Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4) to repeal the expansion of information reporting requirements for payments of $600 or more to corporations, and for other purposes.

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

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

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

Today the House considers H.R. 4, legislation repealing one of the job-killing tax increases enacted in the Democrats' health care law last year. This legislation provides a pathway to achieving a goal that is shared by Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate alike, and by the Obama administration--repealing the form 1099 reporting requirements enacted last year.

Before I get into the details of H.R. 4, I would like to take a moment to recognize and commend my colleague and friend, Congressman Dan Lungren of California. He first brought this issue to light, and through his hard work we are here today to vote on a bill that has enjoyed strong bipartisan support.

We have been here talking about 1099s before. Some have even gone so far as to say there seems to have been 1,099 votes to repeal 1099s. While we have attempted in the past to repeal this misguided feature of last year's health overhaul, today we turn a corner and move H.R. 4 from the House to the Senate, so that it will hopefully soon be sent to the President for his signature. Only then will small businesses and families have certainty that they will not be buried under an avalanche of tax paperwork.

In 2010, as one of many ways to finance a trillion dollar health care law, tax information reporting rules were expanded. These new rules require businesses to issue a form 1099 for any payments to corporations rather than just individuals, and for any payments for property rather than just services or investment income that exceeds $600 over the course of a year.

This previously little-known provision quickly became an item of great concern to small business employers across the country. The National Federation of Independent Business, whose 350,000 members support H.R. 4, said this newly enacted reporting requirement would have a direct negative impact on small business.

Also brought forward by Mr. Tiberi of Ohio in September of last year, a form 1099 reporting requirement was expanded again to help pay for the small business lending law. This expansion treats the recipient of rental income from real estate as engaging in the trade or business of renting property. Unless repealed, families and individuals will be forced to fill out paperwork if they do something as basic as replace a refrigerator in an apartment they rent out. The National Association of Realtors, which supports H.R. 4, called this provision not only another paperwork burden but a trap for all small landlords.

Mr. Speaker, neither of these provisions reflects the wishes or needs of the American people. The most important issue on their minds is jobs. Let me say it again: jobs, jobs, and jobs. But despite the call for policies that can create a better climate for job creation, Congress has enacted policies that make this harder.

H.R. 4 will accomplish three goals. First, the legislation repeals the expanded 1099 reporting requirements on small businesses. Second, it repeals the new 1099 reporting requirements for rental property.

Third, it protects taxpayers by recovering overpayments of taxpayer- funded government subsidies.

What that means, and I know we are going to hear a lot about it from the other side today, is that if this bill passes, anyone earning more than 400 percent of poverty, nearly $95,000 for a family of four in 2014, and who is ineligible for the exchange subsidies under the 2010 health care law will be required to pay back all, not just some, of the improper payments. I would like to note that this is the same level Democrats used in the original law enacted last March.

For those earning less than 400 percent of poverty, the level of repayment of those overpayments is also increased. This is similar to the path taken by Democrats in December when they adjusted the repayment amounts as a way to finance the so-called ``doc fix.''

Now, I noticed yesterday that there was a lot of huffing and puffing on the floor about alleged tax increases in H.R. 4. I want to be sure to clear up any confusion on this point.

The Joint Committee on Taxation says in its score that in addition to a $20 billion spending cut, there is a $5 billion increase in revenue to the government from this one provision. But that doesn't mean people are necessarily paying more in taxes. Now, how is that possible? Simple. According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, under the better enforcement rules of H.R. 4, some people won't go into the exchange to accept a taxpayer-funded subsidy because they would be required to pay a larger share or, in some cases, all of the subsidy back under H.R. 4. Paying back money you weren't entitled to is not a tax increase.

For example, under current law, a household making $105,000 might think it's worth understating its income, or at least not updating their income information, in order to receive a $12,000 exchange subsidy because they would only have to pay back $3,000 if caught; but the household is less likely to do so under H.R. 4 because it would have to pay back the entire subsidy given there was no eligibility for the subsidy in the first place.

So let's be clear here. Voluntarily choosing not to enroll in government health care and thus foregoing the associated tax subsidies that one may not be eligible for might result in more government revenue, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. But that is not a tax increase.

H.R. 4 is endorsed by more than 225 organizations, including the American Farm Bureau, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Osteopathic Association, and Americans for Tax Reform. Grover Norquist of ATR wrote he was especially pleased about the repeal of the 1099 provisions and the bill is ``a net tax cut.'' That's because despite the claims to the contrary, H.R. 4 reduces Federal spending by nearly $20 billion over the next 10 years. It also reduces the deficit by $166 million over that same time. That's probably why the bill is supported by Americans for Prosperity and the National Taxpayers Union as well.

Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to come together and advance a bill that is a win for small business, a win for families, and a win for taxpayers across America. Cast a ``yes'' vote for H.R. 4 and give them that win.

Supporters of 1099 Repeal (as of 3/2/11)

[Committee on Ways and Means]

Aeronautical Repair Station Association; Agricultural

Retailers Association; Air Conditioning Contractors of

America; Alabama Nursery & Landscape Association; Alliance

for Affordable Services; Alliance of Independent Store Owners

and Professionals; American Association for Laboratory

Accreditation; American Bakers Association; American Bankers

Association; American Beekeeping Federation; American Council

of Engineering Companies; American Council of Independent

Laboratories; American Farm Bureau Federation ';

Americans for Prosperity; American Foundry Society; American

Hotel & Lodging Association; American Institute of

Architects; American Institute of Certified Public

Accountants;

American Medical Association; American Mushroom Institute.

American Nursery & Landscape Association; American

Osteopathic Association; American Petroleum Institute;

American Physical Therapy Association; American Rental

Association; American Road & Transportation Builders

Association; American Sheep Industry Association; American

Society of Association Executives; American Society of

Interior Designers; American Soybean Association; American

Subcontractors Association, Inc.; American Sugar Alliance;

American Supply Association; American Veterinary Distributors

Association; American Veterinary Medical Association;

Americans for Tax Reform; AMT--The Association For

Manufacturing Technology; Arizona Nursery Association;

Assisted Living Federation of America; Associated Builders

and Contractors.

Associated Equipment Distributors; Associated General

Contractors of America; Associated Landscape Contractors of

Colorado; Association of Free Community Papers; Association

of Ship Brokers & Agents; Association of Small Business

Development Centers; Automotive Aftermarket Industry

Association; Automotive Recyclers Association; Bowling

Proprietors Association of America; California Association of

Nurseries and Garden Centers; California Landscape

Contractors Association; Commercial Photographers

International; Community Papers of Florida; Community Papers

of Michigan; Community Papers of Ohio and West Virginia;

Computing Technology Industry Association; Connecticut

Nursery & Landscape Association; Council of Smaller

Enterprises; Direct Selling Association; Door and Hardware

Institute.

Electronic Security Association; Electronics

Representatives Association (ERA); Farm Credit Council;

Financial Services Institute, Inc.; Florida Nursery, Growers

& Landscape Association; Free Community Papers of New York;

Georgia Green Industry Association; Hampton Roads Technology

Council; Healthcare Distribution Management Association;

Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association; Idaho Nursery &

Landscape Association; Illinois Green Industry Association;

Illinois Landscape Contractors Association (ILCA); Illinois

Technology Association (ITA); Independent Community Bankers

of America; Independent Electrical Contractors, Inc.;

Independent Office Products & Furniture Dealers Association;

Indiana Nursery and Landscape Association; Indoor Tanning

Association; Industrial Supply Association.

