Than The Rate Of Inflation. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "Allowing Medicare to negotiate with participating drug companies to get lower drug prices for certain drugs covered under Medicare Beginning negotiations with the participating drug companies that manufacture all 10 drugs selected for the first cycle of negotiations" [U.S. Health and Human Services, Inflation Reduction Act Of 2022, Viewed 7/1/24]
¶ Huizenga Previously Voted Against Allowing Medicare to Negotiate Prescription Drug Prices
2019: Huizenga Voted Against The House Drug Price Negotiation Bill For Medicare Programs. In December 2019, Huizenga voted against a motion that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “allow the Health and Human Services Department to negotiate prices for certain drugs under Medicare programs and would make a number of modifications to Medicare programs related to drug costs and plan benefits.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 230-192. [House Vote 682, 12/12/19; Congressional Quarterly, 12/12/19; Congressional Actions, H.R.3]
- The Bill Would Have Allowed HHS To Negotiate The Prices Of Prescription Drugs Covered By Medicare And Penalize Companies That Don’t Comply. According to Vox, “Under current law, the Health and Human Services secretary is barred from engaging in negotiations for prescription drugs covered by Medicare […] The final bill enables the HHS secretary to negotiate the prices of as many as 250 drugs annually. Additionally, it would penalize companies that do not negotiate with HHS with a fine starting at 65 percent of a drug’s gross sales from the prior year. For every quarter that the company does not engage, the penalty goes up by 10 percentage points, until it hits 95 percent of a drug’s gross sales.” [Vox, 12/12/19]
2013: Huizenga Voted Against The Congressional Progressive Caucus Substitute To The FY 2014 Budget, Which Allowed Medicare To Negotiate Drug Prices. In March 2013, according to Congressional Quarterly, Huizenga voted against the “Grijalva, D-Ariz., substitute amendment that would provide $3.802 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2014, not including off-budget accounts. […] It would call for the creation of a public insurance option within the health insurance exchanges and legislation to allow Medicare to negotiate rates for prescription drugs and services.” The House rejected the substitute by a vote of 84 to 327. [House Vote 85, 3/20/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/20/13; Congressional Actions, H.Con.Res. 25]
¶ Huizenga voted against capping the cost of insulin
2022: Huizenga Voted Against The Affordable Insulin Now Act, Which Required Private Insurances And Medicare To Cover Certain Insulin Products, Prohibit Deductibles For Insulin, And Cap Cost-Sharing For Such Insulin Products Beginning In 2023. In March 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Huizenga voted against the Affordable Insulin Now Act, which would “require private health insurance and Medicare to cover certain insulin products and limit cost-sharing requirements for such products for plans beginning in 2023. Specifically, it would require private insurance plans to cover at least one of each dosage form of each type of insulin, such as short-acting, long-acting and premixed insulin; prohibit the plans from applying a deductible for the insulin products; and cap cost-sharing for the insulin products at the lesser of $35 or 25 percent of the plan's negotiated price for the product per 30-day supply. For Medicare plans, it would similarly prohibit the application of a deductible for covered insulin products and cap copayments at $35 per 30-day supply.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 232-193, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. The bill was passed by the Senate and both chambers are resolving differences. The bill was turned into the Continuing Appropriations and Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2023 and that version ultimately became law. [House Vote 102, 3/31/22; Congressional Quarterly, 3/31/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 6833]
- The Measure Would Cap Insulin Costs At Either $35 Per Month Or 25% Of A Health Insurance Plan’s Negotiated Costs Beginning In 2023. According to NPR, “The Affordable Insulin Now Act would cap insulin prices at either $35 a month or 25% of an insurance plan’s negotiated price — whichever is lower. The legislation would take effect in 2023 but its fate in the Senate remains unclear.” [NPR, 3/31/22]
- According To The Health Care Cost Institute, Insulin Prices Doubled Between 2012 And 2016. According to NPR, “Advocates of the legislation point to data from the Health Care Cost Institute, an independent nonprofit that studies health care prices, which shows prices for insulin doubled between 2012 and 2016.” [NPR, 3/31/22]
¶ Huizenga Was The Deciding Vote To Protect Trump’s Tariffs
¶ 2025-2026: huizenga voted six times to protect trump’s tariffs
¶ February 2026: Huizenga Voted To Protect Trump’s Tariffs
2026: Huizenga Effectively Voted Against Terminating Tariffs On Canada. In February 2026, Huizenga voted against, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the joint resolution that would terminate the Feb. 1, 2025, national emergency that imposed tariffs on goods from Canada.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the joint resolution by a vote of 219 to 211. [House Vote 65, 2/11/26; Congressional Quarterly, 2/11/26; Congressional Actions. H.J. Res. 72]
2026: Huizenga Effectively Voted To Block Floor Votes On Terminating Tariffs Enacted Through Trump’s 2025 Executive Orders. In February 2026, Huizenga voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the rule (H Res 1042) providing for floor consideration of the Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act (HR 2189), the Undersea Cable Protection Act (HR 261), and the Securing America’s Critical Minerals Supply Act (HR 3617). […] It also would block the expedited consideration of joint resolutions terminating President Donald Trump's 2025 tariff actions under the Feb. 1, April 2, July 30, and Aug. 6 executive orders by providing that each day during the period from Feb. 10, 2026 through July 31, 2026, will not constitute a calendar day under the federal law pertaining to terminating national emergencies.” The vote was on the rule. The House rejected the rule by a vote of 214 to 217. [House Vote 60, 2/10/26; Congressional Quarterly, 2/10/26; Congressional Actions. H.Res. 1042]
