Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 425, I call up the bill (H.R. 2832) to extend the Generalized System of Preferences, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2832, the bill which renews the Generalized System of Preferences program and also contains the Trade Adjustment Extension Act of 2011. This

bill is the cornerstone of a carefully crafted bipartisan, bicameral agreement that prompted the President to send the three trade agreements to Congress last Monday and, in turn, has allowed us to move forward on the long-stalled trade agenda.

The bill renews the bipartisan GSP, the largest U.S. trade preference program, which was already passed by the House last month. Not only does this legislation allow duty-free access for specific products from certain developing countries into the U.S. market; it makes U.S. manufacturing more competitive by lowering the cost of inputs.

The Coalition for GSP has estimated that over 82,000 U.S. jobs are directly or indirectly associated with this program. This legislation renews the program through July 31, 2013, and applies it retroactively for eligible products imported after the program's expiration date on December 31, 2010. This program is fully offset with spending cuts.

This bill also contains a reauthorization of Trade Adjustment Assistance, better known as TAA. Earlier this summer, the White House sprung upon us that it would not send the three free trade agreements to Congress if there was no ``deal'' on TAA. I took this demand to heart and made the decision that I had to do everything in my power to reach agreement on a streamlined, cost-effective, and reduced TAA program to ensure that all three job-creating trade agreements could move forward. I worked with Chairman Baucus and the White House to forge a bipartisan agreement on TAA to do just that.

The core principles of our conference--ensuring smaller government and cutting spending--were the foundation of my negotiating stance throughout the TAA talks. As a result, contrary to initial White House demands that we reauthorize the 2009 TAA law that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, cost more than $700 million per year for 5 years, we forced the administration to accept significant cuts to the program. The cost for the final TAA agreement is approximately one-half that amount, according to CBO. The deal costs roughly $900 million total for a 3-year program and is fully offset with spending cuts, including deep cuts below the baseline to the program itself. Moreover, TAA reverts to 2002 levels or below for 2014, and the entire program completely ends after 2014.

In order to achieve these savings, we streamlined and scaled back TAA as a whole. I'll note some of the highlights. We reduced the number of weeks of income support under the TAA for Workers program from 156 in 2009 down to 117 weeks, with up to an additional 13 weeks available only if the applicant has met stringent standards and has ``substantially met the performance benchmarks'' of his or her training program.

I also want to note here for clarity that TAA benefits run concurrently with unemployment benefits. In other words, there is no double-dipping. We slashed the health care subsidy from 80 percent down to 72.5 percent and completely repeal it after 2013.

We denied TAA eligibility for public sector workers.

We eliminated half of the allowable justifications for the program's training waivers to ensure that only those who are in training will be eligible for TAA benefits, with only limited exceptions.

We consolidated and reduced by $110 million all non-income support expenditures of the program.

We slashed funding for TAA for Firms back to 2002 law levels, made TAA for Farmers a discretionary program, and eliminated most of the TAA for Communities program authorized at $190 million in the 2009 law.

We also added in enhanced performance measures and accountability into all of the TAA programs. And on top of that, we fully offset this program with spending cuts.

Overall, we slashed and streamlined TAA significantly and are today moving forward the most significant trade deal this country has seen in 15 years. For those who are concerned about TAA, let me urge you to recognize that this extension of a scaled back TAA is a small price to pay for the extraordinary promise these trade agreements hold for our economy.

I encourage my colleagues to consider the four votes for the three trade agreements and the GSP/TAA bill as a comprehensive package and a model of bipartisanship for creating jobs and enhancing economic growth in this country.

Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 38 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, October 12, 2011, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following:

Congress of the United States,

Joint Committee on Taxation,

Washington, DC, October 6, 2011.

Hon. Dave Camp,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Sander M. Levin,

Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Camp and Ranking Member Levin: I am writing

pursuant to section 4022 of the Internal Revenue Service

Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (Pub. L. No. 105-206)

(the ``IRS Reform Act''), which requires the staff of the

Joint Committee on Taxation (in consultation with the

Internal Revenue Service and the Department of the Treasury)

to provide a complexity analysis of tax legislation reported

by the Senate Committee on Finance, the House Committee on

Ways and Means, or a Conference Report containing tax

provisions. The complexity analysis is required to report on

the complexity and administrative issues raised by provisions

that directly or indirectly amend the Internal Revenue Code

and that have widespread applicability to individuals or

small businesses. The IRS Reform Act mandates that certain

information be included in the complexity analysis, if

determinable. The IRS Reform Act requires the complexity

analysis to be included in the appropriate committee report,

or provided to the Members of the committee reporting the

legislation as soon as practicable after the report is filed.

This letter fulfills the requirement for a complexity

analysis of H.R. 3078, the ``United States-Columbia Trade

Promotion Agreement Implementation Act,'' H.R. 3079, the

``United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement

Implementation Act,'' and H.R. 3080, the ``United States-

Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act,'' as reported

by the Committee on Ways and Means on October 6, 2011. We

have determined that there are no items in these three bills

that have widespread applicability to individuals or small

businesses, as defined in Section 4022 of the IRS Reform Act.

I want to bring to your attention another provision of the

IRS Reform Act. It appears that a point of order may be

raised against a bill where the committee report for that

bill does not contain a complexity analysis, unless the Ways

and Means Committee has the complexity analysis printed in

the Congressional Record prior to the consideration of that

bill.

If you have any questions, please contact Brion Graber or

me.

Sincerely,

Thomas A. Barthold,

Chief of Staff.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2832) to extend the Generalized System of Preferences, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2832.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan legislation, which renews the nearly 40- year-old Generalized System of Preferences, is a vital part of a robust trade agenda, an agenda that makes American companies more competitive and increases American exports. GSP is an important tool for boosting economic growth and job creation.

Just last week, we learned that on the whole there were zero jobs created in August and that the unemployment rate remains above 9 percent. Over the next several weeks, congressional Republicans will bring several bills to the floor that will address the shortage of American jobs and help promote job creation.

This legislation is an important component of that effort because GSP is critical to the competitiveness of many American manufacturers. Having more competitive American companies means creating and supporting more American jobs. The lapse of this program since the beginning of the year has unnecessarily imposed higher costs on American manufacturers and consumers at a time when we can least afford it.

The GSP program is the largest U.S. trade preference program and provides duty-free treatment to nonsensitive imports from over 130 developing countries. Many U.S. companies source raw materials and other inputs from GSP countries, and the duty-free treatment of these imports reduces the production costs of these U.S. manufacturers, making them more competitive. Nearly three-quarters of all GSP-eligible imports are raw materials, components, parts, or machinery and equipment used by American workers to manufacture goods in the United States for both consumption here and for export.

According to an analysis by the Coalition for GSP, approximately 82,000 jobs are either directly or indirectly associated with the importation and use of GSP-eligible imports. The clear connection with jobs reinforces how important it is the program is renewed.

Many of the jobs supported by GSP imports are in Michigan, where the unemployment rate remains almost 2 percentage points above the national average. Unfortunately, the lapse in the GSP program has forced employers in Michigan to pay over $9 million in unnecessary duties. Instead of paying unnecessary duties, these employers could have been paying $9 million more in needed salaries.

The legislation renews the program until July 30, 2013, and permits importers to apply for duty refunds for eligible products imported since the program's expiration on December 31 of 2010. This retroactive renewal will provide a timely infusion of capital to U.S. manufacturers that have faced higher duties and, therefore, higher production costs since the program expired. It will allow them to compete with manufacturers abroad who already have duty-free access to such inputs.

I also note that this legislation will not add to the deficit as the costs are fully offset.

I would like to thank my colleague, Ranking Member Levin, for working with me to find a path forward for this legislation. Given how important this legislation is, I hope that our colleagues in the other body will act quickly.

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize how important this job-creating legislation is for American manufacturers and their employees by creating and supporting American jobs. It's a valuable part of an aggressive, pro-growth trade agenda. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Mr. Speaker, I think today we'll find that we're the Congress of ``yes'' on this bipartisan legislation, and I want to thank the ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee for his original cosponsorship.