Industry Council for Tangible Assets; International

Association of Refrigerated Warehouses; International

Foodservice Distributors Association; International Franchise

Association; International Housewares Association;

International Sleep Products Association; Kentucky Nursery

and Landscape Association; Louisiana Nursery and Landscape

Association; Maine Landscape and Nursery

Association; Manufacturers' Agents Association for the

Foodservice Industry; Manufacturers' Agents National

Association; Manufacturing Jewelers and Suppliers of

America; Maryland Nursery and Landscape Association;

Massachusetts Nursery & Landscape Association, Inc.;

Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association; Mid-Atlantic

Community Papers Association; Midwest Free Community

Papers; Minnesota Nursery & Landscape Association; Motor &

Equipment Manufacturers Association; NAMM, National

Association of Music Merchants.

National Apartment Association; National Association for

Printing Leadership; National Association for the Self-

Employed; National Association of Federal Credit Unions;

National Association of Home Builders; National Association

of Manufacturers; National Association of Mortgage Brokers;

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies; National

Association of Realtors'; National Association of

RV Parks & Campgrounds; National Association of State

Departments of Agriculture; National Association of Theatre

Owners; National Association of Wheat Growers; National

Association of Wholesaler-Distributors; National Barley

Growers Association; National Cattlemen's Beef Association;

National Chicken Council; National Christmas Tree

Association; National Club Association; National Community

Pharmacists Association.

National Corn Growers Association; National Cotton Council;

National Council of Agricultural Employers; National Council

of Farmer Cooperatives; National Electrical Contractors

Association; National Electrical Manufacturers

Representatives Association; National Federation of

Independent Business; National Home Furnishings Association;

National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association;

National Milk Producers Federation; National Multi Housing

Council; National Newspaper Association; National Office

Products Alliance; National Restaurant Association; National

Retail Federation; National Roofing Contractors Association;

National Small Business Association; National Small Business

Network; National Sunflower Association; National Taxpayers

Union.

National Tooling and Machining Association; National

Utility Contractors Association; Nationwide Insurance

Independent Contractors Association; Nebraska Nursery and

Landscape Association; New Mexico Family Business Alliance;

New Mexico Nursery & Landscape Association; New York State

Nursery and Landscape Association; North American Die Casting

Association; North Carolina Green Industry Council; North

Carolina Nursery and Landscape Association; Northeastern

Retail Lumber Association; Northwest Dairy Association; NPES

The Association for Suppliers of Printing, Publishing &

Converting Technologies; OFA--An Association of Floriculture

Professionals; Office Furniture Dealers Alliance; Ohio

Nursery and Landscape Association; Oregon Association of

Nurseries; Oregon Nursery Association; Outdoor Power

Equipment Institute; Pennsylvania Landscape and Nursery

Association.

Pet Industry Distributors Association; Petroleum Marketers

Association of America; Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors

Association; Precision Machined Products Association;

Precision Metalforming Association; Printing Industries of

America; Professional Golfers Association of America;

Professional Landscape Network; Professional Photographers of

America; Promotional Products Association International;

Public Lands Council; S Corp Association; Safety Equipment

Distributors Association; Saturation Mailers Coalition; SBE

Council; Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles

Association; Self-Insurance Institute of America (SIIA);

Service Station Dealers of America and Allied Trades; SIGMA,

the Society for Independent Gasoline Marketers of America;

Small Business Council of America.

Small Business Legislative Council; SMC Business Councils;

Society of American Florists; Society of Independent Gasoline

Marketers of America; Society of Sport & Event Photographers;

South Carolina Nursery & Landscape Association; Southeastern

Advertising Publishers Association; Southeast Dairy Farmers

Association; Southeast Milk, Inc.; Specialty Equipment Market

Association; Specialty Tools & Fasteners Distributors

Association; SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association;

Start Over! Coalition; Stock Artists Alliance; TechQuest

Pennsylvania; TechServe Alliance; Tennessee Nursery &

Landscape Association; Texas Community Newspaper Association;

Texas Nursery & Landscape Association; Textile Care Allied

Trades Association.

Textile Rental Services Association of America; The

National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry; Tire

Industry Association; Toy Industry Association, Inc.;

Turfgrass Producers International; U.S. Apple Association;

U.S. Canola Association; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; United Egg

Producers; United Fresh Produce Association; United

Producers, Inc.; United States Dry Bean Council; USA Dry Pea

& Lentil Council; USA Rice Federation; Utah Nursery &

Landscape Association; Virginia Christmas Tree Growers

Association; Virginia Green Industry Council; Virginia

Nursery & Landscape Association; Virginia Technology

Alliance; Washington State Nursery & Landscape Association;

Western Growers Association; Western Peanut Growers

Association; Western United Dairymen; Window and Door

Manufacturers Association; Wisconsin Community Papers; Wood

Machinery Manufacturers of America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate that language: to get back to what they tried to do in the first place. Let's look at what they did in the first place.

Their bill, their original bill, said anyone who earned more than 400 percent of poverty--that's $93,800 for a family of four--would be required to repay the entire amount of the exchange subsidy. That is exactly what this bill does. This bill does what the original health care legislation did. Then they raised it, and said, well, if you made up to $117,000 for a family of four, you had to repay the entire subsidy. They had a cliff in their bill, and there is a cliff now. What we are saying is we need to see that the American taxpayer is protected.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi).

I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Buerkle).

At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today the Republicans are breaking a promise that they made to the American people, a promise not to raise taxes. The new majority came in promising a growth agenda. Instead, under the guise of giving administrative relief to small businesses--relief that we all agree is necessary and the majority of this body last session voted to provide with a different way of paying for it--the Republicans are now increasing taxes on middle class Americans and punishing workers.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have also broken their promise to this body. The people's House was promised an open legislative process. Over and over, the leadership has told the American people they want to create an open process, create jobs, and lower taxes. Yet here we are debating the second closed rule of the week on a bill that calls out for new and better ideas, a bill that in its current form will increase taxes and punish employees.

We all agree that the 1099 reporting provision of the Affordable Care Act needs to be fixed. Just last Congress, we brought a bill to the floor to do that. H.R. 5982 would have repealed the 1099 requirements. But the measure failed because our Republican friends did not believe that ending incentives

for companies to outsource jobs overseas, which is the way we paid for fixing this administrative burden at the time, would protect American jobs and wouldn't raise taxes on individuals. They didn't believe that that was the correct way to offset the legislation. Instead, in this Congress, they are seeking a tax increase on middle class families as somehow preferable as a way of paying for something we all agree is important rather than ending incentives to shift American jobs overseas.

Now, we won't get into an argument about semantics. There will be those who somehow argue that this is not a tax increase. Well, if it looks and smells like a tax increase, it is a tax increase. A tax increase by any other name would smell as bitter.

