Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, when our constituents tell us to ``do something'' about gas prices, they don't mean ``Make them higher.'' This bill has some attractive elements, but they're overwhelmingly weighed down by bad policy, creative accounting and tax increases, none of which gets close to fixing the energy problem we face.

Record high gas prices are due to growing demand, constricted supply, and over-reliance on oil from unstable regions of the world. Yet this bill penalizes U.S. producers.

Mr. Speaker, families in Northern California won't see reduced prices at the pump if Congress raises billions in new taxes on those who discover, refine and deliver our gas.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, although I have serious concerns with the underlying bill, H.R. 3996, there are several provisions of this bill that extend necessary business and individual tax relief set to expire this year.

One provision in H.R. 3996 would extend important tax relief for individuals who choose to make distributions from their Individual Retirement Accounts, IRAs, to charities. Charitable IRA rollovers greatly help the work of worthy charities, and it is important that this tool for giving remains available to taxpayers. I have introduced stand-alone legislation with Congressman Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota, which has 90 cosponsors that would broaden the charitable IRA rollover rule to allow distributions to donor-advised funds and would strengthen other aspects of the present-law provision. I remain committed to the enactment of the improvements included in the Public Good IRA Rollover Act, H.R. 1419, that would work to encourage billions in new giving to those who need it most.

This legislation also includes a provision that extends the Research and Development Tax Credit for an additional year. Firms in California already conduct nearly one-quarter of all our Nation's R&D activities by dollar value, making this credit critical to California's leadership in high tech innovation. I am a strong supporter of this provision, and am a cosponsor of stand alone legislation that would make important improvements in the R&D credit and extend it permanently, H.R. 2138.

H.R. 3996 also includes a 1-year delay of the 3 percent withholding burden on contractors that work with governments, which is scheduled to take effect starting in 2011. Earlier this year I introduced legislation with Representative Kendrick Meek of Florida that would do away with this added withholding requirement before it starts. Together, we have

worked to inform other representatives about the potentially damaging effects of this new cost of doing business with governments, and our legislation has attracted over 230 cosponsors, H.R. 1023.

Despite my opposition to the overarching legislation, I sincerely hope members of both parties can continue to work in a bipartisan fashion--as we have done on these three issues to-date. It is important that we move ahead with this important individual and business tax relief through legislation members from both parties can support, and not in the context of controversial new tax increases on the American people.

Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to keep the alternative minimum tax from reaching out and ensnaring an additional 19 million new taxpayers, saddling them with an additional $2,000 tax bill.

I have long voted to limit the reach of the AMT. In my Northern California congressional district, 54,000 people will pay the AMT in 2007 if Congress fails to act. But today's bill is in the wrong direction. Tragically, this legislation institutes permanent tax increases to pay for extending temporary tax relief.

The AMT was originally intended to reach 155 of our country's wealthiest Americans who were not paying taxes and compel them to pay at least some level of taxes, but that original intent never included dipping down into the middle class. The AMT now collects taxes it was never intended to collect. It would be absurd to ``pay for'' extending this temporary fix for another year.

Even worse, today's bill sends a clear signal to American families and individuals that the Democrats plan to allow the tax relief of the last 6 years disappear, raising taxes by trillions of dollars on millions of taxpayers. This includes marriage penalty relief, the higher child tax credit, and lower rates on investment income.

The House should reject this Democrat pro-tax increase approach to patching the alternative minimum tax.

I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) for leading this talk this evening on this incredibly important issue of the taxes that are about to be raised if we do nothing here in the U.S. Congress. I might mention, it was interesting listening to my friend talking about all the individuals that he knows of that will have their taxes raised. I have to give some of my background. My reason, I grew up in Northern California in a rural area just south of Yuba City, Marysville, in a dairy community, born in 1945, so raised during the 1950s and 1960s. Our family also had a small business which I worked in. My reason for becoming involved politically and running for office was not what government was doing for me, but rather as a small businessman and small rancher what they were doing to me. So this evening, I want to discuss something that is more that they seem to be wanting to do to us.

