Dave Camp

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).

Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. West).

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I would ask the Chair to rule.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).

Mr. CAMP. I would ask the Chair to rule, Madam Speaker.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the House Administration Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, the gentleman is not addressing the point of order.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Boustany.

Mr. CAMP. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member from the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate that language: to get back to what they tried to do in the first place. Let's look at what they did in the first place. Their bill, their original bill, said anyone who earned more than 400 percent of poverty--that's $93,800 for a family of four--would be required to repay the entire amount of the exchange subsidy. That is exactly what this bill does. This bill does what the original health care legislation did. Then they raised it, and said, well, if you made up to $117,000 for a family of four, you had to repay the entire subsidy. They had a cliff in their bill, and there is a cliff now. What we are saying is we need to see that the American taxpayer is protected. With that, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 4.

Mr. CAMP. Regular order, Madam Speaker.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today the House considers H.R. 4, legislation repealing one of the job-killing tax increases enacted in the Democrats' health care law last year. This legislation provides a pathway to achieving a goal that is shared by Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate alike, and by the Obama administration--repealing the form 1099 reporting requirements enacted last year. Before I get into the details of H.R. 4, I would like to take a moment to recognize and commend my colleague and friend, Congressman Dan Lungren of California. He first brought this issue to light, and through his hard work we are here today to vote on a bill that has enjoyed strong bipartisan support. We have been here talking about 1099s before. Some have even gone so far as to say there seems to have been 1,099 votes to repeal 1099s. While we have attempted in the past to repeal this misguided feature of last year's health overhaul, today we turn a corner and move H.R. 4 from the House to the Senate, so that it will hopefully soon be sent to the President for his signature. Only then will small businesses and families have certainty that they will not be buried under an avalanche of tax paperwork. In 2010, as one of many ways to finance a trillion dollar health care law, tax information reporting rules were expanded. These new rules require businesses to issue a form 1099 for any payments to corporations rather than just individuals, and for any payments for property rather than just services or investment income that exceeds $600 over the course of a year. This previously little-known provision quickly became an item of great concern to small business employers across the country. The National Federation of Independent Business, whose 350,000 members support H.R. 4, said this newly enacted reporting requirement would have a direct negative impact on small business. Also brought forward by Mr. Tiberi of Ohio in September of last year, a form 1099 reporting requirement was expanded again to help pay for the small business lending law. This expansion treats the recipient of rental income from real estate as engaging in the trade or business of renting property. Unless repealed, families and individuals will be forced to fill out paperwork if they do something as basic as replace a refrigerator in an apartment they rent out. The National Association of Realtors, which supports H.R. 4, called this provision not only another paperwork burden but a trap for all small landlords. Mr. Speaker, neither of these provisions reflects the wishes or needs of the American people. The most important issue on their minds is jobs. Let me say it again: jobs, jobs, and jobs. But despite the call for policies that can create a better climate for job creation, Congress has enacted policies that make this harder. H.R. 4 will accomplish three goals. First, the legislation repeals the expanded 1099 reporting requirements on small businesses. Second, it repeals the new 1099 reporting requirements for rental property. Third, it protects taxpayers by recovering overpayments of taxpayer- funded government subsidies. What that means, and I know we are going to hear a lot about it from the other side today, is that if this bill passes, anyone earning more than 400 percent of poverty, nearly $95,000 for a family of four in 2014, and who is ineligible for the exchange subsidies under the 2010 health care law will be required to pay back all, not just some, of the improper payments. I would like to note that this is the same level Democrats used in the original law enacted last March. For those earning less than 400 percent of poverty, the level of repayment of those overpayments is also increased. This is similar to the path taken by Democrats in December when they adjusted the repayment amounts as a way to finance the so-called ``doc fix.'' Now, I noticed yesterday that there was a lot of huffing and puffing on the floor about alleged tax increases in H.R. 4. I want to be sure to clear up any confusion on this point. The Joint Committee on Taxation says in its score that in addition to a $20 billion spending cut, there is a $5 billion increase in revenue to the government from this one provision. But that doesn't mean people are necessarily paying more in taxes. Now, how is that possible? Simple. According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, under the better enforcement rules of H.R. 4, some people won't go into the exchange to accept a taxpayer-funded subsidy because they would be required to pay a larger share or, in some cases, all of the subsidy back under H.R. 4. Paying back money you weren't entitled to is not a tax increase. For example, under current law, a household making $105,000 might think it's worth understating its income, or at least not updating their income information, in order to receive a $12,000 exchange subsidy because they would only have to pay back $3,000 if caught; but the household is less likely to do so under H.R. 4 because it would have to pay back the entire subsidy given there was no eligibility for the subsidy in the first place. So let's be clear here. Voluntarily choosing not to enroll in government health care and thus foregoing the associated tax subsidies that one may not be eligible for might result in more government revenue, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. But that is not a tax increase. H.R. 4 is endorsed by more than 225 organizations, including the American Farm Bureau, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Osteopathic Association, and Americans for Tax Reform. Grover Norquist of ATR wrote he was especially pleased about the repeal of the 1099 provisions and the bill is ``a net tax cut.'' That's because despite the claims to the contrary, H.R. 4 reduces Federal spending by nearly $20 billion over the next 10 years. It also reduces the deficit by $166 million over that same time. That's probably why the bill is supported by Americans for Prosperity and the National Taxpayers Union as well. Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to come together and advance a bill that is a win for small business, a win for families, and a win for taxpayers across America. Cast a ``yes'' vote for H.R. 4 and give them that win. Supporters of 1099 Repeal (as of 3/2/11) [Committee on Ways and Means] Aeronautical Repair Station Association; Agricultural Retailers Association; Air Conditioning Contractors of America; Alabama Nursery & Landscape Association; Alliance for Affordable Services; Alliance of Independent Store Owners and Professionals; American Association for Laboratory Accreditation; American Bakers Association; American Bankers Association; American Beekeeping Federation; American Council of Engineering Companies; American Council of Independent Laboratories; American Farm Bureau Federation '; Americans for Prosperity; American Foundry Society; American Hotel & Lodging Association; American Institute of Architects; American Institute of Certified Public Accountants; American Medical Association; American Mushroom Institute. American Nursery & Landscape Association; American Osteopathic Association; American Petroleum Institute; American Physical Therapy Association; American Rental Association; American Road & Transportation Builders Association; American Sheep Industry Association; American Society of Association Executives; American Society of Interior Designers; American Soybean Association; American Subcontractors Association, Inc.; American Sugar Alliance; American Supply Association; American Veterinary Distributors Association; American Veterinary Medical Association; Americans for Tax Reform; AMT--The Association For Manufacturing Technology; Arizona Nursery Association; Assisted Living Federation of America; Associated Builders and Contractors. Associated Equipment Distributors; Associated General Contractors of America; Associated Landscape Contractors of Colorado; Association of Free Community Papers; Association of Ship Brokers & Agents; Association of Small Business Development Centers; Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association; Automotive Recyclers Association; Bowling Proprietors Association of America; California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers; California Landscape Contractors Association; Commercial Photographers International; Community Papers of Florida; Community Papers of Michigan; Community Papers of Ohio and West Virginia; Computing Technology Industry Association; Connecticut Nursery & Landscape Association; Council of Smaller Enterprises; Direct Selling Association; Door and Hardware Institute. Electronic Security Association; Electronics Representatives Association (ERA); Farm Credit Council; Financial Services Institute, Inc.; Florida Nursery, Growers & Landscape Association; Free Community Papers of New York; Georgia Green Industry Association; Hampton Roads Technology Council; Healthcare Distribution Management Association; Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association; Idaho Nursery & Landscape Association; Illinois Green Industry Association; Illinois Landscape Contractors Association (ILCA); Illinois Technology Association (ITA); Independent Community Bankers of America; Independent Electrical Contractors, Inc.; Independent Office Products & Furniture Dealers Association; Indiana Nursery and Landscape Association; Indoor Tanning Association; Industrial Supply Association. Industry Council for Tangible Assets; International Association of Refrigerated Warehouses; International Foodservice Distributors Association; International Franchise Association; International Housewares Association; International Sleep Products Association; Kentucky Nursery and Landscape Association; Louisiana Nursery and Landscape Association; Maine Landscape and Nursery Association; Manufacturers' Agents Association for the Foodservice Industry; Manufacturers' Agents National Association; Manufacturing Jewelers and Suppliers of America; Maryland Nursery and Landscape Association; Massachusetts Nursery & Landscape Association, Inc.; Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association; Mid-Atlantic Community Papers Association; Midwest Free Community Papers; Minnesota Nursery & Landscape Association; Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association; NAMM, National Association of Music Merchants. National Apartment Association; National Association for Printing Leadership; National Association for the Self- Employed; National Association of Federal Credit Unions; National Association of Home Builders; National Association of Manufacturers; National Association of Mortgage Brokers; National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies; National Association of Realtors'; National Association of RV Parks & Campgrounds; National Association of State Departments of Agriculture; National Association of Theatre Owners; National Association of Wheat Growers; National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors; National Barley Growers Association; National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Chicken Council; National Christmas Tree Association; National Club Association; National Community Pharmacists Association. National Corn Growers Association; National Cotton Council; National Council of Agricultural Employers; National Council of Farmer Cooperatives; National Electrical Contractors Association; National Electrical Manufacturers Representatives Association; National Federation of Independent Business; National Home Furnishings Association; National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association; National Milk Producers Federation; National Multi Housing Council; National Newspaper Association; National Office Products Alliance; National Restaurant Association; National Retail Federation; National Roofing Contractors Association; National Small Business Association; National Small Business Network; National Sunflower Association; National Taxpayers Union. National Tooling and Machining Association; National Utility Contractors Association; Nationwide Insurance Independent Contractors Association; Nebraska Nursery and Landscape Association; New Mexico Family Business Alliance; New Mexico Nursery & Landscape Association; New York State Nursery and Landscape Association; North American Die Casting Association; North Carolina Green Industry Council; North Carolina Nursery and Landscape Association; Northeastern Retail Lumber Association; Northwest Dairy Association; NPES The Association for Suppliers of Printing, Publishing & Converting Technologies; OFA--An Association of Floriculture Professionals; Office Furniture Dealers Alliance; Ohio Nursery and Landscape Association; Oregon Association of Nurseries; Oregon Nursery Association; Outdoor Power Equipment Institute; Pennsylvania Landscape and Nursery Association. Pet Industry Distributors Association; Petroleum Marketers Association of America; Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association; Precision Machined Products Association; Precision Metalforming Association; Printing Industries of America; Professional Golfers Association of America; Professional Landscape Network; Professional Photographers of America; Promotional Products Association International; Public Lands Council; S Corp Association; Safety Equipment Distributors Association; Saturation Mailers Coalition; SBE Council; Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles Association; Self-Insurance Institute of America (SIIA); Service Station Dealers of America and Allied Trades; SIGMA, the Society for Independent Gasoline Marketers of America; Small Business Council of America. Small Business Legislative Council; SMC Business Councils; Society of American Florists; Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of America; Society of Sport & Event Photographers; South Carolina Nursery & Landscape Association; Southeastern Advertising Publishers Association; Southeast Dairy Farmers Association; Southeast Milk, Inc.; Specialty Equipment Market Association; Specialty Tools & Fasteners Distributors Association; SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association; Start Over! Coalition; Stock Artists Alliance; TechQuest Pennsylvania; TechServe Alliance; Tennessee Nursery & Landscape Association; Texas Community Newspaper Association; Texas Nursery & Landscape Association; Textile Care Allied Trades Association. Textile Rental Services Association of America; The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry; Tire Industry Association; Toy Industry Association, Inc.; Turfgrass Producers International; U.S. Apple Association; U.S. Canola Association; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; United Egg Producers; United Fresh Produce Association; United Producers, Inc.; United States Dry Bean Council; USA Dry Pea & Lentil Council; USA Rice Federation; Utah Nursery & Landscape Association; Virginia Christmas Tree Growers Association; Virginia Green Industry Council; Virginia Nursery & Landscape Association; Virginia Technology Alliance; Washington State Nursery & Landscape Association; Western Growers Association; Western Peanut Growers Association; Western United Dairymen; Window and Door Manufacturers Association; Wisconsin Community Papers; Wood Machinery Manufacturers of America. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington State (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, regular order. The gentleman is not addressing the point of order.

