[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] quack leaders work on a spending bill. watch the debate so far with the congressional chronicle.

read transcripts of that recession. >> in a few moments, house debate on a proposal to repeal parted the new healthcare law that requires businesses to file a tax form for more than $600 in goods each year. kathleen said bill prius on year -- stability is on her health care law. after that, president calderon speaks out of the event. >> tomorrow morning, we will talk about the family research council action about half the party is approaching social issues. dick durbin will talk about

federal spending. we of live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> the house to pick apart the the new healthcare law that requires businesses to file a tax form for every bender -- every center that sent them. -- every vendor that sends them. they said the paperwork would overwhelm businesses and the internal revenue service. this part of the debate is about two hours. e speaker pro tempore: proceed. mr. camp: 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'd like to take a moment to recognize and commend my colleague and friend, congressman dalungren 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 1099's before. some have even gone so fars to say there seems to have been 1,000 99 votes to repeal 1099, while we have attempted to repeal this feature, today we turn a corner and move h.r. 4 from the house to senate so hopefully it will soon be sent to the president for his signature. only then will small businesses and families have certainty that th will not be buried under an avalanche 7 ---avalanche of tax

paperwork. in 2010 as one of many ways to finance the health care law, tax reporting rules were expanded. they required 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 torques 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 ever real stores, which supports h.r. 4, called this provision not only ather sprork 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 policy that can create a better climate for job creation, congress has enacted policies that make thi 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. and third, it protects taxpaye

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% 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 now be required to pay back all not just some of the improper payments. i'd like to know note this is the same level democrats used in the original law enacted last march. . for those in poverty, the repayment level is increased. this was changed as a way to finance doc fix. i know there was a lot of huffing and puffing about the alleged tax increases in h.r.

4. i want to clear up any confusion. the joint committee on taxation said in its score that in addition to a $20 billion spending cut, there's a $5 billion increase in revenue to the government in this provision. that doesn't necessarily mean people are paying more in taxes. 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 not updating their income information 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 for going the associate thus forgoing the associated costs is a settlement but not a tax increase. this is endorsed by the american farm bureau, the u.s. chamber of commerce, the osteopathic association and americans for tax reform. grover in order quist wrote he was partilarly pleased. that's because it reduces federal spend big $20 billion

over the next 10 years and reduces e 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. at this time i'd like to request unanimous consent that the list of supporting groups be entered into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. camp: 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 and i reserve the plans of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. mr. levin: let's be clear what the issue to 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 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 repe 1099. so again, the issue is not repeal, we have made that clear in the past. 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. so that should be clear, the issue is not repeal. the issue is how you pay for the repeal. the senate has now voted to repeal 1099. apparently, the now-majority does not like the pay-for in the senate bill. so 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 i.r.s. if their iome increases over what was projected when ey 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. no one should say thewe not eligible. that somehow theymisled, 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. a middle income fam -- on middle income families in future years. and mostly it will be on families with incomes between $88,000 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 eck from the taxpayer to the i.r.s. they project the average increase will be about $3,000. well, it's been said in our

committee and the 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. and i quote. 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. 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. and i quote. specifically, h r. 4 would

result in tax increases on certain middle class families that incur tax -- 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, and i quote, would result in tax increases on certain middle class families that incur unexpected tax liabilities, in many cases totaling thousands of dollars, nwithstanding that they followed the rules, end of quote. now we said yesterday at the rules committee that thiss not a tax increase because it would become effective at a later date 20, 14, when the

subsidies under the health reform bill become effective. if you use that logic, we could, year, increase taxes for everody by, say, 5%, 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 mdle 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. and i quote again. 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, end of quote. what this bill would do would be to provide an unaccept isable offset, one that would burden hundreds of thousands of

middle income taxpayers in our country. we should not do that, period. i reserve the plans of my time. -- the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman, mrs. mcmorris rodgers. the speaker pro tempore: the ntlelady is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i rise in strong support of the -- of h r. 4. there's not a sing issue 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 administrationive nightmare for employers, it has the potential to devastate small businesses. in fact, nfib estimates that the average business will have to smit at least 95 forms under the new requirement, a costly increase from the current handful required today.

en tax consultants said this 1099 is more onerous than any tax the i.r.s. could collect from small businesses. at a time when our economy is struggling, jobs are scarce and unemployment continues to hover near 10%, the last thi we should do is make it more difficult on our employers. particularly the small businesses that make up the back bone of our economy and create most of the jobs in america. the 1099 is just one in a number of policy that was created a climate of fear and uncertainty for the private sector. businesses don't know what regulatory hurdles they'll have jump through or the increased costs they'll have to incur in the short or long term. we need to give them certainty and have them expanding and growing their businesses again and a first good step is the repeal of the 1099 requirement. thank you and i urge support and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpo does the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, rise?