Indeed, under this bill, hundreds of thousands of American families will receive an extra bill from the IRS to the tune of $3,000, $5,000, particularly middle class families, families earning $80,000 a year and $90,000 a year. The heart of what makes up the American middle class face the largest tax increases under this bill.

This bill would raise taxes, harming workers that should be protected. As the Joint Committee on Taxation points out, the Republican proposal would increase taxes for a family of four by an average of $3,000 a year. And, yes, that is a bill from the IRS. That is taxes. T-A-X-E-S is what the Republicans are seeking to increase under this bill.

Let me give another real-life example. One of the issues we want to correct with regard to the 1099 bill and work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to find a good way to pay for, is that currently people who have rental property are going to be classified as being in the business of renting property, and being subject to additional paperwork under the 1099 provision. So this could be a family of four earning maybe $60,000 a year in salary; they earn another $20,000, $25,000 from a rental property. They work hard. They keep up that property. Maybe it was formerly a family home, or maybe they saved up over 10 or 15 years to buy it.

With the 1099 paperwork problem, we are saying hey, you put a new refrigerator for $600 in that rental home, you have to fill out additional government paperwork that makes you responsible for taxes on that, okay? That's what we want to save people from, Republicans and Democrats. We're saying: You know what, we don't want to burden that family. You make $60,000 a year, you're getting $20,000 from a rental property, we don't want you to jump through hoops to put a new refrigerator in your rental property.

But you know what? To that family, they say we don't want to do that extra paperwork, but if it's between that paperwork and paying a $5,000 bill to the IRS, I'll do the darn paperwork. I'll do the darn paperwork.

Who are we trying to help here? Who are we talking about helping? If they don't want the help, if this is actually harmful, who are we talking about helping?

According to Families USA, House Republicans wish to decimate what remains of the safe harbor that protects individuals and families from substantial tax penalties. The Affordable Care Act provides built-in flexibility to consumers and protects them by capping the tax penalty if the monthly premium credit received during the year exceeds the amount of credit due based on unexpected income or family status.

So again, how can unexpected or unplanned for income or family status change? It could be a bonus, it could be a raise at work, it could be a divorce, or it could be a marriage. There are a number of ways these things change and put people in a higher category where the IRS will be sending them, because of this bill, $3,000 to pay, $5,000 to pay. That's what American families are going to be on the line for.

These provisions of the Affordable Care Act recognize that forcing middle income individuals to repay the entire amount would dampen their willingness to sign up for insurance in the first place. It would penalize them if they found a new job, or penalize them if they received a raise. This process of reconciling the actual income versus tax credits is often called a true up.

Now, last December, as part our bill to prevent the SGR payment cuts from going into effect, we changed the true-up policy for the better. We converted it to a graduated income approach to protect those with middle income levels and enable us to ease away from the cliff that people face when they reach the 400 percent level.

Now, let's talk briefly about health care reform. I know there is a lot in health care reform that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't agree with, but I like to think there is some they do agree with as well.

One of the most important provisions of health care reform from a market perspective is the incentive it gave middle class families to work and get off of government health care. Let me explain.

Before this House and the country took up health care reform, there were many families that were right at the cutoff point for Medicaid, okay. Let's say they are earning $10 an hour. If they got a raise to $10.50 an hour, they might lose thousands of dollars in government benefits. And I've met constituents who've said this. They've said: Look, I'm earning $9.50 an hour. I can't even take a raise at my job. I can't work another 20 hours a week at a side job because I actually lose money. So the government was telling them they couldn't work harder. The government was telling them we're going to trap you into a cycle of dependency. The government was telling them if you earn any more money, we're cutting off your health care.

We replace that in the Affordable Care Act with something that I like to think has support from both sides of the aisles, and that is a sliding scale of reductions. So there is an actual incentive to get off of government health care, to get off of Medicaid, to better yourself and take that 50 cent raise, realizing you may not keep all 50 cents, you might lose a little bit. But, you know what, we're going to let you keep 30 cents of that, and 20 cents will go to decreasing your government benefits. And eventually you've weaned yourself off of government aid entirely and you're able to support health care. That is another misconception. It's not that people want to receive Medicaid or government health care; what they want is to be able to afford, to earn enough money to afford to have private insurance. That's the goal here. The Affordable Care Act helps them get there.

This would strip that provision back and provide a disincentive for families making $75,000, $80,000 a year, depending on the size of the family, to work harder.

America was built on a strong work ethic. We all, on both sides of the aisle, have a strong awareness of the market-based system we live in and the power of incentives. We should provide an incentive for middle class families to earn more, not earn less. Why do we penalize those who succeed? Why are the Republicans seeking to raise taxes on middle class families who are seeking to do a little bit better? We should encourage them to get that second home and make some rental income, to work another 10- or 20-hour-a-week job so they can send their kids to a good college. That's what this body should be discussing. Yet instead, we're about to present to the middle class in this country an enormous tax hike. Now to fund something we all agree, and that is why if this was an open process, as Republican leadership has repeatedly promised, we could come together around better ways to pay for it. Okay, you didn't like the way the Democrats proposed paying for it last year. And you know what, by the way, a lot of those pay- fors wound up in statute anyway paying for other bills, but let's work together to do that. Consistent with the cut-go proposal, let's make cuts in government expenditures somewhere to pay for closing this 1099 loophole. Let's not put it on the backs of middle class families earning $80,000, $90,000 a year, those who are least able to pay for a tax increase.

You know, I was proud to support the continuation for 2 years of the Bush tax cuts at the end of last year, and let me tell you why. I think it would be unthinkable to raise taxes on families making under $250,000 a year. Now, I supported letting them expire for families making over $250,000 a year. You don't take pleasure in that, but it was because I felt we needed to do that to

close the deficit. We couldn't leave that revenue on the table. But I felt it was so important to make sure that families making $80,000, $90,000, $100,000 a year didn't get a tax increase that I was willing to support no tax increase for millionaires as well as part of the package.

And yet here we are in the third month of the Republican Congress with an enormous tax increase on those Americans who can least afford it, the very families who are making $80,000, $90,000 a year who form the backbone of the American middle class, facing a $3,000, $4,000, $5,000 tax increase because of the way the Republican majority has chosen to pay for what we all agree is a worthy cause: reducing paperwork for small businesses and home renters.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

This is not, as my colleague from Florida indicated, about fraud. The law has strong penalties for fraud already.

Now, there's agreement to close this extra paperwork on the 1099. What we are supporting is an open process that would allow the majority to work with the minority to find a way to pay for solving this increased administrative overhead without raising taxes on American families.

With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

I yield myself a minute to respond to my good friend, the gentleman from California.

I agree with much of what you said, particularly when you said we don't need a pay-for. I agree with you that to a certain extent the gains are illusory. Yes, they're used as a pay-for; yes, there's a shell game; yes, on paper it looks like so much money. There's times that you and I might both disagree with the CBO, for instance, and this might very well be one of those. But the answer, and I hope my friend from California agrees, is not instead of doing no pay-for or perhaps allowing an amendment under this rule that would allow us to eliminate the pay-for, the answer is not to raise taxes on the middle class.

With that, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from New York.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Does section 4 of H.R. 4 violate the rules of the House by proposing a tax increase?

The inquiry is regarding the underlying bill.