Mr. CAMP. At this time I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to say that the example the gentleman from New York cited, that if the family or individual honestly reported their income without this change that we are proposing today, they would still have to repay the entire amount of the subsidy to the government. I submit for the Record a letter from Americans for Tax Reform that says this legislation is not a tax increase and is not a violation of the taxpayer protection pledge. N.B. The following letter applies in full to House consideration of H.R. 4, ``The Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act of 2011.''--RLE, 03-02-2011 Americans for Tax Reform, Washington, DC, February 24, 2011. Hon. Dave Camp, House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Camp: I write today to reiterate the support of Americans for Tax Reform for H.R. 705, the ``Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection and Repayment of Exchange Subsidy Overpayments Act of 2011.'' I also wish to clarify that H.R. 705 is a net tax cut, and is therefore not a violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. Two bills in the last Congress (one of which was Obamacare) greatly increased ``1099-MISC'' information reporting for small employers, and introduced this reporting for the first time to families renting out real property. These requirements are unnecessary, onerous, and would lead to major compliance issues--as the IRS itself admits. H.R. 705 repeals these two provisions, which is a victory for taxpayers. The official score of H.R. 705 from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCX-14-11) shows that this bill is a net tax cut. By repealing the 1099-MISC provisions, taxes are cut by a gross amount of $24.7 billion from 2011-2021. By requiring erroneously-obtained Obamacare exchange credit advances to be paid back by more recipients, JCT scores a dual effect from the bill. Gross taxes would increase by $5 billion, and spending (``outlay effects,'' as shown in footnote 2) would be reduced by $19.9 billion. Thus, the gross tax cut effects of repealing the 1099-MISC reporting requirements are ``paid for'' by a small gross tax increase and a large spending cut. Overall, the bill is a net tax cut of $19.7 billion from 2011-2021. Because no bill which is a net tax cut can possibly be in violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, the latter simply does not apply in this matter. Americans for Tax Reform has always followed JCT scoring methodology in this area, including when JCT disaggregates between spending and revenue effects of tax legislation. Spending cuts should never be confused with tax increases, and JCT does a good job pointing out when spending policy is present in tax bills. Those trying to call this bill a net tax hike are simply seeking to mislead the public, or cannot accurately read a JCT score. I encourage all Members of Congress to support this tax cut/spending cut bill when it is considered by the full House. Sincerely, Grover G. Norquist. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller).

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 129, I call up the bill (H.R. 4) to repeal the expansion of information reporting requirements for payments of $600 or more to corporations, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.