mr. levin: i yield as much time as she he shall consume to someone who has been a leading effort to repeal 1099, and -- in a responsible way for the middle income families of america, mr. crowley from new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. 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 reare -- the repealing of the 1099 reporting requirements. i do. i support 1099 repeal to relieve america's small businesses from onerous paperwork and onerous regulations. what i'm opposed to is paying for the small business tax bill by increases taxes on working middle class americans. and that is exactly what this

legislation will do. let's not kid ourselves. mocrats offered a different path. last july, we put forward legislation to repeal the 1099 reporting requirements and pay for it by eliminating loopholes in the tax code that reward those exporting u.s. jobs overseas. the senate has offered an alternative path as well. last month, they overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan repeal of a 1099 reporting requirement which did not include a tax increase on middle class workers. . 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 msure that will imposa $25 billion new x on middle clas families. yes, you heard that right. it is only 59 days since my republican colleagues have assumed majority control of the house of representatives,nd they already are 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% 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 workday 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 ta 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 tax increase. even grove norquist, the author of the taxpayer protection pledge has said, and i quote, americans for tax reform has always followed committee on joint tax 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 content of the

bill. on to the democratic reform law, american family of four earning $88,000 a year is obligated to pay no more than 9.5% of their income on tack tack premium costs. -- on health care premium costs. in this example, that's $,360 that comes out of their pocket on a typical family policy valued at $13,000. so the family would pay out of $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 look exactly like the child tax credit or theax credit to make college more affordable.

how many of all of our constituents use those tax credits? do they believe it's a welfare? i don't think so. they understand the difference between a subsidy and a tax credit. these are not subsidies to 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, noto 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 to them. however, under the republican bill, h.r. 4, if that very same family that earns $88,000, and the breadwinner in the family is called into the boss' office and the boss says, you know what,

you are doing such a great job, we are going to give you a $250 bonus. take the family out to dinner. it's the holiday season. you are overjoyed, you go back to your family and said i'm management material. i got a $250 bonus. i'm taking everyone out to dinner tonight. ll, here's the rub. you would go from 398% of federal poverty level to the 401% of the poverty level. when that happens you are then oweed the federal government for the touchdown 50 bonus in april of the next year, the federal government will say, not so fast. you owe us $4,640 to make up for your having accessed those tax credits. that's right. they have to pay back every single dime that wen directly

to the health insurer, to the health insurance company. when a dime never crossed their fingers. not a single dime. say it ain't so, joe. lots of families back home might say the same, it's true. the 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. i thank the gentleman for yiding me the time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: before yielding to the gentleman from california, i yid myself such time as i may consume. i just say that the example the gentleman from new york cited the family individual honestly reported their income, without this change that we are proposing today, they'd still have to repay the entire amount

of the subdy to the government. mr. croey: will the gentleman yield? mr. camp: no, i will no yield. let me submit for the record a unanimous consent from a letter for americans for tax reform that says this legislation is not a tax incree and not a violation of the taxpayer protection pledge. with that i yield to the gentleman from california, a member of the ys and means committee, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. herger: 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 impose on our nation's entrepreneurs and job creators. if the expanded 1099 reporting requirement and 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 lesthan 1% of the estimated annual tax gap. this 1099 rule is devastating to small businesses and it must be repealed now. h.r. 4 dresses the budgetary costs of repealing the 1099 requirements 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 anymore,hey 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 today answers both these goals and it deserves the support of every member of this house. i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield myselfuch time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. levin: there's been a reference here to taxpayers who did not honestly report their income. i must say that's a grievous misstatement. the way this works or will work is that people will report their

income honestly. and they do so based on their taxable income of a particular year. the problem with this bl is that if the income often unexpectedly goes up in a subsequent year, how much will the taxpayer be required to pay to the i.r.s.? that's what the issue is. and as mr. crowley said, there are other programs wherepeople report their income. they report it honestly, and then there's a change and the question is whether they should have to later pay some income tax to the i.r.s. and if so, how much. what this bill does in its present form is to recreate a

cliff which we smooth out in previous legislation. and the cliff is 400% of poverty. and if unexpectedly you go over that amount in a subsequent year, potentially 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. you 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. indeed, the effort of 1099 was to make sure that smaller businesses and others reported accurately their inco. that was its purpose. now, it's 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 repealit. but it's ironical if essentially 1099 is now used by repealing it , when the effort was to have people honestly report their income to essentially penalize people, middle income taxyers

who honestly reported their income. and became eligible for a tax credit. let me just in that respecread from "families u.s.a.," unfortunately h.r. 4 proposings paying for the repeal of 1099 reporting requirement with the provision that would disproportionately harm middle class americans. the affordable care act protects individuals 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. the 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 quotin 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 middle class families shod 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. end of quote.

undeniably that's what this legislation would do. it's middle class families who honestly reported their income. period. there is a fraud provision in the act that is a very stringent one that covers the case of anybody who is dishonest. but what you are penalizing middle income families who were honest, honest, honest. i reserve the balance of my time. i yield if i might to mr. crowley. . mr. crowley: i'm a bit disturbed as well by the description of individuals we're talking about, as though everyone is trying to scam the system.

i would point out in the bill support ised last year bipartanly, with every republican but one in h.r. 994, in a bill we passed to eliminate the cliff an eliminate the possibility of a massive increase in taxes on the middle class, so we already addressed this. what your bill today will do is put that back in place. and 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 and based on their prior income taxes are eligible for the tax credits i 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, at this point, maybe

one of their kids is in college already, and by the way, they're probably accessing the child tax credit. they probably have one child in college, one who can afford the child tax credits, so they're used to take that tax credit, this is another credit to do what, not to get the $4,460 and go out an buy a car. not to go on vacation or to scam somehow but to buy what? health care insurancfor eir families. health care insurance. which is something we all would want to provide for our milies. what is it about this example when they get the $250 bonus an they get pushed into the 400 percentile of poverty that they have to pay back that $4,460, what is it about my statement that's wrong? i haven't heard yet. because it's not wrong. that family would be exposed to a mass i tax increase.

one that they cannot afford. don't deri these people asties honest. don't describe the middle class worker as trying to scam the syem. 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% try to scam the system. probably all the time. so let's not disparage anymore the middle class than we already have by presenting this bill this morning. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield two and a half minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. davis: the louder one yell the more you say it, as i told my children whenhey re little, doesn't make it true or correct. i ink that we need to get down to the facts in this matter and the saying that paying back an overpayment is a tax increase is disemibling --

dissembling at best. democrats were for this before they were against it. to say it was a tax increase is simply wrong. democrats created this mess. democrats made the i.r.s., 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, isiah, the prophet made the comment, beware of those who call good evil and evil good or sweet sour, and sour sweet. there's a consequence that comes in that and the american people are entitled to the truth. democrats increase taxes. democrats increase cost, democrats increase complexity of government. my colleagues on the other side of the ale misrepresent the facts at best or are pleatly ignorant of the process they

set in motion. this reminds me of the health care debate last year whene were told, you have to read the bill to find out what's in it. i don't think you read the bill urn any circumstance ises. i rise in support of this taxpayer protection exchange subsidy and erpayment act. i nt to read some correspondents 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 they earned under law and people who get something they don't believe should be paid back. my citizens and constituents. grace wrote, we don't need this new 1099, get out of the way so we can osper. erik from cincinnati said we are -- small businesses are already being crushed by government mandates and undue burden joanne said his husband is a

sole proprietorship an i currently complete 1099 so if we spend home depot, i need to send them a 1099? that's a great use of my time d resources. tom said summed it up by saying, it's a nightmare for small businesses. we need to let small businesses do what they do best, innovate, grow and hire. this is burdensome and will drive up costs and cost us jobs. it will lead to higher prices for consumers. let our job creators create jobs and support h.r. 4. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield such time as mr. crowley will consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. crowley: i wonder if my friend from kentucky heard from middle class taxpayers? i know he heard from small business owners. we've all heard from them. but as has he heard from the

middle class that when they get imposed this tax upon them, have they said don't put this tax on me? no because they don't know it's happening. they wouldn't dream would do this to them. -- you would do this to them. if your constituents earning $88,000 go over by one penny, one penny, one cent over the 400 percentile of poverty, one penny,hey have to pay back $4,460, which they never, ever physically touched. never received. it went to the insurance companies. the insurance companies get taken care of. they get their money. their 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? maybe for e penny over they have to give a little something back. for every dollar they're over, give a little something back but to pay $4,460 so they can provide their families with health care, i'd 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 have to pay $4,460. does that make any sense to you? what about making pay work? what about asking americans to do their job, to do it well an if yo do it well, you'll get a bonus, 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. 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. that is to provide health care to the middle class. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp texas i --: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i appreciate the 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 original bill said, anyone who earns more than 400% of poverty would be required to repay the entire amount of the exchange subsidy. that is exactly what this bill does. this bill does what the orangal -- original health care bill did. then they raised it and said if you make up to $117,000 for family of four, they had a cliff in their bill. there is a cliff now. what we're saying is, we need to see that the american taxper is protected an with

that, i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the wame committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. brady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. mr. brady: i want to follow on with what chairman camp made such an importanpoint 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 friend heaped a huge new pay-for -- paperwork burden on our small businesses that none of them can comply with. then ty create a loophole where some people in america can get taxpayer subsidies, even if they don't qualify for them let's be clear. today we are fixing two huge democratic messes. that they made. and we're going to fix them because ousmall businesses can't take more of this burden. many of them are barely hanging on as it is.

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 alify 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, you're making $70,000, $ 0,000, $90,000 a year and got a subsidy from some other family that you don't deserve, you 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 can people to repay money they should have never got that our democrats allowed them to get. this actually is a biptisan bill, at the end of the day, watch the vote, you'll see so many people in congress saying, it's time to fix this. we're going to fix this mess

today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i want to yield to mr. kind but before i do, i want to say three quick things. it is such a mistake -- a misstatement for someone to come here and say, even if the 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. 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. and the last thing before i yield, i want to make clear,

last december we fixed mr. camp -- we fixed, mr. camp, the cliff. you voted for it. it was 409-2. i don't think you were one of the two. this resurrects the cliff. purely and simply. and catches hundreds of thousands of taxpayers in the future, middle income taxpayers. i now yield five minutes to the distinguished gentleman from wisconsin, mr. kind, an active member of our committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kind: i thank the gentleman for yielding and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. i'm sure my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from texas, realizes that this money they will be hit with on this hidden tax is something they never see to begin with. s that tax credit that goes directly to the private health insurance companies this bill could be better titled, the republican tax trap of 2014,

