[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 31 (Thursday, March 3, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H1529-H1553]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SMALL BUSINESS PAPERWORK MANDATE ELIMINATION ACT OF 2011
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 129, I call up
the bill (H.R. 4) to repeal the expansion of information reporting
requirements for payments of $600 or more to corporations, and for
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Johnson of Illinois). Pursuant to House
Resolution 129, the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting
of the text of the amendment recommended by the Committee on House Ways
and Means, printed in H.R. 705 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is
considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 4
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer
Protection and Repayment of Exchange Subsidy Overpayments Act
of 2011''.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF EXPANSION OF INFORMATION REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS TO PAYMENTS MADE TO CORPORATIONS
AND TO PAYMENTS FOR PROPERTY AND OTHER GROSS
PROCEEDS.
(a) Application to Corporations.--Section 6041 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking
subsections (i) and (j).
(b) Payments for Property and Other Gross Proceeds.--
Subsection (a) of section 6041 of such Code is amended--
(1) by striking ``amounts in consideration for property,'',
and
(2) by striking ``gross proceeds,'' both places it appears.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to payments made after December 31, 2011.
SEC. 3. REPEAL OF EXPANSION OF INFORMATION REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS FOR RENTAL PROPERTY EXPENSE
PAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 6041 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by striking subsection (h).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to payments made after December 31, 2010.
SEC. 4. INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF OVERPAYMENT OF HEALTH CARE
CREDIT WHICH IS SUBJECT TO RECAPTURE.
(a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 36B(f)(2)(B) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
``(i) In general.--In the case of a taxpayer whose
household income is less than 400 percent of the poverty line
for the size of the family involved for the taxable year, the
amount of the increase under subparagraph (A) shall in no
event exceed the applicable dollar amount determined in
accordance with the following table (one-half of such amount
in the case of a taxpayer whose tax is determined under
section 1(c) for the taxable year):
[[Page H1530]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``If the household income (expressed as a
percent of poverty line) is: The applicable dollar amount is:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 200%............................... $600
At least 200% but less than 300%............. $1,500
At least 300% but less than 400%............. $2,500.''.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2013.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) each will control 75 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
General Leave
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today the House considers H.R. 4, legislation repealing one of the
job-killing tax increases enacted in the Democrats' health care law
last year. This legislation provides a pathway to achieving a goal that
is shared by Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate alike,
and by the Obama administration--repealing the form 1099 reporting
requirements enacted last year.
Before I get into the details of H.R. 4, I would like to take a
moment to recognize and commend my colleague and friend, Congressman
Dan Lungren of California. He first brought this issue to light, and
through his hard work we are here today to vote on a bill that has
enjoyed strong bipartisan support.
We have been here talking about 1099s before. Some have even gone so
far as to say there seems to have been 1,099 votes to repeal 1099s.
While we have attempted in the past to repeal this misguided feature of
last year's health overhaul, today we turn a corner and move H.R. 4
from the House to the Senate, so that it will hopefully soon be sent to
the President for his signature. Only then will small businesses and
families have certainty that they will not be buried under an avalanche
of tax paperwork.
In 2010, as one of many ways to finance a trillion dollar health care
law, tax information reporting rules were expanded. These new rules
require businesses to issue a form 1099 for any payments to
corporations rather than just individuals, and for any payments for
property rather than just services or investment income that exceeds
$600 over the course of a year.
This previously little-known provision quickly became an item of
great concern to small business employers across the country. The
National Federation of Independent Business, whose 350,000 members
support H.R. 4, said this newly enacted reporting requirement would
have a direct negative impact on small business.
Also brought forward by Mr. Tiberi of Ohio in September of last year,
a form 1099 reporting requirement was expanded again to help pay for
the small business lending law. This expansion treats the recipient of
rental income from real estate as engaging in the trade or business of
renting property. Unless repealed, families and individuals will be
forced to fill out paperwork if they do something as basic as replace a
refrigerator in an apartment they rent out. The National Association of
Realtors, which supports H.R. 4, called this provision not only another
paperwork burden but a trap for all small landlords.
Mr. Speaker, neither of these provisions reflects the wishes or needs
of the American people. The most important issue on their minds is
jobs. Let me say it again: jobs, jobs, and jobs. But despite the call
for policies that can create a better climate for job creation,
Congress has enacted policies that make this harder.
H.R. 4 will accomplish three goals. First, the legislation repeals
the expanded 1099 reporting requirements on small businesses. Second,
it repeals the new 1099 reporting requirements for rental property.
{time} 1030
Third, it protects taxpayers by recovering overpayments of taxpayer-
funded government subsidies.
What that means, and I know we are going to hear a lot about it from
the other side today, is that if this bill passes, anyone earning more
than 400 percent of poverty, nearly $95,000 for a family of four in
2014, and who is ineligible for the exchange subsidies under the 2010
health care law will be required to pay back all, not just some, of the
improper payments. I would like to note that this is the same level
Democrats used in the original law enacted last March.
For those earning less than 400 percent of poverty, the level of
repayment of those overpayments is also increased. This is similar to
the path taken by Democrats in December when they adjusted the
repayment amounts as a way to finance the so-called ``doc fix.''
Now, I noticed yesterday that there was a lot of huffing and puffing
on the floor about alleged tax increases in H.R. 4. I want to be sure
to clear up any confusion on this point.
The Joint Committee on Taxation says in its score that in addition to
a $20 billion spending cut, there is a $5 billion increase in revenue
to the government from this one provision. But that doesn't mean people
are necessarily paying more in taxes. Now, how is that possible?
Simple. According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, under
the better enforcement rules of H.R. 4, some people won't go into the
exchange to accept a taxpayer-funded subsidy because they would be
required to pay a larger share or, in some cases, all of the subsidy
back under H.R. 4. Paying back money you weren't entitled to is not a
tax increase.
For example, under current law, a household making $105,000 might
think it's worth understating its income, or at least not updating
their income information, in order to receive a $12,000 exchange
subsidy because they would only have to pay back $3,000 if caught; but
the household is less likely to do so under H.R. 4 because it would
have to pay back the entire subsidy given there was no eligibility for
the subsidy in the first place.
So let's be clear here. Voluntarily choosing not to enroll in
government health care and thus foregoing the associated tax subsidies
that one may not be eligible for might result in more government
revenue, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. But that is not
a tax increase.
H.R. 4 is endorsed by more than 225 organizations, including the
American Farm Bureau, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American
Osteopathic Association, and Americans for Tax Reform. Grover Norquist
of ATR wrote he was especially pleased about the repeal of the 1099
provisions and the bill is ``a net tax cut.'' That's because despite
the claims to the contrary, H.R. 4 reduces Federal spending by nearly
$20 billion over the next 10 years. It also reduces the deficit by $166
million over that same time. That's probably why the bill is supported
by Americans for Prosperity and the National Taxpayers Union as well.
Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to come together and
advance a bill that is a win for small business, a win for families,
and a win for taxpayers across America. Cast a ``yes'' vote for H.R. 4
and give them that win.
Supporters of 1099 Repeal (as of 3/2/11)
[Committee on Ways and Means]
Aeronautical Repair Station Association; Agricultural
Retailers Association; Air Conditioning Contractors of
America; Alabama Nursery & Landscape Association; Alliance
for Affordable Services; Alliance of Independent Store Owners
and Professionals; American Association for Laboratory
Accreditation; American Bakers Association; American Bankers
Association; American Beekeeping Federation; American Council
of Engineering Companies; American Council of Independent
Laboratories; American Farm Bureau Federation ';
Americans for Prosperity; American Foundry Society; American
Hotel & Lodging Association; American Institute of
Architects; American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants;
[[Page H1531]]
American Medical Association; American Mushroom Institute.
American Nursery & Landscape Association; American
Osteopathic Association; American Petroleum Institute;
American Physical Therapy Association; American Rental
Association; American Road & Transportation Builders
Association; American Sheep Industry Association; American
Society of Association Executives; American Society of
Interior Designers; American Soybean Association; American
Subcontractors Association, Inc.; American Sugar Alliance;
American Supply Association; American Veterinary Distributors
Association; American Veterinary Medical Association;
Americans for Tax Reform; AMT--The Association For
Manufacturing Technology; Arizona Nursery Association;
Assisted Living Federation of America; Associated Builders
and Contractors.
Associated Equipment Distributors; Associated General
Contractors of America; Associated Landscape Contractors of
Colorado; Association of Free Community Papers; Association
of Ship Brokers & Agents; Association of Small Business
Development Centers; Automotive Aftermarket Industry
Association; Automotive Recyclers Association; Bowling
Proprietors Association of America; California Association of
Nurseries and Garden Centers; California Landscape
Contractors Association; Commercial Photographers
International; Community Papers of Florida; Community Papers
of Michigan; Community Papers of Ohio and West Virginia;
Computing Technology Industry Association; Connecticut
Nursery & Landscape Association; Council of Smaller
Enterprises; Direct Selling Association; Door and Hardware
Institute.
Electronic Security Association; Electronics
Representatives Association (ERA); Farm Credit Council;
Financial Services Institute, Inc.; Florida Nursery, Growers
& Landscape Association; Free Community Papers of New York;
Georgia Green Industry Association; Hampton Roads Technology
Council; Healthcare Distribution Management Association;
Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association; Idaho Nursery &
Landscape Association; Illinois Green Industry Association;
Illinois Landscape Contractors Association (ILCA); Illinois
Technology Association (ITA); Independent Community Bankers
of America; Independent Electrical Contractors, Inc.;
Independent Office Products & Furniture Dealers Association;
Indiana Nursery and Landscape Association; Indoor Tanning
Association; Industrial Supply Association.
Industry Council for Tangible Assets; International
Association of Refrigerated Warehouses; International
Foodservice Distributors Association; International Franchise
Association; International Housewares Association;
International Sleep Products Association; Kentucky Nursery
and Landscape Association; Louisiana Nursery and Landscape
Association; Maine Landscape and Nursery
Association; Manufacturers' Agents Association for the
Foodservice Industry; Manufacturers' Agents National
Association; Manufacturing Jewelers and Suppliers of
America; Maryland Nursery and Landscape Association;
Massachusetts Nursery & Landscape Association, Inc.;
Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association; Mid-Atlantic
Community Papers Association; Midwest Free Community
Papers; Minnesota Nursery & Landscape Association; Motor &
Equipment Manufacturers Association; NAMM, National
Association of Music Merchants.
National Apartment Association; National Association for
Printing Leadership; National Association for the Self-
Employed; National Association of Federal Credit Unions;
National Association of Home Builders; National Association
of Manufacturers; National Association of Mortgage Brokers;
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies; National
Association of Realtors'; National Association of
RV Parks & Campgrounds; National Association of State
Departments of Agriculture; National Association of Theatre
Owners; National Association of Wheat Growers; National
Association of Wholesaler-Distributors; National Barley
Growers Association; National Cattlemen's Beef Association;
National Chicken Council; National Christmas Tree
Association; National Club Association; National Community
Pharmacists Association.
National Corn Growers Association; National Cotton Council;
National Council of Agricultural Employers; National Council
of Farmer Cooperatives; National Electrical Contractors
Association; National Electrical Manufacturers
Representatives Association; National Federation of
Independent Business; National Home Furnishings Association;
National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association;
National Milk Producers Federation; National Multi Housing
Council; National Newspaper Association; National Office
Products Alliance; National Restaurant Association; National
Retail Federation; National Roofing Contractors Association;
National Small Business Association; National Small Business
Network; National Sunflower Association; National Taxpayers
Union.
National Tooling and Machining Association; National
Utility Contractors Association; Nationwide Insurance
Independent Contractors Association; Nebraska Nursery and
Landscape Association; New Mexico Family Business Alliance;
New Mexico Nursery & Landscape Association; New York State
Nursery and Landscape Association; North American Die Casting
Association; North Carolina Green Industry Council; North
Carolina Nursery and Landscape Association; Northeastern
Retail Lumber Association; Northwest Dairy Association; NPES
The Association for Suppliers of Printing, Publishing &
Converting Technologies; OFA--An Association of Floriculture
Professionals; Office Furniture Dealers Alliance; Ohio
Nursery and Landscape Association; Oregon Association of
Nurseries; Oregon Nursery Association; Outdoor Power
Equipment Institute; Pennsylvania Landscape and Nursery
Association.
Pet Industry Distributors Association; Petroleum Marketers
Association of America; Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors
Association; Precision Machined Products Association;
Precision Metalforming Association; Printing Industries of
America; Professional Golfers Association of America;
Professional Landscape Network; Professional Photographers of
America; Promotional Products Association International;
Public Lands Council; S Corp Association; Safety Equipment
Distributors Association; Saturation Mailers Coalition; SBE
Council; Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles
Association; Self-Insurance Institute of America (SIIA);
Service Station Dealers of America and Allied Trades; SIGMA,
the Society for Independent Gasoline Marketers of America;
Small Business Council of America.
Small Business Legislative Council; SMC Business Councils;
Society of American Florists; Society of Independent Gasoline
Marketers of America; Society of Sport & Event Photographers;
South Carolina Nursery & Landscape Association; Southeastern
Advertising Publishers Association; Southeast Dairy Farmers
Association; Southeast Milk, Inc.; Specialty Equipment Market
Association; Specialty Tools & Fasteners Distributors
Association; SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association;
Start Over! Coalition; Stock Artists Alliance; TechQuest
Pennsylvania; TechServe Alliance; Tennessee Nursery &
Landscape Association; Texas Community Newspaper Association;
Texas Nursery & Landscape Association; Textile Care Allied
Trades Association.
Textile Rental Services Association of America; The
National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry; Tire
Industry Association; Toy Industry Association, Inc.;
Turfgrass Producers International; U.S. Apple Association;
U.S. Canola Association; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; United Egg
Producers; United Fresh Produce Association; United
Producers, Inc.; United States Dry Bean Council; USA Dry Pea
& Lentil Council; USA Rice Federation; Utah Nursery &
Landscape Association; Virginia Christmas Tree Growers
Association; Virginia Green Industry Council; Virginia
Nursery & Landscape Association; Virginia Technology
Alliance; Washington State Nursery & Landscape Association;
Western Growers Association; Western Peanut Growers
Association; Western United Dairymen; Window and Door
Manufacturers Association; Wisconsin Community Papers; Wood
Machinery Manufacturers of America.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself as much time as I shall consume.
Let's be clear what the issue is today. The issue is not repeal of
this provision, of 1099. We on this side not only favor repeal, but all
of us who were here last session voted for it. We voted to repeal it.
It failed because only two people on the minority, then minority side,
voted for the bill. They didn't like the pay-for.
Mr. Camp mentions the NFIB. They supported our effort last year to
repeal 1099.
So, again, the issue is not repeal. We have made that clear in the
past, while the effort to repeal was blocked on the Republican side
last session. The reason they did not vote ``yes,'' they said, was
because they did not like the pay-for.
The pay-for closed tax loopholes, closed tax loopholes, and they
stood up and said, no, we can't vote for the bill because of that.
Ironically, most of the loopholes closed in that effort have now become
law. So that effort last year to block repeal essentially was to block
the loophole effort that has now become the law of this land. That
should be clear. The issue is not repeal. The issue is how you pay for
that repeal.
The Senate has now voted to repeal 1099 and apparently the now
majority does not like the pay-for in the Senate bill.
What does this bill provide? Well, in very simple terms, in clear
terms, in unmistakable terms, the pay-for is an increase on middle-
income families. It increases how much they will have to pay to the IRS
if their income increases over what was projected when they would have
obtained health insurance.
Let me be very clear, the people were playing by the rules once the
law became effective. It wasn't that they were ineligible. They were
eligible, period. So no one should say they were not eligible, that
somehow they misled,
[[Page H1532]]
that somehow they misrepresented. Now, these are middle-income families
who would have become eligible playing by the rules.
So this is a tax increase, if this bill becomes effective, on middle-
income families in future years. Mostly, it will be on families with
incomes between $80,000 and $110,000. These are estimates.
It can well be that a small increase in income beyond what was
anticipated can lead to an increase by as much as $12,000. That's the
amount that could be required in a check from the taxpayer to the IRS,
and Joint Tax projects that the average increase will be about $3,000.
Well, it's been said, it was said in our committee and then before
the Rules Committee yesterday, that it's not a tax increase. So let me
be clear by reading the language that's in the bill:
If the advance payments to a taxpayer exceed the credit allowed by
this section, the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year
shall be increased.
It is in clear simple English. So let no one stand up here and say
it's not a tax increase when it is.
Let me also, if I might, read from the Statement of Administration
Policy that was issued yesterday.
``Specifically, H.R. 4 would result in tax increases on certain
middle class families that incur unexpected tax liabilities, in many
cases totaling thousands of dollars, notwithstanding that they followed
the rules.''
I want to read it again.
``Specifically, H.R. 4 would result in tax increases on certain
middle class families that incur unexpected tax liabilities, in many
cases totaling thousands of dollars, notwithstanding that they followed
the rules.''
Now, it was said yesterday at the Rules Committee that this is not a
tax increase because it would become effective at a later date, 2014,
when the subsidies under the health reform bill become effective.
{time} 1040
Well, if you use that logic, we could, this year, increase taxes for
everybody by, say, 5 percent, and that would not be a tax increase
because it would be for a later year.
In a word, if this bill would become law, it would mean a tax
increase for hundreds of thousands of middle income taxpayers.
Also, according to Joint Tax, it would have this effect, that about
266,000 people would not be covered with health insurance because of
the provisions in this bill.
So, in a few words, what this bill would do would be to saddle middle
income taxpayers in future years, pure and simple. What we should do is
to go back and find a responsible way to pay for the repeal of 1099.
And I close by the following paragraph from the Statement of
Administration Policy, ``The administration looks forward to continuing
to work with the Congress on the repeal of the information reporting
requirements in the course of the legislative process, including
finding an acceptable offset for the cost of the repeal.''