- The Provision Was Added To A Rule Opening Debate On Three Unrelated Bills. According to Reuters, “Lawmakers voted 217-214 to derail the plan to bar tariff challenges through July 31, with three Republicans joining 214 Democrats in opposition. The prohibition was included in a measure intended to open debate on three unrelated bills.” [Reuters, 2/11/26]
- The House Adopted A Rule In March Of Last Year Barring Tariff Challenges That Expired In January Resulting In Speaker Johnson Calling Another Extension, Through This Rule, “Necessary.” According to Reuters, “Earlier in the day, Johnson told reporters that he expected the measure to pass the House, calling it necessary in view of an expected Supreme Court ruling on the legality of the tariffs. House Republicans first adopted a rule barring tariff challenges last March and later extended it through January.” [Reuters, 2/11/26]
- The Rule That Barred Tariffs Challenges Did Not Consider Days As “Calendar Days”, Blocking Democrats From Repealing Trump’s Declared National Emergency That Allowed For His Broad Tariffs. According to the Hill. “Trump declared national emergencies as a basis for implementing his broad-based global tariffs, as well as specific tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada. The National Emergencies Act dictates that Congress can use joint resolutions to repeal a national emergency, and outlines procedures to expedite that action after a certain number of calendar days. Multiple times last year, GOP leaders inserted language into procedural rule legislation to not count a ‘calendar day’ for the purposes of the National Emergencies Act until a specific date, blocking members from forcing action to repeal the tariffs. That prohibition expired at the end of January as GOP leaders faced resistance from Republicans. The latest attempt would have reinstated that prohibition until July 31, 2026.” [Reuters, 2/11/26]
- Johnson Delayed The Vote From 1:30 PM To 8:30 PM In An Attempt To Flip Votes. According to the Hill, “Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) was unable to win over the holdouts, despite delaying the vote from 1:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.” [Hill, 2/10/26]
¶ September 2025: Huizenga Voted Again To Protect Trump’s Tariffs
2025: Huizenga Effectively Voted For A Procedural Trick To Block Votes On The Reversal Of Trump’s Tariffs Through March 2026. In September 2025, Huizenga voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the resolution [that] would allow for the tolling (the pausing of counting) of days for resolutions of inquiry from Sept. 30, 2025 through March 31, 2026. It also would provide that each day during the period from April 9, 2025, through March 31, 2026. would not constitute a calendar day for the purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act with respect to a joint resolution to terminate President Donald Trump's April 2, 2025 executive order declaring a national emergency regarding tariffs on imported goods. The resolution also would provide that during the period for March 11, 2025 through March 31, 2026, would not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency executive order declared by President Trump on Feb. 1, 2025. Such an executive order concerned tariffs on many Canadian and Mexican imports and Chinese goods. The resolution also would provide that the provisions of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act would not apply through March 31, 2026 to a joint resolution terminating the national emergency.” The vote was on the rule. The House agreed to the rule by a vote of 213 to 211. [House Vote 268, 9/16/25; Congressional Quarterly, 9/16/25; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 707; Congressional Actions, H.Con. Res. 14]
- Support Was Won From GOP Holdouts Through A Promise Of A Vote Later In The Week To Shorten The Block To End In January Rather Than March. According to Politico, “GOP leaders flipped several of the Republican holdouts with a promise to add language shortening the block on tariff disapproval votes to a forthcoming measure set for approval later in the week, per two Republicans with direct knowledge of the agreement. The expiration date on the block will be reset from March 31 to the end of January, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said Tuesday. It’s likely the Supreme Court will have ruled on a challenge to Trump’s tariff-declaring powers by then.” [Politico, 9/16/25]
- September 2025: House Republicans Voted In Favor Of A Measure That Effectively Blocked Challenges To Trump’s Tariffs Through March 2026, With The Intent Of Changing The Length Of Time To January 2026. According to Politico, "House Republicans voted in near lockstep Tuesday to again cede congressional power over tariffs to President Donald Trump. A measure that effectively blocks challenges to Trump’s sweeping global tariff declarations through March 2026 was adopted on a 213-211 vote. The vote was gaveled down only after GOP whips had a drawn-out struggle on the floor with a band of Republicans who initially opposed the legislation before flipping to yes. The vote was held open for more than a half-hour as they worked to bring the members back on board. GOP leaders flipped several of the Republican holdouts with a promise to add language shortening the block on tariff disapproval votes to a forthcoming measure set for approval later in the week, per two Republicans with direct knowledge of the agreement. The expiration date on the block will be reset from March 31 to the end of January, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said Tuesday. It’s likely the Supreme Court will have ruled on a challenge to Trump’s tariff-declaring powers by then." [Politico, 9/16/25]
¶ April 2025: Huizenga Cast The Deciding Vote To Protect Trump’s Tariffs
2025: Huizenga Cast The Deciding Vote For A Procedural Trick To Block Votes On The Reversal Of Trump’s Tariffs Through September 2025. In April 2025, Huizenga voted for, “adoption of the rule (H Res 313) that would provide for floor consideration of the Senate amendment to the fiscal 2025 budget resolution (H Con Res 14). The rule would provide up to one hour of debate on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the measure. It also would block the expedited consideration of joint resolutions terminating President Donald Trump’s tariff actions under the April 2 executive order by providing that each day during the period from April 9, 2025 through Sept. 30, 2025, will not constitute a calendar day under the federal law pertaining to terminating national emergencies.” The vote was on the rule. The underlying legislation was the FY 2025 budget resolution. The House agreed to the rule by a vote of 216 to 215. [House Vote 94, 4/9/25; Congressional Quarterly, 4/9/25; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 313;Congressional Actions, H.Con. Res. 14]
