[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 16 (Thursday, February 3, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S538-S540]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
VOTE EXPLANATION
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I was unable to vote today because of a
family emergency. I want to be clear that if I were present in the
Chamber, I would have voted in favor of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's
amendment No. 8 to provide penalties for pointing laser pointers at
airplanes. Instances of this dangerous practice doubled last year, and
I believe we need to take the strong actions necessary to protect our
flight crews and the flying public from dangers such as this.
I also would have voted in support of the motion to table Senator
Rand Paul's amendment No. 19 to prohibit any funds made available by
the FAA Reauthorization Act to be used to administer or enforce wage-
rate requirements with respect to any project or program funded under
the bill. I will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to protect American workers, especially in these tough
economic times.
[[Page S539]]
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President. I am in strong support of Senator
Levin's effort to repeal the enhanced tax form 1099 reporting
requirements enacted in the Patient Protection and Affordable Health
Care Act. Since passage of the bill, I have heard from hundreds of
Rhode Island small business owners about the paperwork and record-
keeping costs of complying with the new 1099 standards. The provision,
which was intended to cut down on fraud and generate revenue, has
simply proven too burdensome on small businesses. I support the repeal
of the new 1099 provision and am pleased to have voted in favor of the
Levin amendment which would do so.
While I support the Levin approach to repealing the 1099 provision, I
cannot lend my support to Senator Stabenow's amendment which would pay
for the repeal by rescinding $44 billion in appropriated funds. The
rescission could endanger priorities for Rhode Island like funds
appropriated for water infrastructure, housing assistance, and to help
Rhode Island recover from the historic floods of March 2010. Senator
Reed and I fought hard to bring Federal help to Rhode Islanders
struggling to rebuild after the worst flood in 200 years, and I simply
am not willing jeopardize that relief.
Once again, I fully support the repeal of the enhanced 1099 reporting
requirements, and I hope we can pass a measure to do that without
endangering funding for critical programs like flood recovery.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I support Senator McConnell's effort to
fully repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Act. I opposed the
final passage of this new law because it was the product of a seriously
flawed process that was rushed on a host of artificial timelines
resulting in fundamentally defective policy that did not resolve the
issue of affordability of health care in Maine and across the country.
In addition, the preponderance of the beneficial reforms and subsidies
do not kick in until 2014, so between now and then most Mainers will
continue to experience what they know all too well--a continuation of
premiums that have skyrocketed by 426 percent over the past decade and
diminishing competition and plan choices in our markets.
Regrettably, what the Democratic majority rushed through the Senate
floor last Congress was a 2,740-page bill, which we were forced to
complete by Christmas day after a mere 21 days on the floor. As the
result of this massive bill, we have a bloated and overextended new law
that dramatically augments the reach of the Federal Government in
health care. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the new health
reform law mandates 41 separate rulemakings, at least 100 additional
regulatory guidance documents, and 129 reports. In addition, the new
law is paid for with a job-killing $210 billion increase in Medicare
taxes on businesses and an estimated $500 billion overall increase in
taxes at this time of economic peril.
I happen to believe the details matter of what we do here in
Congress. And I also believe the American people would agree. It is not
irrational for them to expect that we actually know what is in this
bill, how it will work, and whether we can reasonably expect it to be
effective and bring down costs for the American people. And there is
mounting evidence that it will not, as a recent study projects an 8.8-
percent premium increase for employer-sponsored coverage in 2011--up
from 6.9 percent in 2010 and 6 percent in 2009--and out-of-pocket
premium costs for employees will rise 12.4 percent next year.
During consideration of the health reform bill, I had serious
concerns about affordability--and whether an affordable coverage option
would be available to all Americans in the private insurance market.
That is why I requested an analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional
Budget Office, CBO, back in December 2009, with a State-specific
analysis of premium affordability, but regrettably a complete analysis
was never provided.
So I support efforts to fully repeal of the health care reform law.
And because the majority has endorsed once again their misguided health
law by defeating today's full repeal vote, I will also support targeted
efforts to repeal other provisions--starting with the onerous 1099
mandate that we have just repealed that would have required millions of
businesses to send billions of new information reporting forms to the
IRS and other businesses. I want to commend Senator Johanns for his
recognition of this onerous burden and his tireless efforts to repeal
it. Since last summer he has done a yeoman's job of leading on this
issue.
If this amendment was not adopted here in the Senate, every business
in America, starting in 2012, must report to the IRS on business
purchases that exceed a threshold of only $600 per vendor or supplier--
for purchases of supplies and equipment and also services ranging from
cell phone coverage to window washing to utilities.
This new mandate was imposed in the health reform law, yet it had
absolutely nothing to do with health insurance reform. What it does is
make the Federal Government a more intrusive and burdensome presence in
every aspect of American business--which is the very last thing
American business needs during these tumultuous economic times. What
small firms are clamoring for is certainty and relief from these
extreme regulatory nuisances. They need the Federal Government to help
foster an entrepreneurial environment under which they can do what they
do best--create new jobs--and not saddle them with an incessant and
unnecessary paperwork burden such as this new 1099 filing requirement.
Missing from the amendment we just passed is the fact that rental
real estate would still be subject to this 1099 reporting requirement.
Rental real estate was added to this paperwork morass as part of the
Small Business Jobs Act last year at a time when the 1099 reporting
quagmire was already known. Yet, remarkably, the majority forged ahead
regardless and inexplicably expanded rather fixing this problem. For
those parts of the country that have tourism as an economic foundation,
rental real estate is a major factor, and for Maine, for which the
State motto is ``Vacationland'' this is a major problem--and it is
something we need to repeal this year.
We also need to strike the employer mandate from the bill, which is
something of critical importance to me as ranking member of the Senate
Small Business Committee. Under the new law, starting in 2014, firms
with more than 50 workers would have to pay $2,000 per employee with
just the first 30 employees exempted. And if that is not enough, part-
time workers will be counted in determining if the mandate would apply.
That means countless more middle-sized firms such as restaurants and
retailers would be subject to the mandate, which will raise $52 billion
in revenue.
Mr. President, exactly how is this going to help our Nation's
greatest job generators--our small businesses--to lead us out of this
recession, especially since we are also now going to hit them with
increased Medicare taxes? And that is another tax increase we must
repeal. That is right--starting in 2013, the new law includes $87
billion in Medicare taxes that disproportionally harm small businesses
because they apply to the income those businesses would normally
reinvest. Plain and simple, this 0.9 percentage point increase in
Medicare HI payroll taxes, coupled with a 3.8-percent Medicare tax that
is unprecedented because it will imposing a payroll tax on investment
income, will result in a grand total of $210 billion in new Medicare
taxes--a job killer as it essentially takes away capital from the very
small business owners who are the most likely to employ between 20 and
250 employees.
Furthermore, I am deeply troubled by the manner in which the Medicare
tax increases in this bill are to be utilized. According to CBO--and
these are their exact words--``To describe the full amount of HI trust
fund savings as both improving the government's ability to pay future
Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would
essentially double count a large share of those savings and thus
overstate the improvement in the government's fiscal position.''
Speaking of double counting, we need to repeal the so-called CLASS
Act. Now, while proponents point to estimates that this provision would
raise $72 billion over the first 10 years, that savings only occurs as
a result of a fiscal shell game of using funds promised to
beneficiaries later to lower the deficit today. As CBO says, ``The
program
[[Page S540]]
would pay out far less in benefits than it would receive in premiums
over the 10-year budget window,'' raising $70 billion in premiums that
will fund benefits outside the window. As a result, CBO further
concluded that ``in the decade following 2029, the CLASS program would
begin to increase the deficit.'' Again, this is exactly the wrong
direction for America.
We also need to repeal the administration's ``grandfathering''
regulations. Not even a year after the administration promised that if
you like the coverage you have, you can keep it, we find out that
buried in 121 pages of regulations, which resulted from just 2 pages of
legislative text, I might add that, no, that is not exactly true--far
from it. In fact, the administration itself projects that up to 69
percent of all businesses and 80 percent of small businesses will not
be able to retain the coverage they currently provide and will be
forced to offer more costly coverage as opposed to hiring new workers
and growing their businesses. So we must repeal these regulations this
year.
Finally, I also strongly oppose the individual mandate in the new
law, which would require, starting in 2014, Americans to have maintain
insurance coverage or be subject to a financial penalty that would
ultimately be the greater of $695 per uninsured individual or 2.5
percent of income. How can the Federal Government require its citizens
to purchase health coverage without first guaranteeing that an
affordable coverage option will be available to all Americans in the
private insurance market?
Numerous court challenges are underway questioning the
constitutionality of the individual mandate. Last November, I joined
with Republican Leader McConnell with 30 other GOP Senators to file a
friend-of-the-court brief in the lawsuit in a Florida Federal court
brought by the National Federation of Independent Business and now 26
States, including Maine, and I am pleased that just this week, the
Florida judge agreed with us and struck down not just the individual
mandate but the entire bill.
In its ruling, the court held that the ``individual mandate is
outside Congress' Commerce Clause power'' and that it is not
constitutional. The court concluded that the new law has ``450 separate
pieces, but one essential piece (the individual mandate) is defective
and must be removed. It cannot function as originally designed.'' In
the courts view, and I agree, ``that the individual mandate and the
remaining provisions are inextricably bound together in purpose and
must stand or fall as a single unit.''
So moving forward, with serious questions about the constitutionality
and workability of this new law, a top priority this Congress must be
to repeal the health reform bill and replace it with workable
alternatives that would result in more competitive health insurance
markets. That is why, first and foremost, we must expedite allowing
individuals and small businesses to purchase health insurance across
State lines, which, as I have long said, would interject unfettered
competition and new coverage options into stagnant insurance markets
like those in Maine, where we have just two carriers offering coverage
in the individual insurance market. That is why in the Senate, I long
championed association health plan, AHP, legislation--and developed
regional compact proposals--that would have allowed small business and
the self-employed to band together, across State lines, to secure
quality coverage made affordable through administrative cost savings
and greater bargaining power.
We must also develop a plan for affordability by maintaining certain
widely agreed upon elements of reform, such as outlawing unconscionable
insurance industry practices, banning preexisting condition
limitations, and allowing parents to keep children on plans until age
26.
____________________