Family Health Care Accessibility Act of 2010

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1745 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I am pleased to yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1745 provides a closed rule for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853 with the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. Finally, the rule allows the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of December 3, 2010. The Speaker or her designee shall consult with the minority leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to do the right thing and put

American workers ahead of millionaires and billionaires. This should be our priority and shouldn't be a tough choice to make. Today we can focus on economic growth to help those who are suffering from this recession and to provide permanent, equitable tax relief for the middle class.

These should not be controversial positions. They aren't and they shouldn't be. The economic growth that all Americans can share in ought to be a top priority for every elected official, and lowering the tax burden for working families shouldn't be any kind of a partisan fight.

After the last administration and the previous Congress spent billions of dollars starting two foreign wars and bailing out the big banks that ran roughshod over our economy, isn't it only fair that we do more to help out those who are struggling to find work and to make ends meet? Today we are simply voting on whether or not to protect the middle class and to make sure working families do not suffer needlessly as winter approaches. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is not political showmanship or a partisan game. We are doing the work the American people asked us to do. We are not voting on whether or not to extend tax cuts for the wealthy. We are only voting on extending tax cuts for the middle class, and this is something I sincerely believe we should all agree on.

One of the biggest pieces of misinformation about ending tax cuts for the wealthy is that it would hurt small businesses, which is simply not true. The bill we are talking about today extends tax cuts for incomes up to $250,000. That covers 97 percent of all small businesses in the United States. And let's be clear about another thing: For all small businesses, the cuts continue for their first $250,000 of profit.

If we really want to help small businesses, let's offer real direct benefits. Let's help them access funding to grow, offer larger tax deductions for purchasing equipment or create incentives to hire more workers.

I am glad many business owners in my State, the State of Maine, have been able to see through this misinformation. Jim Wellehan, who owns one of the largest shoe store chains in the State, has recently come out against tax cuts for the wealthy because they offer no benefit to his business or his employees. He recently said it makes no sense from any perspective to preserve the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country. It will just increase the wealth gap and create more of a social and economic problem.

Jim hits on a critical point. Over the last 30 years, the wealthiest have gotten richer and richer compared to everyone else. In 1980 the average income of the country's top .01 percent of earners was 180 times that of the bottom 90 percent. Today that number is 1,000 times. Meanwhile taxes for the rich have gone down dramatically. So as the wealthiest take a larger and larger piece of the pie, they have given less and less back to the public infrastructure, to our communities, and to the people who helped create that prosperity.

The truth about tax breaks for the ultra rich is that they are very, very expensive. Cutting taxes for those making over $250,000 will add $700 billion to the deficit in the next 10 years alone. That's about the cost of the entire stimulus bill, and most economists agree it would do very little to stimulate the economy.

In January of this year, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analyzed 11 policy proposals and ranked them by how effective they would be in fueling economic recovery.

Number one on that list was extending benefits for the unemployed because those dollars go immediately into local economies and spur more spending. If only that was the bill we were voting on today.

What was number 11? Number 11 on that list was extending tax cuts for the wealthy. The benefit of those dollars going to the rich was marginal, because that money would be mostly saved, not spent. That's just not right.

I hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me today in supporting this commonsense bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to one of my colleagues, I want to answer a couple of things that my good colleague from California mentioned. Soon his party will be in power, and I am confident he will be the chair of the Rules Committee and the Rules Committee will be very open perhaps at that time to have more open rules and to change the process. So I look forward to, as a sophomore Member, learning how a different process will be conducted by the other side of the aisle.

I do want to remind him that during 12 years when his party was in control, there was never a tax bill that came to the floor which allowed for amendments. I don't know if that process will change in the future. It certainly wasn't that way in the past.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Thank you for making that point. I think it is slightly different from the other point of saying that tax bills never were allowed to be amended in the last 12 years. But I look forward to modified open rules or open rules or whatever process we will be working with in the future. That isn't what we have before us today.

