House

The House on Monday approved a controversial bill that would repeal two IRS reporting requirements, after three hours of tense debate in which Democrats said the Republican bill would raise taxes on middle-class Americans.

The bill, H.R. 4, was approved in a 314-112 vote. Every Republican and 76 Democrats supported the bill, which would eliminate language establishing IRS reporting requirements for companies and property owners on transactions valued at $600 or more.

Republicans and Democrats on Thursday continued to fight every step of the way toward a vote on repeal of IRS reporting language, and near the end of the debate sparred over a Democratic motion to recommit the bill.

Democrats proposed the bill be sent back to the Ways and Means Committee with instructions to change language that, in the words of ranking member Sandy Levin (D-Mich.), would "cut taxes, end oil subsidies, and ensure more people have health insurance."

For all the partisan fighting about the House Republican proposal to pay for repealing 1099, the GOP proposal is very similar to the one Democrats supported and approved last year.

In last year's healthcare law, Democrats proposed a system that offers subsidies to people for buying healthcare, and allows overpaid subsidies to be recaptured based on how much a family's income is higher than the federal poverty level.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer called GOP claims of a government healthcare takeover a "lie" after Rep. Dan Lungren criticized the law.

As expected, the House on Thursday has launched into a debate over whether repealing two IRS reporting requirements would be a tax relief or a tax hike.

Members are debating H.R. 4, which would repeal the reporting requirements and pay for it by lowering the amount of subsidy available to families for the purchase of health insurance. House Ways & Means Committee Chairman David Camp (R-Mich.) argued in his opening statement that reducing these subsidies is not a tax increase, as Democrats have argued.

"According to the non-partisan 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."

Freshman Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) on Thursday said the Obama administration's decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act is a violation of the Constitution, adding that the administration does not have the right to simply decide not to enforce the law.

"The attorney general and president have independently determined that this is unconstitutional," Farenthold said. "Anyone who has taken a civics class or government course will tell you that's not the president or the Justice Department's job. It's the Supreme Court's job.

"This is an express violation of the separation of powers principle found in the Constitution, and it presents a dangerous precedent for future administrations to follow," he added. "This is not a gay-rights issue, this is a separation-of-powers issue."

The Defense of Marriage Act prohibits the government from recognizing same-sex marriages, and was signed into law by President Clinton. Some Republicans have already called for oversight of the Feb. 23 decision not to enforce the law.

The House on Thursday is expected to hear what could be more fierce debate over whether eliminating IRS reporting requirements for companies and property owners is a relief from onerous paperwork, or a tax hike for middle-class Americans.

Democrats on Wednesday argued that the so-called 1099 reporting requirements should be eliminated, as all agree that this requirement will overburden small companies. But Democrats also say that by pushing for passage of H.R. 4, Republicans would pay for this $19 billion "fix" in a way that raises taxes.

Specifically, the bill would reduce health insurance premium subsidies that were provided for in last year's healthcare law. Democrats argue that this is the same as a tax hike, and challenged Republicans not to pay for the change "on the backs of hard-working middle-class Americans," as Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) said.

The House adjourned just before 8 p.m., and is planning a relatively short day for Thursday.

Members will reconvene at 10 a.m. Thursday for legislative business, at which point it will begin two and a half hours of debate on H.R. 4, which would eliminate IRS reporting requirements for companies and property owners.

Republicans anticipate last votes on that bill by 2 p.m., after which there is no other legislative business for the day.

To no one's surprise, President Obama on Wednesday night signed H.J.Res. 44, the two-week spending measure that will allow the federal government to keep operating through March 18.

The bill was approved Tuesday by the House and earlier Wednesday by the Senate.

Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.) on Wednesday night announced that the Environmental Protection Agency has won the Republican Study Committee's inaugural "Golden Turkey Award" for its pending regulation that would require mitigation measures for spilled milk.

"Each month, the RSC will be bestowing this dubious award to highlight the most absurd, most ridiculous, and most obscure regulation that taxpayers foot the bill to enforce and have to live by," Black said on the House floor Wednesday.

Black said the EPA "recently discovered that milk contains fat," and because fat contains oil, the EPA has decided to regulate cleanup measures used to clean milk spills on dairy farms. Black said the final EPA rule is expected to be released in November, but said she would work to ensure it is not released.

Black and Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) mocked the pending rule and proposed that a barn full of cats might be enough to deal with milk spills.