According to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland), the U.S. House of Representatives will reconvene for a post-election “lame duck” session of Congress. What will be on the agenda? Probably not much, as Republicans will attempt to block any major Democrat legislation.

Some compromise will likely result as some bills demand immediate action. These include: a new continuing resolution to keep the government open past December 3; an extension of ’01 and ’03 tax cuts set to expire at year’s end without affirmative action by Congress, resulting in increases in marginal income tax rates; and yet another short-term fix for the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which will otherwise affect millions of middle-class taxpayers this year. Expect an extension of a year or two on the AMT while Congress awaits the report of President Obama’s debt and deficit commission on December 1 and then a decision on how to treat upper income-earners and small business pass-through entities.

In the Senate, there is talk of bringing the new START Treaty with Russia to the floor, but opposition by some GOP conservatives to the nuclear forces treaty and a recent glitch with our command-and-control systems at a Wyoming air base (50 nuclear-armed ICBMs went “offline” for a period of time – yikes!) may derail this effort.

It remains to be seen how Democrats will react to the election results and how motivated they will be to either pass legislation or punt issues. Stay tuned…

Approximately 50 members of the Indiana Chamber visited with Indiana’s congressional delegation during the Chamber’s annual D.C. Fly-in event September 14-15. The group, accompanied by Chamber President Kevin Brinegar and other staff, arrived in a city where partisan tensions were ever present and more than a few congressmen were absent, locked in tight re-election fights back in the Hoosier state.

The Chamber delegation visited with both U.S. Sens. Dick Lugar and Evan Bayh, engaging with the latter in an informal Q&A session in the U.S. Capitol’s Visitors Center. Senator Bayh pronounced that it was likely the last time he would be meeting with us as a U.S. senator and further stated that predictions of an active agenda for a post-election “lame duck” session of Congress were overblown. Senator Bayh told the group that there was very little momentum for a broad agenda beyond a fiscal continuing resolution to keep the federal government functioning and perhaps some action on extending the ’01 and ’03 or so-called Bush tax cuts.

Senator Lugar addressed the group during dinner on September 14, joined by Reps. Pete Visclosky, Dan Burton, Steve Buyer (who is retiring) and Mike Pence. The group echoed Sen. Bayh’s assessment about the congressional agenda through year’s end, and tax legislation, the federal budget and the upcoming election were foremost on their minds.

The Chamber participants pressed the delegation on a variety of issues, including pending appropriations bills, reauthorization of the federal surface transportation act and “card check” legislation. Special emphasis was given to extending the tax cuts, as expiration of this tax relief at year’s end would negatively affect the frail national economy and Hoosier small businesses.

On January 1, 2011, Americans will face the biggest tax hike in history. If Congress fails to act, marginal tax rates will increase for every taxpayer, the capital gains rate climbs 33%, and dividend rates jump by as much as 164%. American small businesses, our economic jobs engine, will face marginal tax rates as high as 39.6%. Compounded with the loss of certain itemized deductions and personal exemptions, these small businesses face rates as high as 41.6%. And this increase hits successful small businesses, our job creators, particularly hard: Approximately half of the business income reported on tax returns in 2011 will be subjected to the top two marginal rates.

The Indiana Chamber’s message to the delegation was that outcome is unacceptable and Congress must act before year’s end, but no one in D.C. seems to know when, or if, that debate might occur. In a time of economic uncertainty, raising taxes on businesses and investors would hinder Americans from building individual savings and further investing in the economy.

Extending existing tax rates would, in one bold stroke, boost investor, business and consumer confidence by taking the uncertainty of tax policy off the table. It would leave hard earned income in the hands of the individuals and businesses that earned it and allow them to spur investment, boost consumption, promote economic growth and create jobs.

Now is not the time to increase taxes on all taxpayers, but rather to work together to keep the economy on the road to recovery.

In a primetime address to a joint session of Congress, President Obama upped the stakes on health care reform – indeed, he may have staked the success or failure of his presidency on this issue and the debate has enormous consequences for the 2010 mid-term elections. Obama’s speech was combative; he both invited input from minority Republicans and challenged their opposition to present proposals. He also chose to attack the veracity of claims and arguments against his policies, asserting that "we will call you out" on false claims. In the wake of the president’s speech – which was interrupted by catcalls and one congressman calling the president a "liar" – the partisan environment on Capitol Hill could not be more toxic. The fundamentals of the bill and the policy debate have not really changed, however. Numerous provisions include mandates on employers to provide coverage or pay penalties, mandates on insurance companies to provide coverage and mandates on individuals to purchase coverage or pay penalties. A government-run "public option" remains a key sticking point, with Republicans adamantly opposed and Democrats deeply divided over the issue. 

The Congressional Budget Office analyses of the various drafts of legislation have been less than comforting, citing increased (rather than decreased) costs for the federal government (i.e., taxpayers) over the next decade with an acceleration of costs in future decades. This will exacerbate the federal deficit and is at odds with the president’s stated goal to "not add one dime" to the deficit.

The Indiana Chamber is engaged in the debate and conferring with its membership as the situation develops. The Chamber will also be taking a delegation of the state’s business leaders to Washington for its annual D.C. Fly-in event on September 23-24, at which time direct communication on this issue will be made to Indiana’s congressional delegation. The Chamber maintains that incremental, yet fundamental, changes in the areas of medical liability reform, health information technology and more consumer-driven health options are necessary first steps to controlling the costs of health care and extending private health care insurance to more Americans. 

The Indiana Chamber of Commerce is asking federal legislators to oppose the recent proposal to increase taxes on overseas profits. U.S. companies, including many in Indiana, will find it increasingly difficult to compete with their foreign competitors should these tax code changes be enacted.