I do want to comment that while you were kind of referring to this as political theater, I also recall that you asked for 3 hours of debate on this; and if it is truly political theater, that would be tying up a lot of the people's time to have us conduct this debate for 3 hours if, in fact, you do not consider it serious debate. I mean, in my opinion, you and I just have a strong disagreement. Our two parties and many of our Members disagree on where the appropriate place to have tax cuts is.

We are putting this bill on the floor today because we believe it is important to extend tax cuts for the middle class, that that has the greatest benefit to our economy. And as the OMB and other studies have shown us, tax cuts for the wealthiest to the country just do not stimulate the economy. The money does not go where we think it needs to go to create more jobs, and it is not a good expenditure of $700 billion, which is what this will cost us over the next decade in a time when we are clamoring to find ways to reduce the deficit.

So I find it unfathomable that there would be any objection to taking a vote on what is clearly the most agreed upon part of our tax cuts here and then allowing for other debate on the rest of the package. So for me, this is a logical way to bring this to the floor. I am pleased that we have this opportunity here.

I am a little frustrated every time I hear this tried to be portrayed as the real argument is only about small businesses. You know, 2 percent of the small businesses in our country are the ones that will be affected by this.

I disagree with your statement that Democrats love employees and dislike employers. Many of us on this side of the aisle are employers. I am an employer. I have a small business, and I actually feel pretty good about myself.

I do appreciate that, and I am glad to know that dear Senator Tsongas' wife has corrected you on the appropriate way to use that quote. But either way, it was something that you brought to the floor to make the point that somehow you think this bill is put forward so that Democrats can show their disapproval of employers. And I can speak

personally that I work closely with employers in my district. I am an employer and think there are employers who will benefit under this as well. That is why I quoted, in my own remarks, Jim Wellehan who owns a chain of shoe stores in our State who said: I am not in favor of a bill that would give tax cuts to the wealthy because it doesn't do anything to help my employees or my business. And that, in fact, is what he is concerned about. You know, employers need customers, which are those employees, and that is why we consider it so critical to make sure that we do something to benefit those people who will be purchasing.

Just one other comment that I had in my notes here today from a small business owner in Lincoln, Nebraska. People talk about the $250,000 without talking about that as net profit. Here is how he described it: A lot of people don't understand how small business works. We reinvest in our business. We try to minimize the amount of taxable income we have. I went out and bought an $80,000 piece of equipment. I did it so I could reduce my taxes. The only people I can think of who could honestly call themselves small businesses that this would affect would be stock brokers and lawyers.

That is what Rick Poore, owner of a Lincoln, Nebraska, clothing firm who employs 30 people thinks about this.

Well, if in fact the 2 percent we are trying to help today are stock brokers and lawyers, I don't think the American public is clamoring for them to have another tax break, and I think people aren't explaining and displaying an understanding of how business works. This is about net profit for small businesses, which even reduces further the number of businesses who will be affected by this.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

I thank the gentleman from California for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, before I close, I would just say again that I think we have a difference of opinion on the semantics here.

You want to argue that, if we don't continue tax cuts/tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country that we are increasing taxes. I would say it is time we let those tax breaks end, those tax breaks that went on for too long and that did nothing, in my opinion, to stimulate the economy.

I also just want to add my own comment.

You know, there is a lot of interpretation about November 2. The voters cast their votes. Things changed dramatically. Many of us who have been in politics over time know that sometimes you're in the majority, sometimes you're in the minority; sometimes your ideas come out on top, and sometimes they don't.

But I have to say personally, in interpreting my own district, voters heard me say every day that I pledge to continue the tax breaks for the middle class but that I will not vote to extend them for the wealthiest in this country. I debated my opponent, and it was written about in the newspaper. There were endless interviews when I made it very clear as to what my point of view was and why I thought it was important. I come from a State where small business rules, where I am a small business owner, and where I said to people, You know, this isn't a small business issue; this is about helping the wealthiest people in this country.