Mr. Speaker, if you earned the same amount of money last year that you do this year and you write a bigger check out to the IRS this year than you did last year, you have just experienced a tax increase. The expensive alternative minimum tax measure recently introduced by the Democrats and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Chairman Rangel, threatens to take us down the path of staggering tax hikes that will impact nearly every

taxpayer. In fact, if that proposal were to be enacted, over the next 10 years, more than 120 million Americans would pay more than $312 trillion in additional taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I have consistently supported doing away, outright, with the alternative minimum tax and am a cosponsor of legislation by my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) that will be speaking in a few minutes that will do precisely that. But the Democrats' ``mother of all tax hikes'' is the wrong approach on the American taxpayer. Ten years ago, most Americans had never heard of the AMT. Today, more and more middle-class families are becoming ensnared in this alternative tax regime.

The AMT was created almost 40 years ago, in 1969, to make 155 of our Nation's wealthiest individuals, who were not then paying taxes, pay at least some level of tax. Yet, the income entry level for the tax were never set to be adjusted for inflation. So if Congress doesn't act soon, the number of taxpayers paying the AMT will rise from 4 million, now mind you that is up from 155, from 4 million last year to 23 million this year alone. In other words, an additional 19 million middle-class taxpayers could pay an average of $3,800 more in taxes this year.

House Democrats would have us raise taxes elsewhere to the tune of nearly $312 trillion over the next 10 years to do away with this AMT that was never intended. They claim this massive tax hike is necessary to offset, or make up for, the tax revenue that is lost with the termination of AMT. For a married couple with two children and an income of $45,000 a year, as well as some typical deductions, this could mean a new $1,500 tax bill. How is this possible if the Democrats' bill assumes that the landmark tax relief of 2001 and 2003, which we put through the Ways and Means Committee in this Congress and signed by President Bush, will expire 3 years from today? Including the lower marginal tax rates and the $1,000 child tax credit.

Under this scheme, more than 94 million Americans with income between 20 and $200,000 will see a major tax increase. I am seriously concerned about how these new taxes will affect taxpayers in my own Northern California congressional district. In 2005, just over 2 percent of all taxpayers in my district paid the AMT. If we fail to extend AMT patch, some 54,000 Northern Californians will have to pay the AMT this year alone. Again, this was a tax meant for only 155 of the wealthiest Americans who weren't paying any taxes in 1969.

But what really troubles me is that the majority party's mother of all tax hikes would eliminate the AMT for this 2 percent and merely substitute it with higher taxes for almost every other taxpayer. This kind of pro-tax-increase thinking is simply unacceptable. We should do away with the AMT altogether. But the majority party's ``tax Peter to pay Paul'' approach is wrong and ignores a reality that the AMT was never intended to capture these Americans in the first place.

I would like to thank, again, my friend, Kevin Brady, the gentleman from Texas, for hosting this important Special Order this evening and encourage all my colleagues to stand up for the taxpayers in their congressional districts and oppose the majority's proposed massive tax hikes.

To my friend, yes. That is, as a matter of fact, that tax increase could go as high as $3,800, and talking about average families.

That is correct.

Thank you, Mr. Brady.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1056, the Forbes motion to recommit H.R. 3685--Employment Non-Discrimination Act with instructions, I was unavoidably detained and missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Robin Hayes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield now 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time each side has.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, a very distinguished and active member of the Trade Subcommittee, Mr. Brady.

I reserve.

I reserve my time to close as well on our side.

Just myself to close on our side.

I yield myself so much time as I may consume.