With that, I yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Will the gentleman yield?

Well, the short answer is no. The gentleman is correct in his analysis or reading of the bill. This is a straightforward extension of the existing program, so it has not added any additional eligibility criteria in this legislation. This is just simply a straightforward extension.

I haven't had a chance to review your suggestion but would be happy to take a look at it.

I am prepared to close at this point if the gentleman has no further speakers.

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

I want to thank both of my colleagues for their commitment to work with the other body to ensure that this legislation becomes law. As we all know, we can use all the help we can get when we get to the other side of the Capitol. But I want to just reemphasize that this is part of a 40-year history of more competition for U.S. manufacturers and U.S. companies. This is bipartisan legislation which has been around for a long time.

It is important to continue to grow markets and create exports; and this legislation helps American employers, American manufacturers--and their employees, more importantly--by creating and supporting jobs here in America. So it's just an important, valuable part of our export policy, and I urge all of my colleagues to join in supporting this bipartisan legislation.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the Congress does not act--and act now--America will default. That would wreak havoc on our economy and make it harder for Americans to find and keep a job in an already weak economy. Default cannot be an option, and I am pleased that the bill before us ensures that will not occur.

Just as a default would threaten the economic health of this country, so would increasing taxes. Raising taxes on families and job creators would hinder investment, increase the cost of doing business, and result in even less hiring and fewer jobs. That is the wrong direction when we are struggling with an unemployment rate of 9.2 percent and 14 million Americans looking for work. The good news is that the legislation before us recognizes these basic facts. It avoids a default, it makes sure the government pays our bills, and it does not increase taxes.

And though some have argued that the new Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction could pave the way for tax increases, that is not going to happen. The committee's structure, the baseline it will work off of, and the fact that Republicans are in the majority in the House virtually guarantees that tax rates will not go up.

Furthermore, this legislation finally forces Washington to make serious changes to the way it spends taxpayer dollars. There are real budget reforms, there is a path to a balanced budget amendment, and there are automatic spending cuts if Congress does not rein in spending on its own.

I applaud the efforts of all of those who helped craft this agreement, especially Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor.

I urge my colleagues to recognize this opportunity to fix what is broken in Washington and use this occasion to significantly cut runaway spending.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).

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

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility, or Debt Commission, we received testimony from experts in economic policy research; and they said that when debt loads of a country reach above or at 90 percent of their

economy or GDP, that results in the reduction in economic growth in that country by about 1 percentage point. And using the administration's economic model, that 1 percentage point increase in our GDP or decrease in our GDP costs about a million jobs. That's why this debate is so important. It is so important to get us on a path to fiscal responsibility, to begin to bring down our national debt.

The plan before us today does that. It does that with spending reductions. It does it with the sort of structural reforms in terms of spending caps that are there. But it also does it with an automatic reduction in spending if, for some reason, this select committee set up in this bill fails to come to some sort of agreement on how to reduce spending. That automatic reduction, I think, is an important backstop so the select committee will take its work seriously and do everything to come to a bipartisan solution.

Also, there is a path forward on a balanced budget amendment in this legislation that is absolutely critical I think for not just today, because we know it is impossible to bind future Congresses, but to put in place a structure and a mechanism well into the future so that we don't find ourselves continuing to deal with the fundamentals of this problem. We begin to deal with the problem; we make progress on the problem; and that progress will mean job creation, and that's something we're all looking forward to.

I thank the Speaker and urge a ``yes'' vote on the legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I come today in strong support of the Budget Control Act, a legislative approach that cuts out-of-control Washington spending and is a responsible and necessary plan to avoid a default on our Nation's debt.

As we all know, under President Obama we are experiencing our third straight year of deficits in excess of $1 trillion. In 4 years, President Obama's actions and projected budgets will add more than twice to our debt than was added during the previous 8 years. All told, the debt will double under President Obama's watch and reach a staggering $26 trillion by 2021. That's double the debt in half the time when compared with the previous administration. Congress must act to cut spending and get our debt under control, and that's what the legislation before us does.

First, the bill cuts more than $900 billion in Federal spending and meets the expectations of the American people that we cut spending more than we increase the debt limit.

Second, the bill guarantees the House and Senate will vote on a balanced budget amendment. More than half of the States have a balanced budget requirement, and it's time Washington's books are balanced as well.

And third, the bill also demands reforms to the way Washington works by setting up a joint House and Senate committee to find at least $1.6 trillion in additional savings. Its work product would enjoy expedited consideration in the House and Senate and could not be filibustered.

I'd also like to take a moment to point out that, despite what you've heard from the critics of this approach, that this is the most common way the debt limit is increased, for a short duration and tied to spending reforms. And history is pretty clear on this point.

Over the last 25 years, Congress and the President have acted 31 times to increase the debt limit. Twenty-two of those 31 times were for less than a year. Only 3 of those 31 increases lasted longer than 2 years.

These debt limit increases are often tied to spending reforms and are preceded by very short-term increases. Three examples of those include:

In 1987, there were three short-term debt limit increases prior to a longer term increase that included deficit targets and automatic sequestration provisions.

In 1990, there were six very short-term increases before a longer term increase that included PAYGO, discretionary caps, and other programmatic changes.

And in 1996, there were two very short-term increases to ensure full funding of Social Security and other Federal funds before a longer-term increase included in the Contract with America Advancement Act.

So what we're doing today is what has happened before.

I would also point out that the increase in the debt limit and the binding process to achieve spending reform in Washington is exactly what the financial markets need and expect from us.

Time is short, and this bill may be our last best chance to prevent a default. If we fail to act and the government defaults on its debt, the financial and economic shock waves that will ripple across this country are both unpredictable and unimaginable.

Finally, I want to say a few words about something that's not in this bill, and that's tax increases. While the President continues to insist that tax increases be a part of any debt limit legislation, he has failed to convince even his own party that tax hikes are a

good idea. In December of last year, when Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate, Congress refused to raise taxes. And now even Senator Reid's own plan to increase the debt limit, which the President has now thrown his support behind, does not include tax increases.

Given the need to avoid default today and get our fiscal house in order for the future, we must pass the Budget Control Act. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee and the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

I have been listening to my friends on the other side over the course of this afternoon, and I would just say to them: Where is your plan? Where is your legislation to address the debt problems of the United States? Where are your ideas in legislation that is scored by the Congressional Budget Office so that you could bring your alternative to the floor? This isn't the direction that you want to go; where is your plan?

I notice in the other body, the majority has not passed a budget in more than 800 days. Frankly, if they passed a budget on the other side, we might not be in this situation because we would have the avenue of reconciliation potentially available to us. This is the second Congress the other body hasn't passed a budget. We've got no ideas from my friends on the other side on how to address this issue.

So this is the second proposal that we have put forward that has been in legislative form, that has been scored, where you can address the problems that are facing this country.

We've had lots of rhetoric from the other side, but no concrete plans. We've had lots of press releases from the other side, but no proposals. Even the President has not articulated one spending cut after giving us 3 years of trillion-dollar deficits, after putting us on a path to more than double the debt of this country in less than half the time of the previous administration.

So I would say this is the proposal that will get our country onto a fiscal path that will prevent default, that will address the long-term debt obligations that this Nation has run up, frankly, under both parties. But we need to address them now because the

trajectory has become so much worse in recent years. This is the plan.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time be yielded to the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 507 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ''no.''

Amendment Offered by Mr. Cicilline

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1954) to implement the President's request to increase the statutory limit on the public debt.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, last December, the President's own Fiscal Commission offered a plan to rein in our budget deficits and debt. While I did not support the final package--especially the tax increases it proposed--it did contain several meaningful suggestions for ways to get our Federal spending under control. Yet last February, when the President submitted his budget for 2012, he ignored their advice and provided no plan to rein in deficits and debt. Last month, Standard and Poor's downgraded the outlook for the U.S. credit rating because Washington appeared to have no plan to rein in our budget deficits and debt.