I just have to say, when I go back and look at the November 2 election, oddly enough, I'm still here, and I intend to be here on January 5 and to be sworn in again. Somehow, the voters in my district said, Go for it. We don't want to see any more tax breaks for the wealthy. We, in fact, only want to see tax cuts for the middle class.

So I am interpreting November 2 to mean we are doing the right thing on the floor today. We are putting forward the one measure that allows us to make sure we can separate the tax cuts for the wealthiest from the tax cuts for the middle class. That is what we are doing here today.

Let me just close, Mr. Speaker.

Ten years ago, Congress passed a package of tax cuts with the lion's share of the benefits going to the wealthiest of the wealthy. The stated intent was to grow and secure our economy. Today, millions of families across this country are struggling. They are worried about finding work. They are barely covering their monthly expenses.

I have to ask my colleagues: Do your constituents feel more economically secure than they did 10 years ago?

Since these cuts took place, we have gone from a balanced Federal budget to troubling deficits. We have seen the middle class weaken, and we have experienced the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. The billions we have given in handouts to the super rich have been major contributors to all of those realities.

Today, we have a historic opportunity to support the middle class, to show real Americans that we as Members of Congress are hearing their frustrations and their anger. We can stand up today and say that we are going to help the vast majority of Americans, that we care deeply about the economic security of the middle class and that, for once, Congress is going to act in the best interest of the middle class.

I strongly stand behind H.R. 4853, extending the tax cuts for middle class families and businesses who make up to $250,000. They need a break, and we should be doing even more for them. It is simply outrageous to suggest that we should hold these tax cuts hostage in order to continue a failed policy that has weakened our economy, has placed a bigger burden on working families and has only been effective in making the rich richer. I urge all of my colleagues to support middle class Americans and to vote for the underlying bill.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to express my appreciation to my very good friend and Rules Committee colleague, the gentlewoman from North Haven, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the very thoughtful statement of my friend and Rules Committee colleague, I'm reminded of--and as I looked at news reports this morning, I guess I should say--as I listen to her statement and then look at the reports that we have this morning, I'm reminded of the 1992 Presidential campaign. And I would like to point to two very famous quotes from that 1992 Presidential campaign.

First, in the general election you will recall that Bill Clinton, George Herbert Walker Bush and Ross Perot all ran against each other. I know the Speaker pro tempore understands very well, coming from Texas, that that was a fascinating campaign 18 years ago. And there was a very famous Vice-Presidential debate. And in that debate, the great, highly decorated Admiral James Stockdale, who I was happy before his passing to have as a good friend, famously began the debate by saying, Who am I, and why am I here?

Now, Mr. Speaker, we already have reports this morning that the negotiators have come together and decided there will be probably a 2- year extension of the effort to ensure that we don't increase taxes on any Americans over the next 2 years. And in light of that, we are now resorting to a little more than a political ploy saying, well, we've all come together and agreed that we don't want increased taxes on middle income Americans, and so what we should do is let's vote for this and agree on it when, in fact, we're arguing that we should not increase taxes on any Americans.

Now to my second quote from the 1992 Presidential campaign. Senator Paul Tsongas, whose widow, Niki, serves very well here in the House, the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, said very famously, and I quoted him, and she corrected the quote when I told her that I quoted him widely, I quoted him as follows: Senator Tsongas in the 1992 Presidential campaign when he was challenging Bill Clinton in the primary said, The problem with my Democratic Party is that they love employees but they hate employers. And Mrs. Tsongas reminded me that he apparently said, You can't love employees without loving employers. Well, either way, it's very clear that when you look at where we are, it gets back to that famous Lincoln line: you can't lift up the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. And so all we're saying is that as we look at the challenges that we're facing today, focusing on job creation and economic growth is something that we should do.

