[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18179-18180]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              1099 REPEAL

  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, we have a distinct opportunity to take 
what I regard as very clear and decisive action to uphold two very 
important principles. We as a Senate, No. 1, support enabling job 
creation. In this regard, repealing the 1099 paperwork mandate helps 
fulfill our promise to clear Federal roadblocks that are stopping small 
businesses from expanding and putting Americans to work.
  Small businesses want to expand. They want to hire more workers. 
Millions of Americans want to get back to work. Yet the tax paperwork 
mandate hidden in the health care law requires businesses to file a 
mountain of additional 1099 tax forms. It will consume resources that 
would otherwise be spent on wages for new employees. Our job creators 
need to be focusing their time and energy on hiring and expanding, not 
dealing with government-directed mounds of paperwork.
  In addition to halting this enormous amount of tax paperwork, full 
repeal would prevent erroneous IRS fines and

[[Page 18180]]

hefty accountant bills from slamming our job creators.
  As the President of the National Federation of Independent Business 
put it:

       You can't operate and grow your business if you are 
     spending all your time filling out IRS forms and haggling 
     with auditors.

  I couldn't agree more, and that is why I have been actively 
advocating for a complete and full repeal of this burdensome 1099 
requirement for many months now. Anything less than a complete repeal 
is simply unacceptable.
  No. 2, we take seriously the concerns of so many Americans with our 
government's out-of-control spending. That is the second principle we 
can stand for today. The elections recently held, I believe, sent a 
very clear message about Washington's spending habits and our enormous 
$14 trillion debt. Voters expressed dismay and alarm with the rate of 
government spending and with enormously good reason. Spending has 
increased by more than 21 percent since 2008 and annual deficits weigh 
in at more than $1 trillion.
  American households across this great country are doing the best they 
can to put food on the table and pay the mortgage. In the face of a 
very difficult economic environment, they are doing everything they can 
to survive. Our families have seen their wages slashed, jobs lost, and 
home values plummet. Their solution to these difficulties isn't to 
continue spending with disregard for the level of their debt. Instead, 
they dig deep and figure out ways to cut costs and to make ends meet. 
Meanwhile, they look at their Federal Government in disbelief when they 
see how we continue to spend money we don't have.
  My amendment takes their concerns to heart by fully offsetting the 
cost of the 1099 repeal. The alternative amendment piles $19 billion of 
debt onto the backs of future generations, further kicking the fiscal 
responsibility can down the road.
  Then-Senator Obama said this in 2006: America has a debt problem and 
a failure of leadership.
  When he refers to the debt problem, he is absolutely right. How true 
that is. Even the sponsor of the alternative has spoken very well on 
this issue. Again, I am quoting, and the board shows the quote:

       There is no one here who would argue the point that our 
     deficits are too high. . . .We have to pay our national debt 
     and then go on and find ways to reduce the budget deficits. I 
     think all of us can agree that is something we have to do.

  Getting our fiscal house in order will not be easy, but for the sake 
of the country's future, we have to take action.
  Today we have an opportunity to do that: No. 1, repeal the onerous 
1099 requirement; and No. 2, without adding a single penny to our 
deficit or to the cost of the health care law.
  Some here may try to argue that we don't have to pay for the repeal. 
I could not disagree more. This repeal should and must be offset. As my 
colleagues may recall, in September, I offered a similar repeal that 
also was fully offset. It did receive significant bipartisan support, 
but some objected to my proposed offsets and came to me on the floor 
and said: I would be with you on this but for the offsets.
  Opponents explained they voted no because they opposed taking money 
from the new health care law. So we sat down and, in the spirit of 
compromise, I took those criticisms to heart and came up with a new, 
noncontroversial way to pay for this needed repeal.
  My amendment uses unspent and unobligated funds from Federal accounts 
to fully pay for the repeal of the 1099 mandate. This fiscally 
responsible approach is not controversial, and it has been done many 
times before. At the end of every year, there is money left in the 
accounts of Federal agencies that has not been obligated for a specific 
purpose. According to the most recent OMB estimate, roughly $684 
billion is just sitting in these accounts at the end of fiscal year 
2010. This almost $700 billion does not include--does not include--
accounts for the Department of Defense or Veterans Affairs. We leave 
them off the table. So my amendment boils down to using about 5 percent 
of these funds--5 percent.
  Additionally, my amendment gives the Office of Management and Budget 
discretion to decide what programs from which the funds can come. 
Again, this is not unusual; it has been done before. This approach is 
better than an across-the-board cut. It allows important programs to be 
spared any reduction. However, let's face it. This funding has been 
available all year long--some of it for several fiscal years. If it was 
important to our Nation, Federal agencies would have spent it now. As a 
former Cabinet member, I ran one of these agencies.
  So there is no basis for the claims about what vital programs this 
amendment might reduce. Again, I emphasize, this has been done many 
times before. It is simply 5 percent of the nonsecurity-related funding 
that was lying dormant in Federal accounts at the end of the year. If 
we cannot agree to this noncontroversial offset, then the public demand 
for fiscal responsibility voiced in November has fallen on deaf ears.
  In September, when the Senate first voted down my 1099 amendment, the 
concern was about the source of the offsets. No one argued that we 
simply did not need to pay for the repeal. No one got up and said: 
Well, we don't have to pay for this. This was never a part of anyone's 
argument. Yet that is exactly what the Baucus alternative amendment 
proposes. It says to our children and grandchildren: It is too tough 
for us to find $19 billion, so we are going to add it to the debt you 
will have to assume. It is a rejection of fiscal responsibility.
  After all the hoopla over pay as you go, the alternative amendment 
doesn't include a single budgetary offset to cover costs. The amendment 
simply says: Let our kids and our grandkids sort it out on top of the 
$14 trillion of debt we are leaving them. That is unfortunate. If we 
can't come together to agree on a few billion dollars in budget 
constraint, how do we ever hope to address the $14 trillion national 
debt?
  Any Senator who votes for the Baucus amendment is sending a clear 
message to his or her constituents that fiscal responsibility is not a 
priority. Any claim otherwise truly does ring hollow.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose the Baucus alternative and vote for 
the Johanns amendment. It will be a vote to protect our job creators 
and the prosperity of our children and grandchildren. We simply cannot 
keep kicking the fiscal responsibility can down the road.
  I yield the floor and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 15 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________