Dave Camp

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying it is truly disappointing that this is the only trade bill in the past 2 years that has been marked up by the Ways and Means Committee. I find it unacceptable that this is the sum total of our trade agenda. While this legislation addresses an important issue, it will not address many more pressing trade concerns with China, and it will not advance the goal of doubling exports in 5 years. To achieve those goals, we must move expeditiously on the pending free trade agreements, work harder to open new markets to our exports, and address broader economic issues all over the world and with China. We have held four separate hearings on China this year alone. At each, we heard from witnesses, including Treasury Secretary Geithner, who stressed that China's currency policy is only one element in our highly complicated trading relationship. It's not that China's currency problem is not a problem or priority; it's just that there are far larger issues with regard to China and our trade imbalance. Issues like intellectual property rights, indigenous innovation, export restraints on rare earth minerals and other items, and a host of nontariff barriers are wreaking havoc on American employers, their workers, and our economy. Despite my disappointment about the lack of a broader trade agenda and the lack of action on these other concerns with respect to China, it would be an enormous mistake to give up completely on addressing China's currency policy. We all agree that China's currency is fundamentally misaligned and that China must take prompt action to allow market forces to determine the value of its currency. At the same time, it is important that any legislation be consistent with our international obligation and be effective. Any legislation that could potentially expose the United States to WTO-sanctioned retaliation would undoubtedly do more harm than good and would undermine our efforts to get China to comply with its own obligations. At our hearings over the past few weeks, a number of witnesses and Republican Members raised serious concerns about the WTO consistency of the original version of H.R. 2378. As a result of these concerns, Chairman Levin completely rewrote the bill. The version before us today has little in common with the original, which, on its face, violated our WTO obligation. It addresses many of the criticisms raised by witnesses and by Republican Members, and I appreciate that the chairman has taken these concerns into account. Unlike the original version, this bill does not mandate that the Commerce Department automatically adjust antidumping and countervailing duty calculations to account for China's currency policy. This version allows Commerce to consider many factors in determining whether or not China's currency policy satisfies the technical definition of an export subsidy, as it does today, and does not prejudge an outcome. While I remain deeply concerned about using countervailing duty law to address China's currency policy, I believe the bill before us today does not, on its face, violate our WTO obligations. I will vote for this bill because it sends a clear signal to China that Congress' patience is running out but does not give China an excuse to retaliate against U.S. companies and their workers. While we cannot pass legislation that likely violates our WTO commitments and would result in WTO-sanctioned retaliation, we cannot, at the same time, allow ourselves to be afraid of China's reaction to a WTO- consistent measure. If China retaliates against this bill at this stage, I fully expect that USTR, and the administration as a whole, will act swiftly and aggressively to pursue every option available, including through action at the WTO. China's posturing and bad behavior cannot dictate our trade policy. This legislation also sends an important signal to the administration: It is time to produce results. The administration must step up its bilateral and multilateral efforts and set a clear timeline for action. The administration should work to ensure that the issue of global imbalances, which naturally includes China's currency policy, is prominently on the agenda at the November G20 meetings in Seoul. We should also reengage in bilateral investment treaty negotiations. As I noted at our markup, the fact that the administration has not moved aggressively on a multilateral basis has forced us to this point. The legislation we are considering today is better than the original but still won't resolve our trade imbalances with China. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, this bill seeks to expand the eligibility for certain current law tax benefits to algae-based fuels. Specifically, it would make algae or algae plant property eligible for both the cellulosic biofuel producer credit and for 50 percent bonus depreciation. Regardless of whether Members believe these enhanced tax benefits for algae are appropriate, I think it's important to make a few observations about this bill, about the process under which we are considering it, and about the majority's decision to make this the centerpiece of its tax agenda during this, the final week of session. With respect to the bill itself, I would note that these same algae- related benefits, along with many other energy-related tax provisions, were included as a part of Chairman Levin's much broader green jobs discussion draft which had been expected to be formally considered by the Ways and Means Committee as a package. It's worth asking why only the algae-related provisions of that broader energy bill merit special consideration in stand-alone legislation, which is quite unusual for tax legislation from the committee, while the other provisions in that broader bill languish without so much as a committee markup. If Ways and Means had actually held a mark-up on these algae-related provisions, Members could have fully explored whether it is advisable to expand the cellulosic biofuel producer credit, a credit that has proved controversial over the past several years. Indeed, Members of both parties supported efforts to close a major potential loophole in that credit that could have permitted ``black liquor,'' an alternative fuel created as a byproduct of the paper- making process to qualify. Given such recent, high-profile alarm about potential abuse of the cellulosic biofuel producer credit, one would think that efforts to further expand the credit would be pursued only after consideration and a formal Ways and Means Committee mark-up under regular order. I think we do the best work when we proceed under regular order. But, instead, these provisions have been rushed directly to the floor. But what is most disturbing about the tax debate we are having here today is what we are not debating. Rather than using this last week of session prior to the election to prevent a massive $3.8 trillion tax increase from taking effect at the end of the year, the majority's tax agenda for this final week, instead centers on a bill that provides tax benefits for algae. And let me repeat: instead of protecting American families, seniors and investors and small businesses from a job- killing, $3.8 trillion tax hike, we are here debating tax benefits for algae. Madam Speaker, governing is about setting priorities, and the majority's tax agenda for the week shows just how out of line the majority's priorities are with those of the American people. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. CAMP