What this bill would do would be to provide an unacceptable offset,
one that would burden hundreds of thousands of middle income taxpayers
in our country. We should not do that, period.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington State
(Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 4, the Small Business Paperwork
Reduction Mandate Elimination Act of 2011. There's not a single issue
that I hear more about from Washington State businesses than the 1099
requirement that made its way into last year's health care law. Not
only is this provision an administrative nightmare for employers, it
has the potential to devastate small businesses. In fact, NFIB
estimates that the average business will have to submit at least 95
forms under the new requirement, a costly increase from the current
handful that's required today.
Even tax consultants have said this 1099 is more onerous than any tax
that the IRS could collect from small businesses. At a time when our
economy is struggling, jobs are scarce and unemployment continues to
hover near 10 percent, the last thing we should do is make it more
difficult on our employers, particularly the small businesses that make
up the backbone of our economy and create most of the jobs in America.
The 1099 is just one in a number of policies that have created a
climate of fear and uncertainty for the private sector. Businesses
don't know what regulatory hurdles they will have to jump through or
the increased costs they will incur in the short or long term. We need
to give them certainty. We need to have them start expanding and grow
their businesses again. And a first good step is the repeal of the 1099
requirement.
I urge support.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield such time as he may consume to someone who has
been leading the effort to repeal 1099 in a responsible way for the
middle-income families of America, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill not because I
oppose the repealing of the 1099 reporting requirements. I do. I have a
record of supporting 1099 repeal and relieving America's small
businesses from onerous paperwork and onerous regulations. What I'm
opposed to is paying for this small business tax bill by increasing
taxes on working middle class Americans. And that is exactly what this
legislation will do.
Let's not kid ourselves. Democrats offered a different path. Last
July, we put forward legislation to repeal the 1099 reporting
requirements, and we paid for it by eliminating loopholes in the Tax
Code that reward those exporting U.S. jobs overseas. And, the Senate
has offered an alternative path as well. Last month, they
overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan repeal of the 1099 reporting
requirement, which did not include a tax increase on middle class
workers.
But my Republican colleagues in the majority here in the House, who
have continually preached lower taxes, less regulation and fiscal
discipline, have refused either of these alternative approaches.
Instead, my Republican colleagues are forcing a vote today on H.R. 4, a
measure that will impose a $25 billion new tax on middle class
families. Yes, you heard that right. It is only 59 days since my
Republican colleagues have assumed majority control of the House of
Representatives, and they're already breaking their campaign pledge of
no new taxes, a pledge that 234 of 241 sitting Republican Members of
the House signed.
And, no, Republicans are not taxing the wealthiest 1 percent to pay
for this small business relief bill. They are raising taxes on middle
class workers, like firefighters, police officers, nurses and teachers,
the very American families who work day in and day out to make their
financial ends meet, the very American families under attack today in
Wisconsin, in Indiana, in Ohio, and across the Midwest.
Now, the Republicans will not admit that embedded in H.R. 4 is a tax
increase on the middle class. But the facts are the facts. The Joint
Committee on Taxation says the Republican bill is a tax increase,
citing how it will raise $25 billion in new revenue. That is
congressional-speak for a tax increase. Even Grover Norquist, the
author of the ``Taxpayer Protection Pledge,'' has said, ``Americans for
Tax Reform has always followed Committee on Joint Taxation
methodology.''
Yet, still my Republican friends deny and deny and deny. But, my
friends, read my lips--Republicans are raising taxes. Just look at the
contents of the bill. Under the Democratic health reform law, an
American family of four earning $88,000 a year is obligated to pay no
more than 9.5 percent of their income on health care premium costs. In
this example, that is $8,360 that comes out of their pocket on a
typical family policy valued at $13,000. So the family would pay, out
of their pocket, $8,360 in annual premiums for their health care
coverage, and the Federal Government would provide a tax credit--not a
subsidy, not a subsidy, a tax credit--valued at $4,640 to cover the
rest. These are not subsidies, but tax credits to working people. They
work exactly like the child tax credit or the tax credit to make
college more affordable.
[[Page H1533]]
How many of all of our constituents use those tax credits? Do they
believe it is welfare, a form of welfare? I don't think so. They
understand the difference between a subsidy and a tax credit. These are
not subsidies for the middle class. They are tax credits for the middle
class. These are tax relief measures for the middle class.
The Affordable Care Act also ensures that the Federal funding going
towards a family's health premium is paid directly to the insurance
carrier, to the insurance company, not to the family. In short, the
family receiving this tax credit will never, ever personally touch that
money, not a single dime do they feel. It never transfers through them.
{time} 1050
However, under the Republican bill, H.R. 4, if that very same family
that earns $88,000, the breadwinner of the family is called into the
boss's office and the boss says: You know what, you're on your track to
management. You're doing such a great job, we're going to give you a
$250 bonus. Take the family out to dinner. It's the holiday season.
And you're overjoyed. You go back to your family and say, I am
management material. I got a $250 bonus. I'm taking everybody out to
dinner tonight.
Well, here's the rub: you would go from the 398 percentile of the
Federal poverty level to the 401 percentile of the poverty level. When
that happens, you would then owe the Federal Government for that $250.
In April of the next year the Federal Government would say: Not so
fast, you owe us $4,640 to make up for your having accessed those tax
credits.
That's right, they would have to pay back every single dime that went
directly to that health insurer, to that health insurance company when
a dime never crossed their fingers. Not a single dime crossed their
fingers.
Say it ain't so, Joe--that's what families back home in my district
are saying. But I can't; it's true. Republicans are raising taxes.
The 1099 provisions should be repealed. I agree with that, but not on
the backs of middle class workers and middle class Americans.
Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just like to say that the example the gentleman from New York
cited, that if the family or individual honestly reported their income
without this change that we are proposing today, they would still have
to repay the entire amount of the subsidy to the government.
I submit for the Record a letter from Americans for Tax Reform that
says this legislation is not a tax increase and is not a violation of
the taxpayer protection pledge.
N.B. The following letter applies in full to House
consideration of H.R. 4, ``The Small Business Paperwork
Mandate Elimination Act of 2011.''--RLE, 03-02-2011
Americans for Tax Reform,
Washington, DC, February 24, 2011.
Hon. Dave Camp,
House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Camp: I write today to reiterate the support
of Americans for Tax Reform for H.R. 705, the ``Comprehensive
1099 Taxpayer Protection and Repayment of Exchange Subsidy
Overpayments Act of 2011.'' I also wish to clarify that H.R.
705 is a net tax cut, and is therefore not a violation of the
Taxpayer Protection Pledge.
Two bills in the last Congress (one of which was Obamacare)
greatly increased ``1099-MISC'' information reporting for
small employers, and introduced this reporting for the first
time to families renting out real property. These
requirements are unnecessary, onerous, and would lead to
major compliance issues--as the IRS itself admits. H.R. 705
repeals these two provisions, which is a victory for
taxpayers.
The official score of H.R. 705 from the Joint Committee on
Taxation (JCX-14-11) shows that this bill is a net tax cut.
By repealing the 1099-MISC provisions, taxes are cut by a
gross amount of $24.7 billion from 2011-2021. By requiring
erroneously-obtained Obamacare exchange credit advances to be
paid back by more recipients, JCT scores a dual effect from
the bill. Gross taxes would increase by $5 billion, and
spending (``outlay effects,'' as shown in footnote 2) would
be reduced by $19.9 billion.
Thus, the gross tax cut effects of repealing the 1099-MISC
reporting requirements are ``paid for'' by a small gross tax
increase and a large spending cut. Overall, the bill is a net
tax cut of $19.7 billion from 2011-2021.
Because no bill which is a net tax cut can possibly be in
violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, the latter
simply does not apply in this matter. Americans for Tax
Reform has always followed JCT scoring methodology in this
area, including when JCT disaggregates between spending and
revenue effects of tax legislation. Spending cuts should
never be confused with tax increases, and JCT does a good job
pointing out when spending policy is present in tax bills.
Those trying to call this bill a net tax hike are simply
seeking to mislead the public, or cannot accurately read a
JCT score.
I encourage all Members of Congress to support this tax
cut/spending cut bill when it is considered by the full
House.
Sincerely,
Grover G. Norquist.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a
member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4.
Coming from a small business background myself, I know personally the
paperwork burden of misguided government regulations imposed on our
Nation's entrepreneurs and job creators. If the expanded 1099 reporting
requirement in the Democrats' health care law takes effect, it will be
one of the most far-reaching and burdensome unfunded mandates ever
created. Small businesses will be required to fill out hundreds, or
even thousands, of these forms every year. Yet the revenue supposedly
raised by this reporting amounts to less than 1 percent of the
estimated annual tax gap.
This 1099 rule is devastating to small businesses, and it must be
repealed now. H.R. 4 addresses the budgetary costs of repealing the
1099 requirement by cutting wasteful government spending. The
Democrats' health law provides subsidies for low-income people to buy
health insurance; but if their income goes up and they don't need help
any more, they still get to keep a large portion of the subsidy.
Getting rid of excess subsidies is not a tax increase. It's simply
being responsible with the taxpayers' money.
Mr. Speaker, the American people have told us they want two things:
more jobs and less spending. The bill before us advances both of these
goals, and it deserves the support of every Member of this House.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
There has been a reference here to taxpayers who did not honestly
report their income. I must say that's an egregious misstatement. The
way this works, or will work, is people will report their income
honestly, and they do so based on their taxable income of a particular
year.
The problem with this bill is if the income often unexpectedly goes
up in a subsequent year, how much will the taxpayer be required to pay
to the IRS. That's what the issue is. And as Mr. Crowley said, there
are other programs where people report their income. They report it
honestly, and then there is a change and the question is whether they
should have to later pay some income tax to the IRS and, if so, how
much.
What this bill does in its present form is to recreate a ``cliff''
which we smoothed out in previous legislation, and the cliff is 400
percent of poverty. And if unexpectedly you go over that amount in a
subsequent year, essentially what this provision would say is that the
middle-income taxpayer would have to pay far, far more in taxes in that
subsequent year. And the burden would essentially be on middle-income
taxpayers. That's undeniable. It would be on income from people who are
honest, who are middle-income taxpayers.
So I hope no one will use the term ``ineligible'' or use the term
``dishonest.'' That's selling short the people of this country, the
middle-income taxpayers.
And, indeed, the effort of 1099 was to make sure that smaller
businesses and others reported accurately their income. That was its
purpose. Now, it is clear that the way it was devised created all kinds
of problems in terms of management of the small business, and so we
moved to repeal it. But it is ironic that if essentially 1099 is now
used by repealing it, when the effort was to have people honestly
report their income, it would essentially penalize people, middle-
income taxpayers, who honestly reported their income and became
eligible for a tax credit.
Let me just in that respect read from Families USA: ``Unfortunately,
H.R. 4 proposes paying for the repeal of the 1099 reporting requirement
with a provision that would disproportionately harm middle class
Americans. The Affordable Care Act protects individuals
[[Page H1534]]
and families who run the risk of having income that may bump them up
over the eligibility limits for premium credits by capping the tax
penalty they will owe if the monthly premium credit received during the
year exceeds the amount of credit due based on unexpected changes in
income or family status. This legislation would eliminate the safe
harbor for middle-income families and would increase the cap for lower-
income families by $500.''
And it closes, and again I'm quoting: ``Although we recognize that
Congress needs to repeal the 1099 reporting requirement so that it is
no longer a distraction from the way the Affordable Care Act benefits
millions of small businesses, funds intended to help America's middle
class families should not be used as a piggy bank to mend this
legislative problem. We urge you to find an alternative and more
responsible offset for this legislation that does not increase taxes on
America's hardworking middle class families.''
Undeniably, that is what this legislation would do. It is middle
class families who honestly reported their income, period.
{time} 1100
There is a fraud provision in the act, which is a very stringent one,
that covers the case of anybody who is dishonest; but what you're doing
is penalizing middle-income families who were honest, honest, honest.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Levin.
I am a bit disturbed as well about the description of the individuals
we're talking about here, as though everyone is trying to scam the
system.
I would just point out, in the bill H.R. 4994, which had bipartisan
support last year--with every Republican but one--we passed it to
eliminate the cliff and to eliminate the possibility of a massive
increase in taxes on the middle class. So we have already addressed
this. What your bill today will do is put that back in place.
I would just ask my colleague Mr. Camp:
What is it about the example I gave that's wrong? What is it about
the example of a family of four, earning $88,000 a year? Based on their
prior income taxes, they're eligible for the tax credits in the next
year, assuming as they do, because they live a pretty dull life, a
pretty hard life, trying to maintain their home, get their kids a
quality education. Probably, at this point, maybe one of their kids is
in college already; and by the way, they're probably accessing the
Child Tax Credit, so they're used to taking tax credits.
Now this is one other additional tax credit that they can avail
themselves of--to do what? Not to get the $4,460 and take it and go out
and buy a car, not to get the $4,460 to go on vacation or to scam
somehow--but to buy what? Health care insurance for their families,
health care insurance, which is something we all would want to provide
for our families.
What is it about this example? When they get the $250 bonus and they
get pushed into the 400 percentile of poverty, that they now have to
pay back their $4,460, what is it about my statement that's wrong? I
haven't heard yet--because it's not wrong, because that family would be
exposed to a massive tax increase, one that they cannot afford.
So don't describe these people as dishonest. Don't describe the
middle class worker as trying to scam the system. Not everyone tries to
do that. By the way, you might find that in the lowest poverty level,
and I would dare say the top 1 percent try to scam the system, I would
probably think, all the time. So let's not disparage anymore the middle
class that we already have by presenting this bill this morning.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member from the
Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out
the louder one yells and the more one says it, as I told my children
when they were little, doesn't make it true or correct.
I think that we need to get down to the facts in this matter. Saying
that paying back an overpayment is a tax increase is dissembling at
best. It is the return of money that was not entitled by a particular
individual.
Democrats were for this before they were against it. To say it's a
tax increase is simply wrong. Democrats created this mess. Democrats
made the IRS, of all organizations, the arbiter of health care. I mean
I think we need to get down to the truth here and not make the mistake
of--since we're incurring issues of values and honor and faith here,
Isaiah the prophet made the comment that beware of those who call good
``evil'' and evil ``good'' or sweet ``sour'' or sour ``sweet.'' There
is a consequence that comes with that, and the American people are
entitled to the truth.
Democrats increase taxes. Democrats increase costs. Democrats
increase complexity of government. My friends on the other side of the
aisle, frankly, misrepresented the facts of this bill at best or are
completely ignorant of the process they set in motion unilaterally.
Indeed, to call this a tax increase reminds me of the health care
debate last year when we were told we just had to read the bill to find
out what was in it.
I don't think you read the bill under any circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this Comprehensive 1099
Taxpayer Protection and Repayment of Exchange Subsidy Overpayments Act
of 2011. I want to read some correspondence from the middle class
families in my district who think this is the right thing to do, who
believe that people aren't entitled to something that they earned under
law and that people who get paid something don't believe it should be
paid back.
My citizens and my constituents:
Greg from Independence, Kentucky, wrote: ``We don't need this new
1099 requirement for small business. Get out of the way so we can
prosper.'' That means creating taxpayers, not raising taxes.
Eric from Cynthiana told me: ``Small businesses are already being
crushed by overreaching government mandates and undue burdens. I'm
personally sick of this foolishness.''
Joann from DeMossville wrote in to tell me how she would personally
be affected. She stated: ``My husband is a sole proprietorship, and I
currently complete and submit 1099s for his subcontractors. So, if we
spend $600 at Home Depot, I now need to send them a 1099? Sounds like a
good use of my time and IRS resources.''
Tom in Burlington may have summed up the requirement the best when he
simply called it ``a nightmare for business.''
Mr. Speaker, we need small businesses to focus on what they do best--
to innovate, grow and hire. This reporting requirement needs to be
removed now. It's burdensome, and it's going to drive up costs and cost
us jobs. If allowed to go into effect, it will slow job growth and will
lead to higher prices for consumers. Let our job creators create jobs
and focus on that.
I urge support for H.R. 4.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I wonder if my friend from Kentucky heard from his middle class
taxpayers. I know he's heard from the small business owners. We've all
heard from them. But has he heard from the middle class? When they get
imposed this tax upon them, have they said, ``Don't put this tax on
me''? No, because, quite frankly, they don't know what's happening.
They wouldn't dream that you would do this to them. They wouldn't dream
that somehow you might possibly inflict and impose upon them a $4,460
tax.
If your constituents earning $88,000 go over by one penny--one cent--
over the 400 percentile of poverty--one penny--they have to pay back
$4,460, which they never ever physically touched, which they never
received. It went to the insurance company. The insurance companies get
taken care of. They get their money. They're fine. By one penny over
the Federal poverty level, your middle class families have to pay back
$4,460. Does that sound fair to you?
Now, maybe for one penny over, they have to give a little something
back. Maybe for every dollar over, they'll have to give a little
something back. But to pay back $4,460 so they can provide their
families with health care? I'd
[[Page H1535]]
say to the boss, Do me a favor, don't give me the penny bonus. Don't
give me the $250 bonus. Don't reward hard work. Don't reward me for
doing good work because if you give me the bonus I'm going to have to
pay $4,460.
Does that make any sense to you?
What about making pay work? What about asking Americans to do their
jobs, to do them well; and if you do it well, you'll get a bonus, and
you'll get ahead, and your families will be taken care of?
Under this bill, this is a nightmare for the middle class families--a
nightmare--because they're not going to be able to pay that. It totally
subverts the intention of what we tried to do in the first place, and
that is to provide health care to the middle class.
Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate that language: to get back to what they tried to do in
the first place. Let's look at what they did in the first place.
Their bill, their original bill, said anyone who earned more than 400
percent of poverty--that's $93,800 for a family of four--would be
required to repay the entire amount of the exchange subsidy. That is
exactly what this bill does. This bill does what the original health
care legislation did. Then they raised it, and said, well, if you made
up to $117,000 for a family of four, you had to repay the entire
subsidy. They had a cliff in their bill, and there is a cliff now. What
we are saying is we need to see that the American taxpayer is
protected.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways
and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
{time} 1110
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow on with what
Chairman Camp made such an important point of here. This new national
takeover of health care is just a mess in so many ways. Two of them we
highlight today. One, our Democratic friends heaped a huge new pay-for
burden on our small businesses that none of them frankly can comply
with. And then they create a loophole where some people in America can
get taxpayer subsidies even if they don't qualify for them.