- Speaker Johnson Backed The Move, Claiming Trump Has “Executive Authority” And That The Tariffs Are “In The Interest Of The American People.” According to ABC News, “House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., defended the move, telling reporters, ‘I've made it very clear I think the president has executive authority. It's an appropriate level of authority to deal with the unfair trade practices. That's part of the role of the president is to negotiate with other countries.’ Johnson said Trump told him Tuesday night that ‘there are almost 70 countries that are [in] some stage in negotiation of more fair-trade agreement agreements with the United States. I think that is in the interest of the American people. I think that is an ‘America First’ policy that will be effective, and so we have to give them the space to do it.’” [ABC News, 4/9/25]
- The Vote Was The Second Use Of The Procedural Tactic To Block Votes On The Tariffs, The First Use Of It Being In March 2025. According to ABC News, “House Democrats, led by Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., moved to force a vote on Tuesday on terminating the national emergency authority and blocking Trump's sweeping tariffs. Now, that vote is unlikely to occur. This is the second time Johnson has moved to stop the legislative calendar to prevent votes on Trump's authority on tariffs. Under House rules, these votes would typically come up within 15 calendar days but now will not if the ‘rule’ passes during the vote series Wednesday afternoon.” [ABC News, 4/9/25]
¶ If One “Aye” Vote Had Switched To A “No” On House Vote 94 The Measure Would Have Failed Instead Of Passing
The Measure Considered In House Vote 94 Passed By A Vote Of 216 “Ayes” To 215 “Nos,” Which Meant If One Aye Vote Had Switched To A No Vote The Measure Would Have Failed.
[House Vote 94, 4/9/25; Congressional Quarterly, 4/9/25; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 313;Congressional Actions, H.Con. Res. 14]
¶ April 2025: Huizenga Voted To Protect Trump’s Tariffs
2025: Huizenga Effectively Voted For A Procedural Trick To Block Votes On The Reversal Of Trump’s Tariffs Through September 2025. In April 2025, Huizenga voted for, “motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 313) that would providing for floor consideration of the Senate amendment to the fiscal 2025 budget resolution (H Con Res 14). The rule would provide up to one hour of debate on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the measure. It also would block the expedited consideration of joint resolutions terminating President Donald Trump’s tariff actions under the April 2 executive order by providing that each day during the period from April 9, 2025 through Sept. 30, 2025, will not constitute a calendar day under the federal law pertaining to terminating national emergencies.” The vote was on the previous question. The House agreed to the rule by a vote of 217 to 212. [House Vote 93, 4/9/25; Congressional Quarterly, 4/9/25; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 313]
¶ March 2025: Huizenga Voted To Protect Trump’s Tariffs
2025: Huizenga Voted To Disapprove An IRS Rule That Established Reporting Requirements For Digital Asset Proceeds And To Effectively Block Votes On The Reversal Of Trump’s Tariffs. In March 2025, Huizenga voted for, “the bill that would provide for Congressional disapproval of, and nullify, a December 2024 IRS rule related to gross proceeds reporting by brokers involved in digital asset sales. The rule imposed reporting requirements, beginning in 2027, on non-custodial barkers who participate in the decentralized digital asset market. It also required brokers to file information returns and provide payee statements reporting gross proceeds from certain digital asset sales and transactions.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 292 to 132. [House Vote 71, 3/11/25; Congressional Quarterly, 3/11/25; Congressional Actions, H.J. Res. 25]
- The Bill Effectively Blocked The House From Voting To Reverse Trump’s Tariffs On Mexico, Canada, And China For The Next Year. According to the New York Times, “Republican leaders on Tuesday slipped language into a procedural measure that would prevent any resolution to end the tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China from receiving a vote this year. It passed on party lines as part of a resolution that cleared the way for a vote later Tuesday on a government spending bill needed to prevent a shutdown at the end of the week.” [New York Times, 3/11/25]
- The Bill Nullified A Law That Would Allow The House And Senate To End A Disaster Declared By The President. According to the New York Times, “In this case, Republican leaders did so using a particularly unusual contortion: They essentially declared the rest of the year one long day, nullifying a law that allows the House and Senate to jointly put an end to a disaster declared by the president.” [New York Times, 3/11/25]
- The National Emergencies Act Required Consideration Of Resolutions Ending A Presidentially Declared Emergency Within Fifteen Calendar Days But Republican Leadership Included A Measure In The Bill Declaring The Rest Of The Year Did Not Constitute A Calendar Day. According to the New York Times, “The national emergency law lays out a fast-track process for Congress to consider a resolution ending a presidential emergency, requiring committee consideration within 15 calendar days after one is introduced and a floor vote within three days after that. But the language House Republicans inserted in their measure on Tuesday declared that, ‘Each day for the remainder of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day’ for the purposes of the emergency that Mr. Trump declared on Feb. 1.” [New York Times, 3/11/25]
¶ Huizenga Voted To Cut SNAP Benefits For Millions Of Americans
¶ July 2025: Huizenga Voted For The Final GOP Reconciliation Bill, Which Contained The Largest SNAP Cut In History