In recent weeks, many congressional Democrats were proving them right when over 100 of them called for an unconditional increase in the U.S. debt limit. They signed a letter calling on their colleagues to establish ``the Democratic position in favor of a clean extension of the debt ceiling,'' something Secretary Geithner has also repeatedly called for.

It's time to come clean with the American people about our deficits and debt. At over $14 trillion, our debt is as large as the entire U.S. economy and is putting the American Dream at risk for future generations. It has become an anchor on economic growth, costing us 1 million jobs at a time when the unemployment rate has not been this high for this long since the Great Depression.

Erskine Bowles, who chaired President Obama's Fiscal Commission and served as Chief of Staff to President Clinton, has said that the era of debt denial is over. While it doesn't appear that all of his Democrat colleagues have gotten the message, with today's vote this House will declare to the American people and to the credit rating agencies that business as usual in Washington is over. Not only is the era of debt denial over, but so is Washington's out-of-control spending.

Today, we are making clear that Republicans will not accept an increase in our Nation's debt limit without substantial spending cuts and real budgetary reforms. This vote, a vote based on legislation I have introduced, will and must fail. Now, most Members aren't happy when they bring a bill to the floor and it fails, but I consider defeating an unconditional increase to be a success because it sends a clear and critical message that the Congress has finally recognized we must immediately begin to rein in America's affection for deficit spending.

Research by international experts clearly demonstrates that spending reforms, not tax increases, are the most effective path to fiscal consolidation. That means that together we must look for responsible ways to tackle our runaway spending. And though it's difficult and not always popular, it requires us to deal with entitlement reforms that are the largest driver of America's deficits, including health care spending programs like Medicare.

We all know that failing to act and address our debt head-on would be very similar to defaulting on our debt. In both cases, we would experience a significant downgrade in our credit rating, which increases interest rates, making payments for things like a car and home loans more expensive. It would also increase the cost of imports, meaning higher gas prices. And it would make an already shaky economy even worse, leading to less job creation.

The greatest threat to the U.S. economy and to international financial markets would be simply increasing the debt limit without cutting a penny of spending. This vote makes clear that deficit reduction will be part of any bill to increase the debt limit and is a necessary part of this process.

A ``no'' vote today is a vote to put us on the path toward exactly what the markets and the American people are demanding, an America that is a strong, reliable, and secure financial investment for the future. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this unconditional increase.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just say during the 8 years of the Bush administration, the debt limit was raised seven times for a total of $5.365 trillion. According to the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan CBO, the scorer of President's Obama's fiscal year 2012 budget, the debt limit will have to be raised a total of $5.385 trillion during the 4 years he's President. So 8 years versus 4 years. That means that President Obama will have raised the debt limit at twice the pace that President Bush did.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, Mr. Brady from Texas.

I yield 1\1/2\ 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 myself such time as I may consume.

I would say that the Medicare trustees have said that Medicare goes broke in 2024.

So if you support an unconditional debt limit increase, as 100 Democrats wrote to their leaders and asked to be made a position of the Democrat Caucus, that does nothing about preserving and protecting Medicare for the future.

No, I will not yield.

So I would say that by supporting an unconditional increase in the debt limit, as more than 100 wrote in a letter to their leaders, again, it would do nothing about preserving that program for the future.

At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am certainly concerned about the last 8 years, but I am more concerned about the last 2. I think we have got the third year in a row of trillion dollar deficits, a Presidential budget that doubled the debt in 5, tripled it in 10.

I quote from the Standard and Poor's report on the United States debt:

``Because very large deficits and rising government indebtedness and the path to addressing these is not clear to us, we have revised our outlook on the long-term rating to negative from stable.''

The path to addressing these is not clear. We think it absolutely essential that we not have an unconditional increase in the debt limit, that we have the spending reductions, that we have the structural reforms that we so desperately need in this country.

We have 110 Members of the other party who wrote a letter saying we want an unconditional increase in the debt; just keep spending. Don't bring in any spending reductions, don't bring any long-term reforms; just keep going the way we have been going.

Well, Standard and Poor's says that if we don't address this issue-- and what does that mean that ``we have revised our outlook on the long- term rating to negative from stable''? It means buying a house is more expensive; buying a car is more expensive. Certainly our ability to sell our bonds around the world will be very difficult to do and make it that much more expensive.

A downgrade in our debt limit would have the same impact as not increasing the debt limit at all. Financial markets would be disrupted, borrowing costs would skyrocket, the dollar would plunge, driving up the cost of imports like gasoline and causing higher inflation. It would wreak havoc on our economy.

Research Update: United States of America ``AAA/A-1+'' Rating Affirmed;

Outlook Revised To Negative

Overview

We have affirmed our ``AAA/A-1+'' sovereign credit rating

on the United States of America.

The economy of the U.S. is flexible and highly diversified,

the country's effective monetary policies have supported

output growth while containing inflationary pressures, and a

consistent global preference for the U.S. dollar over all

other currencies gives the country unique external liquidity.

Because the U.S. has, relative to its ``AAA'' peers, what

we consider to be very large budget deficits and rising

government indebtedness and the path to addressing these is

not clear to us, we have revised our outlook on the long-term

rating to negative from stable.

We believe there is a material risk that U.S. policymakers

might not reach an agreement on how to address medium- and

long-term budgetary challenges by 2013; if an agreement is

not reached and meaningful implementation does not begin by

then, this would in our view render the U.S. fiscal profile

meaningfully weaker than that of peer ``AAA'' sovereigns.

Rating Action

On April 18, 2011, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services

affirmed its ``AAA'' long-term and ``A-1+'' short-term

sovereign credit ratings on the United States of America and

revised its outlook on the long-term rating to negative from

stable.

Rationale

Our ratings on the U.S. rest on its high-income, highly

diversified, and flexible economy, backed by a strong track

record of prudent and credible monetary policy. The ratings

also reflect our view of the unique advantages stemming from

the dollar's preeminent place among world currencies.

Although we believe these strengths currently outweigh what

we consider to be the U.S.'s meaningful economic and fiscal

risks and large external debtor position, we now believe that

they might not fully offset the credit risks over the next

two years at the ``AAA'' level.

The U.S. is among the most flexible high-income nations,

with both adaptable labor markets and a long track record of

openness to capital flows. In addition, its public sector

uses a smaller share of national income than those of most

``AAA'' rated countries--including its closest peers, the

U.K., France, Germany, and Canada (all AAA/Stable/A-1+)--

which implies greater revenue flexibility.

Furthermore, the U.S. dollar is the world's most used

currency, which provides the U.S. with unique external

flexibility; the vast majority of U.S. trade flows and

external liabilities are denominated in its own dollars.

Recent depreciation of the currency has not materially

affected this position, and we do not expect this to change

in the medium term (see ``Apres Le Deluge, The U.S. Dollar

Remains The Key International Currency,'' March 10, 2010,

RatingsDirect).

Despite these exceptional strengths, we note the U.S.'s

fiscal profile has deteriorated steadily during the past

decade and, in our view, has worsened further as a result of

the recent financial crisis and ensuing recession. Moreover,

more than two years after the beginning of the recent crisis,

U.S. policymakers have still not agreed on a strategy to

reverse recent fiscal deterioration or address longer-term

fiscal pressures.

In 2003-2008, the U.S.'s general (total) government deficit

fluctuated between 2% and 5% of GDP. Already noticeably

larger than that of most ``AAA'' rated sovereigns, it

ballooned to more than 11% in 2009 and has yet to recover.

On April 13, President Barack Obama laid out his

Administration's medium-term fiscal consolidation plan, aimed

at reducing the cumulative unified federal deficit by US$4

trillion in 12 years or less. A key component of the

Administration's strategy is to work with Congressional

leaders over the next two months to develop a commonly agreed

upon program to reach this target. The President's proposals

envision reducing the deficit via both spending cuts and

revenue increases, and the adoption of a ``debt failsafe''

legislative mechanism that would trigger an across-the-board

spending reduction if, by 2014, budget projections show that

federal debt to GDP has not yet stabilized and is not

expected to decline in the second half of the current decade.