205, 2016 and on and on and on. because that's exactly what's going to happen. it's a hid 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 fend from new york explained succinctly what happens at the cliff. a family of four at $48,000, you receive a little bit of income a little bit of bonus that might put you over the edge, you're going to be hit with a $4,600 tax liability at the end of the year and they're not going to be in position to deal with that. either they find a way to come up with the money and pay that republican tax they didn't expect, or it'going to discourage work and they're not going to try to earn as much income pause they don't want to go over that 400% level or they're not going to participate in the health insurance exchange to begin with. we g a score on that as well.

over 266,000 families will choose not to participate for fear of the hidden republican tax trap we have before us today. what's ironic is this insurance exchange that's part of the affordable care act is a bill i and others have rked on for years in a bipartisan fashion. called the shop act. republicans were in favor of creating the health insurance exchanges, coupled with tax credits, so small businesses, family farmers, individuals had a place they could go and sh for coverage, finally -- with health plans competing for their business so they had the same leverage large corporations did. this has been proven in models throughout the nation that have proven how effective the health exchanges work. what they're doing now, with the justify set they're proposing, they're doing things to undermine the health insurance exchanges and the ability for small businesses and individuals to go out and

obtain affordable coverage. and 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 hurt, regardless of the adecisional tax burden. as my friend from michigan indicated, we fixed this problem last december in a bipartisan fashion. instead of creating a cliff, which was a mistake in the original bill, there would be a gradual phase out of the tax credits. so is it wouldn't be such a ge, hidden tax trap as my republican colleagues are calling for today. . a lot of what's in the affordable care act is necessary and long overdue. not least of which, this will be the key to health care reform and the final verdi, 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 quality-based reimbursement system. we can start doing that with medicare and the tools are in place under health care reform

to do that. this will extend into the private 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 h.h.s. 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 bankrupting our nation today. it is the largest and fastest growing expense we have at all levels. the federal, state, and local level, and for businesses and families alike. it's o 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 are rising health care costs. 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 and we are finally le 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 1/5 of the entire u.s. economy over night. we've got medical homes bundling programs to innocent value based payments. we also have the national academy of sciences, the institute of medicine doing a two-year study right now to change fee-for-service to fee-for-value. they will present a plan to the administration to implement which gives us the best hope of changing the outdated and perverse incentive system that we have in the delivery of heth care today. it's leading to overutilization in health care. studies have shown that close to one out of eve three health care dollars, about $800 billion a year, are going to tests and procedures that don't work. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kind: thank you. one out of every three health care dollars, or $800 billion we are spending a year we are not getting a good bang for the buck. it's going to test procedures that don't work.

because of the overutilization and overtreatment that so many patients are receiving, they are being left worse off rather than better off. that will be the game changer. it's something everyone's been ducking. for the last couple weeks we have been talking about this continuing resolution that only deals with 12% of the federal pie. unfortunately 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 and turning the cost curve around when it comes to health care, then we just fooling ourselves with everything else we are doing with the budget. we have addressed that in the affordable care act with ograms that are set up now and payment reform that is moving forward to change how we pafor 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 taxyer. that's what we should be coming together on.

rather than discouraging people for participating in the exchange, which will create two competition with these private surance companies, which again is long overdue, instead of offering thilegislation 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 got that last-minute bonus from their employees and suddenly ey realize, oh, my god, we are going to owe, $4,600 because of what we are doing here today. it's outrageous. it's unfair. there are better offsets. here's the idea, the retired c.e.o. of chevron this past week said when oil is above $70 a barrel, let's stop the subsidies. this is a retired c.e.o. of a major oil producing company that's saying that this is nonsense that we are still wasting so much money in subsidizing big oil. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kind: today it's over $100 a

barrel. that would be an appropriate offset. i hand off to my friend from oregon to pick it up. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: at this time i yield four minutes to the distinguished chairman of the house administration committee, the gentleman from california, mr. lungren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lungren: i thank the gentleman for yielding the time. my name happens to appear on this bill as the original auor of this bill, h.r. 4. i remember when i introduced this last april members on that side of the aisle were told by the leadership don't dare go on this bill to repeal this necessary provision of the affordable care act. by the way, if it isruly an affordable care act, why is secretary sebelius granted over

700 waivers to comnies and unions because it's not affordable? why is virtually every member of my constituency who has health insurance had an increase in their premiums as a direct result of the quote-unquote, affordable care act? just a passing question because i'm asked that all the time by my constituents. why did i introdu this? because provision 9006 of the bill has nothing to do with affordable care, 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. or i got an answer for you here today to the question of who creates jobs? this is who creates jobs, small business. and this particular 6 -- section of your so-called affordable care act kills bills.