July 2025: Huizenga Voted For The Senate FY 2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill That Extended $4 Trillion In Expiring Tax Cuts, Added New Tax Breaks, Appropriated $448 Million In Defense, Border, And Immigration Enforcement Funding, Increased The SALT Deduction To $40,000, And Cut Medicaid And Other Social Programs To Offset The Costs. In July 2025, Huizenga voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, the “motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the bill that would permanently extend nearly $4 trillion in expiring individual and business tax cuts, create several new tax breaks and fund border and immigration enforcement and air traffic control upgrades. It would cut Medicaid and other safety net programs to partly offset the cost. Among other provisions, it would raise the statutory debt ceiling by $5 trillion and appropriate more than $448 billion in mandatory funding for Trump administration priorities and other needs, including $153 billion for defense, $89 billion for immigration enforcement, and $89.5 billion for border control and security. It also would increase the state and local tax deduction cap to $40,000 annually for five years for households making up to $500,000 a year until 2030, when it would permanently revert to $10,000.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 218 to 214. [House Vote 190, 7/3/25; Congressional Quarterly, 7/3/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
- HEADLINE: "Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Cuts Food Stamps For Millions — The Average Family May Lose $146 Per Month, Report Finds" [CNBC, 7/10/25]
- The GOP Reconciliation Bill Would Cut SNAP Funding By $186 Billion, Which CBPP Said Constituted The “Largest Cut To SNAP In History.” According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "The Senate Republican leadership’s reconciliation bill would dramatically raise costs and reduce food assistance for millions of people by cutting federal funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by $186 billion through 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), about 20 percent — the largest cut to SNAP in history. These cuts would increase poverty, food insecurity, and hunger, including among children. The so-called ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ is anything but beautiful; it would cause widespread harm by making massive cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, which would raise costs on families and make it much harder for them to afford the high cost of health care and groceries." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 6/30/25]
¶ May 2025: Huizenga Voted For The House Version Of The Republican Reconciliation Bill, Which Included A $300 Billion Cut To SNAP
May 2025: Huizenga Voted For The FY 2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill That Included $3.8 Trillion In Tax Cuts Offset By $1.5 Trillion In Spending Reductions To Programs Like Medicaid And The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. In May 2025, Huizenga voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the bill that would provide for approximately $3.8 trillion in net tax cuts and $321 billion in military, border enforcement and judiciary spending, offset by $1.5 trillion in spending reductions, as instructed in the fiscal 2025 budget resolution (H Con Res 14). It would raise the statutory debt limit by $4 trillion and provide for increased spending on defense and border security, spending cuts on social safety net programs, such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It also includes a mix of tax breaks for businesses and individuals; tax increases on universities and foundations; and a phase-down of clean energy tax credits. […] It would reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by requiring states to shoulder more of the cost, expand work requirements for SNAP, extend programs authorized under the 2018 farm bill, and prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture from increasing the cost of the Thrifty Food Program. As amended, it would cap state and local tax deductions at $40,000 for households with incomes below $500,000.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 215 to 214. [House Vote 145, 5/22/25; Congressional Quarterly, 5/22/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
- The House Republican Reconciliation Bill Included Nearly $300 Billion In Cuts To The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "The House-passed Republican reconciliation plan would cut nearly $300 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) through 2034, based on Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates — by far the largest cut to SNAP in history.[1] As a result of these cuts and other policies in the legislation — which are being used to pay partly for trillions in tax cuts skewed to the wealthy — millions of people would lose some or all of the food assistance they need to afford groceries, when many low-income households are struggling to afford the high cost of food and other basic needs." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 5/28/25]
¶ February 2025: Huizenga Voted For House Republicans’ Budget Framework, Which Set Up Future Cuts To SNAP
February 2025: Huizenga Voted For The FY 2025 Budget Framework That Included $2 Trillion In Cuts, Raised The Statutory Debt Limit By $4 Trillion, And Required House Committees To Recommend Legislation That Would Implement Trump’s Agenda. In February 2025, Huizenga voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the concurrent resolution that would recommend a budget for fiscal 2025 and budget levels through fiscal 2034. The resolution would assume minimum savings of $1.5 trillion over 10 years and 2.6 percent economic growth over the same period. It also would require the statutory debt limit to be raised by $4 trillion. It also would authorize the House Ways and Means Committee to increase deficits by $4.5 trillion over 10 years to extend the 2017 tax cuts and implement new tax cuts proposed by the White House. It also would provide instructions for the budget reconciliation process through which separate legislation could be considered and passed in the Senate via a simple majority vote. The measure would deliver instructions to 11 House committees to report legislation that would implement President Donald Trump’s agenda, such as expanding tax cuts and bolstering border security and immigration enforcement. The committees would be required to report their legislative recommendations to the House Budget Committee by March 27, 2025. It also would set a $2 trillion target for the spending cuts to be submitted to the House Budget Committee. The resolution also would stipulate that if the committees don't reach that target, the Ways and Means’ reconciliation instructions to increase the deficit by a maximum of $4.5 trillion would be decreased by the amount the other committees come in below the target. Similarly, it would stipulate that Ways and Means could increase the deficit above the $4.5 trillion level by the amount of savings the committees achieve above the $2 trillion target.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the resolution by a vote of 217 to 215. [House Vote 50, 2/25/25; Congressional Quarterly, 2/25/25; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 14]