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

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

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, regulated investment companies, better known in their most prevalent form as mutual funds, are intended to provide individual investors the ability to invest easily and with low costs in a diversified pool of professionally managed investments. According to the Investment Company Institute, ICI, the main trade association for mutual funds, more than 50 million American families currently invest in mutual funds. Most of the current law mutual fund rules were last collectively updated more than two decades ago. H.R. 4337 would modify and update certain technical tax rules pertaining to mutual funds in order to make them better conform to, and interact with, other aspects of the Tax Code and applicable securities laws. On June 15, 2010, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures held a hearing on H.R. 4337. Invited witnesses, including a representative of ICI, were supportive of the bill, and we are not aware of any controversy or opposition to the legislation. Let me close by making a broader point. It certainly is appropriate for Ways and Means to periodically review the tax law to ensure that targeted provisions of importance to particular segments of the economy, including the mutual fund industry and their investors, are kept up to date; and I certainly appreciate the majority's decision to hold a hearing on this bill before bringing it to the floor, because our committee works best when it works under regular order. Having said that, I must say that I am deeply disappointed that our committee seems to have lost sight of its responsibility to address the single most significant tax issue facing Americans right now-- preventing a massive $3.8 trillion tax increase at the end of this year. These looming tax hikes on families, seniors, investors, and small businesses not only threaten every American taxpayer with higher taxes, but they're also contributing significantly to the uncertainty we see in the economy as a whole. So while we should continue to work together to modernize the tax rules governing mutual funds, we also should be working together to prevent harmful tax increases, such as the tax hikes on capital gains and dividends that will dramatically affect the very same mutual fund investors we're focusing on here today. With that, Madam Speaker, I urge support for the bill before us. Investment Company Institute, Washington, DC, September 28, 2010. Re: ICI Strongly Supports Mutual Fund Modernization Legislation. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC. Hon. John Boehner, Republican Leader, House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi and Republican Leader Boehner: The Investment Company Institute strongly supports the bipartisan Regulated Investment Company (``RIC'') Modernization Act (H.R. 4337). On behalf of the millions of mutual fund shareholders who would benefit from this bill, we urge all House members to vote favorably on this bill when it is considered on the Suspension Calendar. This bill would modernize the tax laws that govern mutual funds. These laws have not been updated in any meaningful or comprehensive way since 1986, almost a quarter century ago; some of the provisions in current law date back more than 60 years. Numerous developments during the past 20-plus years-- including the development of new fund structures and distribution channels--have placed considerable stress on the currently applicable tax rules. The legislation's many benefits were discussed in detail during the bill's June 2010 hearing before the Committee on Ways and Means Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee. The three key areas in which the bill would benefit funds and their shareholders involve: improving the efficiency of mutual fund investment structures, reducing disproportionate tax consequences for inadvertent errors, and minimizing the need for amended tax statements and amended tax returns. As discussed in detail in our testimony before the Subcommittee, the bill would reduce the burden arising from amended year-end tax information statements, improve a fund's ability to meet its distribution requirements, create remedies for inadvertent mutual find qualification failures, improve the tax treatment of investing in a ``fund-of-funds'' structure, and update the tax treatment of fund capital losses. This bill reflects the sponsors' conclusion, with which we strongly agree, that it is important to update, clarify, and streamline the mutual fund tax rules. By eliminating uncertainties and allowing appropriate innovations, funds will become more efficient. The ICI supports the pay-fors included in H.R. 4337, which apply to regulated investment companies and fully offset the modest revenue costs of the legislation. Enacting this legislation will allow our members to focus on what they do best--serving their shareholders. We urge your support. Sincerely, Paul Schott Stevens, President and Chief Executive Officer. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1595, and I am pleased to be the lead Republican cosponsor of the resolution along with the distinguished Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin. This important and timely resolution celebrates the 50th anniversary of legislation authorizing real estate investment trusts, or REITs. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed this legislation into law one- half century ago, September 14, 1960. Over that half century, REITs have helped finance the very projects that have built the main streets and downtowns of each and every one of our communities, from shopping malls and health care facilities, to business parks, high-rises and waterfronts. Today, REITs provide Americans from all income levels the opportunity to pool their resources and invest in large scale commercial real estate ventures. That has not always been the case. Prior to the 1960 legislation, only the very wealthiest individuals and corporations had the accumulated capital required to invest in commercial real estate. Thanks to REITs and the unique financial incentives they offer to their shareholders, more middle class Americans can save and invest, whether it is for a college education, a new home, or a secure retirement. I am proud to support this commemorative resolution, and I urge my House colleagues to do the same.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. CAMP. I am prepared to reserve or prepared to close if the gentleman has no further speakers.