And I believe that every Democrat and every Republican in this institution clearly wants to see our economy get back on track. They want to see us grow. They want to see us emerge. No one wants to see the United States of America diminished to the level that was predicted by Dave Cote, a member of the debt commission, the head of Honeywell, who in his statement yesterday said that at the rate we are going, the United States of America will become, in fact, a second-rate Nation. No one, no Democrat or Republican, wants that to happen. And so why don't we use empirical evidence that will prove that we can take a course that will get this economy back on track.

Now, my friend says that we have a cost of $700 billion. If we fail to increase taxes on those small businesses and those who are upper income wage earners, a $700 billion cost is what is claimed. In fact, if you talk to economist after economist, as I have, that is, in fact, not the case. Just yesterday a very prominent economist met with a number of Members of this body pointing to the fact that if you do, if you do, Mr. Speaker, actually keep those taxes low, we will actually see an increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury.

And I point to that again, as I have time and again here. I believe we should be utilizing the bipartisan--the bipartisan model, put forward first by a great Democratic President. We will

mark the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's inaugural address. He was elected 50 years ago. On January 20, there is going to be a great celebration here in this Capitol marking the 50th anniversary of the great inaugural speech, which many of us have been quoting since we were children, of John F. Kennedy.

And we should be utilizing the model put forward by Ronald Reagan, who on February 6 of next year will mark his 100th birthday. And that economic model is one which says that making sure that we reduce marginal tax rates will actually grow the economy and create an increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury.

So, Mr. Speaker, as we look at where we are today, you have economists from even on the left who will say--even Keynesian economists--that the notion in a down economy--and we all know we have a 9\1/2\ percent unemployment rate and we heard the sad news about housing sales that came out this morning--we all know that in a down economy, even the Keynesian economists will say that increasing taxes is a prescription for failure. It actually undermines the potential for economic growth.

Now, we had quite a meeting in the Rules Committee last night, Mr. Speaker, when we brought this measure up, and the distinguished ranking member soon-to-be chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Houston, Mr. Brady, referred to what was going on here as political theater. I said that I believe that to be very generous. This is sleight of hand, a political ploy. There are all kinds of pejoratives that can be used to describe the process that we have here.

We have a closed rule, as my friend said, and I argued that I'm for an open rule, which is what I'm often arguing for, and we hope to be able to have that in the 112th Congress as often as possible, but I argued for a modified closed rule, a modified closed rule for consideration of this measure.

Now, what would that mean, Mr. Speaker? If we were to have a modified closed rule, it would mean that we would simply allow this House to have a vote, which is under the present structure before us going to be denied, a vote that has been requested by 31 Democrats and all Republicans. And, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we could, in fact, have a strong bipartisan vote in this House to extend, to ensure that we don't increase taxes on any Americans at this time. And this rule would allow that.

I offered an amendment that would simply say, okay, let's just provide the ranking member, Mr. Camp, of the Ways and Means Committee, a chance to offer one substitute which would basically mean we are not going to increase taxes on small businesses, and we are not going to increase taxes on any Americans. I offered that amendment, and on a party-line vote it was rejected.

It was fascinating, Mr. Speaker, to hear the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, my very good friend, Sandy Levin, say that making sure we don't increase taxes on middle income Americans is something we can all agree on. And, yes, Mr. Speaker, we can agree on that. But I think it is very evident that this House could, with a majority vote, ensure that we don't increase taxes on any Americans during these very troubling, difficult economic times.

So I would argue that I think it's very important for us, as an institution, to realize that it's really a joke that has been put before us, tragically, during a time when the American people are hurting. I have an unemployment rate in part of the area I'm privileged to represent in Southern California, Mr. Speaker, that is in excess of 15 percent. We have a statewide unemployment rate in the largest State of the Union, the largest, most important State of the Union, the State of California, we have a 12\1/2\ percent unemployment rate. People are hurting. And so to do anything other than ensure that we don't increase taxes on the people who are struggling to create jobs for our fellow Americans is something that we have a responsibility to do.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and allow us to let the House work its will and have what I am totally convinced would be a strong, strong vote in favor of ensuring that we don't increase taxes on any Americans.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentlelady yield on that point?