So let's be clear. Today we are fixing two huge Democratic messes
that they made, and we're going to fix them because our small
businesses can't take more of this burden. Many of them are barely
hanging on as it is today. Secondly, with these huge deficits, we can't
afford more fraud and abuse in our government system. So we apply a
pretty simple principle: if you get Federal money you don't qualify
for, you're going to have to repay it. Not everyone. If you're moderate
income or below, we understand you don't have that money. But if you're
making higher than the national average, if you're making $70,000,
$80,000, $90,000 a year and you got a subsidy from some other family
that you don't deserve, you're going to have to give it back.
That's what this bill does. It takes a huge burden off our small
businesses they never should have had but our Democrat friends put on
them, and then we're going to ask people to repay money they should
never have got that our Democrat friends allowed them to get. This
actually is a bipartisan bill. At the end of the day, watch the vote.
You'll see so many people in this Congress saying it's time to fix
this. We're going to fix this mess today.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from
Wisconsin, I just want to say three quick things.
It is such a misstatement for someone to come here and say ``even if
they did not qualify.'' That is not correct. They qualified. So don't
come here and say they didn't qualify. Essentially what you're saying
is middle income taxpayers came and defrauded when the truth is they
told the truth. And indeed there's a provision relating to fraud if
someone were guilty of that. It allows for full repayment in cases of
fraud, and there's a provision that imposes a civil penalty up to
$25,000.
The last thing before I yield, I want to make clear, last December,
we fixed, Mr. Camp, the cliff. You voted for it. It was 409-2. I don't
think you were one of the ``2.'' This resurrects the cliff, purely and
simply, and catches hundreds of thousands of taxpayers in the future,
middle income taxpayers.
I now yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Kind), an active member of our committee.
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I'm sure my good friend and colleague, the previous
speaker from Texas, also realizes that this money that they will owe on
this hidden tax is something they never see to begin with. This is a
tax credit that goes directly to the private health insurance
companies. And this bill would be better titled the Republican Tax Trap
of 2014, 2015, 2016, and on and on and on, because that's exactly
what's going to happen. There's this hidden tax trap that's going to
affect hundreds of thousands of working class, middle class families
through no fault of their own.
I think my colleague and friend from New York explained very
succinctly what would happen here with the cliff. If you're at 400
percent poverty level, a family of four at roughly $88,000 a year, and
you receive a little bit of extra income, you receive a little bit of a
bonus that might put you just over the edge, you're going to be hit
with a $4,600 tax liability at the end of the year. Now they're not
going to be in a position to deal with that. So either they're going to
have to find a way to come up with the money to pay the Republican tax
that they didn't expect, or it's going to discourage work and they're
not going to try to earn as much income because they don't want to go
over that 400 percent level, or they're not going to participate in a
health insurance exchange to begin with. We've got a score on that as
well: that over 266,000 families will choose not to participate in a
health insurance exchange for fear of this hidden Republican tax trap
that we have before us today.
And what's ironic about this is this insurance exchange that's part
of the Affordable Care Act is a bill that I and others have worked on
for years in a bipartisan fashion, called the SHOP Act. Republicans
were in favor of creating these health insurance exchanges, coupled
with tax credits, so that small businesses, family farmers,
individuals, finally had a place where they could go and shop for
affordable health care coverage with competing private health plans
finally competing for their business for a change, so that they had the
same type of leverage that large corporations do. This has been proven
in models and pilot projects throughout the Nation that have shown how
effective these health insurance exchanges work.
What they're doing now with this legislation, with the offset that
they're proposing, hitting the middle class, is doing things to
undermine, once again, the health insurance exchanges and the ability
for small businesses and individuals to go out and obtain affordable
coverage. That's unfortunate, but it's consistent with the zeal on the
other side of doing everything they can to undermine the Affordable
Care Act, regardless of who it hurts, regardless of the additional tax
burden.
As my friend from Michigan indicated, we fixed this problem last
December in a bipartisan fashion, so instead of creating a cliff, which
was a mistake in the original bill, there would be a gradual phaseout
of these tax credits; so it wouldn't be a hidden tax trap as my
Republican colleagues are calling for today.
But at some point we're going to have to come to grips that a lot of
what's in the Affordable Care Act is necessary and long overdue, not
least of which, and I think this is going to be the key to health care
reform and its final verdict, is the ability for us to change the way
we pay for health care in this country, changing the fee for service
that exists in Medicare today to a fee for value or a quality-based
reimbursement system. We can start by doing that with Medicare, and the
tools are in place under health care reform to do that. This will
extend then to the private health insurance industry.
This, too, is a bipartisan issue. Newt Gingrich has been talking
about it; Dr. Bill Frist; Tommy Thompson, my former Governor and former
Secretary of HHS, has been talking about changing the reimbursement
system in health care so we reward value and quality and outcome of
care as opposed to the volume-based payments which is
[[Page H1536]]
literally bankrupting our Nation today. Health care costs are the
largest and fastest growing expense that we have at all levels,
Federal, State and local level, and for businesses and families alike.
It's one of the reasons why I've got folks in Wisconsin at each other's
throats right now talking about public employee benefits, and the
biggest cost driver in State budgets today are rising health care
costs.
So why not embrace the reforms that we have in health care reform
that will lead us to a value-based reimbursement system, which many
people on a bipartisan basis have been talking about for years. We were
finally able to get those tools in place under the Affordable Care Act.
We just can't do it overnight. You don't change the way you pay for
one-fifth of the entire U.S. economy overnight.
We've got accountable care organizations, medical homes, bundling
programs to incent value-based payments. But we also have the National
Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Medicine, doing a 2-year study
right now to change the fee for service under Medicare to a fee for
value system and they will present an actionable plan to the
administration to implement it, which gives us, I think, the best hope
of changing the outdated and perverse incentive system that we have in
the delivery of health care today. It's leading to overutilization in
health care. And studies have shown that close to one out of every
three health care dollars, or about $800 billion a year, are going to
tests and procedures that don't work.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
Mr. KIND. One out of every three health care dollars, or $800 billion
we're spending a year that we're not getting a good bang for the buck.
It's going to tests and procedures that don't work. And because of the
overutilization and the overtreatment that some patients are receiving,
they're being left worse off, rather than better off.
That's going to be the game-changer when it comes to true fiscal
responsibility in this place. It's something that everyone's been
ducking. For the last couple of weeks we've been talking about this
continuing resolution that only deals with 12 percent of the Federal
pie. Unfortunately it goes after the most vulnerable people in our
society, especially our kids' education. Yet we all know where the big
money lies. It's in the health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid.
It's in defense spending. If we don't get serious in turning the cost
curve around when it comes to health care, then we're just fooling
ourselves with everything else that we're doing with the budget.
We've addressed that in the Affordable Care Act with programs that
are set up now and payment reform that is moving forward to change how
we pay for health care so we can improve the quality of care for all
Americans but at a much better bang for the buck for the American
taxpayer. That's what we should be coming together on, rather than
discouraging people from participating in an exchange which will create
true competition with these private insurance companies, which again is
long overdue, and instead of offering this legislation today that sets
up this Republican tax trap for middle class working families who will
be surprised at the end of the year because they put in a little bit
more time and they earned a little bit more income or they got that
last-minute bonus from their employees, and then suddenly they realize,
oh, my God, we're going to owe $4,600 because of what they're doing
here today.
{time} 1120
It's outrageous. It's unfair. There are better offsets.
And here's an idea. The retired CEO of Chevron just this past week
said: Hey, when oil is above 70 bucks a barrel, let's stop the
subsidies, let's stop the tax breaks.
This is a retired CEO of a major oil-producing company that's saying
that this is nonsense that we're still wasting so much money, around 50
billion dollars per year by subsidizing Big Oil when oil is above 70
bucks a barrel. Today, it's over $100 a barrel. That would be a more
appropriate offset.
I'm going to hand off to my friend from Oregon to pick it up at that
point.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
chairman of the House Administration Committee, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for
yielding the time.
My name happens to appear on this bill as the original author of this
bill, H.R. 4. I remember when I introduced this last April, Members on
that side of the aisle were told by their leadership don't dare go on
this bill to repeal this necessary provision of the Affordable Care
Act.
By the way, if it is truly an affordable care act, why has Secretary
Sebelius granted over 700 waivers to companies and unions? Because it's
not affordable. Why has virtually every member of my constituency who
has health insurance had an increase in their premiums as a direct
result of the ``Affordable Care Act''? Just a passing question because
I'm asked that all the time by my constituents.
Why did I introduce this? Because provision 9006 of the bill has
nothing to do with affordable care and has everything to do with the
capacity of our friends on the other side to find ingenious ways of
impacting business because I guess business is considered bad. Well,
I've got an answer for you today to the question of who creates jobs.
This is who creates jobs: small business. And this particular section
of your so-called Affordable Care Act kills business, kills small
business. What does it do? It is based on the assumption that everybody
cheats. Why? Because the 1099 form is usually utilized for the purpose
of making sure you carry out your obligation to pay payroll tax.
But what did we do in the so-called Affordable Care Act? We increased
the reach of 1099s so that when you have no obligation to pay anything,
you have to report on the person on the other side of the business
transaction; so that they, supposedly, are cheating, and therefore we
have what's known as the universal snitch act.
The idea that it's going to gain $19 billion, in my judgment, is
created out of whole cloth. You have to assume that almost everybody
cheats to get your $19 billion.
And here's the game here in Washington, D.C.: We create a new
obligation on business that's never existed before. We then secretly
put it in a bill--virtually no one on this floor knew it was in the
bill--and then we score it for gaining $19 billion to the Treasury. And
if I dare come to this floor to repeal it, I'm obligated to come up
with $19 billion in new taxes or some sort of a spending cut?
The American people ought to understand the game that's played. In
secret, we pass something like this, which has an unbelievably
pernicious effect on business. Now, how does it have such an effect? It
requires every single person involved in business or trade to go into
accounting to make sure that every time they reach that threshold of
$600 or more with anybody they purchase something from they have to
file a 1099.
Here's what someone in my district just emailed me, a small business
person, a woman:
``I have 15 employees. As owner, I am the HR department, the
bookkeeping department, the administration department, and still serve
my customers while surviving this economic climate. It will be a
tremendous burden, both in time and dollars, to send out 1099s to all
my vendors--appliance manufacturers, parts distributors, other
suppliers, utility companies.''
It is a job-killer provision. We brought this H.R. 4 to the floor to
get rid of a job-killer provision.
The other reason why it is a double-edged sword on small business is,
if you want to minimize the number of 1099s that you file, you will not
go to your local hardware store. You will not go to your local
restaurant. You will go to the big box store. You will go to the chain
restaurant. And we are killing small business on this floor.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. So I understand the sincerity of
the other side of the aisle, of those who are concerned about the
middle class.
[[Page H1537]]
Who do you think small business is? This is the middle class in my
district and virtually every district across the country. These are the
people who create jobs. You will put a dagger in their side. And now
you come up and argue against passing this legislation because you are
concerned about the middle class.
You are killing the middle class with the provision in the health
care reform bill, so-called. What we are trying to do is to get rid of
that. We are trying help the middle class. We are trying to help the
job creators. We are trying to help the people in our districts who
don't have jobs.
Don't distract the debate on this job-killer piece of legislation.
Give us some relief, which is being called for all around the country.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to Mr. Blumenauer, I yield 30
seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. I appreciate the comments of my friend from California,
and I don't question his motivation. But I would suggest that if the
assumption is that we believe everyone cheats, I think that's wrong.
What I hear from the other side--not from the gentleman from
California, but generally from the other side--is that the belief is
the middle class cheats; the middle class cheats, and that's why we
have to impose this upon them. And I would use an example of a middle
class business man or woman. That business man or woman who files an
individual fax tax form as a small business person no longer will have
to file the 1099 forms, but if they make $88,000 a year and they are
397 percentile of Federal poverty and they have an unexpected increase
in income, they will be subject to the $4,460 middle class tax hike.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Levin, I appreciate that.
It's a little interesting when we hear our friends come to the floor
with the same talking points. My good friend from California talks
about the government takeover of health care--which of course
PolitiFact called the 2010 political lie of the year.
Allowing 33 million additional Americans to have access to----
Point of Order
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. State your point.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. The gentleman made a personal
reference to me, stating that I made a statement on the floor, and then
called that the biggest lie of the year. Is that, in fact, an
appropriate comment to be made on the floor during debate?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has not stated
a point of order.
Would the gentleman proceed to state the point.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would make a point of order
that the gentleman has made a personal reference to me and then
followed that up by saying that what I said was a lie.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman demanding that words be
taken down?
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Not at this time, Mr. Speaker.
But I would ask that the Speaker admonish Members not to question the
motivation of other Members in reference to any debate that is taking
place.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon may proceed.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. . . .
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask that the
gentleman's words be taken down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman
from Oregon will take a seat.
The Clerk will report the words.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw the
previous statement.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oregon?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon may proceed.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the opportunity, because I want to be
very clear about what I intended, what I thought I said and I think a
review of the tape would reveal. I am not calling anybody a liar.
What I intended to say, and I will ask unanimous consent to put in
the Record, is that as we have repeated talking points about a
government takeover of health care, this has been judged by an
independent journalistic undertaking as the political lie of the year.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. All I just want to make clear in
the Record, I never made a reference to the government takeover of
health care in my speech, and the gentleman was errant in making a
personal reference to what I had just said.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I apologize if the person who said ``government
takeover of health care'' was not you. It is repeated so often by my
Republican friends, including the Speaker of the House, time and time
again, that sometimes I get confused because it is a litany that is
used. It is in fact, and I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to
put in the Record the PolitiFact article.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Because those words are still echoing in the Chamber.
It has been said by somebody on the other side of the aisle earlier:
``PolitiFact editors and reporters have chosen `government takeover
of health care' as the 2010 Lie of the Year. They chose it as the
year's most significant falsehood by an overwhelming margin. The label
`government takeover' has no basis in reality, but instead reflects a
political dynamic where conservatives label any increase in government
authority in health care as a `takeover.' ''
They point out: ``The law that Congress passed, parts of which have
already gone into effect, rely largely on the free market. Employers
will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans
through private insurance companies. Contrary to the claim, more people
will get private health insurance. The government will not seize
control of hospitals or nationalize doctors. The law does not include a
public option. It gives tax credits to people who have difficulty
affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private
providers. It relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized
medicine. We have concluded it is inaccurate to call the plan a
government takeover because it relies largely on the existing health
system of coverage provided by employers.''
Mr. Speaker, part of what we're seeing here, though, is this drama
that is pulled out where talking points are repeated in an effort to
obscure the facts going forward. The majority knows that the Democrats
have attempted to adjust the 1099. We don't want it in there. We voted
for fixes. It will be fixed between the House and the Senate.
What's killing small business is the crushing burden of health care,
where they are trying to provide for their employees. What is killing
small business is that they can't compete with big business. They have
a system that has provided a downward spiral. What's providing the
driving force for the government deficit is increasing costs of
providing health care, for example, through Medicare. This used to be
an area of bipartisan cooperation.
The Health Care Reform Act includes every significant area of
reducing health care costs as either a pilot or a demonstration. It
points a path towards saving hundreds of billions of dollars. Those
used to be bipartisan.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Those used to be bipartisan; but instead of working
with us to refine and accelerate the provisions, people are trying to
put sand in the gears. And as my friends from Michigan and from New
York have pointed out, there are going to be some--we hope they are
unintended victims--but there are going to be innocent victims, people
in the middle class and the near middle class who don't have the
control of billionaire hedge funds to control their income.
There are things that can happen that will adjust it up or down.
There
[[Page H1538]]
will be a significant penalty. We have worked to fix that cliff. We've
approved it. We don't need to reinstate the cliff, the tax on honest
mistakes. As has been pointed out, there are provisions to deal with
fraud.
This is part of the drip, drip, drip to try and undermine health care
reform, not accelerate it. It's a part of misrepresentation politically
that the American public frankly doesn't deserve. It's a lost
opportunity for us to reduce the deficit, improve health care, and
lower costs.
{time} 1150
This is very personal to people like me. I come from an area of the
country that provides high-quality health care at a low cost. My people
are penalized. Health care reform is moving to try to help people like
that as we overall improve health care around the country and protect
the deficit.
I am sorry for any ambiguity or misunderstanding from my comments,
but I am frustrated when I hear the Republican side of the aisle
continue to repeat this political lie of the year. It doesn't help the
debate, it doesn't help us move forward, and we are going to have to
move forward to solve the problems of this country.
[From PolitiFact, Dec. 16, 2010]
PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: `A Government Takeover of Health Care'
(By Bill Adair, Angie Drobnic Holan)
In the spring of 2009, a Republican strategist settled on a
brilliant and powerful attack line for President Barack
Obama's ambitious plan to overhaul America's health insurance
system. Frank Luntz, a consultant famous for his phraseology,
urged GOP leaders to call it a ``government takeover.''
``Takeovers are like coups,'' Luntz wrote in a 28-page
memo. ``They both lead to dictators and a loss of freedom.''
The line stuck. By the time the health care bill was headed
toward passage in early 2010, Obama and congressional
Democrats had sanded down their program, dropping the
``public option'' concept that was derided as too much
government intrusion. The law passed in March, with new
regulations, but no government-run plan.
But as Republicans smelled serious opportunity in the
midterm elections, they didn't let facts get in the way of a
great punchline. And few in the press challenged their
frequent assertion that under Obama, the government was going
to take over the health care industry.
PolitiFact editors and reporters have chosen ``government
takeover of health care'' as the 2010 Lie of the Year.