I thank the gentleman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a question of how cleverly--or perhaps deviously--the majority party constructed the rules of the House with regard to a test as to whether presenting a family earning $80,000 a year with a bill for $3,000 from the IRS is a tax increase or not. It would take some pretty fancy tap dancing to say that a $3,000 or $4,000 bill from the IRS to a middle class family is not a tax increase. If it

looks like a tax increase, if it smells like a tax increase, it is a tax increase. And it is contrary to the rules of the House to allow a tax increase in this kind of bill.

Now, I understand there's some fancy dancing and semantics around it, but I think the American people and the voters of this country have a great deal of common sense with regard to this matter. When you get a $3,000 bill from the IRS that you have to pay--and if you don't pay, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle liked to point out during the debate on the health care bill, you could face going to prison-- that's a tax increase. That's a tax increase.

What this bill does is tell hundreds of thousands of middle class families, particularly right on that cusp--we talk about this 400 percent of poverty rate, again, that's an arbitrary level, but it's a real level for families; it's X dollars. Now it depends on the size of the family and it depends on the State, but we're talking $80,000, $90,000 a year, right in that range. You earn, as my friend from New York pointed out, 250 bucks more, the IRS sends you a bill, $3,000, $4,000, $5,000; and if you don't pay it, you face going to prison.

I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to my friend from New York (Mr. Crowley).

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

Since the gentleman from New York has been unable to enter into a colloquy with the several gentlemen he has sought to, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

After continuing to be amazed that the gentleman from Virginia somehow said that a tax increase is not a tax increase and is not germane, I am happy to yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Look, in a climate of a fragile economic recovery, the last thing we want do is punish people for getting a raise or earning a few extra dollars by working an extra job.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to help small businesses, and that's something we all agree with. I ran a small business before I was elected to Congress, and there is great support from both sides of the aisle to making sure that we reduce the 1099 reporting requirements for small businesses and people who happen to have a rental home.

But this is a situation of thanks, but no thanks. Thanks for saying I don't have to fill out an extra form because I bought a $600 refrigerator for my rental property, but no thanks because you are giving me a $5,000 bill from the IRS.

This Republican proposal undoes a bipartisan agreement that passed overwhelmingly last Congress. Under this Republican pay-for, an average middle class family could find out in January that they have to come up with $12,000 by April to send to the IRS with their tax return, or they could face going to prison. An extra $100 in overtime here and a $500 holiday bonus there could send a working family towards tax court.

During the last Congress, the Republican Party complained of being left out of the process; and while we didn't always have an open rule, every major piece of legislation came to the floor under a structured rule. Members of both parties come to the Rules Committee and have their amendments vetted. Now, why aren't we through this rule offering the good idea that the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) offered? He said why don't we remove the pay-for from this bill and simply disagree with CBO and see if we can pass it on that ground? Why are we not allowing the amendment from my friend from New York, who offered an amendment that would repeal the middle class tax increase proposed in this Republican bill? The Crowley amendment would protect the middle class and maintain the bipartisan agreement that we had last year.

Mr. Speaker, we all agree that the 1099 provisions in the Affordable Care Act need to be addressed. There has been excellent points made in that regard from Members from both sides of the aisle, but this is not the way to do it, not on the backs of the middle class, not with a tax hike during a recession.

Republicans are proposing a substantial tax hike for the middle class. Not only is that bad policy, but it's also a violation of the pledge that many of them signed committing to oppose all tax increases. A tax increase is a tax increase. When you get a $3,000, or $4,000, or $5,000 bill from the IRS that you have to pay the IRS, it's called a tax increase. A tax increase. There is nothing else to call it.

No fancy dancing, no fancy words can change the fact that a bill from the IRS is a tax increase. And families making $80,000, $90,000 a year will receive substantial tax increases under the Republican version of paying for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order Mr. Crowley's amendment to the bill. That amendment simply says that nothing in the bill will apply if it would result in a tax increase on anyone whose income is less than 500 percent of the Federal poverty line.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Thank you, Mr. Levin, I appreciate that.

It's a little interesting when we hear our friends come to the floor with the same talking points. My good friend from California talks about the government takeover of health care--which of course PolitiFact called the 2010 political lie of the year.

Allowing 33 million additional Americans to have access to----

Point of Order

. . .

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw the previous statement.

I appreciate the opportunity, because I want to be very clear about what I intended, what I thought I said and I think a review of the tape would reveal. I am not calling anybody a liar.

What I intended to say, and I will ask unanimous consent to put in the Record, is that as we have repeated talking points about a government takeover of health care, this has been judged by an independent journalistic undertaking as the political lie of the year.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I apologize if the person who said ``government takeover of health care'' was not you. It is repeated so often by my Republican friends, including the Speaker of the House, time and time again, that sometimes I get confused because it is a litany that is used. It is in fact, and I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to put in the Record the PolitiFact article.

Because those words are still echoing in the Chamber. It has been said by somebody on the other side of the aisle earlier:

``PolitiFact editors and reporters have chosen `government takeover of health care' as the 2010 Lie of the Year. They chose it as the year's most significant falsehood by an overwhelming margin. The label `government takeover' has no basis in reality, but instead reflects a political dynamic where conservatives label any increase in government authority in health care as a `takeover.' ''

They point out: ``The law that Congress passed, parts of which have already gone into effect, rely largely on the free market. Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies. Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health insurance. The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors. The law does not include a public option. It gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers. It relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized medicine. We have concluded it is inaccurate to call the plan a government takeover because it relies largely on the existing health system of coverage provided by employers.''

Mr. Speaker, part of what we're seeing here, though, is this drama that is pulled out where talking points are repeated in an effort to obscure the facts going forward. The majority knows that the Democrats have attempted to adjust the 1099. We don't want it in there. We voted for fixes. It will be fixed between the House and the Senate.

What's killing small business is the crushing burden of health care, where they are trying to provide for their employees. What is killing small business is that they can't compete with big business. They have a system that has provided a downward spiral. What's providing the driving force for the government deficit is increasing costs of providing health care, for example, through Medicare. This used to be an area of bipartisan cooperation.

The Health Care Reform Act includes every significant area of reducing health care costs as either a pilot or a demonstration. It points a path towards saving hundreds of billions of dollars. Those used to be bipartisan.

Those used to be bipartisan; but instead of working with us to refine and accelerate the provisions, people are trying to put sand in the gears. And as my friends from Michigan and from New York have pointed out, there are going to be some--we hope they are unintended victims--but there are going to be innocent victims, people in the middle class and the near middle class who don't have the control of billionaire hedge funds to control their income.

There are things that can happen that will adjust it up or down. There

will be a significant penalty. We have worked to fix that cliff. We've approved it. We don't need to reinstate the cliff, the tax on honest mistakes. As has been pointed out, there are provisions to deal with fraud.

This is part of the drip, drip, drip to try and undermine health care reform, not accelerate it. It's a part of misrepresentation politically that the American public frankly doesn't deserve. It's a lost opportunity for us to reduce the deficit, improve health care, and lower costs.

This is very personal to people like me. I come from an area of the country that provides high-quality health care at a low cost. My people are penalized. Health care reform is moving to try to help people like that as we overall improve health care around the country and protect the deficit.