-- business. kills small business. what doeit do? it's based on the assumption that everybody cheats. why? because a 1099 form is usually utilized for the purpose of making sure you have your obligation to the payroll tax. what did we do? we increased the reach of 1099's so that when you have no obligation to pay anything, you have to port on the person on the other side of the business transaction. so tha 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 almost everybody cheats to get your $19 billion. 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 the floor to repeal t. i'm obligated to come up with $19 billion in new taxes or some sort of 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. 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 businessperson. a woman. i have 15 employees. as owner i am the h.r. department, bookkeepinging department, administration department, and still serve my customers while surviving this climate. it will be a tremendous burden

both in time and dollars to send out 1099's to all my vendors, appliance vendors, 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 1099's 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, chain restaurant. and we are killing small business on this floor. so i understand the sincerity on the other side of the aisle of those -- mr. camp: i yield an additional 30 seconds. mr. lungren: of those concerned about the middle class. 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 put a dagger in their side. how 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 to 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. on this job killer piece of legislation. give us some relief which is being called for all around the country. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: before i yield to mr. blumenauer, i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from new york. mr. crowley: i appreciate the comments from my friend from california. i don't question his motivation. but i would suggest that the assumption is we believe everyone cheats, i think that's wrong. what i hear from the other side not from the gentleman from california, but the other side is the believe the middle class

cheats. the middle class cheat that's why we have to impose this upon them. the middle class business man or woman, and business man or woman who files an individual tax form as a small businessperson, no one will have to file the 1099 forms, but they, if they make $88,000 a year and they are 397% of federal poverty -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. crowley: they have an unexpected increase in income -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has eired. mr. crowley: middle class tax hike. mr. levin: i yield five mites 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 plit facts called the 2010 political lie of the year.

allowing 33 million additional americans to have access to -- mr. lungren: point of order, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: state your point. mr. lungren: 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? mr. blumenauer: mr. speaker, it's not -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from california has not stated a point of order. would you proceed to state the point. mr. lungren: i would make a point of order that the gentleman has made a personal reference to me and followed that up by saying that what i said was a lie. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman demanding the words be taken down? mr. lungren: not at this time, mr. speaker. but i would ask that the speaker

would admonish members not to question the motivation of other members in reference to any debate that's taken place. mr. blumenauer: mr. speaker, i would suggest that the people listen to what i said. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon will proceed. mr. blumenauer: what i said was, he claimed the government takeover of health care, and i said, which was judged by politifact, an independent effort, the republican claim of government takeover was the 2010 political lie of the year. now, if the gentleman feels uncomfortable that -- mr. lungren: i ask words be taken down. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from oregon will take a seat. and the clerk will report the words.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the geleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. blumnary: i seek unanimous consent to withdraw the previous statement . the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? so ordered. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the opportunity. i want to be very clear about what i intended, what i thought i said and i think a riew of the tape would reveal. i'm not calling anybody a liar. what i said, intended to say, and i willsk unanimous consent to put in the record is that as we have repeated talking pointed about a government takeover of health care, this is -- has been judged by an independent,

journalistic undertaking, as the political lie of the year. mr. lun green: 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 will be happy to proceed. 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 e speaker of the house, time and time ain 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 because those

words are still echoing in the chamber. it has been said by my friend -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. blumenauer: somebody on the other side of the aisle earlr. the 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, quote, government takeover, close quote, 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 in fact rely largely on the free market. employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of americans to prite insurance companies. contrary to the claim more people will get private health insurance. government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalized doctors. the law does not include a public option. it gives tax credits to people

who have difficulty affording insurance so the can buy their coverage from private providers. it relies on a free market with regulations not socialized medicine. we have concluded it is accurate -- inaccurate to call the plan a government takeover because it relies largely on existing health system of coverage provided by employers. mr. speake part of what we are seeing here, though, is this drama that is pulled out where talking points are repeated in an effort to obscure the facts going forward. we have on the majority -- on the majority -- the majority knows the democrats have attempted to adjust the 1099. we voted for fixes. it will be fixed between the house and the senat what's killing small business is the crushing burden of health

care 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 is provided a downward spiral. what's providing the driving force for the government deficit is incrsing 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 demonstration. it points a path toward saving hundreds of billions of dollars. those used to be bipartisan. mr. levin: an additional two minutes to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: it used to be bipartisan. but instead of working with us toefine and accerate the provisions, people are trying to put sand in the gears.

as my friend from michigan and from new york have pointed out, there are going toe some -- we hopehere are unintended victims, but there are going to be innocent victims, people in the middle class and 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 will be a significant penalty. we have worked to fix that cliff . we have 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 don't deserve. it's a lost opportunity for us to reduce the deficit, improve

health care, and lower costs. this is very personal to people like me. i come from an area of the country that provides high quality healthare at a low cost. my people are penalized. the health care reform is moving to try and 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 for my comments, but i do -- 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 hav to move forward to solve the problems of this country. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: at this time i yield two minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from la, dr. boustany. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the time to act on this pvision is now. why? it's very, very simple. it's about jobs. it's about removing an onerous provision, a burdensome provision on small business that is create jobs. if we wonder why we have a high unemployment rate, it's because of provisions li 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's taken long enough to move on this. let's do it. let's get it done. further delay is unacceptable. 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's repealed they wouldn't have had to incur from the beginning. i'm 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, and i ask that we repeal this provision today. repeal it now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself 15 seconds. the gentleman who just spoke last july voted no on repeal. as did the gentleman from california who spoke before. you both had a chance to vote no. and you failed to do so. you didn't like the fay-for that