I'd like to begin by just mentioning the last speaker, the gentlelady from Ohio, the Independent International Trade Commission estimates that Ohio's exports to Peru will grow by some 38 percent. And that 38 percent is in such areas as machinery equipment, chemical products, transportation equipment, computer and electronic equipment and plastic and rubber products.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I wish to express my strong support for H.R. 3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act. The Peru TPA will eliminate or significantly reduce Peruvian tariffs and address other trade barriers to U.S. goods. That Peru TPA also is an important means to promote democracy and stability in Peru and will further strengthen our relations with this strong partner of ours.

Today, nearly 6 months after reaching the May 10 bipartisan trade deal, we consider the Peru TPA on the House floor. I'm pleased for our farmers, ranchers, businesses, workers and consumers that this long- promised day is now a reality.

The Peru TPA will provide significant reciprocal market access benefits for these constituent groups. The International Trade Commission estimates that the Peru TPA will increase

U.S. exports to Peru by $1.1 billion. But U.S. imports from Peru will only increase by less than half that, or $439 million.

The ITC also estimates that the Peru TPA will add $2.1 billion per year to the U.S. gross domestic product. According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Peru TPA's many benefits include the following: 80 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial goods will be duty free immediately, and all remaining tariffs eliminated within 10 years.

More than two-thirds of U.S. farm exports to Peru will become duty free immediately, including beef, wheat, soybeans, tree nuts, such as almonds, and various fruits and vegetables, such as peaches.

U.S. services firms will have substantial market access across Peru's service sectors, with very few exceptions. Almost all U.S. exports of information technology products will be duty free immediately, and there will be important protections for U.S. investors, intellectual property rights, worker rights and environment.

In my home State of California, the Peru TPA will offer tremendous market opportunities for our exporters. In 2006, California's farmers and businesses exported roughly 180 million in goods to Peru, including computers and electronic machinery, metal products and agricultural products. The elimination of tariffs and other trade barriers will help support the nearly 20 percent of manufacturing jobs and roughly 135,000 agricultural-related jobs in California alone that depend on exports.

The Peru TPA will also lead to a more substantial and reciprocal trading relationship between Peru and the United States. The current Andean trade preferences given by the United States to Peru have been important to its economic development and stability, but they provide little benefit to the U.S. exporters.

Today, for example, 97 percent of Peru's exports to the United States are already duty free. But only 2.8 percent of Peru's tariff lines are duty free for U.S. exporters.

The Peru TPA will level this uneven playing field. Given the importance of the Peru TPA as well as the pending free trade agreements with Panama and Colombia, I was pleased to participate in a recent bipartisan fact-finding trip to the region led by U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. This trip underscored to me that the Peru TPA will move our economic relationship to a new level and help make us even closer strategic allies.

I want to close by reminding my colleagues that our work is not done today. The May 10 bipartisan trade deal was designed to pave the way for a new bipartisan approach to trade policy and consideration of all four pending FTAs, not just the Peru TPA. In fact, the May 10 deal amended all four pending FTAs, not just the Peru TPA. I urge the majority to now act on the commitments made with the May 10 deal and move the three pending free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and Korea.

We must not let this unique moment pass us by, especially when the E.U., China, and other countries are strengthening their trade ties in Latin America and Asia and threaten to pull ahead.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to my good friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). I want to thank the chairman, Mr. Rangel, for your strong work and your leadership along with Chairman Levin of the Trade Subcommittee and the Democrat members on your side for working to have this bill come through the Ways and Means Committee with a unanimous ``aye'' vote. I commend you and for your many years of working in this area of fair trade.

With that, with the addition of the 3 minutes I yield, I yield back my time for this evening.

Mr. Speaker, losing a job is one of the most disruptive events that can occur to a worker and a family.

We should be helping these individuals to get back to work as soon as possible. That's why I support the trade adjustment assistance and why I introduced a short-term extension of the program to assist workers displaced by trade through December.