- HEADLINE: "House Republican Budget Takes Away Health Care, Food Aid To Pay For Expanded Tax Cuts For Wealthy" [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/21/25]
- CBPP Said The Republican Budget Resolution Outlined $230 Billion In Cuts, Primarily From SNAP Benefits. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "The House Republicans’ budget plan would give major tax cuts to high-income, wealthy households. Extending the expiring individual income and estate tax provisions for households with incomes in the top 5 percent of the income distribution (households with incomes over $321,000) costs around $1.8 trillion through 2034, accounting for 49 percent of the total $3.6 trillion cost of extension through 2034. That $1.8 trillion for wealthy and high-income households is close to the amount of the spending cuts House Republicans have outlined — including at least $880 billion primarily from Medicaid, $230 billion primarily from SNAP benefits, and $330 billion primarily from making student loans more expensive. Of the tax cuts for wealthy households, nearly $200 billion is for an estate tax giveaway that showers some $6 million per estate on the 1 in 1,000 wealthiest estates. In contrast, the average SNAP benefit is $6.20 per person per day, which helps struggling families put food on the table." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/21/25]
¶ Huizenga Voted Against a Bipartisan Bill to Fix Michigan's Infrastructure
2021: Huizenga Voted Against The Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, Which Provided $110 Billion For Roads, Bridges, And Major Transportation Projects, Which Would Include Funding For Highway Infrastructure, Bridge Construction And Repairs, Rail Systems, Including Amtrak, And Transit. In November 2021, Huizenga voted against concurring in the Senate amendment to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, “provide $110 billion for roads, bridges and major surface transportation projects, including $47.3 for highway infrastructure and $40 billion for bridge construction and repair; $66 billion for rail, including $58 billion for Amtrak; and $39 billion for transit, including $5.3 billion for zero- and low-emission transit buses and $2 billion for accessibility improvements.” The vote was on a motion to concur in the Senate amendment. The House concurred with the Senate by a vote of 228-206, thus the bill was sent to the President and ultimately became law. [House Vote 369, 11/5/21; Congressional Quarterly, 11/5/21; Congressional Actions, S.Amdt. 2137; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3684]
- As Of 2024, More Than $13 Billion Had Been In Invested In Michigan Infrastructure Since The Passage Of The Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill. According to a press release from the Michigan Infrastructure Office, "More than $13 billion in infrastructure funding has been invested in Michigan since the passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) three years ago. From improving roads and bridges and expanding access to high-speed internet to increasing climate resilience and lowering energy costs for families, the BIL is strengthening communities in every corner of the state, helping them attract good-paying jobs, bolster their infrastructure, win additional investments, and improve quality of life. View Michigan’s Infrastructure Investment Tracker to see the projects happening in your neighborhood." [Pres Release – Michigan Infrastructure Office, 11/15/24]
¶ Huizenga Voted to Give Tax Breaks to Billionaires and Big Corporations
2017: Huizenga Voted For The House GOP’s 2017 Tax Reform Plan Which Significantly Cut Taxes For The Rich And Corporations; Legislation Moved The Tax Rates From Seven To Four. In November 2017, Huizenga voted for reconciliation legislation which significantly altered the federal tax code. According to Congressional Quarterly, “The bill substantially restructures the U.S. tax code to simplify the code and reduce taxes on individuals, corporations and small businesses. For individuals, it consolidates the current seven tax brackets down to four and eliminates or restricts many tax credits and deductions, including by eliminating the deduction for state and local income taxes and limiting the deduction for property taxes to $10,000 and the interest deduction for a home mortgage to the first $500,000 worth of a loan. […] On the business side, it reduces the corporate tax from 35% to 20% and establishes a ‘territorial’ tax system that would exempt most income derived overseas from U.S. corporate taxation. It allows businesses to immediately expense 100% of the cost of assets acquired and placed into service, and for small businesses it raises the Section 179 expensing limit to $5 million for five years. It also establishes a 25% rate for a portion of pass-through business income that would otherwise have to be paid at the ordinary individual tax level, and for small businesses where an individual would receive less than $150,000 in pass-through income it taxes the first $75,000 of that income at a 9% rate.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 227 to 205. President Trump later signed an amended version of the bill into law. [House Vote 637, 11/16/17; Congressional Quarterly, 11/15/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
- The GOP Tax Bill Included Permanent Tax Cuts For Corporations, But Not For Individuals. According to the Washington Post, The essential gamble of Republican plans to overhaul the tax code is now becoming clear: Big businesses get a large, permanent tax cut, while American families receive only temporary tax relief that expires as soon as 2023 in the House bill and 2026 in the Senate bill. In the House bill, the tax increase would mostly hit moderate and middle-income families because a credit designed to help them expires after five years. But in the Senate plan, released late Tuesday, virtually all Americans would face higher tax rates because the individual income rate cuts go away entirely in 2026. The tax cuts for corporations do not expire.” [Washington Post, 11/15/17]