osed the tax loop -- pay-for that closed the tax loophole. i now yield five minutes to the geleman from massachusetts, mr. neal, a distinguished member of the ways and means committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. neal: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank mr. levin for yielding the time. this provision came over from the senate. as mr. levin correctly has noted, members on this side of the aisle have already cast a vote toepl 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 conflicted 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 leapf faith in the 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 i.r.s. on the income they earn. a reminder, it 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 mindlets process that took place here a couple weeks ago when we began with a series of two-minute votes over two days to cut various -- very important initiatives that the american people have come to rely on. 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. and 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 from the joint committee on taxation about his estimate that the reporting requirement would raise $22 billion in revenue. that's how -- tom is not a democrat or republican, he's 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?

and he told us that almost all of it wasue to tax avoidance, tax evasion. so, without any hearings or debate about how to best capture that $22 billion, we eliminated this reportling requirement -- reporting requirement and would raise taxes on middle income families. i want to urge my friend on the other side before we trel down this path of cutting very important initiatives for the american family, and i can't wait until we have the first vote in this institution, up or down onsocial security, to see if the rhetoric really matches the reality, and then i'm hopeful that as we move to the discussion and debate on medicare, we'll see if the rhetoric not just 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 three 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. i have been on the issue -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. levin: i yield an additional one 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 th they become a citizen of bermuda to avoid american income taxes, while there are hundreds ever thousands of american soldiers overseas, while our v.a. hospitals are going to be necessary for the 31,000 who have been wounded in honorable service in this country, and why before we propose the cuts that we have proposed we are not

after tax evasion the way 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. i thank the gentleman for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield three minutes to a distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from nebraska, mr. smith. thspeaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. i truly believe that the best thing that this congress can do is focus on js, 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, small

operation, he will go from four 1099's to or 200. that's after $7,000 increase -- $7,000 in new software, mr. speaker. that certainly provides opportunities for misplaced digit in identification number that will lead to the wrong person being audited, mr. speaker, and when we look at all of 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. thank you. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: how much time do we have, please, bo sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. he vip, has 26 minutes.

the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, has 51 minutes. mr. levin: should i proceed? you have that much more time, do you want to yield some time? and then i'll yield to mr. waxman. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to the distinguished member of the ways and means committee, ms. jenkins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will proceed. ms. jenkins: i thank the chair and 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 and 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 businesses and creating additional positions at the i.r.s. is the kind of job growth this country needs. as allen myers, an elerician in my district, stated in a letter to my office, this is absurd. the small businessmen of this country have more paperwork than they can get done new. while we disagree about the repeal of the health care law, many of my colleagues the other side of the aisle recently agree they strongly agree with republican members that the 1099 reporting ovision 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 suort for the full repeal of this harmful provision. 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 the health care system, then they, too, can support this measure with full voice since it is paid for by reducing overpayment 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 business. while we await action from the senate on h.r. 2, the full repeal of this health care overhaul, i you remember 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. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, the

ranking member of the energy and commer committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. waxman: there's widespread agreement that the 1099 reporting rules need revision. the agreement is to widespread that i'm surprised whaven't passed the repeal. last year, we failed to pass repeal of the proposition because of republican opposition. now we agree, let's repeal it. the hangup is the republicans want to pay for this business tax cut on the backs of lor 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 new unanimous agreement we had last year -- a near unanimous agreement we had last year. thisolicy wouldn't just increase taxes, it would discourage enrollment in health plans and health exchanges. people who are eligible for tax credits would have to think very hard about whether ey were estimating their income accurately. they're estimating this income in the beginning of the year but later in the year they may get a raise, or a promotion, they may even get a job. and then they could be hit with a huge repayment penalty for a simple mistake. a -- for a simple mistake, a promotion or a new job. it's estimated this deterrent effect would increase the number of uninsured by 2,000. let's withdraw this pay-for and get something more reasonable.

unr these circumstances, i cannot support the bill in its present form today though i certainly support the changes in the 1099 reporting rules. yield back. the speaker: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i yield two minutes to theentleman from minnesota, mr. paulson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. paulsen: i rise in strong support ofhis 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 -- would result in vast amounts of new paperwork for 30 million businesses that are stil struggling in a very down beat economy. having gone virtually unnoticed in the context of the entire health care debate this provision has created que a bit of concern for companies already facing increased regulatory compliance costs as they get ready for this w provision to takesque madam

speaker, almost every week i get a chance to visiwith a small business back in minnesota in my district. nearly every one of ha asked me in bewilderment why they would be requid to have to do this because of the amount of time and energy it will take to comply with this new requirement. now flst a small business owner, they want to go into target and they purchase $600 worth of office supplies annually, they'll now be required to file a new 1099 form, not only with the inch r.s. but to the target corporation. it's a waste of time and time is money. we need to be thinking about how to help our nation's small businesses get back on track by growing jobs and helping our econommove forward. it's not the way to do it by increase manager burdensome paperwork. we need to let them be productive, to unleash their productive rather -- unleash their productivity rather than filling out forms. small businesses are now going to be able to focus where they should focus, on growing jobs

