Dave Camp

Mr. CAMP

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 reserve a point of order.

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I can assure the Speaker that I will not be using all of the balance of my time. There has been a lot of rhetoric today, and as this debate winds down and as we prepare to vote on this legislation, I urge my colleagues to look at the facts. I think many of the arguments we've heard from the other side ignore reality. It ignores the reality of their own legislation--legislation that they've passed. It ignores the reality of their own votes. Under the health care bill, you put cliffs in the bill, if we want to talk about cliffs. There are levels where people need to pay back the entire amount of the subsidy they receive. In the original bill, that was at 400 percent of poverty. That is the level that is no legislation we see today. Later in December, when you wanted to address the doctor fix, you just moved that level up to 500 percent of poverty. There is still a cliff in the bill. There was a cliff in the original bill. There is a cliff now. Also, this idea that repaying a subsidy to which one is not entitled is somehow a new concept was in the original health care legislation. It still is in the original health care legislation. We just believe we need to take further steps to protect the taxpayers. And I would also say that if you look at the legislation, there is on page 123 a subpart (b) eligibility determination where applicants apply for the subsidy, and they're required to report certain things. But they're also required under this section to report changes in circumstances. That obligation is on the taxpayer, on the person seeking the subsidy. And that is in their legislation, and we think that's an important concept to protect. Let's stick with the facts. The fact is the increased tax reporting requirements enacted last year will hurt our ability to create jobs. The 1099 provision hurts our ability to create jobs in this country. Fact, the unemployment rate has been stuck at or above 9 percent for nearly 2 years, and this Congress owes it to the American people to do everything it can to help small businesses, job creators, and workers get back on their feet. Fact, repealing the 1099 provision is a top priority of small businesses, and that's why we have over 225 organizations supporting this legislation, including the Nation's largest small business organization, the NFIB. And, fact, this bill is a tax cut and a spending cut, and that's why it has the support of groups like the Americans for Tax Reform, the National Taxpayer Union and Americans for Prosperity. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill so small business can get back to what they do best: creating jobs. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. I very much appreciate the gentleman yielding. And I just want to comment, the gentlewoman from Illinois mentioned about her 12-year involvement in this issue. In fact, she and I worked very hard in 2006 to get the first funding for the electronic barrier, but that was 5 years ago. To wait for the study that I hear my colleagues call for is another 5 years. How much time is it going to take before we eliminate the threat to the entire Great Lakes ecosystem? Again, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CAMP. I appreciate the gentleman's words and also his commitment to try to work together to resolve this issue, and I appreciate the arguments he is making. But the concern on the economics argument is that the damage to the Great Lakes, if this problem is not addressed, is irreversible and cannot be calculated. I can cite the statistics on the jobs and economic impact, but the ecosystem, the damage to that cannot be remedied. The concern I have is this has really been a problem since 2006, when we worked to get the electronic barrier, which has not worked. And here and now we are, in 2011, saying let's wait another 5 years for the Army Corps to complete their study, and the problem is more imminent than that. And I cannot seem to get the administration to move on the immediacy of the threat to the system. I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. CAMP. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CAMP. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CAMP. I appreciate the gentleman's comments, particularly at the opening of your remarks when you spoke of your involvement in this issue for more than a decade. And the problem we have is we've run out of time. Really, since 2009 when EDNA was found north of the locks, and now we found live Asian carp north of the locks----

Mr. CAMP. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CAMP. Today I offer an amendment that is long overdue. Last June, a live bighead Asian carp was discovered 6 miles from Lake Michigan, north of the locks and well past the electric barrier. This discovery shows that Asian carp, one of the world's most rampant invasive species, are at the doorstep of the Great Lakes. Weighing up to 100 pounds, spanning over 6 feet, and eating half their body weight daily, Asian carp have the ability to decimate fish populations indigenous to the Great Lakes. These giant bottom feeders would destroy the region's $7.5 billion fishing industry as well as the 800,000 jobs that are supported by it. To prevent this catastrophe, ecological experts have said that closing the locks that separate the Illinois River from Lake Michigan is the single most important step we can take to prevent these species from entering the Great Lakes. In 2009, the Michigan attorney general filed a petition in Federal court to direct the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to immediately close the locks. This petition was supported by Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Indiana, New York, and Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, the court denied the petition. But after the court's decision, I introduced the Carp Act, along with Senator Stabenow of Michigan, that would immediately close the locks. And since then, despite the imminent threat of Asian carp, the administration has refused to close the locks and all we have received is promises of studies that will take years to complete. You will surely hear arguments from those opposed to closing the locks that doing so will disrupt the movement of cargo and cause serious economic harm to the region. Economists who have examined those claims have found them to be grossly exaggerated. An economic study conducted in 2010, found on the Michigan attorney general's website at: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/1- Appendix_Renewed_ Motion_310133_7.pdf, found that if cargo passing through the locks had to be transported by land, it would increase truck traffic in the surrounding area by only one-tenth of 1 percent, or the equivalent of adding two additional freight trains to the over 500 leaving the region each day. Any supposed economic impact of closing the locks would pale in comparison to the multibillion dollar industries that would be wiped out by Asian carp. The State of Michigan's response to the administration's Asian carp framework pointed out, ``The Framework's statement that the Chicago lock is the Nation's second busiest ignores the fact that, in 2008, only 39 loaded barges carrying approximately 100,000 tons of cargo, mainly sand and gravel, moved through that lock. Moreover, according to the Corps' own data, the 2008 vessel traffic consisted of 34,000--not 50,000--vessels, mainly recreational watercraft.'' The canal is now only 9 feet deep in some areas. You will also hear critics claim that this amendment will tie the hands of the Corps in assisting flood emergencies. Again, those claims are not accurate. The Corps has sufficient authority to protect human life and property in the event of flooding and other disasters under the authority granted to it by the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies Act and other Corps regulations. Those authorities allow district commanders to issue a declaration of emergency and use Corps resources to help State and local authorities respond. Opening the locks to deal with flooding is the exact type of scenario this authority is intended for. Mr. Chairman, every day of inaction puts the Great Lakes ecosystem, the largest body of freshwater in the world, and the 800,000 jobs sustained at risk. Inaction is unacceptable, and I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks).

Mr. CAMP. I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. CAMP. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg).

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock).

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

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Buchanan).

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

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo).

Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee and deputy whip, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.