Uttered by dozens of politicians and pundits, it played an
important role in shaping public opinion about the health
care plan and was a significant factor in the Democrats'
shellacking in the November elections.
Readers of PolitiFact, the St. Petersburg Times'
independent fact-checking website, also chose it as the
year's most significant falsehood by an overwhelming margin.
(Their second-place choice was Rep. Michele Bachmann's claim
that Obama was going to spend $200 million a day on a trip to
India, a falsity that still sprouts.)
By selecting ``government takeover'' as Lie of the Year,
PolitiFact is not making a judgment on whether the health
care law is good policy.
The phrase is simply not true.
Said Jonathan Oberlander, a professor of health policy at
the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill: ``The label
`government takeover' has no basis in reality, but instead
reflects a political dynamic where conservatives label any
increase in government authority in health care as a
`takeover.' ''
An inaccurate claim
``Government takeover'' conjures a European approach where
the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public
employees. But the law Congress passed, parts of which have
already gone into effect, relies largely on the free market:
Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the
majority of Americans through private insurance companies.
Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health
coverage. The law sets up ``exchanges'' where private
insurers will compete to provide coverage to people who don't
have it.
The government will not seize control of hospitals or
nationalize doctors.
The law does not include the public option. a government-
run insurance plan that would have competed with private
insurers.
The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty
affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from
private providers on the exchange. But here too, the approach
relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized
medicine.
PolitiFact reporters have studied the 906-page bill and
interviewed independent health care experts. We have
concluded it is inaccurate to call the plan a government
takeover because it relies largely on the existing system of
health coverage provided by employers.
It's true that the law does significantly increase
government regulation of health insurers. But it is, at its
heart, a system that relies on private companies and the free
market.
Republicans who maintain the Democratic plan is a
government takeover say that characterization is justified
because the plan increases federal regulation and will
require Americans to buy health insurance.
But while those provisions are real, the majority of
Americans will continue to get coverage from private
insurers. And it will bring new business for the insurance
industry: People who don't currently have coverage will get
it, for the most part, from private insurance companies.
Consider some analogies about strict government regulation.
The Federal Aviation Administration imposes detailed rules on
airlines. State laws require drivers to have car insurance.
Regulators tell electric utilities what they can charge. Yet
that heavy regulation is not described as a government
takeover.
This year, PolitiFact analyzed five claims of a
``government takeover of health care.'' Three were rated
Pants on Fire, two were rated False.
Can't do it in four words
Other news organizations have also said the claim is false.
Slate said ``the proposed health care reform does not take
over the system in any sense.'' In a New York Times economics
blog, Princeton University professor Uwe Reinhardt, an expert
in health care economics, said, ``Yes, there would be a
substantial government-mandated reorganization of this
relatively small corner of the private health insurance
market (that serves people who have been buying individual
policies). But that hardly constitutes a government takeover
of American health care.''
FactCheck.org, an independent fact-checking group run by
the University of Pennsylvania, has debunked it several
times, calling it one of the ``whoppers'' about health care
and saying the reform plan is neither ``government-run'' nor
a ``government takeover.''
We asked incoming House Speaker John Boehner's office why
Republican leaders repeat the phrase when it has repeatedly
been shown to be incorrect. Michael Steel, Boehner's
spokesman, replied, ``We believe that the job-killing
ObamaCare law will result in a government takeover of health
care. That's why we have pledged to repeal it, and replace it
with common-sense reforms that actually lower costs.''
Analysts say health care reform is such a complicated topic
that it often cannot be summarized in snappy talking points.
``If you're going to tell the truth about something as
complicated as health care and health care reform, you
probably need at least four sentences,'' said Maggie Mahar,
author of Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Health Care
Costs So Much. ``You can't do it in four words.''
Mahar said the GOP simplification distorted the truth about
the plan. ``Doctors will not be working for the government.
Hospitals will not be owned by the government,'' she said.
``That's what a government takeover of health care would
mean, and that's not at all what we're doing.''
How the line was used
If you followed the health care debate or the midterm
election--even casually--it's likely you heard ``government
takeover'' many times.
PolitiFact sought to count how often the phrase was used in
2010 but found an accurate tally was unfeasible because it
had been repeated so frequently in so many places. It was
used hundreds of times during the debate over the bill and
then revived during the fall campaign. A few numbers:
The phrase appears more than 90 times on Boehner's website,
GOPLeader.gov.
It was mentioned eight times in the 48-page Republican
campaign platform ``A Pledge to America'' as part of their
plan to ``repeal and replace the government takeover of
health care.''
The Republican National Committee's website mentions a
government takeover of health care more than 200 times.
Conservative groups and tea party organizations joined the
chorus. It was used by FreedomWorks, the Heritage Foundation
and the Cato Institute.
The phrase proliferated in the media even after Democrats
dropped the public option. In 2010 alone, ``government
takeover'' was mentioned 28 times in the Washington Post, 77
times in Politico and 79 times on CNN. A review of TV
transcripts showed ``government takeover'' was primarily used
as a catchy sound bite, not for discussions of policy
details.
In most transcripts we examined, Republican leaders used
the phrase without being challenged by interviewers. For
example, during Boehner's Jan. 31 appearance on Meet the
Press, Boehner said it five times. But not once was he
challenged about it.
In rare cases when the point was questioned, the GOP leader
would recite various regulations found in the bill and insist
that they constituted a takeover. But such followups were
rare.
An effective phrase
Politicians and officials in the health care industry have
been warning about a ``government takeover'' for decades.
The phrase became widely used in the early 1990s when
President Bill Clinton was trying to pass health care
legislation. Then, as today, Democrats tried to debunk the
popular Republican refrain.
When Obama proposed his health plan in the spring of 2009,
Luntz, a Republican strategist famous for his research on
effective
[[Page H1539]]
phrases, met with focus groups to determine which messages
would work best for the Republicans. He did not respond to
calls and e-mails from PolitiFact asking him to discuss the
phrase.
The 28-page memo he wrote after those sessions, ``The
Language of Healthcare 2009,'' provides a rare glimpse into
the art of finding words and phrases that strike a responsive
chord with voters.
The memo begins with ``The 10 Rules for Stopping the
`Washington Takeover' of Healthcare.'' Rule No. 4 says people
``are deathly afraid that a government takeover will lower
their quality of care--so they are extremely receptive to the
anti-Washington approach. It's not an economic issue. It's a
bureaucratic issue.''
The memo is about salesmanship, not substance. It doesn't
address whether the lines are accurate. It just says they are
effective and that Republicans should use them. Indeed,
facing a Democratic plan that actually relied on the free
market to try to bring down costs, Luntz recommended
sidestepping that inconvenient fact:
``The arguments against the Democrats'' healthcare plan
must center around politicians, bureaucrats and Washington .
. . not the free market, tax incentives or competition.''
Democrats tried to combat the barrage of charges about a
government takeover. The White House and House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi repeatedly put out statements, but they were drowned
out by a disciplined GOP that used the phrase over and over.
Democrats could never agree on their own phrases and were
all over the map in their responses, said Howard Dean, former
head of the Democratic National Committee.
``It was uncoordinated. Everyone had their own idea,'' Dean
said in an interview with PolitiFact.
The Democrats are atrocious at messaging,'' he said.
``They've gotten worse since I left, not better. It's just
appalling. First of all, you don't play defense when you're
doing messaging, you play offense. The Republicans have
learned this well.''
Dean grudgingly admires the Republican wordsmith. ``Frank
Luntz has it right, he just works for the wrong side. You
give very simple catch phrases that encapsulate the
philosophy of the bill.''
A responsive chord
By March of this year, when Obama signed the bill into law,
53 percent of respondents in a Bloomberg Poll said they
agreed that ``the current proposal to overhaul health care
amounts to a government takeover.''
Exit polls showed the economy was the top issue for voters
in the November election, but analysts said the drumbeat
about the ``government takeover'' during the campaign helped
cement the advantage for the Republicans.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer, an Oregon Democrat whose provision
for Medicare end-of-life care was distorted into the charge
of ``death panels'' (last year's Lie of the Year), said the
Republicans'' success with the phrase was a matter of
repetition.
``There was a uniformity of Republican messaging that was
disconnected from facts,'' Blumenauer said. ``The sheer
discipline . . . was breathtaking.''
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr.
Boustany.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, the time to act on this provision is now.
Why? It's very, very simple. It's about jobs. It's about removing an
onerous provision, a burdensome provision on small businesses that
create jobs. If we wonder why we have a high unemployment rate, it is
because of provisions like this.
This 1099 provision was bad legislation from day one. The American
people have made it clear they want this law repealed.
The President thinks it's bad, Democrats think it's bad, Republicans
think it's bad, even the Senate thinks it's bad. It has taken long
enough to move on this. Let's do it. Let's get it done. Further delay
is unacceptable.
Look, if we don't repeal this now, businesses are going to assume
more expenses. If we repeal it later, we continue to delay this.
They will incur expenses that, once it is repealed, they wouldn't
have had to incur from the beginning. I am already hearing from many,
many Louisiana businesses right now that want to grow, want to hire;
and they are worried about this. They are already spending money to
prepare for this.
That's why we need to take care of it now. We want to create jobs,
repeal this provision now and let's move forward. The American people
want to see action on this from this Congress, and they want to see it
now. It's important now to do it.
Americans are growing impatient. Small business owners are growing
impatient. I ask that we repeal this provision today. Repeal it now.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 15 seconds.
The gentleman who just spoke voted ``no'' on repeal last July, as did
the gentleman from California who spoke before him. You both had a
chance to vote ``no,'' and you failed to do so. You didn't like a pay-
for that closed a tax loophole.
I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a
distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. NEAL. I thank Mr. Levin for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, this provision came over from the Senate. As Mr. Levin
has correctly noted, Members on this side of the aisle have already
cast a vote to repeal this measure. The difficulty that's in front of
us today is the manner in which this has been presented to all of us.
Now, we are going to hear a lot of conflicting opinions today about
the new taxes in this bill. Like everybody else here in this Chamber, I
am opposed to raising taxes on the middle class. Hardly is that a leap
of faith into unchartered waters. We all share that common belief.
But the problem with the provision that's offered today is the
disguised nature of raising taxes on the middle class. Let's get to the
heart of this bill. It repeals a new reporting requirement on small
businesses.
This provision expanded a type of reporting that already goes on
where businesses report to the Internal Revenue Service on large
payments sent to contractors. This type of third-party reporting is
meant to ensure those contractors report honestly to the IRS on the
income they earn.
A reminder, it is estimated that there is up to $300 billion a year
of unreported income in the United States. And before we get to some of
the cuts that have been proposed in this institution, we ought to be
focusing our attention on how we might collect that unreported and
underreported income that is such an important part of the underground
economy in the United States.
You would think that that opportunity would avail itself based upon
the mindless process that took place here a couple of weeks ago where
we began with a series of 2-minute votes over 2 days to cut very
important initiatives that the American people have come to rely on.
And I would suggest to my friends on the other side of the aisle that
they take note of that Wall Street Journal poll this morning as to what
these cuts mean and how they are going down with the American people.
In our committee markup, there was a great deal of discussion about
the burden on small businesses that this new reporting requirement
imposes, and I think that for the most part we are all in agreement
that the burden here may well outweigh the benefit.
But let's not ignore what we have found out about tax evasion at our
markup. I asked Tom Barthold from the Joint Committee on Taxation about
his estimate that the reporting requirement would raise $22 billion in
revenue. Now, Tom Barthold is not a Democrat; he is not a Republican.
He is an economist who likes to give unjaded information to those of us
who then implement policy.
I asked him how much of this was tax evasion, contractors
underreporting income and how much was the penalties on those innocent
third parties who got tripped up on the rules. He told us that almost
all of it was due to tax avoidance, tax evasion.
So without any hearings or debate about how to best capture that $22
billion, we eliminated this reporting requirement and would raise taxes
on middle-income families.
I want to urge my friends on the other side, before we travel down
this path of cutting very important initiatives for the American
family--and I can't wait till we have the first vote in this
institution up or down on Social Security to see if the rhetoric really
matches the reality. Then I am hopeful that if we move to the
discussion and debate on Medicare, we will see if the rhetoric matches
the reality.
But I would hope that before we move on this mindless trail of these
proposed cuts that have taken place over the last 3 weeks, that we
might consider what to do about the whole notion of tax evasion. I hope
that those on the other side of the aisle would join me in my efforts
to ferret out tax abuse.
[[Page H1540]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.
Mr. NEAL. I have been on this issue for a career of what to do about
American companies that change their address so that they become a
citizen of Bermuda to avoid American income taxes, while there are
hundreds of thousands of American soldiers overseas, why our VA
hospitals are going to be necessary for the 31,000 that have been
wounded in honorable service to this country, and why, before we
propose the cuts that we have proposed, we are not after tax evasion
the way that we should be. That ought to be something that men and
women of good will in this institution all ought to be able to agree
upon.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that the best
thing that this Congress can do is focus on jobs, making sure that
someone might have access to health care through a job. But increasing
the cost of doing business certainly does not contribute to our effort
to help create jobs.
I rise in support of H.R. 4. Repealing the 1099 mandate would only
help, and certainly in my district, family farmers, ranchers, small
businesses.
Let me tell you briefly about a restaurant owner, a small operation.
{time} 1200
He will go from four 1099s to over 200 1099s, and that's after
spending $7,000 in new software, Mr. Speaker. That certainly provides
opportunities for a misplaced digit in an identification number that
will lead to the wrong person being audited, Mr. Speaker.
And when we look at all the information given here, certainly it
makes sense to recapture an overpayment of a subsidy so that we can
return to the people the opportunity to go out, create jobs and, in the
end, ultimately provide more health care for the American people.
Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms.
Jenkins).
Ms. JENKINS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
According to the President's health care law, starting next year any
business that purchases more than $600 worth of goods or services from
another business is required to submit a 1099 tax form to the Internal
Revenue Service. I'm a strong supporter of job creation. However, I do
not think building more bureaucratic barriers for small business and
creating additional positions at the IRS is the kind of job growth this
country needs. As Alan Meyers, an electrician in my district, stated in
a letter to my office: ``This is absurd. The small business men of this
country have more paperwork than they can get done now.''
While we have disagreed about the full repeal of the health overhaul
law, the administration and many of my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle have recently decided they strongly agree with Republican
Members in Congress that the 1099 reporting provisions should be
repealed. However, a few weeks ago, we received the President's budget
which would only repeal the 1099 requirement for goods but keep it for
services--a glaring contradiction to the President's stated strong
support for the full repeal of this harmful provision.
So I'm pleased that the House has chosen to move forward with the
full repeal of this unprecedented burden on small business.
Furthermore, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are truly
serious about reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in our health care
system, then they, too, can support this measure with full voice, since
it is paid for by reducing overpayments of exchange subsidies.
In this economic environment, Congress needs to be working to remove
the barriers to job creation and finding ways to rein in the cost of
health care, not imposing new government mandates to squeeze every
dollar out of small businesses.
While we await action from the Senate on H.R. 2, the full repeal of
this health care overhaul, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of
H.R. 4 today to fix one of the many flaws in the President's health
care law.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, there is widespread bipartisan agreement
that the 1099 reporting rules need revision. In fact, the agreement is
so widespread that I'm mystified why we're having this debate. The
Senate passed a repeal of this policy earlier this year on a bipartisan
basis. The House, last year, failed to pass a repeal of the provision
only because of Republican opposition. But now we all agree, let's
repeal it.
What's the hang-up? The hang-up is the Republicans want to pay for
this business tax cut on the backs of lower- and middle-income
families. This bill would increase taxes by $25 billion in total on
families earning less than $110,000. Families with incomes around
$90,000 per year could see increases in taxes of $3,000, according to
the Joint Committee on Taxation.
This is a remarkable piece of legislation because it unwinds a near-
unanimous agreement that we had last year. This policy wouldn't just
increase taxes. It would discourage enrollment in health plans in
health exchanges.
Under the Republican proposal, people who are eligible for tax
credits would have to think very hard as to whether they were
estimating their income accurately. They are estimating this income in
the beginning of the year, but later in the year, they may get a raise,
they may get a promotion. They may even get a job. And then they could
be hit with a huge repayment penalty for a simple mistake: a promotion
or a new job.
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this deterrent effect
would increase the number of uninsured by 266,000 people. Let's
withdraw this pay-for and let's get something more reasonable. And
under these circumstances, I cannot support the bill in its present
form today, although I certainly support the changes in the 1099
reporting rules.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and
Means Committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).
Mr. PAULSEN. I thank the chairman.
Madam Speaker, I also rise in strong support of the legislation here
today that would repeal this burdensome 1099 tax requirement contained
in the new health care law. Failure to eliminate this provision would
result in vast amounts of new paperwork and additional accounting
burdens for 30 million businesses that are still struggling in a very
downbeat economy.
Now, while having gone virtually unnoticed in the context of the
entire health care debate, this provision has created quite a bit of
concern for companies who are already facing increased regulatory
compliance costs as they get ready for this new provision to take
effect.
Madam Speaker, almost every week I get a chance to visit with a small
business back in Minnesota in my district; and nearly every one of them
has asked me in bewilderment and in complete disbelief why they would
be required to have to do this because of the amount of time and the
amount of energy it will take to comply with this new requirement. So
now, if there's a small business owner and they want to go into a
Target store and they purchase $600 worth of office supplies annually,
they are now going to be required to file a new 1099 form--not only
with the IRS, but with the Target Corporation. It's a waste of time,
and time is money.
We need to be thinking about how we can help our Nation's small
businesses get back on track by growing jobs and helping our economy
move forward. It's not the way to do it by increasing more burdensome
paperwork and bureaucratic paperwork. We need to let them be
productive, to unleash their productivity, rather than filling out
unnecessary forms.
Madam Speaker, I know, with the elimination of this onerous reporting
requirement, small businesses are now going to be able to focus where
they should focus their resources: on growing jobs and creating a
better economy instead of processing additional paperwork and
navigating bureaucratic red tape.