and creating a better economy rather than filing additional paperwork and navigating bureaucracy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: do you wa to proceed? mr. camp: would you like me to use up some time? i yield two minutes to the distinguished member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from nevada, mr. heller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. heller: i thank the chairman for yielding time. i'm an original co-upon sor on h.r. 4 and probably vote -- and proudly voted for this measure in the house ways and means committee last month. today's debate marks the second time over the course of three 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 considerne of the many provisions of the bill

that suppressed econom recovery and job creation. the 10 reporting mandate will impose substantial paperwork and reporting burdens on an estimated 40 million entities, including governments, nonprofits and small businesses. instead fostering job creation in the private sector, which is where our economy -- which is what our economy needs, the provision congress has passed would direct precious time and resources to collecting volumes of information and filling out mounds of new paperwork for businesses all over -- throughout this country. witness the economic engine of this nation, small businesses are now buckling under the weht of onerous mandates an high taxes froa federal government that spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much. as a result, unemployment in neda has reached record highs that currently stand at 15%. efforts to repeal the provision enjoy bipartisan, bicameral support.

i'm 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 alth care bill in its entirety. i support targeted leggets such as h r. 4 to provide economic relief as soon as possible. i thank the gentleman again for the time and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to the distinished gentleman from new york, mr. rangel. the eaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. rangel: thank you so much, mr. chairman. i would hope that today that we would have taken advantage of the fact that all of us want to get rid of part of the president's affordable health bill that we believe does not reach the objective we wanted. everybody, including the president of the united states, believes that 1099 in the present form should not be there.

republicans and democrs have voted to make certain 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 for trying to get rid of it, we passed the law and it was rejected because the majority party didn't like what we called a pay-forful since that time, the pay-for has been passed into law, it's been accepted and now we're trying to find a new one. i don't know in god's heaven as to why we couldn't he sat do to find one as long as we certainly wanted to avoid fraud on the taxpayer and work out something that's here. i can't believe the majority would believe that what we're trying to do is to avoid, doesn't believe to avoid having an unintended tax on hard working people. if this is going to hold it up and cause us now to throw the

baby out with the bathwater, to have us rejecting what we want to do and that is to get rid of 1099 in its present form, i think it's unfortunate. now i do recognize, mr. chairman, an members of our distinguished committee, that political promises havbeen made before the election. and the question now hato be that even though there's been commitments by certain party 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's the continuing resolution or budget of 2011 or 2010 doesn't mean that there's a savings. so telling the voters and our constituents that we've slashed something out of the budget, it really goes beyond politics because never in the discussions that i've had in the ways a means committee with the majority or with the democratic caucus have we ever

said, those people are going to be helped or hurt, democrats, are those people republicans, or did we not say we were is 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're going to eliminate the bill, eliminate the president and just make certain they have $100 billion in savings, strike that, 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's bipartisan and with the support of the administration, but because w it's paid for is detrimental to the taxpayer, whether he or she be republican or democrat and i thank you for this opportunity opportunity.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp spb i yield two minutes to a twished memr of the wame committee, the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. black. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. mrs. black: i rise today enthusiastically supporting h.r. 4, the 1099 repeal bill. the piece of legislation is a victory for common sense. it's proof that the house is dedicated to getting t government off the backs of the 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 paper work. instead of growing their businesses, advertising their

services, and selling their products and hiring workers and growing our economy, business owners will be stuck behind the desk filling out i.r.s. 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's unconscionae that the democrat congress paid for the massive spending on their health care bill on the backs of the american small businesses, but today we're going to fict that. and -- to fix that. as a member of ways and means i'm extremely proud to see this bill take shape in our economy. i'm proud we pay for this bill by protecting taxpayers instead of demanding more money from them. by ending waste, fraud, and abuse, we reduss the deficit by $166 billion in the first 10

years and by trillions of dollars over the long run. while reducing the federal spending by neay $200 billion over 10 years. this is a huge victory but it marks the beginning of a new way that we're doing business here in washington. this n health majority will continue to enact commonsense policy that does not add to the debt or hide their true costs with accounting gimmicks and we can get the government working for the american people today. >> i yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. black: thank you. we can get government working for the american people today and this is a good start. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. es the gentleman wish to reserve? mr. levin: i yield now three

mites to theistinguished gentleman from new jersey, mr. pascrell, an active member of our committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. pascrell: thank you. madam speaker, good to see you up here today. you know, there's an old western song, i'm looking for love in all the wrong places. remember that song? not too old. not too d. we're looking for revenue in all the wrong places. not only in ference to what we did in cutting indiscriminantly $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 and the very beginning of mankind, right, last summer, to vote against it. i believe every democrat voted against this provision and two republans joined us. the gentleman from louisiana, on the opposition side, the honorable opposition side, who is no longer with us, i don't know if he lost because he voted with us, and then 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 ts 1099 form, 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 from the ways and means committee. the wall street poll today, not "the new york times," not the village voice, not fill in the blanks, the poll shows that over, i think it's 74% of the ameran 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. now, this is going to cost us $22 billion. both sides agree that one of the great benefits of this country is economic mobility. yet -- may i have two more minutes? mr. levin: i yield an additional two minutes to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pascrell: thank you, madam speaker, thank you, mr. levin. this bill postures those who get ahead by raising the tax liabilities on families, work hard, may have gotten a raise or a promotion, a family of four in my district, the eighth district of new jersey, please visit us, we'd love to have you, mr. chairman. you make $80,000 a year, it will get -- you'll get a 50% reduction on their premiums if they purchase health insurance in the marketplace.