I will tell you about the 12 years we were in the majority, we did often provide substitutes. So all we are asking for, as I said, all I asked for on this measure is not an open rule, a modified closed rule, which would have provided simply one bite at the apple, one alternative, which is out of respect to the Democrats in this House who would very much like to have a chance to vote to ensure that we don't increase taxes on any American.

I thank my friend for yielding.

If the gentlelady will yield, I was simply quoting the late Senator Paul Tsongas. It wasn't my quote. I was simply quoting Senator Tsongas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to both of my colleagues who are both good friends of mine that as I listen to the arguments that have been put forward, the standard old class warfare, us versus them, rich versus poor, is an argument that has failed for years and years and years. I think all we need to do is look at the November 2 election. There was a rejection of this divisive tone which we regularly hear around here: the haves and the have-nots.

The fact of the matter is any Member of this House who votes in favor of the measure that is going to be before us is voting for a tax increase. They are voting in favor of increasing taxes on American investors and small businesses in this country. There is all kinds of dispute about this: how many are small businesses, 2 percent. We have evidence that it is substantially higher than that. But if there are any small businesses that are out there trying to create jobs and this policy of increasing taxes undermines them and inhibits their ability to say to a person in this country who is seeking a job opportunity that they can't have it because of this burden that is being inflicted, this is clearly wrong.

Now, again, on the notion of this $700 billion, this $700 billion, the cost, and we are exacerbating the deficit, that is preposterous. If we can get people with a 9.4 percent unemployment rate, 9.6 percent, as I said, in my State, 12.5 percent unemployment rate, if we can get people from the unemployment rolls onto the working rolls, that in and of itself is evidence that we will increase the flow of revenue to the Federal treasury.

Why? We'll diminish the cost of unemployment benefits, and we will have people who are working as productive members of society who are paying taxes. So this $700 billion figure is a ridiculous one.

Mr. Speaker, I will say again: Any Member of this House who votes in favor of the measure that is before us is going to be voting to increase taxes on working Americans, and it is just plain wrong.

Let me just close again by saying that, when I used the term ``political theater,'' I was quoting the very thoughtful ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee of Ways and Means, Mr. Brady, who came before us in the Rules Committee and said, This is political theater.

Why? There are reports today that the negotiators from the White House and both Houses of Congress have come to an agreement that we are going to ensure that we don't increase taxes on any Americans for at least 2 years. Those are the reports that we have that have come out. So we are here on the House floor, denying this institution an opportunity to vote on a proposal like that.

We in the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, simply said, Gosh, since 31 Democrats have signed a letter saying they believe it would be a mistake to increase taxes on any Americans, the House should have a chance to vote on that.

I offered that proposal upstairs last night in the Rules Committee. A party-line vote.

The Democrats said, Oh, no. We're not going to allow what would clearly be a majority of this House, I believe, if we were to actually have a vote, to work its will. We are going to resort to legerdemain and not allow a motion to recommit.

This bill before us, Mr. Speaker, happens to be the airport and airway bill. It's basically the FAA bill. They did that to deny even an opportunity for a motion to recommit. Now, I know that's all inside baseball stuff, but it's inside baseball stuff that led the American people to cast the votes that they did on November 2, because it was a year ago last June when this ``read the bill'' measure came forward, when we had the 300-page amendment dropped in our laps at 3 o'clock in the morning in the Rules Committee, and we didn't have a chance to read it. So the American people started looking at what takes place in this institution, and on November 2, they rejected it.

Well, with what we are doing here today, it is obviously an indication that this majority that is now in charge is tone deaf. They don't understand the message that the American people sent, because they have spent time looking here at what is going on, and that is why we have focused on increasing transparency, disclosure, and accountability.