- By 2027, The Top One Percent Would Get 50 Percent Of The Total Benefit Of The Republican Tax Bill. According to the Tax Policy Center, “In 2027, the overall average tax cut would be smaller than in 2018, reducing taxes by about $860 on average, or 0.9 percent of after-tax income (table 2). Taxpayers in the bottom two quintiles of the income distribution (those with income less than about $55,000) would see little change in their taxes, with average tax decreases of $50 or less. Taxpayers in the middle of the income distribution would see a net tax cut on average and see their after-tax incomes increase 0.5 percent. Taxpayers in the top 1 percent would receive nearly 50 percent of the total benefit; their after-tax income would increase 2.6 percent on average.” [Tax Policy Center, 11/13/17]
2017: Huizenga Voted For The Final Version Of Trump’s Tax Reform Plan, Which Substantially Cut Taxes For Rich Americans And Corporations. In December 2017, Huizenga voted for the Tax Cut and Jobs Act, also known as Trump’s tax reform bill. According to Congressional Quarterly, “This Conference Summary deals with the conference report on HR 1, Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which the House will consider Tuesday. The agreement significantly cuts corporate and individual taxes and seeks to simply the tax code, although most individual tax provisions would expire after 2025. It reduces the corporate tax from 35% to 21% and reduces taxation of so-called ‘pass-through’ businesses where profits are taxed at the individual rate. For corporate taxes it also establishes a ‘territorial’ tax system that exempts most overseas income from U.S. taxation. Most individual tax rate rates would be reduced, including by dropping the top rate from 39.6% to 37%, and it eliminates personal exemptions but nearly doubles the standard deduction so fewer taxpayers will itemize deductions.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 227 to 203. The Senate later passed a slightly modified version of the bill, which the House later agreed to. President Trump later signed an amended version of the bill into law. [House Vote 692, 12/19/17; Congressional Quarterly, 12/18/17; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
- In 2027, 83 Percent Of The Total Tax Benefit From The Republican Tax Bill Would Go To The Top One Percent. According to Tax Policy Center, “In 2027, the overall average tax cut would be $160, or 0.2 percent of after-tax income (table 3), largely because almost all individual income tax provisions would sunset after 2025. On average, taxes would be little changed for taxpayers in the bottom 95 percent of the income distribution. Taxpayers in the bottom two quintiles of the income distribution would face an average tax increase of 0.1 percent of after-tax income; taxpayers in the middle income quintile would see no material change on average; and taxpayers in the 95th to 99th income percentiles would receive an average tax cut of 0.2 percent of after-tax income. Taxpayers in the top 1 percent of the income distribution would receive an average tax cut of 0.9 percent of after-tax income, accounting for 83 percent of the total benefit for that year.” [Tax Policy Center, 12/18/17]
- Last Minute Provision Added To The Republican Tax Bill Gave A Tax Break To Real-Estate Moguls. According to the International Business Times, “President Donald Trump has made tens of millions of dollars of a specific kind of income that could be subjected to a last-minute tax break inserted into the Republicans’ tax legislation released Friday, according to federal records reviewed by International Business Times. The same is true for Tennessee GOP Sen. Bob Corker — a commercial real estate mogul who suddenly switched his vote to ‘yes’ on the tax bill after the provision was added to the legislation. Previously, Corker was the only Republican to vote against the Senate version of the bill. […] The reconciled tax bill includes a new 20 percent deduction for so-called ‘pass-through’ entities, business structures such as LLCs, LPs and S-Corporations that don’t pay corporate taxes, but instead ‘pass through’ income to partners who pay individual tax rates on that money. The Senate version of the bill included safeguards that would only allow businesses to take advantage of the new break if they paid out significant wages to employees. But the new provision, which wasn’t included in either version of the bill passed by the House and Senate, and was only added during the reconciliation process, gives owners of income-producing real estate holdings a way around that safeguard, effectively creating a new tax break for large landlords and real estate moguls.” [International Business Times, 12/16/17]
- The Republican Tax Bill Reduced Taxes For Pass-Through Companies Via A 20 Percent Deduction. According to Vox, “Pass-through companies, like the Trump Organization, which get a new deduction reducing their tax burden. The House-Senate compromise bill allows people with pass-through income to deduct a portion of that income from their taxes; the deduction is for 20 percent of pass-through income, less than the 23 percent under the Senate-passed bill.” [Vox, 12/18/17]
- Most Of The Republican Tax Bill’s Tax Cuts For Individuals Were Temporary, But The Corporate Ones Were Permanent. According to the Washington Post, “The core of the plan is a massive and permanent cut to the corporate tax rate, dropping it from 35 percent to 21 percent. The bill also would cut individual tax rates for all income tax levels. Families earning less than $25,000 a year would receive an average tax cut of $60, while those earning more than $733,000 would see an average cut of $51,000, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Many of the breaks for individuals are set to expire in the coming years. Republicans set those expiration dates to comply with Senate limits on how much their legislation could add to the nation’s deficit, and they say a future Congress will extend the cuts or make them permanent.” [Washington Post, 12/20/17]
¶ It Took Huizenga 11 Months To Vote To Release The Epstein Files, And He Did Only After Trump Signaled To House Republicans That He Approved
¶ it took Huizenga 11 months to vote to release the epstein files and he only did after trump said it was okay for republicans to do so
¶ November 16, 2025: Trump Said House Republicans Should Vote To Release The Epstein Files
HEADLINE: "In A Shift, Trump Says House Republicans Should Vote To Release Epstein Files" [NPR, 11/16/25]
