Charles Boustany

Mr. BOUSTANY

Mr. BOUSTANY. I rise in opposition to H.R. 5297. Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot today about the centerpiece of this bill--the highly controversial $30 billion small business lending fund, a provision sometimes referred to as TARP III. That provision is certainly of major concern to me, and it is reason enough to vote against this bill, though I want to focus my remarks on aspects of the bill that are within the Ways and Means Committee's jurisdiction. This legislation includes approximately $12 billion in small business tax provisions, including a number of items that Republicans have long supported. For example, there is widespread, bipartisan support for expanded business expensing and for the extension of bonus depreciation as ways to encourage additional capital investments. In addition, this bill includes a provision originally authored by our colleague from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) that would eliminate the outdated requirement that employees keep extensive records documenting their personal use of their employer-provided cell phones so they can include the value of that benefit in their incomes. It also includes a provision that I have been working on with Chairman Lewis of the Oversight Subcommittee that would reduce penalties on small businesses that unintentionally violate certain disclosure rules under section 6707(a) of the Tax Code. Republicans don't object to these provisions. In fact, we think they should have been enacted months ago. The tax portion of this bill also contains a highly troubling provision that would essentially double down on a particularly flawed element of the majority's new health care law. It is the requirement that small businesses file form 1099 with the IRS for every business and individual to which they make total payments of more than $600 each a year. We already know that this highly confusing and burdensome information-reporting regime, which could cause the number of required tax forms to quintuple, will drive up the cost for small businesses across the country. It is clear that this added expense will mean that employers will have less money to hire new workers and to retain existing ones. Instead of working with Republicans to repeal these onerous new 1099 reporting requirements, the majority is now actually seeking in today's bill to substantially increase the penalties for failure to comply with them. Although proposals to increase the penalties for failure to file correct information returns have not always been particularly controversial, these penalties now apply to a much larger universe of transactions because of the majority's new health law. Because those new requirements are so confusing and burdensome, especially for small businesses that are already struggling to meet payroll, increasing the penalties for what could be inadvertent mistakes seems especially unfair. To add insult to injury, the legislation before us would also expand the types of transactions subject to 1099 reporting requirements even further. The bill would generally require that a recipient of rental real estate income file an information return on his rental property's expense payment as well. For example, an individual who rents out even a single condo unit would generally be required to file a 1099 for his purchase from Home Depot or other corporate establishments if he buys more than $600 in supplies from them over the course of the year. This new requirement, which would raise more than $2.5 billion over 10 years, could prove to be every bit as burdensome for owners of small rental real estate holdings as the health law's 1099 requirements are for small businesses, especially considering the increases in penalties I mentioned a moment ago. But let me close by making a broader point. The majority boasts about how much this bill's tax provisions like increased expensing and extending bonus depreciation will help small businesses--and let me be clear. Those are proposals that Republicans continue to support. But any tax benefits provided by this bill at the margins will pale in comparison to the enormous tax increase the majority has in store for every taxpaying small business at the end of this year. By failing to extend the critical tax relief that is scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, the majority will impose a $3.8 trillion tax hike on American taxpayers--including every small business in America that pays income taxes--over the next 10 years. Especially with unemployment continuing to hover near 10 percent and economic growth very sluggish, that is a terrible idea for small businesses. It's a terrible idea for the economy, and it's a terrible idea for job creation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I mentioned earlier the small business provisions that we do agree upon, but we think that these are going to be outweighed by the onerous 1099 provision that is in the health law, and the impact on businesses is going to be terrible. I want to just mention something here. The IRS's own National Taxpayer Advocate highlighted several problems with this particular 1099 reporting requirement. ``The new reporting burden, particularly as it falls on small businesses, may turn out to be as disproportionate as compared with any resulting improvements in tax compliance. Small businesses may have to pay for additional accounting services, incurring additional costs. In our view, it's highly likely that the IRS will improperly assess penalties that it must abate later after great expenditure of the taxpayer and IRS time and effort. Small businesses that lack the capacity to track customer purchases may lose customers, leaving the economy with more large national vendors and less local competition.'' Those are the words of the National Taxpayer Advocate at the IRS. This 1099 reporting burden on small businesses is particularly onerous and outweighs many of the advantages of some of these tax provisions that we all agree upon. It's a shame that we couldn't have gotten together to put together a better small business package that would actually promote small business growth, promote jobs, and promote our economy. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUSTANY

Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BOUSTANY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6190. This is a straightforward bill to extend for 3 months, through December 31, the existing FAA authorization law, the excise taxes that support the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, and the trust fund's expenditure authorities. The current FAA authorization, as well as the excise taxes and spending authorities, are currently scheduled to expire on October 1. For the past several months, the House and Senate have been negotiating on a long-term FAA reauthorization bill, but those negotiations have not yet come to a close. This extension will give Congress additional time to try to resolve the differences between the Chambers' bills and to determine whether modifications to the financing structure of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund are appropriate. I would note, however, that because the majority has chosen to extend the FAA authority only through the end of the year, they are ensuring that Congress must return for a lame duck session to prevent the FAA authorization from expiring. Many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have voiced legitimate concerns about the mischief that could be made in an extended lame duck session, with various pieces of must-pass legislation being held hostage to unpopular tax increases and spending increases that the majority might decide to postpone until after the election. Despite this risk, it is important that we take the necessary steps to extend the current FAA authorization and its related excise taxes and expenditure authorities on a temporary basis, and I join with my colleagues across the aisle in support of this legislation. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Mr. BOUSTANY. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOUSTANY

Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Eunice Elementary School in St. Landry Parish, Louisiana, for being recognized by the United States Department of Education as a 2010 National Blue Ribbon School. Eunice Elementary is one of the 304 schools honored this year for great academic achievement and far-reaching improvement. Nominations and applications were sent by numerous public and private elementary, middle, and high schools. More than 6,000 schools have been honored since 1982, when the Blue Ribbon Program began. Eunice Elementary educates students from pre-kindergarten through fourth grade. The school's accelerated reading program also excelled at the national level this year. LEAP scores from spring 2010 were proficient with mathematics being the most improved. The hard work of the students and dedication of the faculty and staff prove the school deserving of this honor. The entire St. Landry Parish community, which has contributed to Eunice Elementary's success, should be very proud. Commending this Louisiana school for its wonderful achievement is both an honor and a pleasure. Again, congratulations to Eunice Elementary School, a 2010 National Blue Ribbon School.

Mr. BOUSTANY

Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Florida for his kind words, and we share the same sentiments with regard to hurricanes, and we've both dealt with them. I appreciate his work as well and his leadership for the State of Florida. Madam Speaker, September 24 marks the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Rita's landfall in my southwest Louisiana district. This category 3 storm came ashore with wind speeds of more than 120 miles per hour and 115 feet of storm surge, causing an estimated $11.3 billion in damages, making it the third most expensive natural disaster in U.S. history. Hurricane Rita caused widespread destruction to our communities, fragile working wetlands, and critical energy infrastructure in Vermilion, Cameron, and Calcasieu Parishes. On a personal note, I'd like to thank all of my colleagues who traveled to southwest Louisiana in the months after the storm to witness firsthand the devastation and to offer assistance. I also want to thank Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica, and the committee staff, as well as the entire Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, who all worked with our delegation to help address some of the problems we faced in this storm's aftermath. In the past 5 years, I've worked hard to ensure that Rita is not the forgotten storm and to further assist in the region's recovery and building. I'm proud we have initiated the first-ever hurricane protection plan for southwest Louisiana and included provisions in the 2007 WRDA bill to help expedite the Corps of Engineers' work to ensure projects are not delayed. Rita exposed the critical state of our coastal wetlands and the role they play in supporting the U.S. energy industry. These wetlands serve as a critical buffer against hurricanes and protect industries and cities located further inland. Before the 2005 storms, the projected land loss in Louisiana was 24 square miles per year. After Katrina and Rita, the national wetland center reported 217 square miles of Louisiana coastal lands were transformed to water. Protecting and strengthening our coasts is not only a Louisiana problem--it's an American problem. Families and businesses rely on the energy we produce in Louisiana and transport throughout the country each day. We were just starting to regain our way of life along the gulf coast, and Louisianans now face new challenges. The current moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico threatens good-paying jobs and our economic livelihood. This moratorium has idled 33 rigs and the workers on these platforms, and it's hampering south Louisiana's recovery. There are also thousands more support workers affected by this, including welders, electricians, mariners, caterers, and engineers, that aren't directly employed by the drilling operator. The ramifications of the deepwater moratorium and the de facto shallow water moratorium are being felt as layoffs have begun along the gulf coast. The same hardworking citizens who stayed in south Louisiana to rebuild their homes with their own hands after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita are now experiencing economic devastation. American energy production in the gulf can be done safely, and we need to work together to quickly implement improved safety standards to put gulf coast residents back to work delivering the energy that this Nation relies upon. Louisianans are resilient, and I'm proud to work with my community as we continue the long recovery process. Madam Speaker, I want to salute the dedicated first responders, volunteers, and professionals who offered assistance to those affected by the storm and recognize the progress southwest Louisiana has made in 5 years of restoring and rebuilding our coastal communities.

