[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 14 (Tuesday, February 24, 1998)]
[House]
[Page H543]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               TAX REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RIGGS. Madam Speaker, earlier today I rose during morning hour to 
talk about how we can increase take-home pay and improve retirement 
security in America. I want to elaborate on those earlier comments this 
morning during this special order tonight. I am talking about the 
Congress leading our country to a new level of freedom and opportunity 
for every single American worker and taxpayer.
  First of all, let me stipulate that I am not talking about wage and 
price controls. I am not talking about another government mandate. I am 
not talking about Washington and the Federal Government through the 
Congress trying to dictate to the marketplace. I do not support a 
further increase in the minimum wage. But I do very much favor reducing 
taxes further for working Americans. We can start in the area of tax 
reduction by addressing the marriage penalty, which is a very, very 
unfair, very punitive section of our Tax Code. We ought to eliminate 
that, because the marriage penalty affects working-class individuals, 
those on limited or modest incomes, those who are earning a fixed wage 
or salary the most.
  An example that was given on this floor earlier today during morning 
hour by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) was a teacher, or a 
police officer living in your community who is married and whose spouse 
is of necessity working. If we can eliminate the marriage penalty in 
the Tax Code, that couple will be able to keep more of their own hard-
earned tax dollars.
  Second, earlier today, promoted the Middle Class Tax Relief Act and 
the Taxpayer Choice Act, both introduced by our colleague, the 
gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune). This is good legislation 
because the net effect would be to raise the income levels for the 28 
percent tax bracket, thereby putting more people in the 15-percent, the 
lowest tax bracket, and for those who are already in the 15-percent tax 
bracket, Congressman Thune and I propose to increase the personal 
exemption.
  This is a bottom-up approach, if you will, a bubble-up approach to 
lowering taxes in America. It is broad-based, real tax relief. It gets 
away from this notion back here in Washington that we can only do 
targeted tax relief that picks winners and losers from certain segments 
of the American people, and it is a Republican solution, if I might be 
so bold to say, on Democratic terms. This legislation will be difficult 
for the practitioners of class warfare and what I call the politics of 
envy to oppose.
  Let me further say that if President Clinton has more money to pay 
for more social spending, as he suggested from in this Chamber during 
the State of the Union address for a host of new programs, many of them 
so-called mandatory entitlement programs, then I respectfully submit 
that we have the money for tax cuts.
  But we should not do tax relief without real tax reform. We need 
fundamental tax reform in this country today right now to put a stop to 
the collection abuses by the IRS and to effectively end the IRS as we 
know it. That is why I and many of my Republican colleagues have 
already signed a public pledge and we have cosponsored legislation to 
sunset the Tax Code, the current tax system, by the year 2001.
  This is a death sentence for the Tax Code, and it would move the 
country, as Congressman Kingston was just suggesting, in the direction 
of a fairer, a flatter, and a simpler tax system, one that embraces a 
single rate of taxation. That single rate of Federal taxation, though, 
when combined with State and local taxes, should not exceed 25 percent 
total, 25 percent in the aggregate for taxes at all levels; Federal, 
State and local. Today, the median family, the average family of four, 
is paying 38 percent of their income in taxes at all levels, and that 
is more than what they pay for food, clothing, housing and 
transportation combined.
  Now, the other point I want to talk about is giving taxpayers more 
choice. We can let taxpayers today choose between paying a flat tax or 
the current system. It is just that simple. We could give taxpayers 
that option, that choice that says we would be empowering taxpayers 
because they would have the right to decide whether they prefer a flat 
tax or reporting all their income, and after they have declared that 
income, simply paying a flat rate of tax on that income or staying 
under the current system.
  Furthermore, we could let taxpayers today decide to give them the 
right, again the choice and the option, to choose to invest a portion 
of their own hard-earned money, what they pay in payroll taxes or what 
are called FICA contributions into a directed IRA, which would earn a 
better return on their money than Social Security.
  So imagine that we let taxpayers check off now a flat tax versus the 
current system, check off now to put their own money, at least a 
portion of their payroll taxes into Social Security. The net effect 
again, higher take-home pay, better retirement security, more freedom, 
and opportunity for every American worker and taxpayer.

                          ____________________