I am sorry for any ambiguity or misunderstanding from my comments, but I am frustrated when I hear the Republican side of the aisle continue to repeat this political lie of the year. It doesn't help the debate, it doesn't help us move forward, and we are going to have to move forward to solve the problems of this country.

[From PolitiFact, Dec. 16, 2010]

PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: `A Government Takeover of Health Care'

(By Bill Adair, Angie Drobnic Holan)

In the spring of 2009, a Republican strategist settled on a

brilliant and powerful attack line for President Barack

Obama's ambitious plan to overhaul America's health insurance

system. Frank Luntz, a consultant famous for his phraseology,

urged GOP leaders to call it a ``government takeover.''

``Takeovers are like coups,'' Luntz wrote in a 28-page

memo. ``They both lead to dictators and a loss of freedom.''

The line stuck. By the time the health care bill was headed

toward passage in early 2010, Obama and congressional

Democrats had sanded down their program, dropping the

``public option'' concept that was derided as too much

government intrusion. The law passed in March, with new

regulations, but no government-run plan.

But as Republicans smelled serious opportunity in the

midterm elections, they didn't let facts get in the way of a

great punchline. And few in the press challenged their

frequent assertion that under Obama, the government was going

to take over the health care industry.

PolitiFact editors and reporters have chosen ``government

takeover of health care'' as the 2010 Lie of the Year.

Uttered by dozens of politicians and pundits, it played an

important role in shaping public opinion about the health

care plan and was a significant factor in the Democrats'

shellacking in the November elections.

Readers of PolitiFact, the St. Petersburg Times'

independent fact-checking website, also chose it as the

year's most significant falsehood by an overwhelming margin.

(Their second-place choice was Rep. Michele Bachmann's claim

that Obama was going to spend $200 million a day on a trip to

India, a falsity that still sprouts.)

By selecting ``government takeover'' as Lie of the Year,

PolitiFact is not making a judgment on whether the health

care law is good policy.

The phrase is simply not true.

Said Jonathan Oberlander, a professor of health policy at

the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill: ``The label

`government takeover' has no basis in reality, but instead

reflects a political dynamic where conservatives label any

increase in government authority in health care as a

`takeover.' ''

An inaccurate claim

``Government takeover'' conjures a European approach where

the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public

employees. But the law Congress passed, parts of which have

already gone into effect, relies largely on the free market:

Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the

majority of Americans through private insurance companies.

Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health

coverage. The law sets up ``exchanges'' where private

insurers will compete to provide coverage to people who don't

have it.

The government will not seize control of hospitals or

nationalize doctors.

The law does not include the public option. a government-

run insurance plan that would have competed with private

insurers.

The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty

affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from

private providers on the exchange. But here too, the approach

relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized

medicine.

PolitiFact reporters have studied the 906-page bill and

interviewed independent health care experts. We have

concluded it is inaccurate to call the plan a government

takeover because it relies largely on the existing system of

health coverage provided by employers.

It's true that the law does significantly increase

government regulation of health insurers. But it is, at its

heart, a system that relies on private companies and the free

market.

Republicans who maintain the Democratic plan is a

government takeover say that characterization is justified

because the plan increases federal regulation and will

require Americans to buy health insurance.

But while those provisions are real, the majority of

Americans will continue to get coverage from private

insurers. And it will bring new business for the insurance

industry: People who don't currently have coverage will get

it, for the most part, from private insurance companies.

Consider some analogies about strict government regulation.

The Federal Aviation Administration imposes detailed rules on

airlines. State laws require drivers to have car insurance.

Regulators tell electric utilities what they can charge. Yet

that heavy regulation is not described as a government

takeover.

This year, PolitiFact analyzed five claims of a

``government takeover of health care.'' Three were rated

Pants on Fire, two were rated False.

Can't do it in four words

Other news organizations have also said the claim is false.

Slate said ``the proposed health care reform does not take

over the system in any sense.'' In a New York Times economics

blog, Princeton University professor Uwe Reinhardt, an expert

in health care economics, said, ``Yes, there would be a

substantial government-mandated reorganization of this

relatively small corner of the private health insurance

market (that serves people who have been buying individual

policies). But that hardly constitutes a government takeover

of American health care.''

FactCheck.org, an independent fact-checking group run by

the University of Pennsylvania, has debunked it several

times, calling it one of the ``whoppers'' about health care

and saying the reform plan is neither ``government-run'' nor

a ``government takeover.''

We asked incoming House Speaker John Boehner's office why

Republican leaders repeat the phrase when it has repeatedly

been shown to be incorrect. Michael Steel, Boehner's

spokesman, replied, ``We believe that the job-killing

ObamaCare law will result in a government takeover of health

care. That's why we have pledged to repeal it, and replace it

with common-sense reforms that actually lower costs.''

Analysts say health care reform is such a complicated topic

that it often cannot be summarized in snappy talking points.

``If you're going to tell the truth about something as

complicated as health care and health care reform, you

probably need at least four sentences,'' said Maggie Mahar,

author of Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Health Care

Costs So Much. ``You can't do it in four words.''

Mahar said the GOP simplification distorted the truth about

the plan. ``Doctors will not be working for the government.

Hospitals will not be owned by the government,'' she said.

``That's what a government takeover of health care would

mean, and that's not at all what we're doing.''

How the line was used

If you followed the health care debate or the midterm

election--even casually--it's likely you heard ``government

takeover'' many times.

PolitiFact sought to count how often the phrase was used in

2010 but found an accurate tally was unfeasible because it

had been repeated so frequently in so many places. It was

used hundreds of times during the debate over the bill and

then revived during the fall campaign. A few numbers:

The phrase appears more than 90 times on Boehner's website,

GOPLeader.gov.

It was mentioned eight times in the 48-page Republican

campaign platform ``A Pledge to America'' as part of their

plan to ``repeal and replace the government takeover of

health care.''

The Republican National Committee's website mentions a

government takeover of health care more than 200 times.

Conservative groups and tea party organizations joined the

chorus. It was used by FreedomWorks, the Heritage Foundation

and the Cato Institute.

The phrase proliferated in the media even after Democrats

dropped the public option. In 2010 alone, ``government

takeover'' was mentioned 28 times in the Washington Post, 77

times in Politico and 79 times on CNN. A review of TV

transcripts showed ``government takeover'' was primarily used

as a catchy sound bite, not for discussions of policy

details.

In most transcripts we examined, Republican leaders used

the phrase without being challenged by interviewers. For

example, during Boehner's Jan. 31 appearance on Meet the

Press, Boehner said it five times. But not once was he

challenged about it.

In rare cases when the point was questioned, the GOP leader

would recite various regulations found in the bill and insist

that they constituted a takeover. But such followups were

rare.

An effective phrase

Politicians and officials in the health care industry have

been warning about a ``government takeover'' for decades.

The phrase became widely used in the early 1990s when

President Bill Clinton was trying to pass health care

legislation. Then, as today, Democrats tried to debunk the

popular Republican refrain.

When Obama proposed his health plan in the spring of 2009,

Luntz, a Republican strategist famous for his research on

effective

phrases, met with focus groups to determine which messages

would work best for the Republicans. He did not respond to

calls and e-mails from PolitiFact asking him to discuss the

phrase.