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have before me letters from the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Business Roundtable, as well as PACE, Promote America's Competitive Edge. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business federation, representing more than 3 million business organizations of every size. They strongly oppose this legislation because they say it would place ``draconian tax increases on American worldwide companies that would hinder job creation, decrease the competitiveness of American businesses, and deter economic growth'' and the jobs that come from that. Likewise, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Nation's largest industrial trade association representing small and large manufacturers in every industrial sector in all 50 States, they also oppose this legislation. ``An estimated 22 million workers in the United States, more than 19 percent of the private sector workforce and 53 percent of all manufacturing employees, are employed by companies with operations overseas.'' They oppose these tax increases because, again, it will ``jeopardize the jobs of American manufacturing employees and stifle our fragile economy.'' Likewise, the Business Roundtable, which, again, is an association that represents more than 12 million employees, has also sent a letter opposing this legislation because they say that this legislation will, again, only make matters worse, make it more difficult for U.S. companies to compete in the world economy and then actually puts U.S. jobs at stake because of that. Again, PACE, which represents more than 63 million American jobs that depend on the competitiveness of American employers worldwide, said, ``At a time when other countries are taking steps to attract business, this legislation sends exactly the opposite message, with the effect of discouraging business investment and job creation in the United States.'' I think it's actually unfortunate that, again, here on the floor I am having to submit these letters here, when actually the appropriate place would be in the Committee on Ways and Means. But, unfortunately, the Committee on Ways and Means has never had a hearing on these provisions, never had a markup on this legislation. We have not had a process that has been open to employers to come forward before the committee and be heard on the record so that we might be able to adjust this or put this in context. As I said, we need broad-based international tax reform in the U.S. This piecemeal approach doesn't work, hurts our competitiveness. Again, I think if we could have had a system where there was actually a committee hearing or a markup, that on review you might be able to improve upon this or find a way to actually address the serious issue that pretty soon our corporate tax rate will be the highest among all the industrialized nations, and we could actually put on the record the deep flaws in our international tax system and the deep flaws in our Tax Code. Instead, what we are doing today is rushing to the floor again, without transparency, without openness, without hearing--certainly no opportunity for American employers to come forward and be heard on this issue. We are putting them at a tremendous competitive disadvantage at a time when they need to be competing around the world for jobs. With that, I urge opposition to this legislation. Business Roundtable, Washington, DC, August 9, 2010. Dear Member of Congress: We write today to express our strong opposition to inclusion of international tax revenue raisers in H.R. 1586, as approved last week by the Senate. The measure would raise nearly $10 billion in new taxes on worldwide American companies through fundamental changes in U.S. tax law, despite the fact that U.S. tax rules already put American companies at a competitive disadvantage. Keeping American companies and workers competitive should be the number one goal of U.S. tax policy, yet changes in the tax systems of our major trading partners now place the United States at a decided tax disadvantage--which runs a high risk of severely undermining U.S. economic growth and job creation. The United States already has the second highest tax rate among developed countries and an international tax structure that is a relic of an era in which U.S. companies faced little competition from foreign-headquartered corporations as they competed around the world. The current U.S. system is inconsistent with the free flow of trade and investment, and it inhibits use of foreign earnings to invest in the U.S. economy. The provisions included in the House legislation to be considered today will only make matters worse. We urge the House to remove the counterproductive international tax provisions now included in H.R. 1586, and that any future consideration of U.S. tax policy be done only in the context of comprehensive tax reform designed to improve the competitiveness of U.S. companies in the world economy. U.S. jobs are at stake. Business Roundtable is an association of chief executive officers of leading U.S. companies with over $6 trillion in annual revenues and more than 12 million employees. Our members share your goal of restoring the U.S. economy to strong economic growth and job creation. Sincerely, Larry D. Burton.

Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Member from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, last Friday we learned the unemployment rate is still at 9\1/2\ percent, and it would be much higher if the official calculations also looked at the fast-growing number of Americans who have become so discouraged that they have given up looking for work. So while Congress should be here trying to find ways to get Americans back to work, we're here instead to complete action on another extension of stimulus that will also do nothing to reduce the unemployment rate in this country. In fact, this bill and the tax increases in it will hurt job creation. According to the methodology of Dr. Christina Romer, the President's chief economic adviser, the tax increases in this bill alone will destroy over 140,000 American jobs. In an open letter to Congress this week, the National Association of Manufacturers warned that ``imposing $9.6 billion in tax increases on these companies will jeopardize the jobs of American manufacturing employees and stifle our fragile economy.'' Similarly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned they would ``impose draconian tax increases on American worldwide companies that would hinder job creation, decrease the competitiveness of American businesses, and deter economic growth.'' These tax increases are a mistake, and, as I noted during the debate 2 weeks ago, most of these have never been the subject of any committee hearing or markup. It is possible that, upon review, some of these provisions might make sense if packaged with other changes to address the fact that our corporate tax rate is soon to be the highest among all industrialized nations. Our international tax system is deeply flawed, and our tax code is increasingly putting our companies and their employees at a tremendous competitive disadvantage. But we never got the opportunity to hear from the American employers or to offer any amendments. That's a truly disappointing breakdown of the committee system, which is supposed to ensure that policies are carefully vetted and reviewed before passage. I also want to mention the phantom tax increases that aren't in this bill but we will soon see. The Speaker has already indicated that she opposes two of the spending offsets included in this bill. One relates to food stamps; the other is a cut in funding for a renewable energy spending program. Together, those items total $13.4 billion, more than half the total offsets in the bill. So next month when the House considers some other legislation, don't be surprised to see another $13 billion in higher taxes to prevent those spending cuts. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I along with Representatives Jeb Hensarling of Texas and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, submit the following statement for the record with respect the Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair on the Price (R-GA) Lame-Duck Privileged Resolution. As Members of the Fiscal Commission, we are dedicated to getting spending under control and meaningfully addressing our fast-growing and unsustainable deficits. If the Commission reaches a bipartisan consensus, it is our hope that House and Senate Leadership would work on a bipartisan basis to determine how and when those recommendations would be brought to the floor. There is no greater crisis facing America than the unchecked growth of spending that is fueling massive increases in our deficits.