Unfortunately, I cannot support today's bill. In addition to expanding the TAA program, which already costs the American taxpayers nearly $1 billion each year, the majority shuts out numerous Republican suggestions that would have instilled accountability and increased flexibility for workers. One provision of their bill eliminates a State's ability to choose the best employees to administer TAA by requiring so-called State merit-based employees to run the program. This means that the 25 States that currently use local employees or outside contractors like nonprofit or community-based groups to operate a more efficient and effective TAA program will no longer be able to do so and will be required to hire more government workers.

I'm also amazed that the majority rejected our proposal to increase accountability by requiring States and organizations that receive TAA to meet performance measures. It should be the goal of all Members to see that taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely, and the lack of such measures is a fundamental shortcoming of the bill. This provision is included in the Republican substitute that we will offer later today.

Far from forcing workers into just any old job, Republicans have worked to find constructive ways to increase TAA program flexibility so workers could have more options to train for a new job and have greater access to employment services. But, again, these suggestions were rejected by the majority.

We all want to help unemployed workers to get back on their feet quickly. But TAA improvement, and especially an expansion of this magnitude, should have been considered in the context of expanding trade opportunities for all Americans through our pending free trade agreements, including Colombia, Panama and South Korea, and reauthorization of the trade promotion authority. Regrettably, we have no commitments from the majority on these important measures, despite months of work.

I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 3920.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 3920 offered by Mr. McCrery and Mr. McKeon. In particular, I would like to focus on the provisions in this amendment that would provide TAA participants with quicker access and more flexible training options to obtain the skills they need to return to work as quickly as possible.

H.R. 3920 contains some TAA training reform, but it is largely geared towards keeping people in TAA longer, and is costly. In contrast, this amendment provides much greater individual choice and more flexible access to training through a new approach designed to get people into training sooner and better equip them to get back to work more quickly. For example, this amendment would improve TAA participants' access to training and education by: one, providing New Economy Scholarships of up to $8,000 that a participant can use over a 4-year period in a range of training programs; and, secondly, authorizing $50 million for new capacity building grants for community colleges and other training providers to offer enhanced training to more TAA participants.

This amendment also would provide TAA participants with more flexible training options that are not available under current law, including allowing participants to combine full-time work with either full-time or part-time training, or combine part-time work with either full-time or part-time training; and allowing training programs that lead to a license, certificate or community college degree and are linked to a high-demand occupation, as well as apprenticeship programs.

Moreover, this amendment would enable TAA participants to begin training sooner, even prior to layoff. This amendment also allows workers to focus on a job search sooner, while receiving income support, without also having to be in training or obtain a training waiver, which is required today. This amendment also would encourage better allocation of current training funds for the States, which have not been fully used, by requiring the Department of Labor to report to Congress every 6 months on this funding allocation.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this amendment makes meaningful training reforms to TAA that would provide more flexible options to participants and better enable them to gain the skills they need to return to work sooner. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Madam Speaker, all of us support SCHIP and we all want to reauthorize it, but we need to put low-income kids first.

This bill would expand the program to families making more than $60,000 a year. That is not low income. It is a majority of the households in America. There is a better way. Reauthorize

SCHIP and keep it focused on truly needy children, and then tackle rising health care costs that are squeezing middle-class families.

Tax credits could help 10\1/2\ million kids from middle-income families gain or keep their health care coverage. Millions more would benefit if families could purchase less expensive health plans from across State lines. Let's defeat this motion and get to work on making health care more affordable for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 716. While the Internet offers a multitude of benefits, it can also pose threats, such as

identity theft and online scams. It is important to raise awareness of these threats and how they can be avoided.

Cybersecurity is also critical to our national security. A cyberattack against our Nation could cripple our communications, destroy our energy grids and damage our economy. We must take proactive steps today to prevent and respond to future attacks.

I also commend the Air Force for establishing a Cyber Command. Our Nation must be able to defeat any adversary on tomorrow's cyberbattlefield.