So, as they have done that, they've said, Don't do the kinds of things that you are contemplating doing right now.

The bottom line is, by resorting to legerdemain, we are going to end up increasing taxes on working Americans.

I say, in closing, Mr. Speaker, that any Member of this House who votes in favor of this measure is voting to increase taxes on the men and women in this country who are out there saving, investing, and working to create jobs for our fellow Americans, and it is just plain wrong. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. BOUSTANY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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.

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.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I mentioned that we are for some of this tax relief in this bill. But if you talk to small business owners across this great country of ours, you talk to workers, you talk to families, what they're concerned about is the uncertainty, the uncertainty of what's happened over the last 2 years under this administration. This atmosphere of uncertainty is what's killing small business growth, and it's killing jobs.

Now, we highlighted the 1099 provision in the health care bill. That's just one provision in a massive bill that has led to this tremendous uncertainty, this atmosphere that is just like cold water on all business activity.

Yes, I admit the credit problems are real. Small businesses are struggling with it. But why is that? It's because there is uncertainty in the economic climate.

Now, it's nice. We have a bill that offers some good tax provisions in there. But where one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away with onerous provisions that are going to add costs to our businesses that are trying to hire and trying to make a living and trying to prosper, trying to create wealth and prosperity for American families.

The bottom line is we need good, solid policies that are going to basically eliminate this uncertainty. That's why I have to say I lament the fact that we couldn't get together and work on something that would really promote job growth, promote economic growth and prosperity for families. But, no, we have to play these political games, and we have to put provisions in there for certain reasons that actually are going to work counter to what we're trying to do.

The 1099 provision is just one of many, many elements that have led to this intense uncertainty across the board. I challenge my friends. I say go across the country, visit your districts, talk to small business owners and ask them what is the problem. They'll tell you it's credit. But they'll tell you, We don't know what's coming with this health care and what it's going to cost us.

There are a number of provisions the way this is going to be implemented, the 1099 provision being one. New taxes, the tax uncertainty--my God, that is a huge issue. Why can't we get together and extend the tax relief from 2001 and 2003 and keep the capital gains and dividend taxes where they are today? That will create an atmosphere of certainty for our businesses that want to hire, they want to produce goods, they want to export.

Why can't we articulate a coherent trade policy that's really going to promote exports? We've got three trade agreements on the table ready to go that immediately promote exports that will create high, good- paying jobs. One-out-of-five jobs in this country are related to trade. But, no, we won't take up those trade agreements. Ask why. Special interest. It's not what's best for America; it's for special interest.

We have a moratorium on drilling down in my district, in my State. It's killing small business growth. Killing it. These are small businesses that provide services and equipment and manufacturing to support American energy. And guess what. We have an arbitrarily imposed moratorium that defies any basis in fact or science at this stage, and we can't even get answers from this administration to bipartisan letters inquiring why that's the case.

So let's talk about how you get rid of uncertainty in this economic climate. We've got a climate of fear right now. People are fearing what's coming out of Washington.

What we need is certainty, and we need good, solid politics that are going to help American workers and American families.

I thank the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin, for yielding. Mr. Levin has been one of our hardest workers and leaders in the effort to make sure that American business can succeed and expand and create good-paying jobs for our economy.

I just heard the last of his remarks, but my presumption is he was saying, as we all know is the case, there is not a place that any of us travel in the United States of America, when we talk to small businesses all over this country, that they don't say: Congressman, one of the real problems I have is I can't get capital. I want to put an additional room on my restaurant so I can have some additional tables, and I'll have to hire some additional--maybe a cook and a waiter and waitresses and a receptionist, but I can't get capital. I know I can get the customers, but I can't expand.

That's what this bill is about. This bill is about empowering small businesses to do what they do so well.

In our work to recover from the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes as a result of the economic policies we put in place in the last administration, we're suffering under the worst economic crisis in 75 years. Only the Great Depression is analogous.