The 28-page memo he wrote after those sessions, ``The

Language of Healthcare 2009,'' provides a rare glimpse into

the art of finding words and phrases that strike a responsive

chord with voters.

The memo begins with ``The 10 Rules for Stopping the

`Washington Takeover' of Healthcare.'' Rule No. 4 says people

``are deathly afraid that a government takeover will lower

their quality of care--so they are extremely receptive to the

anti-Washington approach. It's not an economic issue. It's a

bureaucratic issue.''

The memo is about salesmanship, not substance. It doesn't

address whether the lines are accurate. It just says they are

effective and that Republicans should use them. Indeed,

facing a Democratic plan that actually relied on the free

market to try to bring down costs, Luntz recommended

sidestepping that inconvenient fact:

``The arguments against the Democrats'' healthcare plan

must center around politicians, bureaucrats and Washington .

. . not the free market, tax incentives or competition.''

Democrats tried to combat the barrage of charges about a

government takeover. The White House and House Speaker Nancy

Pelosi repeatedly put out statements, but they were drowned

out by a disciplined GOP that used the phrase over and over.

Democrats could never agree on their own phrases and were

all over the map in their responses, said Howard Dean, former

head of the Democratic National Committee.

``It was uncoordinated. Everyone had their own idea,'' Dean

said in an interview with PolitiFact.

The Democrats are atrocious at messaging,'' he said.

``They've gotten worse since I left, not better. It's just

appalling. First of all, you don't play defense when you're

doing messaging, you play offense. The Republicans have

learned this well.''

Dean grudgingly admires the Republican wordsmith. ``Frank

Luntz has it right, he just works for the wrong side. You

give very simple catch phrases that encapsulate the

philosophy of the bill.''

A responsive chord

By March of this year, when Obama signed the bill into law,

53 percent of respondents in a Bloomberg Poll said they

agreed that ``the current proposal to overhaul health care

amounts to a government takeover.''

Exit polls showed the economy was the top issue for voters

in the November election, but analysts said the drumbeat

about the ``government takeover'' during the campaign helped

cement the advantage for the Republicans.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer, an Oregon Democrat whose provision

for Medicare end-of-life care was distorted into the charge

of ``death panels'' (last year's Lie of the Year), said the

Republicans'' success with the phrase was a matter of

repetition.

``There was a uniformity of Republican messaging that was

disconnected from facts,'' Blumenauer said. ``The sheer

discipline . . . was breathtaking.''

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 128 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 128 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 662. This rule provides for ample debate and opportunities for Members on both sides of the aisle, the majority and minority, to make sure that they have ample time to participate, come to the floor, and express their ideas, which is what this new Republican majority is enabling Members to do.

I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. The underlying legislation is a simple extension of service transportation programs through September 30 of this year.

This legislation was introduced by the distinguished chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Chairman Mica, on February 11, 2011, with Ranking Member Rahall as an original cosponsor. It was reported out of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure by a voice vote on February 28, 2011. This legislation went through regular order with bipartisan support.

This is a clean, straight extension of current law, providing a hard freeze at 2009 spending levels through the end of this fiscal year. Without this legislation, the spending levels would expire on Friday, March 4, 2011.

In an effort to provide more transparency and accountability of how this body has been run, which is different than how this body has been run for the past 4 years, the Republican Conference adopted a policy that would no longer permit extensions of programs on a continuing resolution or any other appropriations bills. This allows Members a straight up or down vote on an issue at hand and, in this case, it is surface transportation.

The Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011 continues the authorization of Federal highway, transit, and highway safety programs through the end of this fiscal year at the same program funding levels established for fiscal year 2009. This authorization is essential to allow funds that had been included in transportation appropriations legislation to flow to States and local transit agencies. We are not trying to get in the way of decisions that need to be made locally; we are simply trying to make sure that they are legally executed.

Should this straight extension of transportation funding not be signed into law before the March 4 deadline, the impact would be severe and immediate. A shutdown would result in immediate furloughs and suspension of payments to States, which would hamper the Federal Highway Administration's ability to pay contractors. This would jeopardize the States' transportation funding to a tune of $154 million a day, killing ongoing projects, things which had been agreed on and are being done locally.

This level of funding was extended by the previous Congress six times starting in October of 2009. Continuing this funding at 2009 levels allows for the appropriate funding for States to complete and manage their transportation projects. With an extension through the fiscal year, it will allow the new chairman of the Transportation Committee, my dear friend, the favorite son and gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) the appropriate time to hold necessary hearings to review and re- estimate the funding essential for States to carry on their transportation projects.

The Congressional Budget Office, which is also known as the CBO, has concluded that the underlying bill today does not affect direct spending or revenues. Further, the CBO determined

that, ``the nontax provisions of H.R. 662 contain no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal governments.''

Additionally, according to the Department of Transportation, surface transportation allows for international trade, which helps sustain and create jobs that support our national economy.

The data reported in the past 10 years says that U.S. surface transportation trade between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, has increased 48.6 percent, a 13.8 percent increase in the past year alone. In December 2010, imports were up 41.9 percent compared to December 2000, while exports were up 57.7 percent.

Currently, this trade is valued at $66.5 billion annually. In an ever increasing global market, the United States needs to ensure that our surface infrastructure can sustain the tremendous growth rate of trade so that we can maintain international competitiveness, create jobs and encourage economic growth in the United States of America.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. I applaud the Republican leadership for following regular order for the bipartisan nature of this bill, for Republicans and Democrats working together through the entire process, and up to and including the gentleman, Mr. Dreier, the chairman of the Rules Committee, extending an unusual amount of time so that every single Member has an opportunity to come to this body and not only voice what they believe is important to them but also the time where they can come down and speak to important matters of this Congress.

The chairman and ranking member continue to work together to provide a necessary extension that will get us through the rest of the year, and I look forward to an open and transparent process for the reauthorization for next year's funding also. I have confidence in not only Chairman Mica, but also John Boehner and Eric Cantor, as they lead this House of Representatives on transportation issues, to do what's right for a beautiful country that expects Congress to have an open and transparent process that is good for all Members.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

December 2010 Surface Trade With Canada and Mexico Rose 13.8 Percent

from December 2009 (State Rankings in Tables 5 and 7)

Trade using surface transportation between the United

States and its North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

partners Canada and Mexico was 13.8 percent higher in

December 2010 than in December 2009, reaching $66.5 billion,

according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) of

the U.S. Department of Transportation (Table 1).

BTS, a part of the Research and Innovative Technology

Administration, reported that the value of U.S. surface

transportation trade with Canada and Mexico fell 2.2 percent

in December 2010 from November 2010 (Table 2). Month-to-month

changes can be affected by seasonal variations and other

factors.

Surface transportation consists largely of freight

movements by truck, rail and pipeline. In December, 84.8

percent of U.S. trade by value with Canada and Mexico moved

on land.

The value of U.S. surface transportation trade with Canada

and Mexico in December was up 12.6 percent compared to

December 2005, and up 48.6 percent compared to December 2000,

a period of 10 years. Imports in December were up 41.9

percent compared to December 2000, while exports were up 57.7

percent (Table 3).