The Obama Administration's proposed spending cuts include

reducing non-security discretionary spending to levels

similar to those proposed by the Fiscal Commission in

December 2010, holding growth in base security (excluding war

expenditure) spending below inflation, and further cost-

control measures related to health care programs. Revenue

would be increased via both tax reform and allowing the 2001

and 2003 income and estate tax cuts to expire in 2012 as

currently scheduled--though only for high-income households.

We note that the President advocated the latter proposal last

year before agreeing with Republicans to extend the cuts

beyond their previously scheduled 2011 expiration. The

compromise agreed upon in December likely provides short-term

support for the economic recovery, but we believe it also

weakens the U.S.'s fiscal outlook and, in our view, reduces

the likelihood that Congress will allow these tax cuts to

expire in the near future. We also note that previously

enacted legislative mechanisms meant to enforce budgetary

discipline on future Congresses have not always succeeded.

Key members in the U.S. House of Representatives have also

advocated fiscal tightening of a similar magnitude, US$4.4

trillion, during the coming 10 years, but via different

methods. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's plan

seeks to balance the federal budget by 2040, in part by

cutting non-defense spending. The plan also includes

significantly reducing the scope of Medicare and Medicaid,

while bringing top individual and corporate tax rates lower

than those under the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

We view President Obama's and Congressman Ryan's proposals

as the starting point of a process aimed at broader

engagement, which could result in substantial and lasting

U.S. government fiscal consolidation. That said, we see the

path to agreement as challenging because the gap between the

parties remains wide. We believe there is a significant risk

that Congressional negotiations could result in no agreement

on a medium-term fiscal strategy until after the fall 2012

Congressional and Presidential elections. If so, the first

budget proposal that could include related measures would be

Budget 2014 (for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 2013), and

we believe a delay beyond that time is possible.

Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending

and revenue measures the Congress and the Administration

might conclude are appropriate. But for any plan to be

credible, we believe that it would need to secure support

from a cross-section of leaders in both political parties.

If U.S. policymakers do agree on a fiscal consolidation

strategy, we believe the experience of other countries

highlights that implementation could take time. It could also

generate significant political controversy, not just within

Congress or between Congress and the Administration, but

throughout the country. We therefore think that, assuming an

agreement between Congress and the President, there is a

reasonable chance that it would still take a number of years

before the government reaches a fiscal position that

stabilizes its debt burden. In addition, even if such

measures are eventually put in place, the initiating

policymakers or subsequently elected ones could decide to at

least partially reverse fiscal consolidation.

In our baseline macroeconomic scenario of near 3% annual

real growth, we expect the general government deficit to

decline gradually but remain slightly higher than 6% of GDP

in 2013. As a result, net general government debt would reach

84% of GDP by 2013. In our macroeconomic forecast's

optimistic scenario (assuming near 4% annual real growth),

the fiscal deficit would fall to 4.6% of GDP by 2013, but the

U.S.'s net general government debt would still rise to almost

80% of GDP by 2013. In our pessimistic scenario (a mild, one-

year double-dip recession in 2012), the deficit would be

9.1%, while net debt would surpass 90% by 2013. Even in our

optimistic scenario, we believe the U.S.'s fiscal profile

would be less robust than those of

other ``AAA'' rated sovereigns by 2013. (For all of the

assumptions underpinning our three forecast scenarios, see

``U.S. Risks To The Forecast: Oil We Have to Fear Is . . .,''

March 15, 2011, RatingsDirect.

Additional fiscal risks we see for the U.S. include the

potential for further extraordinary official assistance to

large players in the U.S. financial or other sectors, along

with outlays related to various federal credit programs. We

estimate that it could cost the U.S. government as much as

3.5% of GDP to, appropriately capitalize and relaunch Fannie

Mae and Freddie Mac, two financial institutions now under

federal control, in addition to the 1% of GDP already

invested (see ``U.S. Government Cost To Resolve And Relaunch

Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Could Approach $700 Billion,''

Nov. 4, 2010, RatingsDirect). The potential for losses on

federal direct and guaranteed loans (such as student loans)

is another material fiscal risk, in our view. Most

importantly, we believe the risks from the U.S. financial

sector are higher than we considered them to be before 2008,

as our downward revisions of our Banking Industry Country

Risk Assessment (BICRA) on the U.S. to Group 3 from Group 2

in December 2009 and to Group 2 from Group 1 in December

2008 reflect (see ``Banking Industry Country Risk

Assessments,'' March 8, 2011, and ``Banking Industry

Country Risk Assessment: United States of America,'' Feb.

1, 2010, both on RatingsDirect). In line with these views,

we now estimate the maximum aggregate, up-front fiscal

cost to the U.S. government of resolving potential

financial sector asset impairment in a stress scenario at

34% of GDP compared with our estimate of 26% in 2007.

Beyond the short- and medium-term fiscal challenges, we

view the U.S.'s unfunded entitlement programs (such as Social

Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) to be the main source of

long-term fiscal pressure. These, entitlements already

account for almost half of federal spending (an estimated 42%

in fiscal-year 2011), and we project that percentage to

continue increasing as long as these entitlement programs

remain as they currently exist (see ``Global Aging 2010: In

The U.S., Going Gray Will Cost A Lot More Green,'' Oct. 25,

2010, RatingsDirect). In addition, the U.S.'s net external

debt level (as we narrowly define it), approaching 300% of

current account receipts in 2011, demonstrates a high

reliance on foreign financing. The U.S.'s external

indebtedness by this measure is one of the highest of all the

sovereigns we rate.

While thus far U.S. policymakers have been unable to agree

on a fiscal consolidation strategy, the U.S.'s closest

``AAA'' rated peers have already begun implementing theirs.

The U.K., for example, suffered a recession almost twice as

severe as that in the U.S. (U.K. GDP declined 4.9% in real

terms in 2009, while the U.S.'s dropped 2.6%). In addition,

the U.K.'s net general government indebtedness has risen in

tandem with that of the U.S. since 2007. In June 2010, the

U.K. began to implement a fiscal consolidation plan that we

believe credibly sets the country's general government

deficit on a medium-term downward path, retreating below 5%

of GDP by 2013.

We also expect that by 2013, France's austerity program,

which it is already implementing, will reduce that country's

deficit, which never rose to the levels of the U.S. or U.K.

during the recent recession, to slightly below the U.K.

deficit. Germany, which suffered a recession of similar

magnitude to that in the U.K. (but has enjoyed a much

stronger recovery), enacted a constitutional limit on fiscal

deficits in 2009 and we believe its general government

deficit was already at 3% of GDP last year and will likely

decrease further. Meanwhile, Canada, the only sovereign of

the peer group to suffer no major financial institution

failures requiring direct government assistance during the

crisis, enjoys by far the lowest net general government debt

of the five peers (we estimate it at 34% of GDP this year),

largely because of an unbroken string of balanced-or-better

general government budgetary outturns from 1997 through 2008.

Canada's general government deficit never exceeded 4% of GDP

during the recent recession, and we believe it will likely

return to less than 0.5% of GDP by 2013.

Outlook

The negative outlook on our rating on the U.S. sovereign

signals that we believe there is at least a one-in-three

likelihood that we could lower our long-term rating on the

U.S. within two years. The outlook reflects our view of the

increased risk that the political negotiations over when and

how to address both the medium- and long-term fiscal

challenges will persist until at least after national

elections in 2012.

Some compromise that achieves agreement on a comprehensive

budgetary consolidation program--containing deficit reduction

measures in amounts near those recently proposed, and

combined with meaningful steps toward implementation by

2013--is our baseline assumption and could lead us to revise

the outlook back to stable. Alternatively, the lack of such

an agreement or a significant further fiscal deterioration

for any reason could lead us to lower the rating.

Standard & Poor's will hold a global teleconference call

and Web cast today--April 18, 2011--at 11:30 a.m. New York

time (4:30 p.m. London time). For dial-in and streaming audio

details, please go to www.standardandpoors.com/cmlive.

Related Criteria And Research

Sovereign Credit Ratings: A Primer, May 29, 2008.