I thank my friend from Florida (Mr. Feeney) for yielding time, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I request unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H. Res. 106.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Tax Collection Responsibility Act. This legislation would unwisely eliminate an IRS program which collects otherwise uncollected tax debts, refusing as much as $2.2 billion in Federal revenue. In addition, this partisan measure does a disservice to the overwhelmingly bipartisan effort to repeal the 3 percent withholding burden before it takes effect.

In less than 4 years, 3 percent of all payments made by a government to a business or individual providing goods or services will be unfairly withheld as a prepayment on taxes. This will needlessly reduce cash flows for thousands of small businesses across the U.S. Today's bill merely delays 3 percent withholding implementation for 1 year, but that does not solve this real and pressing problem.

What Congress should do is follow the broader proposal my friend Kendrick Meek of Florida and I have introduced, repealing this withholding tax outright. Pairing a scaled-back 1-year delay with the majority's repeal of the private collection agency program wrongly splits the bipartisan, broad-based full repeal initiative.

Mr. Speaker, the Meek-Herger proposal has 219 cosponsors from both parties. Further, the closed rule prohibits a Republican substitute that would have provided for consideration of the full 3 percent withholding repeal alone and on its own merit.

I urge Members to reject this flawed bill.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on several measures that came before the House on Wednesday, September 26, 2007 because of illness.

Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 677, a resolution providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 52) making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008; ``no'' on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 678, a resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2693) to direct the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue a standard regulating worker exposure to diacetyl; ``aye'' on a motion to recommit H.J. Res. 52, a resolution making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008, to committee; ``aye'' on final passage of H.J. Res. 52, a motion making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2008; ``aye'' on an amendment by Mr. Wilson of South Carolina to H.R. 2693, the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act; and ``no'' on final passage of H.R. 2693, the Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on several measures that came before the House on Tuesday, September 25, 2007 because of illness.

Had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 1400, Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007; ``aye'' on H. Res. 584, Supporting the goals and ideals of National Life Insurance Awareness Month; ``aye'' on H. Con. Res. 210, Supporting the goals and ideals of Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month; ``aye'' on H. Res. 663, Supporting the goals and ideals of Veterans of Foreign Wars Day; ``aye'' on H. Res. 548, Expressing the ongoing concern of the House of Representatives for Lebanon's democratic institutions and unwavering support for the administration of justice upon those responsible for the assassination of Lebanese public figures opposing Syrian control of Lebanon; ``aye'' on H. Res. 642, Expressing sympathy and support for the people and governments of the countries of Central America, the Caribbean, and Mexico which have suffered from Hurricanes Felix, Dean, and Henriette and whose complete economic and fatality toll are still unknown; ``aye'' on H. Res. 557, Strongly condemning the United Nations Human Rights Council for ignoring severe human rights abuses in various countries, while choosing to unfairly target Israel by including it as the only country permanently placed on the Council's agenda; and no on H. Res. 675, On the question of tabling the motion to appeal the ruling of the chair.

Further, I would have voted no on the previous question and no on adopting H. Res. 675, providing for the consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 976; ``aye'' on H. Res. 95, Supporting the goals and ideals of Campus Fire Safety Month; no on H.R. 976, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007; and ``aye'' on H. Res. 590, Supporting the goals and ideals of National Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on four bills brought up under Suspension of the Rules on Monday, September 24, 2007 because of an illness.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 193, a resolution recognizing all hunters across the United States for their continued commitment to safety; ``yea'' on H. Res. 668, a resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of the September 25, 1957, desegregation of Little Rock Central High School by the Little Rock Nine; ``yea'' on H.R. 1199, the Drug Endangered Children Act of 2007; and ``yea'' on H. Res. 340, a resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives of the importance of providing a voice for the many victims (and families of victims) involved in missing persons cases and unidentified human remains cases.

Madam Speaker, with nearly 47 million uninsured in America, rising health care costs, and a federal health entitlement system that is simply unsustainable in the long run, America is truly on the verge of a health crisis. Yet despite the looming fiscal insolvency of Medicare and other challenges facing U.S. health care, Congress is preparing now to approve one of the largest expansions of government health care in decades. Mr. Speaker, we must change course in today's debate, and address the root problems facing our health system. And true change can be achieved only through working together on a bipartisan level.

It is for this very reason that I am pleased to join with my colleague from the other side of the aisle, Representative Ron Kind of Wisconsin, in introducing truly collaborative, bipartisan legislation that would help expand health coverage to millions of currently uninsured American taxpayers. Our legislation, the ``Equity for Our Nation's Self-Employed Act of 2007,'' would correct an inequity that currently

exists in our tax laws to help make quality health care more affordable for millions of Americans. It achieves this by allowing the self- employed to fully deduct their health insurance premiums for the purposes of both income tax and self-employment tax.

Although many consider themselves ``self-employed,'' only the owners of businesses that are organized as sole proprietorships pay the self- employment tax or SET. Across the U.S. there are more than 21 million sole proprietors who could be subject to some level of self-employment tax. In my own home State of California, there are more self-employed individuals than anywhere else in the country, with roughly 13 percent of the Nation's sole proprietorships, or more than 2.8 million self- employed individuals. The vast majority of the businesses owned by self-employed sole proprietors are small and micro-businesses with 10 or fewer employees. Despite their size, however, these businesses generate more than $800 billion in economic activity in the U.S.

The self-employment tax serves as a proxy for Federal FICA payroll taxes, which other business combinations like C-corporations, limited liability partnerships and S-corporations withhold and pay on behalf of their employees. The SET tax rate is 15.3 percent, representing both the traditionally withheld employee share of 7.65 percent of wages (for Social Security and Medicare) plus the employer's matching share of 7.65 percent. Unlike other businesses, however, the SET applies to all income generated from the sole proprietorship.

At the crux of the current disparity is that all businesses apart from sole proprietorships can deduct employee health care premiums as normal business expenses before taxes. While self-employed taxpayers may deduct 100 percent of their health premiums for regular income tax purposes, sole proprietorships frequently pay more for insurance simply because these expenses are then subjected to the SET of 15.3 percent. One of my constituents, a micro-business owner named Gloria, who lives in Redding, California, reported that she pays about $1,300 more on health insurance each year because of the SET. Another constituent, Tom, from Anderson, pays $900 more for health care each year because of this increased payroll tax. By extending the health deduction to the self-employment tax, we would level the playing field for sole proprietors like Gloria, Tom and the more than 2.8 million self- employed Californians who cannot currently deduct their health coverage costs as a business expense.

Several of my sole proprietor constituents have commented on the rising costs of health care, and how the SET prohibits them from putting this extra amount they pay in taxes to better use expanding their business or purchasing more health coverage for themselves and their employees. Nationwide, more than half of all sole proprietors report that they are unable to purchase health insurance at all, citing affordability as a chief concern. Of these small business owners, more than 80 percent stated they would be more likely to purchase health insurance if it was deductible from payroll taxes through SET deductibility.

Owning and operating a small business in the United States has always been and continues to be extremely risky, with many small businesses not surviving the first 5 years of operation. However, despite great challenges, small businesses provide nearly two-thirds of all new job creation in our country, employing tens of millions of workers and providing a higher standard of living for millions of American families. The difference between low or high taxes can make or break a firm, and mean the difference between profitability and continued entrepreneurial investment to survive, or going out of business. A recent report by the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy confirms this about the SET in particular, finding that extending the health insurance deduction for the SET actually increases the probability that a micro-business will remain in the market.

Madam Speaker, around 60 percent of America's uninsured individuals work for small businesses that cannot afford to provide coverage. Our simple, bipartisan legislation would help millions of sole proprietors and their employees better afford coverage by allowing a tax deduction for 100 percent of health insurance expenses from payroll taxes, just like other businesses in the U.S. I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for his leadership on this legislation, and look forward to working to enact it.