U.S. Surface Transportation Trade with Canada

U.S.-Canada surface transportation trade totaled $39.8

billion in December, up 12.2 percent compared to December

2009. The value of imports carried by truck was 17.7 percent

higher in December 2010 compared to December 2009, while the

value of exports carried by truck was 10.4 percent higher

during this period (Table 4).

Michigan led all states in surface trade with Canada in

December with $4.7 billion (Table 5).

U.S. Surface Transportation Trade with Mexico

U.S.-Mexico surface transportation trade totaled $26.8

billion in December, up 16.3 percent compared to December

2009. The value of imports carried by truck was 16.3 percent

higher in December 2010 than December 2009 while the value of

exports carried by truck was 18.7 percent higher (Table 6).

Texas led all states in surface trade with Mexico in

December with $9.5 billion (Table 7).

The TransBorder Freight Data are a unique subset of

official U.S. foreign trade statistics released by the U.S.

Census Bureau. New data are tabulated monthly and historical

data are not adjusted for inflation. December TransBorder

numbers include data received by BTS as of Feb. 16.

The news release and summary tables can be found at http:// www.bts.gov. More information on TransBorder Freight Data and

data from previous months are posted on the BTS website at

http://www.bts.gov/programs/international/transborder/. BTS

will release January TransBorder numbers on March 29.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Carlsbad, California (Mr. Bilbray), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I enjoy my colleagues coming to the floor and talking about us being without a vision and that the people will perish. People are perishing all across our country because of the excessive spending that this administration and the previous two Congresses have placed upon the people. Excessive debt. This year, the President has estimated we will have a $1.650 trillion debt. And as best I can tell you, some sense of reality and dose of discipline must be invoked upon this Congress. That's what we're attempting to do not only by this bill today but by also following regular order, by allowing Members of Congress to come and speak very clearly on the floor, by allowing an open process, things which were never allowed in the previous two Congresses.

I appreciate Members coming to the floor and talking about what's in the best interests of the country. Madam Speaker, the bottom line is that the Republican majority is going to do something about jobs. We're going to do something about spending. We will bring discipline, authority, responsibility and actions directly to the floor of the House of Representatives as opposed to spending which was out of control, ideas which ran amok, and a lack of vision and clarity for our future. I'm very proud of what we're doing here today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I will say that this process that we have had as opposed to having it just mixed in a resolution allows for a motion to recommit for the gentleman and his party, and it is my hope that they will take up that open process that we talked about where we'll see what their ideas are. In a few minutes we'll find out when they make that choice.

Madam Speaker, we've heard a lot of things during this debate, up to and including about thoughts and ideas about shutting down the government, that that looms ahead of us. Not one Republican, not one Republican, is talking about shutting down the government. It is an issue that Republican leadership, including the gentleman Mr. Boehner, the Speaker of this House, has openly talked about that we will do every single thing that we can do to avoid a government shutdown.

So it's my hope that this body would recognize, we're not offering that as a threat to the American people. We're open for doing business. We're trying to make sure we not only address this issue weeks ahead of time but that we're forthright about how we would go about giving options, opportunities, how we would work with the President and the Senate to make sure that we avoid this from happening.

Secondly, we heard about a vision statement, a vision statement that evidently is lacking now from Republicans. Well, the facts of the case are very simple and, that is, the vision that our country sees ahead right now is diminishment of jobs, of a free enterprise system that is overburdened by rules and regulations, a policy that comes from this administration that is about destroying jobs, whether it be from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission or, government-wide, an assault on the free enterprise system and upon employers.

So what we are trying to do is to offer some reassurance today that we will go ahead and reauthorize the Surface Transportation bill and that there will be the understanding that the gentleman--the fabulous chairman of the committee, John Mica from Florida--will, in fact, lead in a bipartisan effort with Ranking Member Rahall to provide the opportunity to make sure that there is public involvement, that open hearings are held, that we in committee talk about this, and that every Member is given a chance to participate.

That is what Republicans are now willing to do: regular order, open processes, and a chance to make sure, as they find their way here to the floor, that every single bill we want, where possible, allows for a Democrat motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, you heard me say earlier today that my Republican colleagues and I are committed to an open process and to far, far more accountability, transparency, and an open process than what our friends have ever allowed us for the last 4 years.

Today's legislation is a step in the right direction. The underlying bill has bipartisan support, even up at the Rules Committee, where Republicans and Democrats support this underlying legislation. It went through regular order, which is a structure which worked, and open debate on the floor. This is just the first step in the necessary transportation funding--an open dialogue with the American people, cities, States, counties--and it is essential that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee takes the time to review where it is and to come up with the recommendations in allowing for a future that will be even brighter and better.

Allowing this funding gives the States the tools that they need. We are working, as Chairman Mica is, with counties, cities, States, and with elected officials all across the country. The hard work that he is doing pays off again today. I will predict that we will pass this rule and this bill on a bipartisan basis because of the way our Speaker, John Boehner, our majority leader, Eric Cantor, and also the great chairman, John Mica, insist on making sure that the floor is run with openness for the body. I look forward to working with Chairman Mica and the rest of the committee on that endeavor.

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

The previous question was ordered.

I thank my good friend from Texas for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 662, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2011, prevents our Nation's highway, transit, and safety programs from expiring ahead of the upcoming construction season by extending them at fiscal year 2010 funding levels through September 30 of this year.

My friend from Texas referenced the fact that it would be bad if we did not do this before March 4, and I agree with him thoroughly. I am hopeful that he has the same attitude with reference to the overall aspect of any kind of shutdown of the government. A shutdown would be bad in any of its particulars, and not just as he referenced it, that I agree with, in the area of transportation and infrastructure.

This extension allows States to continue signing contracts, managing planning and construction, and paying for vital transportation and infrastructure projects while we finalize a multiyear authorization to update our network. As all of us know, our interstate highways, roads, and bridges are in desperate need of repairs and improvements. All you have to do is drive around Washington to prove that.

According to the American Society of Civil Engineers in their 2009 report card, which rates the operational condition and future capacity of dams, levees, railways, roads, bridges, and transit by letter grade, our Nation's surface infrastructure is rated at a ``D.''

This is deplorable and, frankly, it's embarrassing--embarrassing for several reasons. I came here in 1992. We were advocating on both sides of the aisle that we should be about the business of repairing bridges in this country, and the multiples are enormous from that time. We were talking 14,000 bridges.

More than 26 percent of our Nation's bridges today are either ``structurally deficient or functionally obsolete,'' with the number of such bridges in urban areas on the rise. And we have seen what disasters can occur when a bridge collapses.

Existing rail capacity is inadequate to handle future freight and passenger rail growth without significant investment. Last year, I took the Amtrak to New York, and when returning to Washington, I looked at the rail underbed. I grew up near a railroad in Altamonte Springs, Florida. And the railbed in that time where I grew up in the 40s was 100 percent better than the railbed just outside of this city on the Amtrak line. That's ridiculous.

Our interstate highway program has changed little since it was created in the 1950s by the distinguished President, Dwight Eisenhower's vision. With ever-increasing congestion--and we see it right around here--and improvement costs, our Nation's roads were even poorer at a D-minus in 2009. One-third of America's roads are in poor or mediocre condition, and 45 percent of major urban highways are congested.