[[Page H1541]]
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member
of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr.
Heller).
Mr. HELLER. I thank the chairman for yielding time.
I'm an original cosponsor of H.R. 4 and proudly voted for this
measure in the House Ways and Means Committee last month.
Madam Speaker, today's debate marks the second time, over the course
of 3 months, that the House has taken the opportunity to discuss the
disastrous consequences the health care bill has and will continue to
have on our economy.
The House passed H.R. 2, which repealed the health care bill, with
bipartisan support in January. Today we consider one of the many
provisions of the bill that suppress economic recovery and job
creation. The 1099 reporting mandate will impose substantial paperwork
and reporting burdens on an estimated 40 million entities, including
governments, nonprofits, and small businesses. Instead of fostering job
creation in the private sector--which is what our economy needs--the
previous Congress has passed a provision that would direct precious
time and resources to collecting volumes of information and filling out
mounds of new paperwork for businesses all throughout this country.
Once the economic engine of this Nation, small businesses are now
buckling under the weight of onerous mandates and high taxes from a
Federal Government that spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows
too much. As a result, unemployment in Nevada has reached record highs
that currently stand at nearly 15 percent.
Efforts to repeal the 1099 provision enjoy bipartisan, bicameral
support.
I am pleased the House will pass H.R. 4 as part of our commitment to
alleviate the burden the previous Congress placed on small businesses
and American taxpayers. I remain committed to overturn the health care
bill in its entirety. I support targeted legislation such as H.R. 4 to
provide economic relief as soon as possible.
{time} 1210
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I would have hoped that today we would
have taken advantage of the fact that all of us want to get rid of a
part of the President's affordable health bill that we believe has not
reached the objective that we wanted. Everybody, including the
President of the United States, believes that 1099 in the present form
should not be there. Republicans and Democrats have voted to make
certain that it not be there. The last time we attempted to correct it,
we felt that because of the billions of dollars that would be lost by
trying to get rid of it, we passed a law and it was rejected because
the majority party didn't like what we call the pay-for. Since that
time, the pay-for has been passed into law, it has been accepted, and
now we are trying to find a new one.
I don't know why in God's heavens as to why we couldn't have sat down
to find one, as long as we certainly wanted to avoid fraud on the
taxpayer, and work out something that is fair. I can't believe that the
majority doesn't believe that what we are trying to do is to avoid
having an unintended tax on hardworking people.
And so if this is going to hold it up and cause us now to throw the
baby out with the bath water, to have us rejecting what we want to do,
and that is to get rid of 1099 in its present form, I think it is
unfortunate.
Now, I do recognize, Mr. Chairman and members of our distinguished
committee, that political promises were made before the election. The
question now has to be that even though there have been commitments by
certain parties in the majority, that they have to provide savings
through cutting, those two things should be somehow related. Every cut
that we have in the budget, whether it is the continuing resolution or
the budget of 2011 or 2010, doesn't mean that there is a savings.
So telling the voters and our constituents that we have slashed
something out of the budget, it really goes beyond politics because
never in the discussions that I have had in the Ways and Means
Committee with the majority or with the Democratic Caucus have we ever
said: Are those people who are going to be helped or hurt Democrats?
Are those people Republicans? Or did we not say that we were sincerely
trying to help all Americans to make certain they have affordable
health care.
For the majority not to want to correct whatever they think is wrong,
but to make a campaign commitment they are going to eliminate the bill,
eliminate the President, and just make certain they have $100 billion
in cuts, I think is really unfair to present these political problems
to the American people.
So I do hope that after we reject this, not because the goal is not
one that is bipartisan and with the support of the administration, but
because how it is paid for is detrimental to the taxpayer, whether he
or she be Republican or Democrat.
Mr. CAMP. At this time I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs.
Black).
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I rise today enthusiastically supporting
H.R. 4, the 1099 repeal bill. This piece of legislation is a victory
for common sense. It is proof that the House is dedicated to getting
the government off of the backs of American small businesses and
working for the people again.
This bill does three things: it reduces the deficit; it protects our
taxpayers from waste; and it eases the burdens on small businesses who
too often have to deal with government breathing down their necks and
stifling their growth. If this provision were left untouched in the
President's health care law, small businesses across the country would
be buried in paperwork. Instead of growing their businesses,
advertising their services and selling their products and hiring
workers and growing our economy, business owners would be stuck behind
a desk filling out IRS forms.
Just this morning in the Wall Street Journal, it was reported by a
survey that the small business owners are finding it more and more
difficult to file their tax forms because of the onerous paperwork. It
is unconscionable that the Democrat Congress paid for their massive
spending on their health care bill on the backs of American small
businesses; but today we're going to fix that.
As a member of Ways and Means, I am extremely proud to have seen this
repeal bill take shape in our committee. I am proud that we pay for
this bill by protecting taxpayers instead of demanding more money of
them. By reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in the Democrats' health care
law, we pay for this 1099 repeal, which reduces the deficit by $166
million in the first 10 years, and by billions of dollars over the long
run, while reducing the Federal spending by nearly $200 billion over 10
years.
This is a huge victory, but it marks the beginning of a new way that
we are doing business here in Washington. This new House majority will
continue to enact commonsense policy that does not add to the debt or
hide their true costs with accounting gimmicks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The time of the gentlewoman
has expired.
Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Mrs. BLACK. We can get government working for the American people
today, and this is a good start.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Pascrell), an active member of our committee.
Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, you know, there is an old western song:
``I'm looking for love in all the wrong places.'' Remember that song?
It's not too old. Not too old.
We're looking for revenue in all the wrong places; not only in
reference to what we did in cutting indiscriminately $60 billion which
mostly affects the middle class, and I think very dangerously. So this
provision was in the health care bill which deals with bureaucracy at
its worst, I would agree. But in July of 2010, we voted with I think
only, correct me if I'm wrong, two Republicans. We had a shot at this
in the very beginning of mankind, right, last summer, to vote against
it. I believe every Democrat voted against this provision, and two
Republicans
[[Page H1542]]
joined us, the gentleman from Louisiana on the opposition side--the
honorable opposition side--who is no longer with us, and I don't know
if he lost because he voted with us, and another gentleman from North
Carolina who voted with us. We had a shot at this. We could have taken
care of this last year, and you chose not to. So let's set the record
straight.
So here we are with this 1099 form. It's going to take some time to
fill it out. We don't like that bureaucracy. The thing comes down to,
as Mr. Waxman said, as Mr. Neal said, how do you pay for it?
Now beware, the distinguished chairman for the Ways and Means
Committee, a Wall Street poll today, not the New York Times, not the
Village Voice, not fill in the blanks, that poll shows that over 74
percent, I think, of the American people, that's us, believe that we
should eliminate tax credits for big oil and gas companies.
So I'm sure now that the loyal opposition sees that poll in that
newspaper, that you will join us in putting to rest forever those folks
who least need any help from the government getting help from the
government.
This is going to cost us $22 billion. Both sides agree that one of
the great benefits of this country is economic mobility.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
{time} 1220
Mr. PASCRELL. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
This bill punishes those who get ahead by raising the tax liabilities
on families who have worked hard and who may have gotten raises or
promotions.
For a family of four in my district, the Eighth District of New
Jersey--please visit us. We would love to have you, Mr. Chairman--who
makes $80,000 a year, it will mean the family will get a 50 percent
reduction on their premiums if they purchase health insurance in the
marketplace--from the private sector, I might add. There is no
government operation here. If they get a raise, however, and move above
the threshold, they pay back a reasonable amount now; but in this
legislation, under this bill, if they work a little harder and receive
a financial benefit, the family will be punished. They'll be forced to
repay the tax credit.
There is no answer to that question. It's a fact of life.
This means that the family which I'm talking about now will be hit
with a surprise--get this, Madam Speaker--of an $11,200 tax bill. It's
a $20,000 premium. They make $80,000. It's quite a hefty fee, I might
add. Everything is wonderful with health care in the United States
right now, but you're going to have added on--because you made a few
bucks more--$11,200. Unintended consequences. Looking for love in all
the wrong places. So let us be perfectly clear to the Members voting on
this legislation:
It's not a subsidy. There is not only a definitional difference but a
substantial difference between a subsidy and a tax credit. When you
take away that tax credit from a middle class American who uses it when
purchasing insurance, plain and simple, his taxes go up.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and
Means Committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi).
Mr. TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the underlying bill today, which
goes a long way toward job creation.
Jobs, jobs, jobs. We heard about that in the November election. We
heard about the fact that small business owners, in particular, were
going to be hampered by a provision, by actually two provisions: one
provision in the health care bill that appears that everyone now seems
to be opposed to but that the majority voted for; and then another
provision that appeared in a bill in September of 2010 that even went
further than the underlying provision in the health care bill, which
applied to folks who own rental property or to someone who has a
vacation home or to somebody who has retail property that he's leasing
out or to somebody who is leasing out a room in his home. Suddenly, now
we're going to require them to 1099 folks as well.
What an amazing provision that passed in September of 2010. The bill
corrects that. The bill corrects both aspects.
I heard this over and over during my campaign. Think about this: Bob
Roach, an independent insurance agent, goes out to Staples and buys
paper. He's going to have to 1099 Staples. He goes to a hardware store
to fix something in his office. He's going to have to 1099 the hardware
store. It goes on and on and on. When a law-abiding small business
owner--maybe a sole proprietor--now is being made the person who has to
go out and be an extension of the IRS, it is truly amazing.
Then the pay-for is requiring people who get more than they're
entitled to to pay it back--what a novel concept--with no penalties, no
interest. Just pay back something that they're not entitled to.
Now, I was talking to my immigrant dad and immigrant mom about this.
My dad has a sixth grade education, and my mom has an eighth grade
education. They were, first of all, quite surprised by the fact that a
family of four, making $88,000 a year, would get a subsidy. My mom and
dad dreamed of making $88,000. They never came close to it--but they're
middle class, and they're not looking for a subsidy, and they certainly
would pay it back if they got more than they were entitled to.
Madam Speaker, this is about fairness. This is about jobs. This is
about equity. This is about moving our economy forward. This is about
law-abiding citizens not becoming extensions of the IRS. You're either
for them or against them. I urge support of the bill.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 15 seconds.
The gentleman from Ohio mentioned jobs, jobs, jobs. In a colloquial
sense, this bill would do a ``job'' on middle-income taxpayers.
I now yield 3 minutes to a member of our committee, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman.
I voted previously to repeal these 1099 reporting requirements. But
for broad Republican opposition, these requirements would have been
repealed a long time ago.
I was a little amused to hear one of our Republican colleagues
actually say this morning that he is bewildered as to why there are all
these requirements on small businesses around the country as a result
of this provision. I can cure your bewilderment: Get a mirror out and
look at the mirror. You will see the Republicans who voted against
repealing this provision last year.
No, this is not about repealing 1099. It is about shifting the burden
onto working families while at the same time protecting insurance
monopolies.
Despite the vigorous, determined efforts of these Republicans to
undermine every aspect of health insurance reform, under current law,
working families will receive an opportunity to access health
insurance. Each year, the government will match some of what workers
pay for their health insurance. The precise amount of the match is
determined by how low a worker's salary is. A minimum-wage worker would
get a little more assistance than someone who is at a little higher
level. This bill ensures that the health insurance companies will get
to keep all of that Federal match, but it treats the working families
considerably differently.
If you have an employee who really shows ability and who may have a
fairly menial or mundane job but who does it and does it with pride and
does it well and if that employee excels and if the employer rewards
him with a bonus and recognizes that that employee is really trying
hard and then decides we're going to give you a little promotion and
that you'll get a little more pay or, perhaps, as with so many families
around this country, that employee decides ``I'll never make it for my
family on this. I'm going to moonlight. I'm going to take an extra
job,'' then under any of these developments for the enterprising
worker, the Republicans today propose a penalty, a tax on success.
At the end of that year, after those law-abiding employees have
properly estimated their income from those 12 months earlier, if their
pay has gone up a dollar over the level, they'll get a steep penalty.
They may have to pay literally thousands of dollars back even though
they only got a bonus of a few
[[Page H1543]]
hundred dollars. They would owe the value, perhaps, of the entire
credit to the IRS.
What type of people are we talking about?
If the law had been fully effective, as I wish it had been this year,
and if workers who were earning $43,560 got a bonus that took them up
to $43,600, they would have owed the full amount of the credit at the
end of the year. $1,000 or perhaps $3,000 or $4,000 to a family as a
penalty--as a tax on success--is a big amount to that family.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. DOGGETT. Understand the dimensions of how big the burden is that
they want to shift to working families: According to their own report
on this bill, the total is almost $25 billion over the next decade.
We're not talking about a small amount of money. We're talking about a
significant amount of money in this Republican penalty on success.
Why haven't they been out here responding to this penalty on success?
They want to refer to these people as ``cheats.''
These people aren't cheats. They're people who are the best of
America, who are striving and working to get ahead, who then get
penalized for their success.
{time} 1230
They have no answer because there is no answer. We should have passed
this bill last year and passed it by paying for it by closing
international corporate tax loopholes. Naturally they resist that just
as they resist any attempt to control insurance monopolies.
Vote ``no'' on this penalty for success that would be imposed on our
working families. Vote against this piece of legislation.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and
Means Committee, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg).
Mr. BERG. Madam Speaker, I rise today in firm support of eliminating
the 1099 requirement that burdens so many of our small businesses and
costs jobs.
Madam Speaker, if Congress is serious about getting Americans back to
work and our economy back on track, the choice is clear. We need to
repeal this mandate. This law forces American businesses deeper and
deeper into the bureaucratic Washington nightmare for small business.
And it takes away from their core mission, which is to grow their
business and create jobs.
Small business is the core of North Dakota's economy. Farmers,
ranchers and small businessmen, they're all burdened by this mandate.
And another regulation is another expense that makes it even more
difficult for them to do business.
This is commonsense legislation. With national unemployment still
hovering around 9 percent, the decision to repeal this mandate should
be easy. We desperately need economic renewal, we need private sector
job growth, and we need to eliminate the small business paperwork
that's in this mandate. It's time to eliminate this onerous mandate and
allow business to get back to doing what they do best, and that's
create American jobs.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond).
Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Ranking Member Levin.
Madam Speaker, I agree with the Republican chorus that we've been
hearing now for 2 days, which is let's repeal this onerous provision of
the 1099 requirement.
However, even as a freshman member of the Democratic Party, let me
say, welcome to the party. The Democratic Party started this July 30 of
last year to try to repeal this onerous provision and only 2
Republicans voted for it. Two hundred thirty-nine Democrats said, let's
do away with this. You're right. It's putting a massive burden on our
small businesses.
But not only did you get to the party 7 months late, you got it
wrong. You decided to dance with Big Oil and corporations that you
didn't want to close the tax loophole. So what's the pay-for? Well, the
pay-for is to reach in the pockets of working class Americans and take
$25 billion. Right now, there are people that are at work, and we're
here in D.C. and we're going to take $25 billion out of their pocket.
We should be ashamed of ourselves.
I join with my colleagues and my good friend from New York (Mr.
Crowley) who on yesterday tried to have a discourse about is there a
better way to pay for it. No one would yield. No one would take
amendments. So I would just say as a new Member, what the American
people want, when we agree on an idea, let's repeal the 1099 provision,
they want us to get together and figure out how to do it. They want us
to see if we can't find some amendments, find some common ground, so
that we don't have to penalize working families.
And I would say what they don't want is for us to reach in their
pocket, penalize them for success and take $25 billion, when there are
other ways to do it. But what we should do is get together and figure
out a way to do it so that we can start moving this country forward.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Buerkle).
Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4, the Small Business
Paperwork Elimination Act. Too often, Congress and the Federal
Government pass and institute regulations without counting the cost to
America's businesses, the lifeblood of our economic success.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's 1099 reporting
requirement for small businesses will be, in the words of Nathan
Andrews, vice president of Morse Manufacturing, an 88-year-old company
in East Syracuse, ``a paperwork nightmare.'' He further adds that the
requirement will hamper the ability of his company ``to function, grow,
and create jobs.''
This mandate is really indicative of a larger problem--the
stranglehold that regulations have on our country. And while
regulations are sometimes necessary and often well-intentioned, they
have been increasingly becoming an obstacle to our success as a Nation.
By success, I mean creating an environment where businesses can
flourish, providing jobs so that the American people can obtain health
insurance while still benefiting from the best health care system in
the world.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, how much time is there on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) has
10 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) has 37
minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).
Mr. NUNNELEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Speaker, in a day when America has been suffering for nearly 2
years from significant unemployment, when nearly one in 10 of our
neighbors is unemployed, it is our duty to do everything we can to
allow these employers to focus on job creation.
Today, we will vote to repeal the burdensome 1099 provision included
in ObamaCare. As pledged to the American people, we will work to get
this unpopular job-destroying law off the books. We voted to repeal it
outright, we voted to defund it, and today we begin the process of
repealing it piece by piece.
In order to comply with this 1099 mandate, businesses would have to
spend countless hours generating and receiving needless amounts of
paperwork. Now I started a small business, and I know the rewards and
challenges of entrepreneurship. And I can tell you those challenges
don't need to involve filing needless paperwork.
Last summer, when I visited Trisha's Day Spa in Grenada, Mississippi,
and I explained to Trisha Shankle the 1099 requirements in ObamaCare,
she said that such a requirement would be devastating to her business.
That's been the conclusion reached in small businesses around America.
Today, a huge burden will be lifted from the shoulders of small
businesses, and for that I am grateful. That's why I'm proud to
cosponsor this legislation and why I will vote to repeal it.
Mr. LEVIN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Gardner).
[[Page H1544]]
Mr. GARDNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4, which
would eliminate the 1099 mandate instituted by the President's health
care bill. I've spoken with countless constituents around the Fourth
Congressional District of Colorado, not as Republicans, not as
Democrats, but as business owners, as people who have worked to build
up their companies from scratch into successful opportunities for
themselves and their families. They oppose the 1099 provisions of the
health care bill, not because they're Republicans, not because they're
Democrats, but because they know it would cause grave impact on their
businesses and their ability to continue to thrive and grow and hire
new people.