Ratings List

Ratings Affirmed; Outlook Action

United States of America (Unsolicited Ratings) (To--From)

Sovereign Credit Rating (AAA/Negative/A-1+) (AAA/Stable/A-

1+)

Ratings Affirmed

United States of America (Unsolicited Ratings) Senior

Unsecured (AAA)

United States of America (Unsolicited Ratings) Transfer &

Convertibility Assessment (AAA)

This unsolicited rating(s) was initiated by Standard &

Poor's. It may be based solely on publicly available

information and may or may not involve the participation of

the issuer. Standard & Poor's has used information from

sources believed to be reliable based on standards

established in our Credit Ratings Information and Data Policy

but does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, or

completeness of any information used.

Complete ratings information is available to subscribers of

RatingsDirect on the Global Credit Portal at

www.globalcreditportal.com. All ratings affected by this

rating action can be found on Standard & Poor's public Web

site at www.standardandpoors.com. Use the Ratings search box

located in the left column.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

One hundred fourteen members of the other party signed a letter to the leader who just spoke and asked for an unconditional increase in the debt limit. I know that's not maybe a fact they want to acknowledge now, but it is so important that we have a clear path forward on this given what the rating agencies are saying about our debt. They're saying it's not clear how we are going to deal with our indebtedness.

It is so important that we set forward that when we address this issue, there are going to be the kind of spending reductions and structural reforms we need. That is going to have to be part of this discussion. We can't continue to have it clouded with this idea that we might have a debt limit increase without any of those. That's why it is so important to send this very strong signal today.

I hope all of the members of your party join me in voting ``no'' on this bill.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

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

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

Not at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1954.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Last February, when the President submitted his budget for 2012, he did not provide any plan for reining in deficits and debt. The administration called for a clean increase in the debt limit, or an increase in the debt limit that was unconditional, one that had no spending reductions or structural reforms to try to address the problem that we face, and it assumed $2.4 trillion in borrowing authority, or an increase in the debt limit of about $2.4 trillion. One hundred fourteen Democrats have asked the leadership of their party for an unconditional vote on the debt limit.

My colleagues on the other side have been very reminiscent about the Bush years, and I would just say that, in 4 years, the debt under the Obama administration will exceed that of the Bush administration's in 8 years; or another way of putting that is the debt under this President is going up at twice the rate it did under President Bush.

So it is important that we send a clear signal that there is not going to be an unconditional increase in the debt limit and that we are serious about addressing our debt and deficit problems as a country. We've seen the signals that we've gotten from the financial markets, and we've heard what our constituents have said. It is very important that we bring the kinds of spending reductions and reforms to this debate that we need to, so I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to instruct the House, on this motion to recommit, it only affects title I of the bill. All of the tax provisions are in title II of the bill. So this does not affect any of the tax provisions in the legislation.

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).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I can assure the Speaker that I will not be using all of the balance of my time.

There has been a lot of rhetoric today, and as this debate winds down and as we prepare to vote on this legislation, I urge my colleagues to look at the facts.

I think many of the arguments we've heard from the other side ignore reality. It ignores the reality of their own legislation--legislation that they've passed. It ignores the reality of their own votes.

Under the health care bill, you put cliffs in the bill, if we want to talk about cliffs. There are levels where people need to pay back the entire

amount of the subsidy they receive. In the original bill, that was at 400 percent of poverty. That is the level that is no legislation we see today. Later in December, when you wanted to address the doctor fix, you just moved that level up to 500 percent of poverty. There is still a cliff in the bill. There was a cliff in the original bill. There is a cliff now.

Also, this idea that repaying a subsidy to which one is not entitled is somehow a new concept was in the original health care legislation. It still is in the original health care legislation. We just believe we need to take further steps to protect the taxpayers.

And I would also say that if you look at the legislation, there is on page 123 a subpart (b) eligibility determination where applicants apply for the subsidy, and they're required to report certain things. But they're also required under this section to report changes in circumstances. That obligation is on the taxpayer, on the person seeking the subsidy. And that is in their legislation, and we think that's an important concept to protect.

Let's stick with the facts. The fact is the increased tax reporting requirements enacted last year will hurt our ability to create jobs. The 1099 provision hurts our ability to create jobs in this country.

Fact, the unemployment rate has been stuck at or above 9 percent for nearly 2 years, and this Congress owes it to the American people to do everything it can to help small businesses, job creators, and workers get back on their feet.

Fact, repealing the 1099 provision is a top priority of small businesses, and that's why we have over 225 organizations supporting this legislation, including the Nation's largest small business organization, the NFIB.

And, fact, this bill is a tax cut and a spending cut, and that's why it has the support of groups like the Americans for Tax Reform, the National Taxpayer Union and Americans for Prosperity.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill so small business can get back to what they do best: creating jobs.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

I object.

I object.

Madam Speaker, I insist on my point of order.

I make a point of order against the motion because it violates clause 10 of rule XXI, as it has the net effect of increasing mandatory spending within the time period set forth in the rule.

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

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

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

Regular order, Madam Speaker.

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

I would ask the Chair to rule, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I would ask the Chair to rule.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I wish to be heard.

Madam Speaker, I would refer the Members of the House to the committee report in this area, and in that committee report it states: The committee has carefully reviewed the provisions of the bill and states that the provisions of this bill do not involve any Federal income tax rate increases within the meaning of the rule.

I would say that the rules of the House in this area refer to specific sections of the Internal Revenue Code. Also, the rules of the House--and I would say my friends are not going far enough in their reading of the rules--define exactly what an income tax increase is. This bill does not amend those specific sections of the Code that are referred to in the rules. Accordingly, a point of order does not lie.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Today I offer an amendment that is long overdue. Last June, a live bighead Asian carp was discovered 6 miles from Lake Michigan, north of the locks and well past the electric barrier. This discovery shows that Asian carp, one of the world's most rampant invasive species, are at the doorstep of the Great Lakes.

Weighing up to 100 pounds, spanning over 6 feet, and eating half their body weight daily, Asian carp have the ability to decimate fish populations indigenous to the Great Lakes. These giant bottom feeders would destroy the region's $7.5 billion fishing industry as well as the 800,000 jobs that are supported by it. To prevent this catastrophe, ecological experts have said that closing the locks that separate the Illinois River from Lake Michigan is the single most important step we can take to prevent these species from entering the Great Lakes.

In 2009, the Michigan attorney general filed a petition in Federal court to direct the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to immediately close the locks. This petition was supported by Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Indiana, New York, and Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, the court denied the petition. But after the court's decision, I introduced the Carp Act, along with Senator Stabenow of Michigan, that would immediately close the locks. And since then, despite the imminent threat of Asian carp, the administration has refused to close the locks and all we have received is promises of studies that will take years to complete.

You will surely hear arguments from those opposed to closing the locks that doing so will disrupt the movement of cargo and cause serious economic harm to the region. Economists who have examined those claims have found them to be grossly exaggerated.

An economic study conducted in 2010, found on the Michigan attorney general's website at: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ag/1- Appendix_Renewed_ Motion_310133_7.pdf, found that if cargo passing through the locks had to be transported by land, it would increase truck traffic in the surrounding area by only one-tenth of 1 percent, or the equivalent of adding two additional freight trains to the over 500 leaving the region each day. Any supposed economic impact of closing the locks would pale in comparison to the multibillion dollar industries that would be wiped out by Asian carp.

The State of Michigan's response to the administration's Asian carp framework pointed out, ``The Framework's statement that the Chicago lock is the Nation's second busiest ignores the fact that, in 2008, only 39 loaded barges carrying approximately 100,000 tons of cargo, mainly sand and gravel, moved through that lock. Moreover, according to the Corps' own data, the 2008 vessel traffic consisted of 34,000--not 50,000--vessels, mainly recreational watercraft.'' The canal is now only 9 feet deep in some areas.

You will also hear critics claim that this amendment will tie the hands of the Corps in assisting flood emergencies. Again, those claims are not accurate. The Corps has sufficient authority to protect human life and property in the event of flooding and other disasters under the authority granted to it by the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies Act and other Corps regulations. Those authorities allow district commanders to issue a declaration of emergency and use Corps resources to help State and local authorities respond. Opening the locks to deal with flooding is the exact type of scenario this authority is intended for.