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. Is the Speaker aware that the clerks have a bill number that I could speak to and obtain?

Mr. CAMP. Is the House in session at this time?

Mr. CAMP. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not asking about a scheduling matter. I am asking, is the text of the bill available at the desk at which you are standing?

Mr. CAMP

Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just say I agree with a portion of what the previous speaker said. I agree, there is a serious flaw in this health care bill. This is one of many, and this serious flaw is a job-killer. So I commend the majority for their recognition of these serious flaws in the health care bill and that there are job-killing provisions in it that many of us warned them about before the bill came to the floor but weren't really allowed to be part of the process to try to correct those before they came. And, frankly, not many people here were able to do that either, as it was just rolled out. But the answer isn't to hurt other job providers. We're in a recession. Unemployment isn't getting better. We know the stimulus didn't work. We're still at a national rate of about 10 percent. But let's look at what job providers say about the way that they pay for this fix. The fix we're for--and we had a legitimate way to do it, as I said, without raising taxes, without hurting other job providers, and by actually helping to prevent the potentially fraudulent way this provision was drafted. And let me just tell you what an association of employers that promotes America's Competitive Edge Group said. They represent more than 63 million American jobs, and they say the $12 billion imposed in the proposed international tax increases would further disadvantage U.S. companies, harming their competitiveness. We are competing around the world, like it or not, and that would reduce U.S. earnings. That would reduce U.S. earnings and thereby reduce investment in U.S. plant and equipment research and expanding U.S. payrolls. Let me read to you what the National Association of Manufacturers says about the way they pay for this bill. Why not use the anti-fraud corrections that we had in the motion to recommit last night? They represent about 22 million people in the United States, U.S. workers. Manufacturers feel strongly that imposing this $11.5 billion tax increase on these companies will jeopardize the jobs of American manufacturers. We've already lost 700,000 American manufacturing jobs. Why impose a greater burden on them? It's not necessary, and it would stifle our fragile economy. The United States Chamber of Commerce, they represent more than 3 million businesses and millions more U.S. employees. They say this legislation would impose Draconian tax increases on American worldwide companies, would hinder job creation, decrease the competitiveness of American businesses, and deter economic growth. If there's one thing this country needs, it's economic growth and the jobs that provides. I don't know why they're so bent on increasing taxes when we could fix this flaw in the health care bill--which I commend my colleagues on the other side for recognizing the flaw in the health care bill, and there are others that we need to fix as well--but it is not a fix when we have these reputable employers and businesses say that this is going to hurt our recovery, hurt job creation; and, frankly, the record on job creation in the last year has not been a good one. We need to do better. We can do better, and I would urge a ``no'' vote. With that, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in my 20 years in Congress, I don't think I have seen a more disappointing time for this House. I had great hopes when my colleague from Michigan, Sander Levin, assumed the chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee after the ethical charges against a man I worked closely with, Mr. Rangel, who was the chairman. I know it's difficult to come into a leadership position partway through a Congress, but I have to say to a fellow colleague from Michigan, the lack of consultation, the lack of discussion, the lack of attempts to bring things to this Congress in a bipartisan way, which I believe has more balance than bills written alone, in secret by the Democratic Party late at night than are brought to this floor with maybe moments notice--I think this bill was given to us less than 10 minutes ago. I think that is regrettable. I think it is unfortunate. I don't think it needed to be that way. We have always had a great working relationship. Many delegation meetings over the years in working on behalf of issues common to Michigan, now I had hoped we would work together on behalf of issues important to America. It is unfortunate that the leaders of this Congress on the Democrat side have really taken control and not given the chairman the latitude he needs to really draft bills in a bipartisan way. I think it's unfortunate that control has been ceded to the leaders in such a way that make it impossible for us to work together on issues that I think the American people are crying out