Mr. BOUSTANY

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request.

Mr. BOUSTANY. I ask unanimous consent that we extend the time of debate equally between the two sides for a total of 30 minutes on this very important issue affecting our State and other States on the gulf coast. We are really talking about jobs, and I think having this extra time of debate will be very important.

Mr. BOUSTANY. We would like to extend the debate. We ask unanimous consent to extend it for 20 minutes, equally divided.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Ten minutes on each side.

Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, we in Louisiana have seen this tragedy firsthand, and we know about it more than anybody else in this Chamber. I will say this, there is an even bigger tragedy, it's the moratorium that's in place today which is leading to a hemorrhage of jobs. Just a couple of days ago, 300 jobs in my hometown gone, 300, and each day it's ratcheting up to a thousand jobs a day. This is a tragedy. It's a man-made tragedy. It's awful policy. I will tell you, this bill, on top of that tragedy, is going to add to more woe on the gulf coast, running up the cost of American energy production, killing more jobs. Let me just say this: the President said he wanted to double exports in 5 years. Well, his policies and the policies of our friends across the aisle are going to basically export American jobs.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the efforts on the part of my colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon). But what we have seen is, we have a current moratorium on deepwater drilling and a de facto moratorium on shallow water drilling. And I'm afraid that this amendment doesn't fully address the issue. It doesn't address the current moratorium, whereby we are hemorrhaging jobs. The 300 jobs my colleague over here, Mr. Scalise, just referenced were from Baker Hughes in my district, and those don't count the shallow water jobs that we are losing daily from companies I have been hearing about each day. So the problem we have is with the section on page 2, which continues to allow the Secretary this wide latitude beyond the normal permitting process. So we have a real problem with this. We think our motion to recommit that we are going to offer later will actually give a clean break on getting rid of this moratorium, which is killing American energy production jobs, making us more dependent on foreign oil. It's not the kind of policy that we need. I know my colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon) wants to solve this problem, but we have concerns about this specific language.