11/16/25: Trump Said House Republicans Should Vote To Release The Epstein Files And That The House Oversight Committee Could Have Whatever It Was Legally Entitled To. According to Trump’s Truth Social post, "As I said on Friday night aboard Air Force One to the Fake News Media, House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party, including our recent Victory on the Democrat ‘Shutdown.’ The Department of Justice has already turned over tens of thousands of pages to the Public on ‘Epstein,’ are looking at various Democrat operatives (Bill Clinton, Reid Hoffman, Larry Summers, etc.) and their relationship to Epstein, and the House Oversight Committee can have whatever they are legally entitled to, I DON’T CARE! All I do care about is that Republicans get BACK ON POINT, which is the Economy, ‘Affordability’ (where we are winning BIG!), our Victory on reducing Inflation from the highest level in History to practically nothing, bringing down prices for the American People, delivering Historic Tax Cuts, gaining Trillions of Dollars of Investment into America (A RECORD!), the rebuilding of our Military, securing our Border, deporting Criminal Illegal Aliens, ending Men in Women’s Sports, stopping Transgender for Everyone, and so much more! Nobody cared about Jeffrey Epstein when he was alive and, if the Democrats had anything, they would have released it before our Landslide Election Victory. Some ‘members’ of the Republican Party are being ‘used,’ and we can’t let that happen. Let’s start talking about the Republican Party’s Record Setting Achievements, and not fall into the Epstein ‘TRAP,’ which is actually a curse on the Democrats, not us. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" [Truth Social, @realDonaldTrump, 11/16/25]
¶ November 17, 2025: Huizenga Voted With Nearly Every Other Member Of The U.S. House To Release The Epstein Files
2025: Huizenga Voted To Release The Epstein Files. In November 2025, Huizenga voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the bill that would require the attorney general, within 30 days of the bill's enactment, to make publicly available all Justice Department records, documents, communications and investigation material related to the department’s investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and other individuals or entities associated with Epstein. It would require the DOJ to disclose any immunity deals or plea bargains involving Epstein or his associates. It would allow the Justice Department to withhold or redact certain materials to protect victims' privacy, among other limited exceptions. It also would require the attorney general, within 15 days of making such records public, to submit a report to Congress that includes information on the materials it has released and withheld, a list of any redactions made and the legal justification for doing so, and a list of any government officials and politically exposed persons named in the investigation.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 472 to 1 and it was ultimately signed into law by President Trump. [House Vote 289, 11/18/25; Congressional Quarterly, 11/18/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4405]
- HEADLINE: "Congress Passes Bill To Force The Release Of The Epstein Files" [NBC News, 11/17/25]
- The Justice Department Had 30 Days After Trump Signed The Bill To Release All Unclassified Documents About Jeffrey Epstein. According to the Washington Post, "President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he has signed a bill directing the Justice Department to release the Epstein files, documents related to the sprawling sex-trafficking investigation into the onetime powerful financier that are fervently sought by Trump’s political opponents and members of his political base. After Trump’s announcement, made in a social media post, the Justice Department will have 30 days to release all unclassified documents about Jeffrey Epstein, who was arrested on federal sex-trafficking charges in 2019 and died in an apparent suicide while in federal custody." [Washington Post, 11/19/25]
- Speaker Johnson Sent The House Home A Day Early In July To Avoid A Vote On The Release Of The Files. According to ABC News, “House Speaker Mike Johnson had tried to avoid holding a vote in the lower chamber on the Epstein matter. In late July, Johnson sent the House home a day early for August recess because the House was paralyzed in a stalemate over the Epstein issue.” [ABC News, 11/18/25]
- Speaker Johnson Expressed Opposition To The Process, Saying He Was “Deeply Disappointed” In The Outcome. According to NBC News, “Even after having voted for the bill, Johnson was still fuming over the process hours later. Returning to the Capitol from a White House dinner honoring Saudi Arabia's crown prince, Johnson said, ‘I'm deeply disappointed in this outcome,’ and he lamented that ‘Chuck Schumer rushed it to the floor.’ Senate Majority John Thune, R-S.D., didn't object, despite being aware of Johnson's concerns. Johnson said he was continuing to have conversations with Trump about those issues. ‘I'm frustrated with the process,’ he said, ‘but I trust Leader Thune.’” [NBC News, 11/17/25]
- Republican Rep. Clay Higgins Was The Only Member Of Congress Who Voted Against A Discharge Petition That Called To Release The Epstein Files. According to NBC News, "Congress voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to pass legislation to compel the Justice Department to release its records related to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — a major victory for lawmakers in both parties who've been leading the push for months. As the final vote tally in the House, 427-1, was read, several Epstein survivors who were sitting in the gallery embraced one another and loud cheers went up through the chamber. Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., was the only lawmaker to vote no." [NBC News, 11/17/25]
¶ Huizenga never signed the discharge petition to release the epstein files that eventually made its way to the house floor
Nancy Mace, Lauren Boebert, And Marjorie Taylor Greene Were The Only Other Republicans To Sign Thomas Massie’s Discharge Petition To Get A House Floor Vote On Releasing The Epstein Files.
[Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, Discharge Petition No. 9, 9/2/25]
¶ Huizenga never co-sponsored legislation that called for the epstein files to be released
Huizenga Was Not Listed As A Co-Sponsored On Rep. Thomas Massie’s Legislation That Called To Release The Epstein Files.