for to be worked on in a bipartisan manner. This was supposed to be the most open, the most transparent, the most ethical Congress. I think we have seen events of this week prove that otherwise. And I don't mean just the publicity events. I mean events on the way these bills are brought to the floor without any discussions or consultation. We have great staffs on both sides in the Ways and Means Committee. Our staffs do tremendous work. They are capable of working together if given the opportunity. And I think we could resolve these issues in a way that would benefit all Americans. Last night, I intended to offer a motion to recommit that we gave full notice to the other side about--unlike what we are seeing today-- that would have eliminated the new onerous job-killing 1099 requirement that's in the health care law. In addition to helping small business, the motion to recommit would have better protected taxpayers from erroneously paying too much in health insurance subsidies. And the motion would have cut taxes, cut spending, protected taxpayers, and reduced the deficit. But as we saw last night, because Democrat leaders were too afraid to let their Members vote on a pro-jobs, pro-small business, pro-taxpayer, pro-deficit reduction bill, they canceled the vote and pulled the bill from consideration by the House. Instead, we are here today, as we have been so often under the heavy- handed tactics of the majority, voting on a bill that has not been reviewed by committee, that has not been posted online for 72 hours, has not been reviewed by the employers this bill will affect, and most importantly, has not been reviewed by the American public in any way. The result? The Democrats have created a bill that pits American employers against other American employers, worker against worker, neighbor against neighbor. With unemployment stuck at nearly 10 percent, Democrats are again playing politics with American jobs. This is not the time for politics; this is a time to get serious about the economy and helping businesses create jobs. Frankly, it didn't have to be this way, and it should not have been this way. There is a way to pay for the repeal of the 1099 requirement without punishing job providers and their workers and their families. Additionally, we would have protected taxpayers by cracking down on fraud and abuse. And if someone received an erroneous or excessive benefit that they were not entitled to, they would have been required to repay it. The bill before us leaves that very important flaw in place. I have in my hands a way to do this without raising taxes and killing jobs: It is the motion to recommit I intended to offer last night but was not given the opportunity to do so. I will have it inserted into the Congressional Record so that everyone can see that we can save jobs without raising taxes. Small businesses supported the measure, Republicans supported the measure, and it's clear that rank-and-file Democrats would have supported the measure. Somehow, Democrat leaders are so opposed to helping small businesses--the real job creators in this country--that they wouldn't even allow a vote on a full repeal of the 1099 requirement that also didn't include a massive job-killing tax increase. Why are Democrats so afraid to work with Republicans to help America's job creators? Why don't Democrats allow Republicans to offer amendments on behalf of small businesses? And why are they so bent on raising taxes? Isn't $670 billion alone in tax increases in this Congress enough? Why? It is because Democrats are more interested in protecting their $1 trillion health care law than solving legitimate problems being expressed by the American people and American employers. So, while it is clear that Democrats have admitted that the burden imposed by their health care law is a job killer, they are offering no solution today, because the bill before us will undoubtedly have the effect of killing jobs. Frankly, this is a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity to fix a fundamental flaw in the health care law, and it is a missed opportunity to truly help American employers in the jobs they provide. A job is a job is a job. I urge my colleagues to stand up for job providers by demanding a full repeal of the 1099 requirement that does not impose other job- killing tax increases. Motion To Recommit With Instructions Offered by Mr. Camp of Michigan Mr. Camp moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5893 to the Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith with the following amendment: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, to correct the Record, I would just say the motion to recommit that I tried to offer last night was available for several hours to the majority. They pulled the bill and didn't allow me to ultimately offer it. That's why I introduced it in the Record today. At this time, I yield such time as he may consume to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. CAMP. That is just simply an untrue statement, and it is beneath the dignity of the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee to assert that.