Businesses will play an extraordinarily important role in bringing us back; they are our economy's job-creating engine. Over the past year, 64 percent of new jobs came from small businesses. Keeping small businesses growing and creating jobs is essential to our economic recovery, and supporting small businesses is an essential part of rebuilding American industry, which is why this important small business lending bill is part of the Democrats' ``Make It in America'' agenda.

You're going to be hearing a lot about that agenda: ``Make It in America.''

There are an awful lot of people in our country right now who, understandably, are not sure they're going to make it in America. They're not sure their kids are going to be able to make it in America. They're not sure they're going to have a retirement on which they counted. ``Make It in America.''

Now, that has another meet meaning as well: make it in America; manufacture it in America; create good-paying jobs through manufacturing things in America that Americans will buy, and yes, the rest of the world will buy.

This is a plan to strengthen American manufacturing and its ability to create well-paying middle class jobs. Six Make It in America bills have already been signed into law. In addition,

Democrats have voted for investments in job-creating infrastructure projects, lower taxes for 98 percent of America, expanded Small Business Administration lending, a tax credit for small businesses that hire unemployed workers, and long-term tax credits to help small businesses afford employer health care. And we've done it in the face of a year and a half of near unanimous Republican opposition.

The challenges faced by small businesses are still, of course, significant ones. Last year, for instance, 45 percent of small businesses seeking loans to expand or even stay in business were turned down for a loan, which had an obvious impact on employment.

To expand the job-creating flow of credit, I urge each of my colleagues, not Republicans or Democrats but all of my colleagues, who all want to see small businesses grow, who all want to see jobs created, and, therefore, I urge all of my colleagues on either side of the aisle of whatever ideology, support this bill.

I talked to my small bankers last week. They say if they get this capital, they're going to lend to small businesses. I talked to my small businesses, and they say if this bill passes, they believe that they'll be able to get a loan to expand their business or to keep in business.

First, this bill creates a small business lending fund that makes it easier for small businesses to access the capital they need. It also establishes $12 billion in tax cuts for small business.

I've heard a lot of talk throughout my 30 years here in the Congress of the United States from the other side of the aisle about cutting taxes on small businesses. Well, this cuts $12 billion in taxes on small businesses. I would hope that you would feel that was consistent with what you said ought to be done. We agree. And we've done it. And we're trying to do it again.

These tax credits encourage small business investments by eliminating small business capital gains taxes in many cases; they encourage innovation by helping entrepreneurs deduct more startup expenses; they make it more affordable for business owners to invest in the equipment they need to expand; and, as I said, they make health care more affordable for the self-employed--all designed to grow and expand small businesses and to create jobs for the millions of Americans who have been hardworking Americans, lost their job, and they want to work and they're looking for work, and they can't find it. This is an opportunity for us to expand that job pool by an estimated 500,000.

In addition, this bill strengthens State and SBA programs that lend to small businesses. We have such a program in the State of Maryland. We think this will help. And it strengthens overseas competitiveness by funding export-promoting programs and by fighting for market access and a level playing field for American companies that compete abroad.

In all, this bill's provisions are projected, as I said, to save or create as many as a half million jobs.

Passing this bill is a test of every Member's commitment to the businesses that are the backbone of our districts. It is a measure of our support for their ability to innovate, grow, and employ more workers.

But as important as this bill is, it is not the end of our work to create small business jobs.

For instance, the House will soon debate Congressman Miller's bill to support lending for home construction--another example of Democratic efforts to support small businesses and create jobs.

I hope that every one of my colleagues sees fit to support this bill, not because it perfectly represents every view that you have--none of us vote for bills that reflect our views perfectly--but because the consensus of the business community is this will move us forward.

Vote for this bill. It's good for America. It's good for our people. It's good for jobs.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I substitute for the gentlewoman from Illinois on managing our 10 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I further ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this piece of legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say that this is a bill that passed the House in May; it was over in the Senate; it was subject to a filibuster; that filibuster was broken; and the Senate has sent us back the bill. It is not everything we wanted, but it is a significant improvement and will, I think, be helpful.