Mr. Chairman, every day of inaction puts the Great Lakes ecosystem, the largest body of freshwater in the world, and the 800,000 jobs sustained at risk. Inaction is unacceptable, and I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I very much appreciate the gentleman yielding.

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

Again, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman's words and also his commitment to try to work together to resolve this issue, and I appreciate the arguments he is making. But the concern on the economics argument is that the damage to the Great Lakes, if this problem is not addressed, is irreversible and cannot be calculated. I can cite the statistics on the jobs and economic impact, but the ecosystem, the damage to that cannot be remedied.

The concern I have is this has really been a problem since 2006, when we worked to get the electronic barrier, which has not worked. And here and now we are, in 2011, saying let's wait another 5 years for the Army Corps to complete their study, and the problem is more imminent than that. And I cannot seem to get the administration to move on the immediacy of the threat to the system.

I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Camp

Amendment No. 516: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Camp

Amendment No. 24: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following.

A. General

Rule 1. Application of House Rules

The rules of the House are the rules of the Committee on

Ways and Means and its subcommittees so far as applicable,

except that a motion to recess from day to day, and a motion

to dispense with the first reading (in full) of a bill or

resolution, if printed copies are available, is a non-

debatable motion of high privilege in the Committee.

Each subcommittee of the Committee is part of the Committee

and is subject to the authority and direction of the

Committee and to its rules so far as applicable. Written

rules adopted by the Committee, not inconsistent with the

Rules of the House, shall be binding on each subcommittee of

the Committee.

The provisions of rule XI of the Rules of the House are

incorporated by reference as the rules of the Committee to

the extent applicable.

Rule 2. Meeting Date and Quorums

The regular meeting day of the Committee on Ways and Means

shall be on the second Wednesday of each month while the

House is in session. However, the Committee shall not meet on

the regularly scheduled meeting day if there is no business

to be considered.

A majority of the Committee constitutes a quorum for

business; provided however, that two Members shall constitute

a quorum at any regularly scheduled hearing called for the

purpose of taking testimony and receiving evidence. In

establishing a quorum for purposes of a public hearing, every

effort shall be made to secure the presence of at least one

Member each from the majority and the minority.

The Chairman of the Committee may call and convene, as he

considers necessary, additional meetings of the Committee for

the consideration of any bill or resolution pending before

the Committee or for the conduct of other Committee business.

The Committee shall meet pursuant to the call of the Chair.

Rule 3. Committee Budget

For each Congress, the Chairman, in consultation with the

Majority Members of the Committee, shall prepare a

preliminary budget. Such budget shall include necessary

amounts for staff personnel, travel, investigation, and other

expenses of the Committee. After consultation with the

Minority Members, the Chairman shall include an amount

budgeted by Minority Members for staff under their direction

and supervision.

Thereafter, the Chairman shall combine such proposals into

a consolidated Committee budget, and shall present the same

to

the Committee for its approval or other action. The Chairman

shall take whatever action is necessary to have the budget as

finally approved by the Committee duly authorized by the

House. After said budget shall have been adopted, no

substantial change shall be made in such budget unless

approved by the Committee.

Rule 4. Publication of Committee Documents

Any Committee or Subcommittee print, document, or similar

material prepared for public distribution shall either be

approved by the Committee or Subcommittee prior to

distribution and opportunity afforded for the inclusion of

supplemental, minority or additional views, or such document

shall contain on its cover the following disclaimer:

Prepared for the use of Members of the Committee on Ways

and Means by members of its staff. This document has not been

officially approved by the Committee and may not reflect the

views of its Members.

Any such print, document, or other material not officially

approved by the Committee or Subcommittee shall not include

the names of its Members, other than the name of the full

Committee Chairman or Subcommittee Chairman under whose

authority the document is released. Any such document shall

be made available to the full Committee Chairman and Ranking

Minority Member not less than 3 calendar days (excluding

Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) prior to its public

release.

The requirements of this rule shall apply only to the

publication of policy-oriented, analytical documents, and not

to the publication of public hearings, legislative documents,

documents which are administrative in nature or reports which

are required to be submitted to the Committee under public

law. The appropriate characterization of a document subject

to this rule shall be determined after consultation with the

Minority.

Rule 5. Official Travel

Consistent with the primary expense resolution and such

additional expense resolution as may have been approved, the

provisions of this rule shall govern official travel of

Committee Members and Committee staff. Official travel to be

reimbursed from funds set aside for the full Committee for

any Member or any Committee staff member shall be paid only

upon the prior authorization of the Chairman. Official travel

may be authorized by the Chairman for any Member and any

Committee staff member in connection with the attendance of

hearings conducted by the Committee, its Subcommittees, or

any other Committee or Subcommittee of the Congress on

matters relevant to the general jurisdiction of the

Committee, and meetings, conferences, facility inspections,

and investigations which involve activities or subject matter

relevant to the general jurisdiction of the Committee. Before

such authorization is given, there shall be submitted to the

Chairman in writing the following:

(1) The purpose of the official travel;

(2) The dates during which the official travel is to be

made and the date or dates of the event for which the

official travel is being made;

(3) The location of the event for which the official travel

is to be made; and

(4) The names of the Members and Committee staff seeking

authorization.

In the case of official travel of Members and staff of a

Subcommittee to hearings, meetings, conferences, facility

inspections and investigations involving activities or

subject matter under the jurisdiction of such Subcommittee,

prior authorization must be obtained from the Subcommittee

Chairman and the full Committee Chairman. Such prior

authorization shall be given by the full Committee Chairman

only upon the representation by the applicable Subcommittee

Chairman in writing setting forth those items enumerated

above.

Within 60 days of the conclusion of any official travel

authorized under this rule, there shall be submitted to the

full Committee Chairman a written report covering the

information gained as a result of the hearing, meeting,

conference, facility inspection or investigation attended

pursuant to such official travel.

Rule 6. Availability of Committee Records and Publications

The records of the Committee at the National Archives and

Records Administration shall be made available for public use

in accordance with Rule VII of the Rules of the House of

Representatives. The Chairman shall notify the Ranking

Minority Member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3)

or clause 4(b) of Rule VII, to withhold a record otherwise

available, and the matter shall be presented to the Committee

for a determination on the written request of any Member of

the Committee. The Committee shall, to the maximum extent

feasible, make its publications available in electronic form.

Rule 7. Committee Website

The Chairman shall maintain an official Committee website

for the purpose of furthering the Committee's legislative and

oversight responsibilities, including communicating

information about the Committee's activities to Committee

members and other members of the House. The ranking minority

member may maintain a similar website for the same purpose,

including communicating information about the activities of

the minority to Committee members and other members of the

House.

B. Subcommittees

Rule 8. Subcommittee Ratios and Jurisdiction

All matters referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

involving revenue measures, except those revenue measures

referred to Subcommittees under paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6

shall be considered by the full Committee and not in

Subcommittee. There shall be six standing Subcommittees as

follows: a Subcommittee on Trade; a Subcommittee on

Oversight; a Subcommittee on Health; a Subcommittee on Social

Security; a Subcommittee on Human Resources; and a

Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures. The ratio of

Republicans to Democrats on any Subcommittee of the Committee

shall be consistent with the ratio of Republicans to

Democrats on the full Committee.

1. The Subcommittee on Trade shall consist of 14 Members, 9

of whom shall be Republicans and 5 of whom shall be

Democrats.

The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Trade shall include

bills and matters referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

that relate to customs and customs administration including

tariff and import fee structure, classification, valuation of

and special rules applying to imports, and special tariff

provisions and procedures which relate to customs operation

affecting exports and imports; import trade matters,

including import impact, industry relief from injurious

imports, adjustment assistance and programs to encourage

competitive responses to imports, unfair import practices

including antidumping and countervailing duty provisions, and

import policy which relates to dependence on foreign sources

of supply; commodity agreements and reciprocal trade

agreements involving multilateral and bilateral trade

negotiations and implementation of agreements involving

tariff and non-tariff trade barriers to and distortions of

international trade; international rules, organizations and

institutional aspects of international trade agreements;

budget authorizations for the customs revenue functions of

the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. International

Trade Commission, and the U.S. Trade Representative; and

special trade-related problems involving market access,

competitive conditions of specific industries, export policy

and promotion, access to materials in short supply, bilateral

trade relations including trade with developing countries,

operations of multinational corporations, and trade with non-

market economies.