Madam Speaker, they are speaking as the voice of this country's
businesses, the backbone of our economy. If we are going to create jobs
in this country to move our country forward, then we have got to do it
starting by the repealing of the 1099 provisions.
A bill passed last Congress in the 111th Congress, it doesn't matter
the day or the time, but what passed was a bill where people said, ``We
need to pass the bill to know what's in the bill.'' People read the
bill. They know what's in the bill.
In Weld County a businessman is going to spend 40 hours a month to
comply with these provisions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. GARDNER. In Larimer County, a manufacturing company is going to
have to hire new people to comply with the provisions of this act. Is
that the kind of job creation this body is looking for?
{time} 1240
Let's create penalties on business and hope that it drives the
economy? That's not right.
Madam Speaker, today I urge the passage of H.R. 4, with both
Republicans and Democrats standing up to fight for businesses in this
country to get our economy moving forward again.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. West).
Mr. WEST. Madam Speaker, I stand here to support H.R. 4 for the
repeal of the 1099 bill.
At a time when business owners are trying to survive in a sea of
economic turmoil, our government has thrown them an anchor instead of a
life preserver. Democrats have borrowed and spent $1 trillion of their
stimulus program, and the unemployment rate has remained stuck at or
above 9 percent for nearly 2 years. Our focus must be on measures that
will actually help American workers and allow employers to focus on job
creation. H.R. 4 will protect small businesses, their workers, and
American taxpayers.
H.R. 4 repeals the onerous tax reporting provisions Democrats enacted
last year to help pay for both their health care law and the TARP 3
legislation. It also protects taxpayers by reducing waste, fraud and
abuse in the Democrats' health care law.
Finally, this bill will reduce the deficit by $166 million in the
first 10 years and by billions of dollars over the long run, while
reducing Federal spending by nearly $20 billion over the next 10 years.
During a time when the unemployment rate is at or above 9 percent,
additional government mandates on small businesses is, from the
standpoint of economic policy, nothing short of idiotic. We should be
looking for ways to free small businesses and companies from
unnecessary burdens. We should be looking for ways to encourage
entrepreneurship. Instead, we have mandates that impose new obstacles
for companies. We should be seeking ways to restart the engine of job
growth.
Let me be clear that I accept the proposition that every person and
every business entity has both a moral and legal obligation to fully
report their taxable income. The fundamental problem with the new 1099
reporting requirement is that they are imposed on a broad universe of
small business taxpayers that annually conduct more than $600 of
transactions with other vendors.
The new filing requirements are both burdensome as well as
overinclusive.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. WEST. Madam Speaker, let us remember that even during the State
of the Union Address, the President gave his support to repeal this
onerous, burdensome, and misguided mandate.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Madam Speaker, today I come to the floor in
support of this legislation because business owners in southwest
Washington sent me here to clear the runway for them to start growing
and hiring more people.
In my district, I know a restaurant owner in Vancouver and a doctor
who runs a small practice in Tumwater who simply don't have the
resources to comply with the expanded 1099 mandate. I would rather have
them focusing on opening a new franchise or offering services to
patients--basically being successful entrepreneurs--than spending time
reacting to the mountains of new paperwork they're going to owe the
IRS.
My entire region in southwest Washington has been suffering under
double-digit unemployment for multiple years. In my district's largest
county, Clark County, the jobless rate hovers between 13 and 14
percent--and that's reported, there are a lot of people who have
stopped reporting. I know we're not unique. The entire country is
depending on Congress to make job creation a serious priority. And by
passing this bill today, we're showing the people of southwest
Washington and across America that we're taking them very seriously.
As I meet with small business owners in my district, they express two
major sentiments to me over and over again: Fear and uncertainty.
They're afraid and uncertain about what this government is going to do
to them next. What I would like to do today is eliminate the
uncertainty around this 1099 mandate. Small businesses from across my
district continue to ask me for more predictability from their
government when it comes to regulations and taxes. Instead of fear,
increased bureaucracy or higher costs, I'm committed to providing them
with that predictability.
By voting to repeal the 1099 paperwork mandate today we do two
things: First, we take an immediate step that will provide regulatory
relief to the clinic in Tumwater and the restaurant in Vancouver.
Second, we send a signal to America that Congress is changing the way
it views small businesses. They aren't piggybanks, allowed to exist
only to foot the bill on terribly ill-conceived and unaffordable
government programs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Today this new Congress lets small businesses
know that we see them as the heart and soul of what makes this country
great, as entrepreneurs that can grow and thrive and succeed as far as
their hard work can take them. That's the job creation plan that has
worked for this country for the last two centuries, and I'm confident
it's the plan that will put folks in southwest Washington and across
our country back to work.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
One of the speakers on the majority side said that this was an effort
to repeal health care piece by piece. That is clearly their misguided
motivation. Here what they're trying to do is on the backs of the
middle class of America. They don't defend the pay-for except by
misrepresentation.
A tax increase is a tax increase is a tax increase on the middle
class, on the middle class, on the middle class.
I now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Crowley).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized
for up to 9 minutes.
Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his yielding me
the balance of the time.
I want to thank all my colleagues for coming to the floor today to
defend the
[[Page H1545]]
middle class of this country. We all believe--and I think both
Democrats and Republicans, it's been evident here today, all believe--
that the 1099 provisions need to be repealed. We recognize that.
We, too, want to help small business. We recognize that small
business is the backbone of employment opportunity in our country. And
that effort has been bipartisan, it has been bipartisan in the Senate,
but not here. It's because we don't like the pay-for provision that my
Republican colleagues are proposing and putting forward in this
legislation because we believe that they switch the burden from the
small business man and woman and they place it on the backs of the
working class in this country.
We want to work in a bipartisan way. We believe we can work together
and come up with a solution. Now I have to be honest, no one on the
other side has asked me for a compromise solution, it hasn't happened.
We passed this bill out of committee about 1\1/2\ weeks ago, almost 2
weeks ago, and still no one has said Joe, do you have an idea? We have
a couple of good ideas over here I'd be willing to share with my
colleagues on the other side, but that hasn't happened as of yet. I'm
sorry this hasn't happened because I thought with this new Congress we
would have more bipartisanship, and unfortunately that hasn't developed
as of yet, at least as it pertains to this bill.
I'd also like to note that we're going on our third month here in the
House of Representatives, and quite frankly I can't see much of what
we've done. I can't say we've done much of anything, quite frankly. I
can say that if you add up the total, we've imposed upon the American
people an additional $80 billion in taxes in different various ways,
the latest of which will be this $25 billion that we're going to impose
upon the middle class if this bill passes today and somehow becomes
law. This bill, if enacted, will be a massive increase of tax on the
middle class.
I gave an example earlier today--it must have been about 2 hours
ago--of a family of four earning $88,000, approximately 397 percent of
the Federal poverty level.
{time} 1250
And I mentioned if the breadwinner of the family, if the husband or
his wife or either of the spouses is the breadwinner in that family,
and they get a bonus of $250, I said before that they've done great
work. They're management material. It's kind of laughable. ``Here's
$250. Go out and buy the family a steak dinner.''
That $250 would bump them up to $88,250 which would place them at 401
percentile of the Federal poverty level, and it would expose that
middle class family because of their $250 bonus to $4,460.
Not one, not a single Member of the majority--and we've had over 19
Members of the majority testify or give remarks on the floor this
morning and this afternoon--not a single one has refuted or in any way
questioned the example I've given. You have not refuted that example,
which can only bring one to conclude that the example I have given is
indeed correct. I don't want it to be correct, but indeed it is
correct. And if it is correct, it means a tax, a tax on the middle
class--one that they cannot afford, especially during these difficult
times. We don't know when these tough times--when they will ever end
for the middle class.
And I think it's shameful the way in which the middle class has been
characterized on the floor, That somehow they are the folks that cheat
the system, that they're the ones that can't be trusted. We're not
talking about the rich. We can trust the rich. We know that.
And I don't like class warfare, but you know what? The truth is we've
let the people at the highest percent get off with no shared sacrifice
whatsoever. No sacrifice. Go on living your lives. We'll have two wars,
you know, we'll increase the deficit. But don't worry. You all go on
living your lives in mansions and don't worry about the rest of the
country because it really won't affect you in the end. You'll always
survive. You can always hire a police force to protect you. If you need
health care, you can buy a doctor. If you need the garbage picked up,
well, you know, sanitation won't pick it up anymore, but you can pay
someone and they will cart it away. They're living in a glass house.
But the middle class, who are struggling so much, who are looking for
some breaks, looking for an opportunity to afford health care for
themselves and for their families--health care. They just want to be on
an even plane somewhat of everyone else if they can afford health care.
And the Federal Government is not giving a handout. This is not a
subsidy. This is not welfare. These are tax credits, like the college
tax credit that many of our constituents afford themselves of. Like the
child tax credit that many of our constituents afford themselves of.
It's a tax credit to help them afford health insurance for their
families. And they never touch the money.
It would be one thing if you said to me they got $5,000 in vouchers
and they took the money and they went off and they bought plane tickets
to Hawaii for the family for that year, or they took the money and they
bought a new car, or they took the money and they bought furniture for
their house. You know, that's scamming the system. That is wrong. That
we don't promote.
But they never touch the money. The money goes to the insurance
company. You know, the insurance companies who desperately need that
money, they get the money. They're covered. They're fine. We don't ask
them to be the watchdogs. We don't ask them to make sure the families
are in compliance, make sure they're not going to go over their income
levels. They get the money. They walk away. Wipe their hands of it.
They're taken care of.
But it's the poor family that inadvertently, unbeknownst to
themselves, goes over the limit, and they go over the cliff. And when
they go over the cliff, it's at the tune of nearly $5,000 that they
would have to repay.
Instead of rewarding success--which I hear from my Republican
colleagues all the time, ``We need to reward success''--we're not doing
it in this instance. What we are doing is we are taxing success, as my
friend from Wisconsin pointed out. We are taxing success.
Often I hear about from my friends on the other side we need to
encourage people to work hard, work harder, don't worry about the
clock. Don't worry about the clock. Work harder, get ahead. And we
should not be stopping that.
But here is a perfect example--and it's not coming from this side of
the aisle; it's coming from that side of the aisle--of we're saying,
you know what? Maybe you shouldn't work so hard. Maybe you should pay
attention to the clock. Maybe you should make sure that when you file
you're not tripping yourself up and unfortunately discouraging that
family from getting health insurance because they're afraid they'll owe
a new tax of nearly $5,000.
And I agree with my friend from Wisconsin again, this is nothing more
than a Republican tax trap. It is a trap to the middle class. It's a
trap to them. It's disparaging. And it's unfortunate that my colleagues
have placed it in this light that somehow we're reducing or eliminating
the burden for one group of workers and placing them on the backs of
the middle class worker.
I don't begrudge the small businessmen and women. I was one myself
before I came to Congress. I know the burdens. I understand the bills.
I understand what comes in. But please don't remove the burden from the
small businessman and woman and place that on the backs of middle class
taxpayers. That's what you're doing.
If you vote for this bill, you will vote to increase taxes on the
middle class. Don't kid yourselves. A tax on the middle class.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I can
assure the Speaker that I will not be using all of the balance of my
time.
There has been a lot of rhetoric today, and as this debate winds down
and as we prepare to vote on this legislation, I urge my colleagues to
look at the facts.
I think many of the arguments we've heard from the other side ignore
reality. It ignores the reality of their own legislation--legislation
that they've passed. It ignores the reality of their own votes.
Under the health care bill, you put cliffs in the bill, if we want to
talk about cliffs. There are levels where people need to pay back the
entire
[[Page H1546]]
amount of the subsidy they receive. In the original bill, that was at
400 percent of poverty. That is the level that is no legislation we see
today. Later in December, when you wanted to address the doctor fix,
you just moved that level up to 500 percent of poverty. There is still
a cliff in the bill. There was a cliff in the original bill. There is a
cliff now.
Also, this idea that repaying a subsidy to which one is not entitled
is somehow a new concept was in the original health care legislation.
It still is in the original health care legislation. We just believe we
need to take further steps to protect the taxpayers.
And I would also say that if you look at the legislation, there is on
page 123 a subpart (b) eligibility determination where applicants apply
for the subsidy, and they're required to report certain things. But
they're also required under this section to report changes in
circumstances. That obligation is on the taxpayer, on the person
seeking the subsidy. And that is in their legislation, and we think
that's an important concept to protect.
Let's stick with the facts. The fact is the increased tax reporting
requirements enacted last year will hurt our ability to create jobs.
The 1099 provision hurts our ability to create jobs in this country.
Fact, the unemployment rate has been stuck at or above 9 percent for
nearly 2 years, and this Congress owes it to the American people to do
everything it can to help small businesses, job creators, and workers
get back on their feet.
Fact, repealing the 1099 provision is a top priority of small
businesses, and that's why we have over 225 organizations supporting
this legislation, including the Nation's largest small business
organization, the NFIB.
And, fact, this bill is a tax cut and a spending cut, and that's why
it has the support of groups like the Americans for Tax Reform, the
National Taxpayer Union and Americans for Prosperity.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill so small
business can get back to what they do best: creating jobs.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4, the Small
Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act of 2011.
I regret that the authors of this legislation have taken such a
thoughtless approach. We could have had before us today a bill that
would repeal any unnecessary and burdensome paperwork that is at issue
here and we could have done it without putting burden on ordinary
families.
This bill would repeal a reporting requirement that would require
business owners to provide an IRS form 1099 to all vendors with whom
they pay $600 or more annually for their services.
I agree that this reporting requirement should be repealed. In fact,
I voted to repeal this requirement last year. Unfortunately, the bill
attracted only two Republican votes and failed to pass the House on
July 30, 2010. This Congress, I am a cosponsor of the Small Business
Tax Relief Act of 2011, which would repeal the 1099 reporting
requirement.
H.R. 4 would change the subsidies and repayment obligations of the
tax credits available for people with incomes below 400 percent of
poverty to assist with the cost of obtaining affordable health
insurance. This would be a massive tax increase on the middle class.
These tax credits will help low and middle income individuals and
families pay insurance premiums. The credits are available for those
individuals and families--up to 400 percent of the poverty line and cap
the family's share of health insurance premiums at 9.5 percent of
adjusted gross income.
This bill would force people to pay back billions of dollars in tax
credits they received to obtain affordable health insurance. Since the
tax credits go directly to the health insurance company, individuals
and families who had small fluctuations in their income would have to
pay back money that they never received. For example, under this
legislation a family of four earning $88,000 a year would have to pay
$4,640 that they never received if the family got an unexpected $250
year-end bonus.
In a time where we want to create jobs, this bill would penalize
individuals who found a new job or got promoted. This bill harms
average working Americans who cannot obtain insurance through their
employers--the exact people we should be helping.
I agree that this reporting requirement should be repealed. That is
why I am a cosponsor of the Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2011. That
bill would repeal the 1099 reporting requirement, but does not increase
taxes on the middle class.
Today, we have a chance to vote against increasing taxes for hard
working Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this piece of
legislation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the
Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act, as I believe it
serves as a critical step in the ongoing process of preventing last
year's health care law from destroying American jobs. We cannot ignore
the cries from businesses around the country that the 1099 reporting
requirement is an unnecessary burden that will cost jobs.
In a time when our economy is struggling to emerge from one of the
worst recessions in generations, we must work to free small businesses
from onerous regulatory burdens. We cannot afford to promote policies
that use needless paperwork as a means to strangle growth and
prosperity. The 1099 reporting requirement on transactions greater than
$600 was included in the health care overhaul without consideration of
the individuals, families, and small businesses that would suffer as a
result. By devoting more resources to comply with this new requirement,
we are preventing businesses from doing what is essential: creating
jobs.
But the disregard for small businesses did not stop there. Last fall,
the 1099 reporting requirement was expanded to include rental property
expense payments. Instead of recognizing the disastrous effect of this
new requirement, there were those in the last Congress who decided it
was a good idea to expand it. Now we are left with even more taxpayers
who will suffer the consequences of an already misguided regulation.
Today we have the opportunity to correct the mistakes of the past.
H.R. 4 allows this Congress to stand up for small businesses and hard-
working taxpayers by eliminating what is obviously a job destroying
regulation. By removing the 1099 reporting requirement, we will free
businesses from time-consuming paperwork so that they may grow and help
our economy recover. We all hear from our constituents, ``Where are the
jobs?'' By supporting this legislation, we can show the American people
that we are serious about creating a business environment that promotes
job growth and prosperity.
I applaud the gentleman from California for recognizing early on the
negative impact this regulation will have on small businesses. I
encourage my colleagues in the Senate to consider this legislation
quickly so we can bring certainty to American businesses and avoid the
obvious complications that the 1099 reporting requirement presents.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, as I have done before, I rise today in
strong support of eliminating the 1099 paperwork requirement on small
businesses. In fact, I would remind my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle that the only reason we are here today--the main reason this
is still an issue at all--is because House Republicans opposed
eliminating this provision when the Small Business Tax Relief Act of
2010 was brought to the floor of the House in July of last year.
So this issue isn't new, and it really isn't a question of whether
there is bipartisan agreement to repeal this onerous requirement. There
is. The question is how you pay for it. And that's where today's bill
goes astray. We can and should repeal the 1099 reporting requirement.
But we should not do it on the backs of middle class Americans buying
health insurance for their families who are playing by the rules and
complying with the law. And I would point out that the law they're
complying with received a near unanimous vote of 409-2 this past
December.
I stand ready and willing to work with my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to find an acceptable way to pay for this repeal before the
requirement takes effect in 2012. But I strongly believe that effort
should focus on ending any of the myriad loopholes and unjustified
subsidies in current law before imposing an effective tax increase on
the middle class.
Ms. HAYWORTH. Madam Speaker, yesterday morning I received a letter
from a constituent, Seth Arluck of New Hampton, NY.