Just last January, the main road in and out of one of the cities that I'm privileged to represent, the city of Pahokee, was closed for 17 days because of sunken asphalt. Now, that may not sound like much, a little old town like Pahokee being cut off. But a collapsed culvert had created a 2-inch dip measuring 252 square feet in size on the northbound lane of State Road 715. This resulted in hours-long detours for commuters and trucks, stymied local and regional business, and regrettably reduced access to Glades General Hospital and Pahokee Airport.

Similar stories can be found throughout my home State of Florida and indeed in communities across this Nation. We can, and we must, do better.

Just as routine and preventive health care costs much less than a trip to the emergency room, regular maintenance and improvements cost less than major overhauls and replacement. According to Transportation for America, for every dollar that we spend today on maintenance, we avoid $14 in future costs.

H.R. 662 obligates up to $42.5 billion for Federal-aid highway programs and $639 million for the equity bonus programs to ensure that States receive in Federal highway funds a certain portion of the gasoline taxes that they contribute.

Investing in our Nation's roads is about more than getting from point A to point B faster, which would be, in many respects, reason enough for many commuters. It's about having more time, about having more money, and about having more opportunities to work, play, live, and enjoy life. Americans spend 4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic at a cost to the economy of $78.2 billion. That averages to $710 per motorist. Furthermore, poor conditions cost motorists $67 billion a year in repairs and operating costs.

One way to ease congestion is getting more people to use public transit. In fact, transit use increased 25 percent between 1995 and 2005, faster than any other mode of transportation. However, nearly half of American households do not have access to bus or rail transit, and only 25 percent have what they consider to be a good alternative.

On that note, increasing the capacity of our transportation and infrastructure network means nothing if our roads are not safe. Each year, thousands of people die in road crashes in the United States, and millions more are injured or disabled. As cochair of the Congressional Caucus on Global Road Safety, I recognize that road crash fatalities and disabilities represent a serious public health concern. This extension authorizes $742 billion in highway-safety programs administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, as well as $597 million for truck-safety activities of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, in order to help save lives and minimize crash-related injuries.

Safe, dependable, and efficient transportation is essential to our economic recovery and our Nation's competitiveness. At a time when unemployment in the construction industry is double the national rate, this extension provides much-needed market stability to create and sustain thousands of jobs.

The transportation sector has played a crucial role in rebuilding the U.S. economy, most recently through the Recovery Act, which provided $27.5 billion in new funding for surface transportation programs through the existing Federal-aid highway program and $8.4 billion for transit. In addition, $1.5 billion and $600 million were made available in two rounds, respectively, by the discretionary grant program known as TIGER, the Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery.

Extending these highway, transit, and other surface transportation programs is not only essential to our Nation's continued economic recovery, but also to our long-term prosperity and future. Today, we find ourselves on the cusp of a great opportunity, the opportunity to make meaningful investments in the future of this country, improve our quality of life and cut future debt. We need a truly interconnected, multi-modal system that effectively utilizes high-speed rail, light rail, streetcars, van pools, motor carriers by water, efficient buses, cars and

bikes. We need a system that helps ensure that lower-income workers can also get to and hold down jobs, a system that gets people where they need to go, increases our energy independence through new sources and innovative technologies, improves air quality, reduces traffic deaths and injuries, and creates jobs by supporting America's hard-hit construction and manufacturing sectors.

It is imperative that we not only extend the surface transportation programs through the end of the current fiscal year, but also pass a multi-year--yes, multi-year, as many as a 6-year--reauthorization as soon as possible. A new multi-year surface transportation authorization will create even more jobs and ensure that we can meet our growing transportation needs in the 21st century in a way that is affordable, efficient, innovative, resilient, sustainable, and accountable.

In this country, highways, roads, bridges and transit are neither Democratic nor Republican. They serve all Americans and help bring us closer together, literally.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I say to my colleague and my friend from California, sign me up.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown), the ranking member of the Railroad Subcommittee and my classmate. We came here together.

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

And I would also take this opportunity, if she would yield to me, to ask her a question.

The previous SAFETEA-LU measure provided some funding for a high-speed rail corridor. This particular provision does not. Am I correct that if we were to do the high-speed rail project, that the lowest estimate is it would provide 30,000 jobs?

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, when the gentlewoman from Florida was speaking about the light rail program that may expire on Friday, and I am hopeful that our Governor will understand that, a retort came from my friend from Texas about her saying about a lack of vision is what causes these kinds of matters. The gentlewoman from Florida was talking about light rail. I don't recall my friend from Texas being upset when we did light rail in Houston, and I was for that. I might add all of us know that we need to move people as best we can in other methodologies, as I have described earlier.

Madam Speaker, Democrats and Republicans must work together to invest more in our Nation's aging transportation infrastructure network; invest more, not less. We have a vision for America's future transportation infrastructure. Now we need the leadership to make it a reality. I shudder to think what would have happened to this Nation's overall national security had Dwight Eisenhower not had the vision and those Congresspersons who were here and the American people did not agree that we would have an interstate highway system. I understand that it takes money to do these things.

Let's look at Minnesota as an example. When the bridge collapsed in Minneapolis, tragically, lives were lost and a system that was a city's lifeblood had to be repaired. It has been repaired. But wouldn't it have been so much better, not just to avoid the tragedy, that's obvious, but could we not have as we do see in some of these situations, that these bridges need repair, these levees need repair. The Congresspersons from Louisiana were talking about the levees that were blown away during Katrina 10 years before that happened. I stand here today and talk about a levee in the Everglades that unless it's repaired, it is going to cause a disaster. You either pay me now on these things or you pay a whole lot later. We're not talking about not spending, not investing. We're talking about doing it wisely and with accountability.

While I support the underlying bill, I would like to express my disappointment at the closed process. My colleague comes down here and talks about all the Members are going to get a chance to come down here and they're going to get a chance to express their ideas. Well, there may be some Members that may have had an amendment that might innovate something or might improve our transportation system. My friend from Texas will claim that this is technically not a closed rule, and it's true that the rule did allow one--one--amendment by Chairman Mica, who wrote the underlying bill that I support. You heard that correctly. The only Member who is allowed to offer an amendment is the same Member who wrote the bill.

On January 5, the distinguished Speaker of this House for whom I have great respect, and he is a friend of mine, stated the following:

``Above all else, we will welcome the battle of ideas, encourage it, and engage in it--openly, honestly, and respectfully. As the Chamber closest to the people, the House works best when it is allowed to work its will.''

My colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) offered a motion for an open rule, so these important matters could be debated openly on the House floor. But this amendment was defeated last night, or yesterday, in a party-line vote. In addition, I also made a motion to amend the rule and make in order an amendment by Delegate Holmes Norton of Washington, D.C. and cosponsored by Mr. Moran of Virginia which would simply have permitted the District of Columbia to spend its own money after March 4--in other words, this coming Friday--in the event of a government shutdown. That was defeated on a party-line vote.

I ask you, Madam Speaker, does this sound like an open process to you? I

urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and instead pass this much-needed extension through a truly open process that allows all Members to offer amendments.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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