2. The Subcommittee on Oversight shall consist of 11

Members, 7 of whom shall be Republicans and 4 of whom shall

be Democrats.

The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Oversight shall

include all matters within the scope of the full Committee's

jurisdiction but shall be limited to existing law. Said

oversight jurisdiction shall not be exclusive but shall be

concurrent with that of the other Subcommittees. With respect

to matters involving the Internal Revenue Code and other

revenue issues, said concurrent jurisdiction shall be shared

with the full Committee. Before undertaking any investigation

or hearing, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight

shall confer with the Chairman of the full Committee and the

Chairman of any other Subcommittee having jurisdiction.

3. The Subcommittee on Health shall consist of 14 Members,

9 of whom shall be Republicans and 5 whom shall be Democrats.

The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Health shall

include bills and matters referred to the Committee on Ways

and Means that relate to programs providing payments (from

any source) for health care, health delivery systems, or

health research. More specifically, the jurisdiction of the

Subcommittee on Health shall include bills and matters that

relate to the health care programs of the Social Security Act

(including titles V, XI (Part B), XVIII, and XIX thereof)

and, concurrent with the full Committee, tax credit and

deduction provisions of the Internal Revenue Code dealing

with health insurance premiums and health care costs.

4. The Subcommittee on Social Security shall consist of 11

Members, 7 of whom shall be Republicans and 4 of whom shall

be Democrats.

The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Social Security

shall include bills and matters referred to the Committee on

Ways and Means that relate to the Federal Old Age, Survivors'

and Disability Insurance System, the Railroad Retirement

System, and employment taxes and trust fund operations

relating to those systems. More specifically, the

jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Social Security shall

include bills and matters involving title II of the Social

Security Act and Chapter 22 of the Internal Revenue Code (the

Railroad Retirement Tax Act), as well as provisions in title

VII and title XI of the Act relating to procedure and

administration involving the Old Age, Survivors' and

Disability Insurance System.

5. The Subcommittee on Human Resources shall consist of 11

Members, 7 of whom shall be Republicans and 4 of whom shall

be Democrats.

The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Human Resources

shall include bills and matters referred to the Committee on

Ways and Means that relate to the public assistance

provisions of the Social Security Act, including temporary

assistance for needy families, child care, child and family

services, child support, foster care, adoption, supplemental

security income, social services, eligibility of welfare

recipients for food stamps, and low-income energy assistance.

More specifically, the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on

Human Resources shall include bills and matters relating to

titles I, IV, VI, X, XIV, XVI, XVII, XX and related

provisions of titles VII and XI of the Social Security Act.

The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Human Resources

shall also include bills and matters referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means that relate to the Federal-State

system of unemployment compensation, and the financing

thereof, including the programs for extended and emergency

benefits. More specifically, the jurisdiction of the

Subcommittee on Human Resources shall also include all bills

and matters pertaining to the programs of unemployment

compensation under titles III, IX and XII of the Social

Security Act, Chapters 23 and 23A of the Internal Revenue

Code, and the Federal-State Extended Unemployment

Compensation Act of 1970, and provisions relating thereto.

6. The Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures shall

consist of 11 Members, 7 of whom shall be Republicans and 4

of whom shall be Democrats.

The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Select Revenue

Measures shall consist of those revenue measures that, from

time to time, shall be referred to it specifically by the

Chairman of the full Committee.

Rule 9. Ex-Officio Members of Subcommittees

The Chairman of the full Committee and the Ranking Minority

Member may sit as ex-officio Members of all Subcommittees.

They may be counted for purposes of assisting in the

establishment of a quorum for a Subcommittee. However, their

absence shall not count against the establishment of a quorum

by the regular Members of the Subcommittee. Ex-officio

Members shall neither vote in the Subcommittee nor be taken

into consideration for the purposes of determining the ratio

of the Subcommittee.

Rule 10. Subcommittee Meetings

Insofar as practicable, meetings of the full Committee and

its Subcommittees shall not conflict. Subcommittee Chairmen

shall set meeting dates after consultation with the Chairman

of the full Committee and other Subcommittee Chairmen with a

view towards avoiding, wherever possible, simultaneous

scheduling of full Committee and Subcommittee meetings or

hearings.

Rule 11. Reference of Legislation and Subcommittee Reports

Except for bills or measures retained by the Chairman of

the full Committee for full Committee consideration, every

bill or other measure referred to the Committee shall be

referred by the Chairman of the full Committee to the

appropriate Subcommittee in a timely manner. A Subcommittee

shall, within three legislative days of the referral,

acknowledge same to the full Committee.

After a measure has been pending in a Subcommittee for a

reasonable period of time, the Chairman of the full Committee

may make a request in writing to the Subcommittee that the

Subcommittee forthwith report the measure to the full

Committee with its recommendations. If within seven

legislative days after the Chairman's written request, the

Subcommittee has not so reported the measure, then there

shall be in order in the full Committee a motion to discharge

the Subcommittee from further consideration of the measure.

If such motion is approved by a majority vote of the full

Committee, the measure may thereafter be considered only by

the full Committee.

No measure reported by a Subcommittee shall be considered

by the full Committee unless it has been presented to all

Members of the full Committee at least two legislative days

prior to the full Committee's meeting, together with a

comparison with present law, a section-by-section analysis of

the proposed change, a section-by-section justification, and

a draft statement of the budget effects of the measure that

is consistent with the requirements for reported measures

under clause 3(d)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives.

Rule 12. Recommendation for Appointment of Conferees

Whenever in the legislative process it becomes necessary to

appoint conferees, the Chairman of the full Committee shall

recommend to the Speaker as conferees the names of those

Committee Members as the Chairman may designate. In making

recommendations of Minority Members as conferees, the

Chairman shall consult with the Ranking Minority Member of

the Committee.

C. Hearings

Rule 13. Witnesses

In order to assure the most productive use of the limited

time available to question hearing witnesses, a witness who

is scheduled to appear before the full Committee or a

Subcommittee shall file with the Clerk of the Committee at

least 48 hours in advance of his or her appearance a written

statement of their proposed testimony. In addition, all

witnesses shall comply with formatting requirements as

specified by the Committee and the Rules of the House.

Failure to comply with the 48-hour rule may result in a

witness being denied the opportunity to testify in person.

Failure to comply with the formatting requirements may result

in a witness' statement being rejected for inclusion in the

published hearing record. In addition to the requirements of

clause 2(g)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House regarding

information required of public witnesses, a witness shall

limit his or her oral presentation to a summary of their

position and shall provide sufficient copies of their written

statement to the Clerk for distribution to Members, staff and

news media.

A witness appearing at a public hearing, or submitting a

statement for the record of a public hearing, or submitting

written comments in response to a published request for

comments by the Committee must include in their statement or

submission, a list of all clients, persons or organizations

on whose behalf the witness appears. Oral testimony and

statements for the record, or written comments in response to

a request for comments by the Committee, will be accepted

only from citizens of the United States or corporations or

associations organized under the laws of one of the 50 States

of the United States or the District of Columbia, unless

otherwise directed by the Chairman of the full Committee or

Subcommittee involved. Written statements from non-citizens

may be considered for acceptance in the record if transmitted

to the Committee in writing by Members of Congress.

Rule 14. Questioning of Witnesses

Committee Members may question witnesses only when

recognized by the Chairman for that purpose. All Members

shall be limited to five minutes on the initial round of

questioning. In questioning witnesses under the five minute

rule, the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member shall be

recognized first, after which Members who are in attendance

at the beginning of a hearing will be recognized in the order

of their seniority on the Committee. Other Members shall be

recognized in the order of their appearance at the hearing.

