[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 19 (Tuesday, March 3, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H732-H733]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            TOWARD A FAIRER, FLATTER AND SIMPLER TAX SYSTEM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tiahrt). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, the President is defending the indefensible. 
President Clinton yesterday described congressional Republican efforts 
to overhaul the Tax Code and to change

[[Page H733]]

our tax system into one that is more pro-family, one that encourages 
investment and savings, and one that moves the country in the direction 
of a fairer, flatter, simpler Tax Code, a fairer, flatter, simpler 
alternative to the system we have today, he described those plans now 
pending in Congress as reckless in remarks that the President made 
yesterday here in Washington to the National Mortgage Bankers 
Association. In fact, the President went on to say that our approach of 
phasing out the current income tax system and replacing the current 
9,000 page, 5.5 million word Tax Code with a fairer, flatter, simpler 
alternative, he described that approach yesterday as ``misguided, 
reckless and irresponsible.''
  I read this entire article, and I have searched his remarks trying to 
find out what the President would propose. If he does not like our 
alternative, then what would the President counter with? What would he 
propose as a better alternative to our plans? Or is the President, as 
it would appear from his remarks, defending the current Tax Code and 
the current tax system?
  It would appear that the President does favor the status quo, that he 
is, as I said in my opening comments, defending the indefensible. He 
cannot possibly think that a system that has created, and this has now 
been well documented in hearings that we have had back here in 
Washington, a culture of abuse that has led to many collection abuses 
around the country, he cannot possibly be defending that system, could 
he? It is a system that has resulted in one newspaper headline after 
another.
  I cited these earlier this morning on the floor under morning 
business, but since more of our colleagues are present now, I want to 
share these headlines again. Here is one: The IRS Unveils New Taxpayer 
Protections to Limit Agents' Ability to Seize Assets. It actually 
quotes in this article the new Commissioner of the IRS as saying, 
quote, I am especially troubled about the emphasis placed on collection 
statistics, otherwise known as quotas, without an equal emphasis on 
customer service and safeguarding taxpayer rights.
  Look at some of these other newspaper headlines: New Audit at IRS 
Finds Some Agents Focused on Quotas. We are talking about many, many 
agents in IRS offices around the country. Treasury Chief Vows Action 
against IRS Quotas. Top Official Offers a Mea Culpa. That is an 
apology, I guess, for the IRS, for the collection abuses and for a 
system again that targets individual American taxpayers and sets out 
quotas, if one can imagine, for IRS collection agents.
  We are trying desperately to reform the IRS, as I said earlier today, 
into an agency that treats taxpayers with the respect and provides them 
with the service that they deserve. But, instead, the President is 
throwing up roadblocks in our way, defending the indefensible, standing 
up for the current system, and using scare tactics to frighten the 
American people about what would happen if we move the country in the 
direction of a fairer, flatter, and simpler tax system.
  Now we are attempting to initiate a national discussion about either 
replacing the current income tax with a national sales tax, a tax on 
consumption, or a flat tax. We believe that is the way to go. Both of 
these plans would be simpler and fairer than the current code, the 
system that the President is defending.

  I will tell you, I personally object when the President uses language 
like reckless, misguided, and irrelevant. I will tell you, I will tell 
the President, I will tell my colleagues who support the President's 
position on this what Jack Farris said, the President of the National 
Federation of Independent Business, an organization of small businesses 
around the country trying to garner one million signatures on a pledge 
to replace the current tax system and scrap the Tax Code, which would 
end the IRS as we know it. It is a death sentence for the current Tax 
Code by the year 2001. Mr. Farris said, in response to the President, 
what is irrelevant is a 500-million-word Tax Code that is antiwork, 
antisaving, and antifamily.
  One of our former colleagues, now Senator Tim Hutchinson from 
Arkansas, was quoted as saying yesterday, with less than 6 weeks left 
before Americans must file their tax returns, President Clinton has 
shown himself to be out of touch with the plight of the American 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, we definitely need to move the country in a direction of 
a Tax Code and tax system that would change the current disincentive in 
the system that favors spending and consumption over savings and 
investment. This comment, this approach of the President of disparaging 
the free enterprise system is not going to work. We need to revive our 
Tax Code in order to move the country in a direction of a fairer, 
simpler system and to maintain our national prosperity.

                          ____________________