No one has alleged any possible negative consequences. Some have said it might not be as helpful as we believe, but we think it will enhance the lending capacity of small banks for small businesses.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to one of the leading advocates and architects of this bill, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

Yes, the gentlewoman is exactly correct. It is intended that this be treated as tier 1 capital in a way that is consistent with other capital securities issued to Treasury.

The gentlewoman is correct.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Madam Speaker, let me inform my colleague that I intend to close with my remaining 4 minutes, and I'm my last speaker. I will close; so I reserve the last 4 minutes to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

First, this bill deals with the particular needs of minority women and veteran-owned small businesses. I want to point out that we have had hearings documenting the barriers and the discrimination that face small businesses that are owned by minority women or service-disabled veterans. There were hearings on this. There is evidence that they have a harder time and get less value for their loans. I want to make clear that we have looked at that, and our inclusion of provisions for that is based on our evidence.

Secondly, I have to say that my colleague from Texas is to be congratulated on his selectivity. He manages to do more partial quoting of people's positions than I get on my cell phone in a bad reception area.

For example, he talked about the Independent Community Bankers. You might have had a hard time, listening to the gentleman from Texas, figuring out that they wrote us a letter dated September 22. Maybe they changed their mind overnight and talked to the gentleman from Texas, but I am skeptical. In the letter they say this bill: ``. . . is a bold, fresh proposal that would provide another option for community banks to leverage capital and expand small business credit.''

The Independent Community Bankers, whom he sought to quote denigrating this bill, are very much in favor of this bill.

The National Association of Home Builders likes the concept, although they were upset with one of the things that the Senate left out.

The Financial Services Roundtable--and here is the problem when taking a partisan stance: You have to over-argue your case. If you listen to the gentleman from Texas, there are no small businesses anywhere that would like to get a loan but can't find it from their bank. Now no one, including the gentleman from Texas, believes that is true.

I have to say that my advice to my colleagues is, even in the heat of a political debate, try to refrain from saying something that no one will believe because it is not helpful to your argument.

Yes, there are cases where there are banks that have enough capital. There are cases where there are companies that are afraid to lend. But what the gentleman has said goes far beyond that: There are no significant number of small businesses in America that are encountering problems because there are banks that don't have enough capital. No one believes that.

Now here is the problem. We have people who do not want to see anything get better. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), I will credit him because he didn't talk much about this bill. He complained about a lot of other bills. I understand that. He, I think, quite honestly realized there was not a lot of bad things to say about this bill. The worst they can say about this bill is it might not be used as much as we think. I disagree. In this vast economy, $30 billion is not a huge amount of money from the standpoint of the small business borrowers.

Now, this bill is not what I would like it to be. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the chair of the Small Business Committee, improved this bill significantly in the House. And this is not as good a bill as it came back from the Senate as it was before. I am going to be working with her. I intend to vote for this bill to give the Senate another chance. I don't like to give up on people or institutions. I believe in redemption, and we will give the Senate a chance to get it right.

But let's be clear. The Independent Community Bankers are for this. Other small businesses are for this. The argument that no small business anywhere in America has capital that they need and can put to use and can't find a bank, that simply isn't valid.

On uncertainty, I understand the problem of uncertainty in taxation. You know what the uncertainty is? What's going to happen to the Bush tax cuts. And whose fault is that uncertainty? President Bush and his Republican allies, who passed a manipulative, book-cooking tax cut that they said would last 10 years. I didn't say that it should last for 10 years and then expire. I didn't say that the estate tax should be a dipsy-doodle that went up and down and up and around. That is what the Republicans did because they were trying to hide from the American people the full budgetary impact of their taxes.

Let's pass this bill, do what we can for small businesses, and go on to other work.

Independent Community

Bankers of America',

Washington, DC, September 22, 2010.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,