In recognizing Members to question witnesses, the Chairman

may take into consideration the ratio of Majority Members to

Minority Members and the number of Majority and Minority

Members present and shall apportion the recognition for

questioning in such a manner as not to disadvantage Members

of the majority.

Rule 15. Subpoena Power

The power to authorize and issue subpoenas is delegated to

the Chairman of the full Committee, as provided for under

clause 2(m)(3)(A)(i) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of

Representatives.

Rule 16. Records of Hearings

An accurate stenographic record shall be kept of all

testimony taken at a public hearing. The staff shall transmit

to a witness the transcript of his or her testimony for

correction and immediate return to the Committee offices.

Only changes in the interest of clarity, accuracy and

corrections in transcribing errors will be permitted. Changes

that substantially alter the actual testimony will not be

permitted. Members shall have the opportunity to correct

their own remarks before publication. The Chairman of the

full Committee may order the printing of a hearing without

the corrections of a witness or Member if he determines that

a reasonable time has been afforded to make corrections and

that further delay would impede the consideration of the

legislation or other measure that is the subject of the

hearing.

Rule 17. Broadcasting of Hearings

The provisions of clause 4(f) of Rule XI of the Rules of

the House of Representatives are specifically made a part of

these rules by reference. In addition, the following policy

shall apply to media coverage of any meeting of the full

Committee or a Subcommittee:

(1) An appropriate area of the Committee's hearing room

will be designated for members of the media and their

equipment.

(2) No interviews will be allowed in the Committee room

while the Committee is in session. Individual interviews must

take place before the gavel falls for the convening of a

meeting or after the gavel falls for adjournment.

(3) Day-to-day notification of the next day's electronic

coverage shall be provided by the media to the Chairman of

the full Committee through an appropriate designee.

(4) Still photography during a Committee meeting will not

be permitted to disrupt the proceedings or block the vision

of Committee Members or witnesses.

(5) Further conditions may be specified by the Chairman.

D. Markups

Rule 18. Previous Question

The Chairman shall not recognize a Member for the purpose

of moving the previous question unless the Member has first

advised the Chair and the Committee that this is the purpose

for which recognition is being sought.

Rule 19. Postponement of Proceedings

The Chairman may postpone further proceedings when a record

vote is ordered on the question of approving any measure or

matter or adopting an amendment.

The Chairman may resume proceedings on a postponed request

at any time. In exercising postponement authority the

Chairman shall take reasonable steps to notify Members on the

resumption of proceedings on any postponed record vote.

When proceedings resume on a postponed question,

notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous

question, an underlying proposition shall remain subject to

further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the

question was postponed.

Rule 20. Motion to go to Conference

The Chairman is authorized to offer a motion under clause 1

of rule XXII of the Rules

of the House of Representatives whenever the Chairman

considers it appropriate.

Rule 21. Official Transcripts of Markups and Other Committee Meetings

An official stenographic transcript shall be kept

accurately reflecting all markups and other official meetings

of the full Committee and the Subcommittees, whether they be

open or closed to the public. This official transcript,

marked as ``uncorrected,'' shall be available for inspection

by the public (except for meetings closed pursuant to clause

2(g)(1) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House), by Members of

the House, or by Members of the Committee together with their

staffs, during normal business hours in the full Committee or

Subcommittee office under such controls as the Chairman of

the full Committee deems necessary. Official transcripts

shall not be removed from the Committee or Subcommittee

office.

If, however, (1) in the drafting of a Committee or

Subcommittee decision, the Office of the House Legislative

Counsel or (2) in the preparation of a Committee report, the

Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation determines

(in consultation with appropriate majority and minority

committee staff) that it is necessary to review the official

transcript of a markup, such transcript may be released upon

the signature and to the custody of an appropriate committee

staff person. Such transcript shall be returned immediately

after its review in the drafting session.

The official transcript of a markup or Committee meeting

other than a public hearing shall not be published or

distributed to the public in any way except by a majority

vote of the Committee. Before any public release of the

uncorrected transcript, Members must be given a reasonable

opportunity to correct their remarks. In instances in which a

stenographic transcript is kept of a conference committee

proceeding, all of the requirements of this rule shall

likewise be observed.

Rule 22. Publication of Decisions and Legislative Language

A press release describing any tentative or final decision

made by the full Committee or a Subcommittee on legislation

under consideration shall be made available to each Member of

the Committee as soon as possible, but no later than the next

day. However, the legislative draft of any tentative or final

decision of the full Committee or a Subcommittee shall not be

publicly released until such draft is made available to each

Member of the Committee.

E. Staff

Rule 23. Supervision of Committee Staff

The staff of the Committee shall be under the general

supervision and direction of the Chairman of the full

Committee except as provided in clause 9 of Rule X of the

Rules of the House of Representatives concerning Committee

expenses and staff.

Pursuant to clause 6(d) of Rule X of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the Chairman of the full Committee, from

the funds made available for the appointment of Committee

staff pursuant to primary and additional expense resolutions,

shall ensure that each Subcommittee receives sufficient staff

to carry out its responsibilities under the rules of the

Committee, and that the minority party is fairly treated in

the appointment of such staff.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.

The Democrats' health care law is fundamentally flawed; and we will, having listened to the will of the American people, vote to repeal it today. The problem with this law, among its many faults, is it puts government at the center of health care decisions, not doctors and patients. Instead of families deciding what coverage is best for them, this law has the Secretary of Health and Human Services making that choice. Instead of families and employers deciding how much they can afford, the IRS is making that decision.

Instead of families and employers deciding if they need health insurance, the government is mandating they purchase it.

This is all about the government. It's Washington knows best, and it's wrong. By virtually every measure, this law is a failure. The health care law fails to control costs. It fails to let Americans keep the insurance they have and like. It fails to protect jobs and, in fact, hurts job creation at a time when the unemployment rate has remained above 9 percent for 20 months. It fails to ensure seniors have access to their doctors and hospitals, and it fails to prevent tax increases from hitting middle class families.

Let's review the facts. The health care law makes health insurance more expensive for millions of Americans. Well, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Democrats' health law will increase premiums for millions of families by up to $2,100 on average by 2016--$2,100 more expensive than it would have been if Congress had done nothing, almost $3,200 more expensive than the Republican alternative we offered last Congress.

The Democrats' health care law forces millions of Americans out of the health care plan they have and like. The Obama administration has predicted that as many as 7 out of 10 employers will have to change the coverage they offer their employees because of the Democrats' health care law.

The health care law discourages employers from hiring new workers, increasing wages, or retaining existing employees. There are over $500 billion in new job-destroying taxes, many of which hit middle class families.

With all these taxes and new regulations, it's no wonder that major employer groups such as the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as well as Business Roundtable and The Business Council call the Democrats' health care law destructive and dangerous.

The health care law jeopardizes seniors' health care. Again according to the Obama administration's own actuaries at CMS, the massive Medicare cuts contained in the Democrats' health law could threaten seniors' access to care and cause providers to stop treating Medicare patients.

Entitlement expansion is not health care reform, and giving new powers and regulations to departments like HHS and letting the IRS hire up to 16,000 new auditors, agents, and other employees is not the same as empowering doctors and patients, and it isn't the job creation America needs.

The American people know that like a tree that's rotten at the center, we must cut it down and put something new in its place. That's what we are doing today, cutting the government out of the waiting room, out of the doctor's office and out of your medicine cabinet.

Once we have done that, we will begin tomorrow to implement step-by- step commonsense reforms that actually lower the cost of health care and actually respect the doctor-patient relationship. This House, this majority, Republicans, have heard the American people loud and clear, and we will not let government dictate your health care coverage. We will repeal this law, and we will continue our effort until Americans are again free to choose their health insurance plan, to choose their doctor and to choose what is best for them, their family, and their business. This is a Congress dedicated to empowering the American people, not increasing the size, scope, and cost of the Federal Government.

I urge my colleagues to vote with me to repeal this job-destroying and cost-increasing health care law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a true American hero, a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Speaker of the House.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).

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