Mr. BOUSTANY

Mr. BOUSTANY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee and as the ranking member on Oversight, I was sitting in my office. This debate began, and the bill was not even in electronic form for us to review.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, again, I am in my office. This debate begins, and we can't find the actual bill language in electronic form. I understand it is now available, but to have the debate begin I don't think is very fair to Members of this House, and it is not what the American people would expect of us. I think it is entirely regrettable that--we are dealing with an issue of national importance. This body can act. This body can act in the national interest if we work together, but these kinds of trust- destroying measures are not in the interest of this body or in the interest of the American people. My objection to the bill still stands. Even though there is a move to incorporate the repeal of the 1099 provisions, I still have a significant objection because we are talking about some very complicated international tax provisions for which we really have not had the kind of hearings necessary to understand the consequences. We should not be doing this type of ad hoc tax tinkering. We ought to be taking a more comprehensive approach in understanding the economic consequences. These tax provisions, from what I am hearing from those who are trying to engage in international business to create American jobs, will be a job killer. They will destroy American jobs. What we need to do is look at this in a more comprehensive way. Now, if we haven't had the kind of hearings to vet this, to explore this, how can we expect the American people to understand the complexity of the nature of these tax provisions? What we ought to be doing is creating jobs. What we ought to be doing is promoting American competitiveness. What we ought to be doing is promoting economic growth and private sector job growth. That is the problem with the bill. Now, if you have U.S. companies that are trying to compete against foreign-owned companies in a very complex economic environment and if U.S. companies are subject to double taxation, you can call it a loophole. I call it hurting American competitiveness. The bottom line is we want a Tax Code that promotes private sector job growth. We want a Tax Code that promotes American corporations and businesses that are going to be competitive worldwide to create jobs at the highest standards possible, and we want to see economic growth, which we know will lead to private sector job growth. So my objection to the bill still stands based on the policy. But I am deeply, deeply regretful and distressed at the way this bill has been taken to the floor of the House this morning.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the ranking member of the full committee. I want to respond to a couple of things the gentleman from New York brought up. This 1099 provision, we agree on it. It's an egregious issue. It needs to be repealed. We need to do it in the right way, along with many of these other issues in the health care bill. But with regard to small businesses, the President himself has said that he wants to double exports in 5 years, and the best way to do that is to expand export opportunities. And if we're going to do that for small businesses and mid-sized companies, we have to do this in a way that allows them to partner with large corporations and have the infrastructure. These tax provisions in the bill will subject our companies, who are doing this type of work, to double taxation, making us less competitive, inhibiting economic growth, and reducing our ability to export. It's clear. Secondly, we haven't had the hearings to actually flesh all this out. I think it's critical that we really look at this if we're going to promote American competitiveness. My fear is that, yes, we might double exports in 5 years, but it will be the export of American jobs.

Mr. BOUSTANY

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the full committee for yielding time. I rise in opposition to the bill. And while a few of the tax provisions in this bill may not be unobjectionable, let's be clear, this bill is a continuation of the same failed economic policy that has given us an atmosphere of uncertainty for families and American businesses with the unemployment rate still hovering around 10 percent. The bill raises taxes $31.8 billion over 11 years. Now, let's look at how it raises taxes. I just want to look at one of these tax increases here. What it does is it raises taxes in a weakened economy, but in a way that threatens American competitiveness. It threatens the competitiveness of U.S. businesses that are trying to compete overseas with foreign-owned companies. These are businesses that employ U.S. workers in the private sector. It's going to kill jobs. This bill contains a series of international tax changes that could have far reaching consequences on the competitiveness of U.S. businesses trying to compete overseas. These provisions will kill jobs. It's very clear. Now, if we're going to do this kind of tax policy, these kinds of changes should be done in a broader context as part of a comprehensive tax reform bill. That's the responsible way to do this. And I know our Democratic colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee should understand that, that what we really need to be doing is a comprehensive approach to tax reform and not this piecemeal, ad hoc and mischievous tax reform in little bitty pieces and bits that basically are wrecking our Tax Code. Now, I would submit that what we really need to do is get back to some basics here. We need to lower the corporate tax rate down to the average of what our major trade partners are looking at to really enhance U.S. competitiveness. That's going to help us create jobs and stop this assault on U.S. businesses that are trying to work within the constraints of the U.S. Tax Code.

Mr. BOUSTANY. These changes are actually hurting the competitiveness of U.S. businesses. Again, we don't need to do this kind of ad hoc, harmful tax reform. We need a comprehensive approach. The responsible approach is what I think we probably all agree on, a comprehensive approach that's going to promote economic growth, promote American competitiveness and private sector job growth.

Mr. BOUSTANY

Mr. BOUSTANY. If we lower our corporate tax rate at least down to OECD averages, that will enhance U.S. competitiveness. And we do have a different tax system than other countries utilize that I think actually hurts our competitiveness. But if we actually take steps such as what the administration has proposed in its current budget in the international tax treatment of U.S. companies, we're actually going to hurt U.S. job growth, we're going to hurt exports, and we're going to hurt U.S. competitiveness. So I think it's imperative that we take a look at this. And our committee, the Ways and Means Committee, should take the lead in this issue as well.

Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the ranking member on the Trade Subcommittee, Mr. Brady from Texas, for yielding time to me. I think it's important to recognize, and I agree with the gentleman who just spoke, Mr. Pascrell, that the United States has the most vibrant, open market in the entire world, and we need to take advantage of our leadership position. The U.S. has led globally since 1945 in setting the standards for open trade. Trade agreements give access to American workers and businesses to other markets for U.S. services and products. Let's face it, 95 percent of the consumers of the world are outside of the borders of the United States. So our trade agreements create U.S. jobs. Despite having the trade deficit that we've talked about, the U.S. trade balance with 13 countries that we have free trade agreements implemented through Trade Promotion Authority has really improved our export capacity by 476 percent between 2001 and 2009, creating a trade surplus with those respective countries of over $25 billion. Case by case we can look at these: CAFTA-DR, Chile, Morocco, Singapore, Australia. These trade agreements actually exceeded actual export growth estimates initially put forth by the International Trade Commission. The U.S. had a trade surplus with each of these countries, enhancing the competitiveness of U.S. workers and businesses. The failure to implement an aggressive trade strategy that focuses on exports puts the U.S. at extreme risk of falling behind competitively. We know that China's embarking on a very aggressive trade policy globally. Other countries, Brazil. We have a very multipolar world today with very aggressive trade policies working against us, and our country has really been on the sidelines for the last year-and-a-half in trade. This failure threatens U.S. credibility globally. Frankly, it threatens the U.S. credibility. And it's also a threat to the historic U.S. leadership role that we have set in setting open standards for global trade. Now, I believe that this new commission really is unnecessary. I am going to support it if it's the only way we can jump-start something on trade, but I really do think it's unnecessary. And if you go back and look at the historic role that the Ways and Means Committee has played in implementing an open trade policy, a trade policy that benefits U.S. businesses and U.S. workers, it goes all the way back into the twenties, and possibly even before that. I remember reading about Cordell Hull as a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, a Democrat who espoused open trade, and then went on to become Secretary of State and continued to espouse open trade. Our committee, the Ways and Means Committee, has an illustrious history in doing this, and I believe that's where the leadership should come from. Mr. Chairman, I believe we can work together in trying to implement in working with this current administration to come up with a really good, solid trade strategy that really promotes U.S. competitiveness. That's where I believe the authority should lie. I believe it's pretty clear what we need to do. We ought to implement the three pending free trade agreements: South Korea, Panama, and Colombia. Let's move forward on these. These will immediately help enhance exports and create U.S. jobs. They already have access to our market. We need access to those markets. In the hearing just yesterday, Stu Eizenstat, who served in the Clinton administration, talked about these being no-cost stimulus, no-cost job creation mechanisms. I also believe, in addition to implementing a very aggressive trade strategy that focuses on U.S. exports not just for large corporations but small and mid-sized companies as well, where we can really enhance our export capacity, we also need to take a look at the other things holding us back on U.S. competitiveness. We need to lower the corporate rate. If we lower the corporate tax rate, this will enhance U.S. competitiveness. And we also need to back away from some of these proposals in international tax that are hurting U.S. competitiveness.

Mr. BOUSTANY

Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I rise to highlight what the President's capricious and arbitrary moratorium on American energy production is doing to families. The wife of a rig worker forwarded a letter to me that she sent to the President and to Secretary Salazar saying that while they may not need regular work, she and her family cannot keep going without jobs. Her family has bills to pay which are now 3 months behind, and they will lose almost everything they've ever worked for as a result of this arbitrary moratorium on energy production. Her husband relies on rig exploration jobs, and even sent copies of their bills. She said her bank will not wait out the moratorium to receive her mortgage payment of over $3,000 past due. She said her family will probably lose their cars. They won't even have a car to live in if this thing persists. Due to the moratorium, her husband lost a 30-day exploration job that would pay $732 a day, a total of $21,960 for 30 days. This is an arbitrary and malicious moratorium, and it needs to end.