Skip to content

U.S. Senate votes 81-17 to repeal Form 1099 filing requirements

February 2, 2011

In the first vote to undo a part of health care reform law, Senators voted 81-17 Wednesday afternoon to repeal the very unpopular Form 1099 filing requirements which were designed to raise $19 billion over ten years to pay for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

Senator Mark Kirk voted in favor of Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow’s repeal amendment which does not require the government to raise taxes to make up for the revenue shortfall.  The proposal will be paid for out of unobligated funds that won’t impact defense, veterans affairs or social security.

Sen. Dick Durbin opposed the amendment, instead voting for a previous repeal amendment offered by Michigan’s other Sen. Carl Levin which required new revenue make up the shortfall.

Illinois Farm Bureau has been pushing the past several months for repeal.  Members have been dreading burdensome 1099 filing requirements for all purchases of goods or services totalling more than $600 from any non-employee.

Now halfway home, IFB supports H.R. 4, a 1099 repeal bill introduced in the House that is expected to go to the floor later this month.   That bill is cosponsored by 265 House members, including Reps. Biggert, Dold, Hultgren, Johnson, Kinzinger, Lipinski, Manzullo, Roskam, Schilling, Schock, Shimkus, and Walsh.

In its last vote of the day, the Senate voted 47-51 on a motion to repeal the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  The amendment offered by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky was identical to the total repeal measure that passed the House last month.

The health care law was again ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in Florida earlier in the week.  Sen. Durbin  chaired a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today on the constitutionality of the law.   Durbin argued that a dozen Federal judges have upheld the law.

For those keeping score, twelve federal district court judges have dismissed challenges to the law, two have found the law to be constitutional and two have found the opposite. How is it possible that federal judges who not only study the Constitution but swear to uphold it can read its words and draw such different conclusions?

It is unlikely that this hearing will produce a national consensus or even agreement in this room. But if it serves the Congress and the Nation by fairly laying out the case on both sides, then it will be a worthy undertaking.

Farm Bureau opposes the law’s individual mandate to purchase health insurance and supports repeal.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: