By Vicki Needham - 02/02/11 11:08 PM EST
Stabenow added some language to ensure that in addition to the Defense and Veterans Affairs departments that no funding from the Social Security Administration would be touched to pay for the repeal. Her amendment also updates the cost to $22 billion over 10 years and sets aside $44 billion in unused, previously appropriated funds to ensure the repeal's cost is covered.
"Sen. Stabenow has been a leader in the effort to repeal the 1099 requirement for businesses since last year," her spokesman Cullen Schwarz told The Hill in response to Republican questions about her amendment. "However, she does believe her approach is best because it prevents any possibility that cuts to the Social Security Administration will be used to pay for 1099 repeal."
Meanwhile, Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) lost their bid, in a 44-54 vote, to give Congress the power to determine what spending cuts will be used to pay for the $22 billion cost of repealing the amendment.
The Stabenow amendment gives authority to make budget cuts to the White House's Office of Management and Budget.
Meanwhile, the Levin-Inouye amendment "makes specific decisions on spending cuts and revenue increases to account for the cost of repealing this provision," Levin said Wednesday evening on the floor.
The amendment called for overhauling "unjustified tax expenditures related to oil and gas production by large oil companies, companies that are enormously profitable with or without these tax expenditures," he said.
"Our amendment would reform a loophole that provides tax credits to filers who pay taxes both in the United States and in foreign countries," he said.
It also would "eliminate some unintended loopholes used to avoid clearly intended rules on the gift-tax exemption."
Even though the Levin-Inouye language offered specifics, Levin said he's willing to consider better alternatives but "what we cannot support is abdication of our responsibility to make these decisions."
Inouye, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, called his amendment "a far superior alternate to the Stabenow amendment as it currently stands."