[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 19 (Tuesday, March 3, 1998)]
[House]
[Page H699]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




MOVING OUR COUNTRY TOWARDS A FAIRER, FLATTER, AND SIMPLER TAX CODE AND 
                               TAX SYSTEM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 21, 1997, the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I take to the floor during morning hour to 
just bring Members' attention to very interesting developments 
yesterday that really signaled the first round in a national debate 
about reforming our Tax Code and moving our country in the direction of 
a fairer, flatter, simpler Tax Code and tax system.
  If Members will for a moment just compare the contrasting styles, the 
tone of the debate by the proponents and advocates on both sides of 
this issue. Yesterday two of our Republican colleagues, the House 
majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Dick Armey) and the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Billy Tauzin), spoke to three different 
groups back here in Washington. This was part of their Scrap the Code 
tour that they have taken on the road to cities around the country.
  Yesterday majority leader Armey, who was one of the leading 
congressional proponents of the flat tax, and the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), one of the leading Congressional proponents of 
a national sales tax, a national tax on consumption, spoke to these 
three groups as part of what I think is a very rational, a very level 
debate about replacing the current Tax Code in favor of one of these 
two plans, both of which, in my view, would be simpler and fairer than 
the current system. Again, they have been doing this around the country 
as part of an effort to inform and engage the American people in this 
debate.
  Contrast their, again, very rational approach to discussing these 
issues with the President's remarks yesterday back here in Washington. 
I am quoting from the Washington edition of the Los Angeles Times. The 
headline is ``Clinton Rips Reckless Overhaul of Tax Code.''
  The article says, ``Facing an unexpected stampede in Congress to wipe 
out the U.S. tax code and replace it with a radical new system,'' and 
``radical'' is the word the L.A. Times writer uses, ``President Clinton 
on Monday denounced the approach as `misguided, reckless, and 
irresponsible,' and warned that it would imperil the economy.'' Gloom 
and doom. These are just scare tactics, Mr. Speaker.
  The article goes on to say, ``In an unusually pointed attack, Clinton 
and his top advisers assailed popular legislation,'' legislation that 
is now pending in this House, in this Congress, ``that would end the 
current tax code on December 31, 2001, to make way for a wholly new 
version.
  ``No one concerned about fighting crime would even think about 
saying, `Well, three years from now we are going to throw out the 
criminal code and we will figure out what to put in its place,' Clinton 
told the National Mortgage Bankers Association. No one would do that. 
That is exactly what this proposal is. That is exactly what some people 
in Congress are proposing to do.''
  Excuse me? I do not see the analogy. I do not see any comparison 
between our efforts to move the country in the direction of a fairer, 
flatter, simpler Tax Code with this analogy to throwing out the 
criminal code. Frankly, I think most of us, the 143 of us that have 
sponsored legislation to scrap the Tax Code, resent any analogy or 
suggestion that somehow it is comparable to eliminating the criminal 
code.
  Nothing could be further from the truth, and, as Jack Ferris, the 
President of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, which 
is trying to garner 1 million signatures from American citizens 
nationwide in support of scrapping the Tax Code, as he put it 
yesterday, what is irresponsible is a 500 million-word code, a 9,000 
page Tax Code, that is antiwork, antisaving, and antifamily. That is 
exactly what we have in America today. We have a Tax Code, a tax system 
that is riddled with perverse incentives that actually favor 
consumption and spending over savings and investment.
  We cannot go down this path. We should be able to have a rational, 
informed, bipartisan debate on this in this country without the 
defenders of the status quo having to, like the President, resort to 
scare tactics.
  Let me tell the Members, what they are attempting to defend is 
absolutely indefensible. Here are some of the articles that have 
appeared in publications recently regarding the collection abuses and 
the culture at the IRS. Here is one that says new audit at IRS finds 
some agents focused on quotas. ``The IRS Unveils New Taxpayer 
Protections to Limit Agents' Ability to Seize Assets.''
  Why do they have to do this? Because the new commissioner is quoted 
in here as saying, ``I am concerned about the number of questionable 
procedural violations that may have occurred in the cases we have 
reviewed. I am especially troubled about the emphasis,'' in the IRS, 
``placed on improving collection status without equal emphasis on 
customer service and safeguarding taxpayers' rights.''
  ``Treasury Chief Files Action Against IRS Quotas.''
  Another one, ``Top Official Offers Mea Culpa for IRS.''
  Mr. Speaker, let us have an informed, rational, bipartisan debate. 
Let us transform the IRS into an agency that treats all taxpayers with 
respect and gives them the services they deserve, while we move the 
country in the direction of a fairer, flatter, simpler Tax Code and tax 
system.

                          ____________________