from the private sector, i might add. there's no government operation re. if they get a raise, however, and move above the threshold they pay back a reasonable amountow. but in this legislation, under this bill, if they work a little haer, cee a financial benefit, they'll be punished. they'll be forced to repay the tax credit. there is no, 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 $11,200 tax bill. $20,000 premium, they're going -- they make $80,000, quite a hefty fee, i might add, everything's wonderful with the health care in the united ates right now, but you're going to

be added onto because you made a few bucks more, $11,200. unintended consequences, looking for love in all the wrong places . so let us be perctly clear to the members voting on this legislation. when you take away the tax credits, it's not a subsidy, it's not only a definitional difference, it is a substantial difference bween a subsidy and a tax credit. when you take away a tax credit to mdle class americans, that they use it when purchases insurance, plain and simple, you're taxes go up. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: i yield three minutes to a distiuished member of the ys and means committee, the gentleman from ohio, mr. tiberi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for three minutes. mr. tiberi: thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of the underlying bill today which goes a long way in 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, actually two provisions, one provision in the health care bill that appeared that everyone now seems to be opposed to, that the majority voted for, but 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, that applied to folks who own rental property or someone who has a vacation home or somebody who has retail property that they're asing out or somebody who is leasing out a room in their home, suddenly now we're going to require them to 1099 folks as well. what an amazing provision. passed in september of 2010. the bill corrects that. the bill corrects both aspects.

i heard over and over during my campaign, think about this, an independent insurance agent goes out to staples and buys paper, he's going to have to 1099 staples. goes to aardware store to have something fixed in his office, he's going to have to 1099 the hardware store. it goes on and on and on. when a small business owner, a law-abidg small business owner, maybe a soul proprietor, is being made the person who has to go out and be an extension of the i.r.s.. it is truly amazing. and then the pay-for, the pay-for is requiring someone who gets something more than they're entitled to pay it back -- to to pay it back. what a novel concept. with no penalty, no interest.

just pay back something that they're not entitled to. now, my dad, m immigrant dad and immigrant mom, i was talking to them about this and my dad has a sixth grade education, my mom has an eighth grade education, and they were, first of all, quite surised with the fact that a family of four making88,000 a year would get a subsidy. my mom and dad dreamed of making $88,000, 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 what 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 laabiding citizens not becoming ex tensions of the i.r.s., you're eith --

extensions of the i.r.s. you're either for them or against them. i urge support of the bill, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself 15 seconds. the gentleman from ohio mentioned jobs, jobs, jobs. you know, in a colloquial sense, what this bill would do, it would do a job on middle income taxpayers. i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, a member of our committee, mr. doggett. mr. doggett: i have voted to repeal these 1099 requirements. and but for broad republican opposition, these quirements would have been repealed a long time ago. i am a little amused to hear one of our republican colleagues actually say this morning, they're 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 in the

mirror. because 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 ontworking families while at the same time protecting insurance monopolies. under current law, 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. in each year the government will match some of the workers pay for their health insurance. the precise amount of the pay is determined by how low the workers' salary is. a minimum wage worker wou get a little more assistance than someone at a higher level. this bill ensures that the health insurance company will get to keep all of that federal match, but it creates the

working family considerably differently. if you have an employer who really shows ability, who may have a fairly menial or mundane job, but they do it and they do it with pride, they do it well, if that employee compels and the employer rewards them with a beus in, if they recognize that that -- bonus, ithey recognize that that employee is really trying hard and they decide, we're going to give you a little promotion and 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 take an extra job, under any of these developmentsor the enterprising worker the republicans propose today a penalty, a tax on success. because at the end of that year, after that law abuding employee has properly estimate -- abidi employee h properly estimated their income from 12 months earlier, if their pay went up $1 over the level, they get a steep

penalty. they may have to pay literally thousands of dollars back even though they only got a bonusf a few hundred dollars. they would owe the value perhaps of the eire cred to the i.r.s. and what type of people are we taing about? if the law had been fully effective as i wish it had been this year, a worker who was earning $43,560, if they 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. may i have an additional minute? mr. levin: i yield the gentleman an additional two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. doggett: $1,000, perhaps $3,000, $4,000 to a family as a penalty, a tax on success, is a big amount to that family. but understand the dimensions of how big the burden that they want to shift to working families is. the total, according to their

own report on this bill, 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. and why haven't they been out here responding to this penalty on success? they want to refer to the people as cheats. these people aren't cheats, they're people that are the best of america, who are striving and working to get ahead and then they get penalized for their success. 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