[U.S. House of Representatives, H.Res.581, Introduced 7/15/25]
- H.Res.581 Called On The Justice Department To Release All Unclassified Documents That Related To Jeffrey Epstein Or Ghislaine Maxwell. According to Congress.gov, H.Res.581 would, "This resolution provides a special rule for consideration of H.R. 185 and amends that bill to direct the Department of Justice (DOJ) to make publicly available certain records related to Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell. Under H.R. 185, as amended by the resolution, DOJ must publicly disclose all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in its possession that relate to Epstein or Maxwell. The records include unclassified records referring or relating to Epstein's detention and death; flight logs of aircraft owned or used by Epstein; individuals named in connection with Epstein’s criminal activities, civil settlements, or immunity or plea agreements; immunity deals, sealed settlements, or plea bargains of Epstein or his associates; entities with ties to Epstein’s trafficking or financial networks; and internal Department of Justice communications concerning decisions to investigate or charge Epstein or his associates. However, under the amended bill, DOJ may withhold or redact portions of records with written justification that such portions contain (1) victims' personally identifiable information; (2) child sexual abuse materials; (3) images of death, physical abuse, or injury; (4) information which would jeopardize an active federal investigation or prosecution; or (5) classified information. DOJ may not withhold or redact records on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity. Further, within 15 days of completing the required disclosures, DOJ must provide Congress with a report listing all categories of records released and withheld, all redactions made and their legal basis, and all government officials and politically exposed persons named or referenced in the released materials." [U.S. House of Representatives, H.Res.581, Introduced 7/15/25]
¶ Huizenga had previously voted to protect the accused pedophiles named within the epstein files
¶ September 2025: Huizenga Effectively Voted Against Releasing The Epstein Files
2025: Huizenga Effectively Voted Against Releasing The Epstein Files. In September 2025, Huizenga voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “adoption of the rule [that] […] would consider as adopted a resolution (H Res 668) that would direct the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to continue its ongoing inquiry into the possible mismanagement of the federal government's investigation of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, the circumstances surrounding Epstein's death in federal custody, sex trafficking rings and potential ethics violations by elected officials. […] It also would table a rule (H Res 598) that would provide for the adoption of a resolution (H Res 589) concerning the release of certain documents related to the Epstein case.” The vote was on the rule. The House agreed to the rule by a vote of 212 to 208. [House Vote 222, 9/3/25; Congressional Quarterly, 9/3/25; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 672]
- Representatives Massie And Khanna Introduced A Discharge Petition To Force A Vote On The Release Of The Files With Four Republicans Signed On To It As Of Mid-September. According to NBC News, “In the House, the ‘discharge petition’ to force a vote on the Massie-Khanna legislation is on track to succeed. It has 216 signatures — including all Democrats and four Republicans — and needs just two more. Those two are expected to arrive this month in the form of a newly elected Democrat in a Virginia special election and another safe blue seat in Arizona that will get a special election in late September. Massie told NBC News on Tuesday that the four Republicans who have signed on are solidly behind the effort and won’t bow to pressure to remove their names. He said other GOP lawmakers have signaled to him they are open to signing the petition but prefer not to get crosswise with Trump or party leaders publicly if their votes aren't needed to pass it. [NBC News, 9/10/25]
¶ July 2025: Huizenga Cast The Deciding Vote Against Releasing The Epstein Files
HEADLINE: "House GOP Blocks Second Dem Attempt To Release Epstein Files" [Axios, 7/15/25]
2025: Huizenga Voted To Block The Release Of The Epstein Files. In July 2025, Huizenga voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, the “motion to order the previous question on the rule (H Res 580) providing for floor consideration of the fiscal 2026 Defense appropriations bill (HR 4016), the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act (HR 1919), the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (HR 3633) and the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act (S 1582).” The vote was on the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote on of 211 to 210. [House Vote 194, 7/15/25; Congressional Quarterly, 7/15/25; Congressional Actions, H. Res. 580]
- The Vote Served As A Referendum With Its Passage Blocking Consideration Of Representative Khanna’s Amendment To Require Release Of The Epstein Files. According to Politico, “Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) had slightly more success mounting an effort to amend cryptocurrency-related legislation scheduled to hit the House floor later this week to compel the release of Epstein-related files. Democrats forced a Rules Committee vote on whether to allow a floor vote on Khanna’s amendment; Republicans voted it down, though one Rules member in their ranks, Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina, crossed party lines. On the floor Tuesday afternoon, House Democrats attempted to cast a procedural vote as a referendum on releasing the so-called Epstein files. Had their effort to vote down the motion succeeded, they said, they would have moved forward with Khanna’s amendment. But the ‘previous question’ vote, which hasn’t been won by the House minority since 1988, prevailed 211-210 on party lines.” [Politico, 7/15/25]
¶ If One “Aye” Vote Had Switched To A “No” Vote In House Vote 194, The Measure Being Considered Would Have Failed Instead Of Passing
The Measure Considered In House Vote 194 Passed With 211 “Ayes” And 210 “Nos,” Which Meant If One Aye Vote Had Switched To A No Vote The Measure Would Have Instead Failed.
[House Vote 194, 7/15/25; Congressional Quarterly, 7/15/25; Congressional Actions, H. Res. 580]