Seth's three-generation family business was hit hard by the housing
market crash. The 1099 rule in the Affordable Care Act, Seth says,
``would place a disproportionate burden on my very small lumber yard. .
.I do not need an additional and unnecessary expense that serves no
apparent purpose.''
He adds that the penalty for 1099 non-compliance, to fund small-
business lending, adds insult to injury: ``How clever, fine the heck
out of me, and loan me the money to pay fines.''
Madam Speaker, this is no way to treat the engine of growth for
America. Instead of investing in adapting to his clients' needs in
changing times, Seth Arluck will now have to spend precious time and
money on paperwork.
The bill we must pass today is an important step toward curing the
ill effects of the Affordable Care Act. The Senate has already acted
[[Page H1547]]
and I call on President Obama not to delay helping Seth, and so many
other of our Nation's job creators put Americans back to work.
March 2, 2011.
Hon. Nan Hayworth,
LHOB,
Washington, DC.
Dear Dr. Hayworth: I am very concerned about the 1099
reporting provision in the healthcare bill passed in the
111th Congress. This requirement, to issue a 1099 for each
business to business expenditure over $600, would place a
disproportionate burden on my very small business. I am the
third generation of my family to operate this retail lumber
yard in Orange County. Our sales and revenues, so dependent
on the housing and home improvement sectors, have seriously
declined since 2008. We have gone from seven to four
employees including myself and my brother; our part time
bookkeeper was one of the staff reductions.
Last year we wrote 600 checks for purchases other than
payroll. We have about 150 vendors in our accounts payable.
Although many of our purchases are with recurring vendors,
there are many one time purchases which exceed $600: repairs
to vehicles and equipment, replacement of computer and office
equipment, one time advertising expenses, dues to business
organizations, annual insurance premiums, and sundry
expenses. How many 1099's would I have to produce? 50, 75,
100? I know that it would exceed the three that are done now
for interest and rent. I am now the bookkeeper; do I attempt
this challenge or pay my accountant or another outsource. I
have forgone many paychecks in the last two years, I do not
need an additional and unnecessary expense that serves no
apparent purpose.
Another aspect of this requirement is the need to obtain
each vendor's Federal I.D. or Social Security number in order
to legally comply with 1099 reporting. That means that if a
business has any chance of cumulatively exceeding the $600
threshold, the SSN or EIN has to be asked for in advance. In
these times of rampant identity theft, there will be many
refusals to furnish these ID numbers. Failure to correctly
report a l099 results in fines. As if that was not daunting
enough, the previous Congress passed HR 5297 last September,
The Small Business Jobs Act, which increased the penalty for
1099 non-compliance from $50 to $250 per violation. The
increase in fines was to help fund small business lending.
How clever, fine the heck out of me, and loan me the money to
pay fines. Thank you 111th Congress.
And what justifies this new layer of regulation? The
apparent belief that business is inherently untrustworthy and
cheating the U.S. Government of it's rightful tax revenues?
Is it the need to find any alleged revenue source, no matter
how unsavory, to fund Obamacare? No thank you.
Please repeal the 1099 provision now.
Sincerely,
Seth N. Arluck,
President,
New Hampton Lumber Co. Inc.,
New Hampton, NY.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4, the
Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act of 2011.
We all agree that the 1099 reporting requirements added by the Senate
to the Affordable Care Act need to go. That is not in question. None of
us wants to burden small business men and women with unreasonable
reporting burdens. All of us are committed to eliminating this
requirement.
In fact, we could have and should have solved this problem last year,
when the House voted on H.R. 5982, the Small Business Tax Relief Act.
Unfortunately, all but two Republicans voted against that bill. That
bill, like today's bill, would eliminate the 1099 provision. Unlike
today's bill, however, it paid for the $24.9 billion cost of repeal in
a very, very different manner.
H.R. 5982, the Democratic approach, would have paid for reform by
eliminating tax loopholes that allow corporations to ship jobs
overseas. It would have solved the problem while also eliminating
incentives to locate operations overseas. Creating American jobs should
be our number one priority, and H.R. 5982 would have helped us do that.
H.R. 4, the Republican approach, doesn't close corporate offshoring
loopholes. Instead, it puts the $24.9 billion cost of repealing the
1099 reporting requirements squarely on the backs of middle-class
families. It undermines the entire approach of the Affordable Care
Act--to help individuals and families obtain affordable, quality health
care--by imposing taxes on those who receive assistance to help pay
premiums and cost-sharing requirements.
Under the Republican bill, individuals and families who are eligible
to get assistance at the beginning of the year are subject to taxation
if they are fortunate enough to get a raise or a better job by the end
of the year. Even if they are a few dollars over the eligibility limit,
the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that they could be subject to
taxes up to $6,000 under H.R. 4. The assistance, by the way, is given
directly to the insurance company but the tax penalty would come
directly out of the pockets of families.
The Republican bill not only would impose harsh penalties on middle-
class families, it would also undermine the second principle of the
Affordable Care Act: to expand coverage. Again according to the Joint
Committee on Taxation, it would take away coverage from 266,000
Americans who would no longer take insurance because of concerns that
they could potentially be required to pay substantial taxes the
following year.
I wish I could vote today to repeal the 1099 reporting requirements,
just as I voted to repeal them last year. I cannot, however, solve the
burden on small businesses by imposing a burden on middle-class
families, particularly when we have so many better choices to pay for
repeal.
Mr. REED. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 4, the Small
Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act of 2011. The expanded
reporting requirements to the Internal Revenue Service are mandated by
the health care reform act of 2010 on any purchase made $600 or more.
This provision would directly impede economic growth in the 29th
District of New York. At a time of great uncertainty, the economic
recovery in the 29th District continues to lag behind the rest of the
nation. This burdensome mandate must be eliminated and I proudly
support the repeal for the sake of our small businesses and farmers.
Further, we must act to ensure that ``red-tape'' measures and over-
reaching regulations do not continue. If we are going to reduce
government spending, it starts with repealing unnecessary requirements,
such as the 1099 requirement. This provision of the health care reform
law contributes to the bloating of the Federal Government and must be
repealed. As we move forward towards returning fiscal prosperity to our
nation, I will remain committed to the interests of small businesses
and farmers, protecting them from burdens which restrict their growth.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of repealing the expanded
1099 requirement.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I voted against
the H.R. 4, the ``Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act of
2011'' commonly known as ``the 1099 provision''. I would like to submit
a statement for the Record to clarify my position on this issue.
Forms 1099 have been used by the IRS for decades to better track
income. The rules would have required businesses to file Form 1099 with
the IRS to report payments made to corporations for goods and certain
services to help the IRS collect taxes that are legally owed, and in
turn, keep taxes lower for all taxpayers.
Although I support the measure in principle, I do believe this type
of reporting keeps track of what businesses owe the federal government
in taxes and close any loopholes for any misreporting. In fact, during
the 111th Congress, a repeal bill was approved by the Democratic House
that would close tax loopholes for companies that ship jobs overseas
and protected people from any tax increases with incomes below 400
percent of the federal poverty level (approximately $88,000 for a
family of four) from having to pay back the IRS their tax credit if
they saw a change in income.
The Republican 1099 repeal removes this protection. So, if a family
earning $88,000 a year gets a $250 Christmas bonus, and because of it,
are bumped up to 401 percent of the federal poverty level, this family
would be required to refund to the IRS the entire tax credit of
$4,640--out of their own pockets.
As a Senior Member of Congress who proudly represents a vibrant small
business sector, I know firsthand the value of small businesses in
north Texas. I remain committed to improving tax administration and
enhancing voluntary tax compliance without making the middle class pay.
I look forward to working collaboratively with the small business
community to improve the ability of small businesses to meet their tax
obligations.
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, the debate we're having today has nothing
to do with repealing the 1099 provision. Like every Democrat here who
was in Congress last year, I've already voted to do that.
We brought forth a bill last year to repeal the 1099 provision and
paid for it by closing tax loopholes that encourage businesses to move
jobs overseas and other loopholes that promote tax avoidance. Even
though that bill was endorsed by NFIB, all but two of our Republican
colleagues voted no because they preferred to protect big business over
small businesses.
Because of Republican opposition last year, we're here again
considering legislation to repeal the 1099 provision. Unfortunately,
our Republican colleagues have taken an area of agreement and rejected
bipartisanship by choosing to tax middle class families. That's right,
this Republican bill is a $25 billion middle class tax increase.
The Affordable Care Act provides tax credits to make health coverage
affordable to those with lower and middle incomes. These tax credits
are provided in advance and then are
[[Page H1548]]
reconciled at the end of the year. In this bill today, Republicans are
trying to raise $25 billion by putting middle class families on the
hook for massive tax increases when they reconcile those payments. The
Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this Republican bill will
raise taxes on middle class families in this income category by an
average of $3,000. Many families would be liable for much higher tax
increases.
The President has announced his strong opposition to this financing
mechanism. Consumer Advocates have also spoken out in opposition. These
groups include Families USA, Community Catalyst, SEIU and the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities.
All of us want to resolve this 1099 problem. But to do so on the
backs of middle income working Americans is flat out wrong. I urge my
colleagues to join me in voting no on this bill today so that we can
come together and find a way to finance 1099 repeal that doesn't gouge
the middle class.
Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, last November, Americans sent a clear
message of defiance to the status quo. They saw that government was
spending taxpayer money recklessly and making it harder for our job
creators to put Americans back to work--and they voted for something
better.
House Republicans have responded by doing everything in our power to
foster an environment where businesses can expand, investors can
invest, and hard work can be rewarded. That means cutting excessive
spending and burdensome regulations and growing private-sector jobs and
the economy.
Today we are cleaning up the mess resulting from oppressive new 1099
requirements.
Tucked into Obamacare and a so-called small business bill last year,
these regulations threaten to wreak havoc upon small businesses. They
have become a symbol of the unanticipated pitfalls of big government
and partisan legislative procedure.
In this challenging climate, businesses should be able to focus on
staying profitable and looking for opportunities to grow. Instead they
are being asked to divert precious time and resources to satisfy yet
another layer of red tape from Washington.
By repealing these ill-conceived requirements, we take a big step
toward putting America back on a growth footing. We reaffirm that this
Congress will no longer finance the expansion of government on the
backs of our small businesses, America's economic engine.
The United States is the creative capital of the world. We have the
most innovative entrepreneurs and the most determined and resilient
workforce.
Our businesses and our people have proven that they can out-innovate
and out-compete any country in the world. But they can't do it if
Washington keeps making it harder for them. And they can't do it if
they are plagued by fears of excessive regulation, higher taxes and
inflation.
Our job as legislators is to create opportunity--to restore the
principle that everyone in America has a fair shot.
That's why it is imperative that we cut needless regulation and bring
spending down to sustainable levels. And that's why it is incumbent
upon us to support this legislation to make sure small businesses
aren't bogged down in needless paperwork so that they can grow and
create jobs. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Madam Speaker, our nation's small businesses
create 7 of every ten 10 new jobs. They represent 99.7 percent of all
employer firms, and employ 97.5 percent of all identifiable exporters.
They are the entrepreneurs that can lead us out of the economic
downturn. We are depending on them to reinvigorate our economy. But the
fact is, Washington has not provided them with an environment in which
they can thrive.
At House Small Business Committee hearings, owners of small firms
have told us week after week that they want Washington to get out of
the way so they can do what they do best: create jobs and help move our
economy forward. But Washington keeps piling on mandates that hold them
back. The expanded 1099 information reporting requirement is a perfect
example.
At one of our recent hearings, a small manufacturer from North
Carolina said, ``The expanded 1099 reporting requirement included in
the healthcare law is a good example of the kind of misguided policy
that works against the interest of small businesses. Tax filing is
never a task small business owners look forward to, but making filing
more burdensome only drains resources from already struggling
companies.'' Few industries have been as affected by the economic
downturn as home builders. A small home builder from Kentucky said, ``.
. . [T]here will be significant costs involved to track, aggregate and
report required transactions.''
Madam Speaker, at a time when we should be making it easier to create
jobs and promote economic growth, small businesses don't need another
costly and burdensome mandate. I thank Chairman Camp for his work in
advancing this important legislation to the House Floor, and recognize
Chairman Lungren for his leadership on this issue. I ask my colleagues
to support H.R. 4.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4, the Small
Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act. I want to say on record,
however, that I support repeal of the Affordable Care Act's 1099
mandate. This onerous paperwork requirement was included in the act at
the insistence of our colleagues in the other body, and not by us in
the House.
The 1099 mandate should be repealed, but it must be done in a
fiscally responsible manner than does not harm working families, who
struggle every day to cope with the effects of the current recession.
The bill we are presently considering passes the cost of the 1099
repeal on to middle class Americans by ensuring that more of them will
be subject to increased taxes. Moreover, H.R. 4 will reduce the number
of Americans with health coverage by over a quarter-million, according
to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 4 is a poor compromise, reminiscent of the
legislative travesty foisted on the American people last December when
Senate Republicans insisted unemployment benefits come at the price of
tax cuts for the rich. I call on my colleagues to oppose this bill and
instead work to find more responsible ways to pay for the repeal of the
1099 mandate, such as closing foreign tax loopholes and eliminating tax
breaks for oil companies.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition
to H.R. 4, the Small Business Paperwork Elimination Act of 2011. The
stated purpose of this is to amend the Internal Revenue Code to repeal
a provision added by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
that extends to corporations that are not tax-exempt, the requirement
to report payments of $600 or more.
However, I must say that while I strongly support providing relief to
America's small businesses and I absolutely support the landmark
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, I deeply regret that yet
again we have had a closed rule regarding the full consideration and
making of useful, meaningful amendments to H.R. 4. When the Republican
majority came into this Congress they promised an open and transparent
process. This is not open and transparent. It does not provide the
assistance to America's small businesses that my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle would like us to believe and in fact, further
burdens small businesses.
If we had a truly open process, we could have all worked together in
a bi-partisan manner to provide real relief to America's middle class
and small businesses instead of the tax increase we are being asked to
heap onto their backs today.
The simple fact is that H.R. 4 Would Increase Taxes on Middle Class
and Raises the Number of Uninsured.
It is not good for the people of the 18th congressional district of
Texas, it is not good for the State of Texas, and it is not good for
the United States of America.
H.R. 4 Increases Taxes on the Middle Class. H.R. 4 would force many
middle-income Americans to pay higher taxes. Simply by accepting a
better job, picking up extra shifts or receiving a holiday bonus, these
families would have to pay the IRS the value of their health premium
tax credits, jeopardizing their financial security.
H.R. 4 Creates a Steep Cliff that will Penalize the Middle Class. It
would eliminate protections for families with income between 400 and
500 percent of poverty ($88,000 to $110,000 for a family of four). That
means if a family's actual annual income was even one dollar above 400
percent of poverty, they could have to pay the IRS the entire value of
their health insurance premium tax credits. According to the Joint
Committee on Taxation, the average payment for a family between 400 and
450 percent of poverty will go up by $3,000 due to the Republican
policy, for a total of $6,000 or more in payments to the IRS.
H.R. 4 Undoes the Bipartisan Agreement on Health Care. While there
has been contentious disagreement about health reform, the structure of
the repayment caps is one of the few health reform issues with strong
bipartisan agreement. The House fixed the problem of a steep cliff if
one's income increased to 400 percent of poverty by a bipartisan vote
of 409-2 last December--and it was signed into law. H.R. 4 undoes that
bipartisan agreement so that Republicans can increase taxes on the
middle class--those between 400 and 500 percent of poverty--by $25
billion.
H.R. 4 Leads to an Increase in the Number of Uninsured. According to
the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Republican proposal will cause an
increase in the uninsured of 266,000. Over a quarter of a million
individuals will no longer receive health insurance out of fear that
they will be forced to pay substantial amounts to the IRS at tax time.
H.R. 4 Disproportionately Hurts Families Living in High Premium
Areas. Families who
[[Page H1549]]
have to pay the IRS the value of their health premium tax credits will
have to pay even more if they live in parts of the country that have
higher premiums due to circumstances in the local market.
So, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill and
supporting true bipartisan relief for America's middle class and small
businesses.
Mr. MARINO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4,
the Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act of 2011. This
legislation would repeal one of many burdensome requirements being
imposed on Americans, especially the job creators, by the health care
law passed last year. This 1099 mandate highlights the problem with
ignoring the voice of the American people and passing a ``bill so you
can find out what is in it.''
Small business owners from Northeastern Pennsylvania have found out
what was in the health care bill and they are not happy:
Small business owner, Arthur Borden of Lewisburg, states, ``It's hard
to believe that elected representatives of our people could be so
irresponsible to allow such a ridiculous provision as the 1099 mandate
included in the recently passed health care law. As the owner of a
small business which is already overburdened by rules, regulations, and
rolls of red tape, I am appalled and frightened by the prospects of
what such an ill conceived law will do.''
Small business owner, Bruce Brown of Clarks Summit, states,
``Businesses are already overburdened with tax paperwork and reporting
requirements, so the additional requirements included in the PPACA will
only increase the cost and complexity of complying with the tax code.''
Small business owner, Thomas Musser of Mifflinburg, simply states,
``I do not support the 1099 tax reporting requirement.''
The Pennsylvania based business networking organization, SMC Business
Councils, released a survey of its member businesses which found that
their members file roughly 10 forms per year; under the new requirement
from the health care law, the members estimated that would jump to more
than 200 a year. The new costs associated with complying with this
mandate would cripple small businesses across my district and the
Commonwealth.
I join with my constituents and all small business owners throughout
the nation in support of repealing the onerous 1099 reporting
requirement. Furthermore, this debate is yet another reminder as to why
we need to repeal the jobs-destroying health care bill and begin the
process of methodically and thoughtfully reforming the health care
system in an open and transparent manner, taking into account
viewpoints from both sides of the aisle. Most importantly though, we
must take into account the voice of the American people. This was
omitted from the process a year ago, and today we begin process of
cleaning up the mess that occurs when this omission happens.