American companies already pay the second-highest corporate tax rate in the world. During these difficult economic times, we believe economic development should be promoted to give our companies the tools they need to succeed in the global marketplace instead of burdening them with higher taxes. These tax proposals would add $200 billion to the tax burden of affected companies, putting them at a competitive disadvantage with their foreign counterparts who don’t have to pay or can defer taxes in their home countries.

Overseas investments by domestic companies strengthen our overall economy.  By adding overseas operations, U.S. companies create more opportunities for American companies to grow back home.  For every worker employed overseas by U.S. companies, 2.3 workers are employed in the U.S.

The U.S. House passed the budget on a party-line vote Thursday night, 233-196; later the Senate passed a modified version 55-43 with two Democrats joining all 41 Republicans in opposition. Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Shirkieville) was one of the two.

This budget calls for approximately $4 trillion in expenditures in a single year, or nearly 29% of our country’s gross domestic product (GDP). According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the Obama Administration’s budget blueprint, if followed, would double the national debt in five years and nearly triple it by 2019 – a point at which America’s federal debt would equal 82% of GDP.

The Indiana Chamber adamantly opposes such irresponsible spending, as well as many of the specific programs and tax increases included in the president’s proposal and urged the entire Indiana congressional delegation to reject the president’s proposal and adopt a more fiscally restrained, responsible alternative.

In addition to unsustainable spending and unacceptable levels of public indebtedness, President Obama’s budget would radically alter the federal government’s relationship to its citizens through expansive new proposals regarding taxation, energy, environmental regulation and health care. Hoosiers are looking for a common-sense solution to restore the economy, not an expansive overhaul of federal government programs. Increasing taxes as a means to finance new federal spending on health care reform, Medicare and energy policy resulting in the country’s largest government expansion in decades is the wrong answer at the wrong time. The country simply cannot afford a budget this out-sized, nor can we expect small businesses to invest in the economy or employ workers while their livelihoods are threatened by tax hikes and federal intervention across numerous markets and industries.

The Indiana Chamber is alarmed at the sheer size of the president’s proposal and what it portends for the future of free enterprise, job creation and economic growth in our country.

HOW THEY VOTED:  Within Indiana’s Congressional delegation, Democrat Joe Donnelly and Republicans Dan Burton, Steve Buyer, Mike Pence and Mark Souder voted against the budget plan. Democrats Andre Carson, Brad Ellsworth, Baron Hill and Pete Visclosky voted in favor. In the Senate, both Republican Richard Lugar and Democrat Evan Bayh voted against.

The Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would modify existing labor law to eliminate the secret ballot in union-organizing elections and impose mandatory arbitration on parties to labor disputes, fortunately suffered a hiccup in the Senate last week.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) took to the floor and announced that – unlike in years’ past – he would not support the EFCA or even a cloture vote to debate this legislation. A key moderate vote in the Senate, Specter’s change of heart (perhaps triggered by home-state polls showing him down double digits in the primary) effectively derailed the EFCA in the Senate. However, rumors of potential “compromise” on the legislation began surfacing and it could still move in the House.

The Indiana Chamber forcefully opposes this bill, which would overturn nearly 70 years of labor law and place businesses at a distinct disadvantage in any union-organizing effort. This is labor’s top priority this Congress, but many centrist Democrats are running scared from the bill because it would stifle new jobs and business investment during a profound economic recession – reasons cited by Sen. Specter in his floor speech. Like Specter, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh (D) will be a critical vote on this issue, and the Indiana Chamber, among others, has informed Sen. Bayh of our strong opposition to the bill. While some speak of compromise, the elimination of the secret ballot in union elections and binding arbitration language in this bill are completely unacceptable to business.

Call to Action: Contact Sen. Bayh at (202) 224-5623 or send a letter through www.indianaprosperity.org to urge him to oppose the EFCA and vote against any cloture motion in the Senate concerning this bill. Also, let your representative know your position on the EFCA and urge him or her to also oppose it.

The Indiana Chamber believes the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (S. 181) will do serious harm to America’s businesses in a time when they need anything but more burdens.

The bill recently passed the U.S. Senate, with Indiana’s Senators splitting their votes (Bayh in favor, Lugar against). Our position is that the bill effectively removes the statute of limitations for the vast majority of discrimination cases and would make it easier to sue employers — even decades after the fact.

This legislation responds to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 550 U.S. 618, 127 S. Ct. 2162 (2007). Lilly Ledbetter was a Goodyear employee from 1979 to 1998. Around her retirement, Ledbetter filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging pay discrimination because from time to time over the course of her career she received lower pay increases than male co-workers. The Supreme Court ruled that she was required to bring suit within 180 days of the act of discrimination (each decision by her employer to pay her less) and rejected her argument that each paycheck should restart the clock with respect to filing her discrimination lawsuit involving events that happened many years prior. Now, S. 181 would overturn the Ledbetter decision and specify that the statutes of limitations under four discrimination statutes – protecting classes such as age, disability, race, color, religion, sex and national origin — begin anew each time an individual is compensated (if the compensation was affected), essentially eliminating time limits for many claims.

If enacted, this legislation would virtually eliminate the statute of limitations for pay discrimination claims, increase potential damages for employees, limit employer defenses and expand class-action lawsuits. It would make it very difficult to resolve cases in a timely manner and make it more expensive to hire new workers (due to increased litigation costs).

The U.S. Chamber also opposes the measure. Check out their response here.

UPDATE: It’s official as President Obama signed the Ledbetter Act into law on January 29. If you visit its page on Whitehouse.gov, you can view the full text and let the administration know your opinion about this law.