{time} 1300
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 129, the
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. McNERNEY. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. McNERNEY. I am opposed in its current form.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. McNerney moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4 to the
Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Add at the end of the bill the following new sections:
SEC. 5. NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL CREDIT FOR TAXPAYERS SUBJECT
TO A TAX INCREASE UNDER THE SMALL BUSINESS
PAPERWORK MANDATE ELIMINATION ACT OF 2011.
(a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
inserting after section 25D the following new section:
``SEC. 25E. CREDIT FOR TAXPAYERS SUBJECT TO A TAX INCREASE
UNDER THE SMALL BUSINESS PAPERWORK MANDATE
ELIMINATION ACT OF 2011.
``(a) In General.--In the case of an individual, there
shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this
chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the excess
(if any) of--
``(1) the regular tax liability of the taxpayer for the
taxable year, over
``(2) the regular tax liability of the taxpayer for the
taxable year, determined by applying section 36B(f)(2) (as in
effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this
section) in lieu of section 36B(f)(2) (as in effect on the
day after the date of the enactment of this section).
``(b) Carryforward of Unused Credit.--
``(1) Rule for years in which all personal credits allowed
against regular and alternative minimum tax.--In the case of
a taxable year to which section 26(a)(2) applies, if the
credit allowable under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation
imposed by section 26(a)(2) for such taxable year reduced by
the sum of the credits allowable under this subpart (other
than this section), such excess shall be carried to the
succeeding taxable year and added to the credit allowable
under subsection (a) for such succeeding taxable year.
``(2) Rule for other years.--In the case of a taxable year
to which section 26(a)(2) does not apply, if the credit
allowable under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation imposed
by section 26(a)(1) for such taxable year reduced by the sum
of the credits allowable under this subpart (other than this
section), such excess shall be carried to the succeeding
taxable year and added to the credit allowable under
subsection (a) for such succeeding taxable year.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 24(b)(3)(B) of such Code is amended by
inserting ``25E,'' after ``25D,''.
(2) Section 25(e)(1)(C) of such Code is amended by
inserting ``25E,'' after ``25D,'' both places it appears.
(3) Section 25A(i)(5)(B) of such Code is amended by
inserting ``25E,'' after ``25D,''.
(4) Section 25B(g)(2) of such Code is amended by inserting
``25E,'' after ``25D,''.
(5) Sections 25D(c)(1)(B) and 25D(c)(2)(A) of such Code are
both amended by inserting ``and section 25E'' after ``this
section''.
(6) Section 26(a)(1) of such Code is amended by inserting
``25E,'' after ``25D,''.
(7) Section 30(c)(2)(B)(ii) of such Code is amended by
inserting ``25E,'' after ``25D,''.
(8) Section 30B(g)(2)(B)(ii) of such Code is amended by
inserting ``25E,'' after ``25D,''.
(9) Section 30D(c)(2)(B)(ii) of such Code is amended by
striking ``sections 23 and 25D'' and inserting ``sections 23,
25D, and 25E''.
(10) Section 1400C(d) of such Code is amended by inserting
``25E,'' after ``25D,'' both places it appears.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 25D
the following new item:
``Sec. 25E. Credit for taxpayers subject to a tax increase under the
Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act of
2011.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2013.
SEC. 6. INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTION
ACTIVITIES.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 199(c)(4) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking
``and'' at the end of clause (ii), by striking the period at
the end of clause (iii) and inserting ``, and'', and by
inserting after clause (iii) the following new clause:
``(iv) in the case of a major integrated oil company (as
defined in section 167(h)(5)), the production, refining,
processing, transportation, or distribution of oil, gas, or
any primary product thereof.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2014.
SEC. 7. MAJOR INTEGRATED OIL COMPANIES INELIGIBLE FOR LAST-
IN, FIRST-OUT METHOD OF INVENTORY.
(a) In General.--Section 471 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsection (c) as
subsection (d) and by inserting after subsection (b) the
following new subsection:
``(c) Major Integrated Oil Companies Ineligible for Last-
in, First-out Method.--In the case of a major integrated oil
company (as defined in section 167(h)(5)(B))--
``(1) the last-in, first-out method of determining
inventories shall in no event be treated as clearly
reflecting income, and
``(2) sections 472 and 473 shall not apply.''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2014.
(2) Change in method of accounting.--In the case of any
taxpayer required by the amendments made by this section to
change its method of accounting for its first taxable year
beginning after December 31, 2014--
(A) such change shall be treated as initiated by the
taxpayer,
(B) such change shall be treated as made with the consent
of the Secretary of the Treasury, and
(C) if the net amount of the adjustments required to be
taken into account by the taxpayer under section 481 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is positive, such amount shall
be taken into account over a period of 8 years beginning with
such first taxable year.
Mr. McNERNEY (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading.
[[Page H1550]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
Mr. CAMP. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will continue to read.
Mr. McNERNEY (during the reading). Madam Speaker, once again I ask
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
Mr. CAMP. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will continue to read.
Point of Order
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I insist on my point of order.
I make a point of order against the motion because it violates clause
10 of rule XXI, as it has the net effect of increasing mandatory
spending within the time period set forth in the rule.
I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the
point of order?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McNERNEY. Madam Speaker, everyone knows that times are tough and
that individuals, families, and small businesses are having a difficult
time making ends meet. That's why it's so important that we provide
small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy, with the tools
to succeed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman wish to address the point
of order?
Mr. McNERNEY. Yes, the gentleman wishes to address the point of
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will hear the gentleman.
Mr. McNERNEY. With rising prices of gasoline, and unemployment that
remains far too high, helping small businesses is more important than
ever.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, the gentleman is not addressing the point of
order.
{time} 1310
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California wish to
address the specific point of order?
Does any other Member wish to address the point of order?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from California was
addressing the point of order. I think he should be allowed to do so.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California may be heard
only on the point of order and may continue if he is speaking directly
to the point of order.
Mr. McNERNEY. Madam Speaker, this directly addresses the tax
provision in the Republican bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California may proceed.
Mr. McNERNEY. This motion to recommit addresses the pay-for in the
bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California may proceed.
Mr. McNERNEY. Madam Speaker, I am a former small business owner, and
while I strongly supported our efforts to reform the health care----
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, regular order. The gentleman is not
addressing the point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will hear the gentleman from
California.
Mr. LEVIN. I urge the gentleman from Michigan to let him----
Mr. CAMP. Regular order, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members will suspend.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McNERNEY. We have a paid-for tax cut that's germane and included
in the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed, but the Chair
will hear argument from all Members on the point of order only.
The gentleman from California continues to be recognized.
Mr. McNERNEY. While I strongly supported our efforts to reform the
health care system, I also supported repealing the 1099 reporting
requirement. This requirement will negatively affect small businesses'
ability to operate smoothly and efficiently. There is a broad
bipartisan consensus on this point, and I have received many emails,
phone calls and letters from constituents in my district who oppose the
1099 reporting requirement.
I support repealing the 1099 provision----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
Remarks must be confined to the procedural issue at hand.
Mr. McNERNEY. We have a paid for tax cut that is in order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on
the point of order?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. The gentleman wishes to proceed. The gentleman from
California wishes to proceed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman must speak to the specific
procedural question.
Mr. LEVIN. And he says he is doing so. He is saying he is doing so.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There seems to be some question of that.
The gentleman from California may proceed.
Mr. McNERNEY. I stand here to offer a better alternative. It's paid
for. Instead of simply agreeing to the majority's bill, the motion to
recommit would repeal the 1099 requirement and provide a new tax cut to
the middle-class paid for by closing tax loopholes exploited by large
oil companies. It's paid for and it's germane.
Oil companies have earned record profits over the last few years, and
it's just unacceptable for them to take advantage of the special
loopholes when the middle class is struggling.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, the gentleman is not addressing the point of
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has not spoken
directly to the procedural question of order. The Chair will now
recognize other Members.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you for allowing me to address the point of order.
Madam Speaker, the rules of the House give a modicum of support to
the minority to offer motions to address a different point of view on
legislation, albeit in the form of a motion to recommit. The rules of
the House, Madam Speaker, allow for the minority to express that point
through the motion.
In this motion to recommit, as has been placed forward by the
gentleman from California, it is a simple choice between the oil
companies and the middle class: Side with the oil companies or side
with the middle class.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman is
not addressing the procedural issues raised by the point of order.
Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, if I can, I am addressing the rules of
the House that allow for the minority to have an opportunity to make a
motion to recommit. It may not be in agreeance with the majority. We
understand that. They may not like the motion to recommit. We
understand that. They may not like the motion to recommit under the
rule because it touches onto an area that they are not comfortable
with, that is, taxing oil companies.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not addressing the
procedural issue.
Mr. CROWLEY. I am addressing the rules of the House, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not sticking to the precise
procedural question at hand, which is clause 10 of rule XXI.
Mr. CAMP. I would ask the Chair to rule, Madam Speaker.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I wish to be heard.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any Member in the body wish to be heard
on the point of order under clause 10 of rule XXI specifically?
Mr. LEVIN. Yes, I do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, the rules of the House, as crafted by the
majority, do make it difficult for us to craft motions to recommit that
are germane.
I submit this is, and I think you should listen to us before you make
a ruling. You are the Speaker of the House, acting in that capacity.
[[Page H1551]]
This motion would cut taxes, would end oil subsidies, and ensure more
Americans have health insurance. It is germane. The Republicans should
not try to gag us.
I urge that the Speaker rule this in order.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I would ask the Chair to rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has heard enough and is prepared
to rule at this time.
Mr. WEINER. Madam Chair, point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from York have a point of
order?
Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, Members should have an opportunity to be
heard on the point of order. Just because one person you might feel
didn't address it doesn't mean all of us should be prejudiced in our
opportunity to speak.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Argument is at the discretion of the Chair,
to edify her judgment.
The Chair finds that it is time to now rule on the point of order.
The gentleman from Michigan makes a point of order that the motion
offered by the gentleman from California violates clause 10 of rule XXI
by proposing an increase in mandatory spending over a relevant period
of time.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XXI and clause 4 of rule XXIX, the
Chair is authoritatively guided by estimates from the chair of the
Committee on the Budget that the net effect of the provisions in the
amendment would increase mandatory spending over a relevant period as
compared to the bill.
Accordingly, the point of order is sustained and the motion is not in
order.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?
Motion to Table
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by a 5-minute vote
on passage of the bill, if arising without further proceedings in
recommittal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243,
nays 181, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 161]
YEAS--243
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
Weiner
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--181
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--8
Becerra
Giffords
Hanna
Hinojosa
Hoyer
Jordan
Sanchez, Linda T.
Speier
{time} 1343
Mr. LYNCH, Ms. PINGREE of Maine, Messrs. DeFAZIO, ELLISON, WAXMAN,
and Ms. BERKLEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. ALTMIRE, HUIZENGA of Michigan, and MARCHANT changed their
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was unavoidably detained
and missed rollcall vote 161. If present, I would have voted ``no'' on
rollcall vote 161.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members should be aware that debate on a
point of order is solely to edify the judgment of the presiding
officer. As such, argument on a point of order must be confined to the
question of order and may not range to an underlying substantive
question. The Chair endeavors to hear such arguments as may tend to
edify her judgment, but when she is prepared to rule, she may decline
to hear more.
The optimal accommodation of Members' desires to argue on a point of
order can be achieved only when, first, those seeking recognition for
that purpose properly confine themselves to the question of order; and,
second, those who believe they have heard enough leave it to the
presiding officer to decide when she has heard enough.
[[Page H1552]]
The Chair enlists the understanding and cooperation of all Members in
these matters.
The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Point of Order
Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, the voice vote we just took violates
clause 5(b) of rule XXI, and this vote shall be taken with a three-
fifths required for passage.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any Member wish to speak to the point
of order?
Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, I do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized to
speak on the point of order.
Mr. WEINER. Thank you.
Madam Speaker, as we all know here, we have a special rule in the
House. As I just referenced, it is clause 5(b) of rule XXI, which was
put into the rules of the House to make it extraordinarily difficult
for us to change tax rates. The reason we did that was out of a
bipartisan consideration that we wanted to make sure that legislation
we did here didn't have the effect, under the ruse of some other
action, of changing effective tax rates for people. So this rule was
put into place which said, if you're going to do that, you need to have
a three-fifths majority. This bill that we are considering now is, by
its action, changing people's effective tax rates.
I'll try to be brief. It's just that I know many Members hadn't been
tuned into the debate, and I want to explain this point.
What the bill would do if it were to be passed would be to say, if
someone had a marginal increase in their income that took them up into
the next bracket, they would lose, not only the subsidy provided under
the health care act to buy insurance, but in its entirety a $200
increase above the bracket would essentially put them into a different
tax bracket. This is exactly what this rule was intended to prevent--
our taking an action that unwittingly changes where people's tax rates
are without our actually having to stand up and do it.
This rule puts a pretty strong level of test into place for us. It
says we need a three-fifths majority. It is very difficult for the
Chair to rule about a three-fifths, A, on a voice vote. Secondly, I
want to be sure that if we go to what is certainly going to be a
recorded vote that----
Mr. TERRY. Objection. The gentleman from New York is not speaking to
the point of order.
Mr. WEINER. First of all, I can be accused of a lot of things. Not
speaking to the point of order isn't one of them.
Madam Speaker, this point of order is specifically whether or not the
rule that we have that says that the movement within tax brackets is
subject to a higher order.
Let me also make this argument in support of the point of order.
Mr. TERRY. Objection. The gentleman from New York is not speaking to
the point of order.
Mr. WEINER. The gentleman from Nebraska does not control the time.
Point of order. I am on my feet to a point of order. I cannot be
taken off my feet by anyone except the Chair. I would urge the respect
of the gentleman.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will continue to hear the
gentleman from New York.
Mr. WEINER. The reason this is so important and that we enforce it
now is, just as we all have in our rules the annotations of when this
rule has been bent and broken, we don't want at the beginning of this
Congress one of the earliest actions we do to be to bend and break and
leave in shatters the three-fifths requirement.
You might believe it's a good thing to do. I just think there should
be at least three-fifths of us, under the rules that we agreed upon, to
raise the tax bracket, particularly since it's on middle class
Americans. When you're making 80-some-odd thousand dollars a year and
you make an extra $200 in income, they want to increase your tax
bracket. If we're going to do that, let's make sure it's with a three-
fifths majority.
I urge that the point of order be upheld and that we have to vote on
this by three-fifths.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Crowley) wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. CROWLEY. On the point of order, Madam Speaker, specifically, let
me just clarify for my friends on the other side, and for those on our
side of the aisle as well--for all Members of the House--that clause
5(b) of rule XXI states that passage, again, of a tax increase needs a
three-fifths majority of those present for passage if we are changing
the tax rates or the brackets of individuals.
{time} 1350
I know it's not, again, comfortable, but as the example I laid out in
the debate, which was not refuted by anyone, if an individual earning
$88,000 from a family of four receives a $250 bonus, that would require
them to pay $4,460 in tax. That is, indeed, a new tax; and, therefore,
it should be subject to this rule that we would require three-fifths.
I know it's hard, because that's the difficulty of this in changing
the tax rates. It should be difficult. That's the rule to make this
bipartisan. We do this together, a three-fifths vote.
And, Madam Speaker, we are changing the tax rates. We are changing
the brackets; and, therefore, this rule ought to be imposed.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I wish to be heard.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Michigan.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I would refer the Members of the House to
the committee report in this area, and in that committee report it
states: The committee has carefully reviewed the provisions of the bill
and states that the provisions of this bill do not involve any Federal
income tax rate increases within the meaning of the rule.
I would say that the rules of the House in this area refer to
specific sections of the Internal Revenue Code. Also, the rules of the
House--and I would say my friends are not going far enough in their
reading of the rules--define exactly what an income tax increase is.
This bill does not amend those specific sections of the Code that are
referred to in the rules. Accordingly, a point of order does not lie.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I would like to be heard.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I just want to read from the bill:
``If the advance payments to a taxpayer exceed the credit allowed by
this section, the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year
shall be increased.''
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas.
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, the point of order began with the words
``whether or not.'' No point of order can begin with the words
``whether or not.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
Mr. WEINER. Madam Speaker, may I be heard further on the gentleman
from Michigan's point?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New
York.
Mr. WEINER. Let me just say very briefly, the gentleman from Michigan
is correct. We don't directly do what is described in the rule, but the
effect is that it is indisputable that someone who is in one tax
bracket after this bill will move into another one.
The purpose of this rule, and clearer from the annotations--we're
trying to look at the purpose of this rule, and the reason we have the
Speaker interpreting the rule is to prevent that from happening. And if
it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.
You're going to see it happening a lot this term.
Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, I would like to be heard.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New
York for a brief moment.
Mr. CROWLEY. Does the committee report get to waive the House rules?
The committee report? That's the evidence to waive the House rules?
That's a new low standard.
[[Page H1553]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
Since the 105th Congress, the requirement in clause 5(b) of rule XXI
for a three-fifths vote on certain tax measures has comprised the three
elements described by Speaker pro tempore Baldwin in the ruling of
January 18, 2007.
The first element of the requirement is that the measure amends one
of the subsections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that are cited
in the rule. The second element is that the measure does so by imposing
a new percentage as a rate of tax. The third element is that in doing
so the measure increases the amount of tax imposed by any of those
cited subsections of the Code.
The Chair is unable to find a provision in the pending bill--H.R. 4,
as perfected--that fulfills even the first element of the requirement.
A bill that does not meet any one of the three elements required by
clause 5(b) of rule XXI does not carry a Federal income tax rate
increase within the meaning of that rule.
Accordingly, the Chair holds that a majority vote is sufficient to
pass the pending bill, and the Chair properly announced a majority-
based result on the voice vote on passage.
Recorded Vote
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. A recorded vote is requested on passage of
the bill.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 314,
noes 112, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 162]
AYES--314
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Cicilline
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Keating
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Wu
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--112
Ackerman
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berman
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Chu
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Polis
Rangel
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--6
Giffords
Hanna
Hinojosa
Jordan
Sanchez, Linda T.
Speier
{time} 1412
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________