[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 79 (Wednesday, June 17, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4654-H4677]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        TAX CODE TERMINATION ACT

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 472, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 3097) to terminate the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill is considered read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 3097 is as follows:

                               H.R. 3097

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Tax Code Termination Act''.

     SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986.

       (a) In General.--No tax shall be imposed by the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986--
       (1) for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2001, 
     and
       (2) in the case of any tax not imposed on the basis of a 
     taxable year, on any taxable event or for any period after 
     December 31, 2001.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to taxes 
     imposed by--
       (1) chapter 2 of such Code (relating to tax on self-
     employment income),
       (2) chapter 21 of such Code (relating to Federal Insurance 
     Contributions Act), and
       (3) chapter 22 of such Code (relating to Railroad 
     Retirement Tax Act).

     SEC. 3. NEW FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM.

       (a) Structure.--The Congress hereby declares that any new 
     Federal tax system should be a simple and fair system that--
       (1) applies a low rate to all Americans,
       (2) provides tax relief for working Americans,
       (3) protects the rights of taxpayers and reduces tax 
     collection abuses,
       (4) eliminates the bias against savings and investment,
       (5) promotes economic growth and job creation, and
       (6) does not penalize marriage or families.
       (b) Timing of Implementation.--In order to ensure an easy 
     transition and effective implementation, the Congress hereby 
     declares that any new Federal tax system should be approved 
     by Congress in its final form no later than July 4, 2001.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in House Report 105-580 
is adopted.

[[Page H4655]]

  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Tax Code Termination Act''.

     SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986.

       (a) In General.--No tax shall be imposed by the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986--
       (1) for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2002, 
     and
       (2) in the case of any tax not imposed on the basis of a 
     taxable year, on any taxable event or for any period after 
     December 31, 2002.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to taxes 
     imposed by--
       (1) chapter 2 of such Code (relating to tax on self-
     employment income),
       (2) chapter 21 of such Code (relating to Federal Insurance 
     Contributions Act), and
       (3) chapter 22 of such Code (relating to Railroad 
     Retirement Tax Act).

     SEC. 3. NEW FEDERAL TAX SYSTEM.

       (a) Structure.--The Congress hereby declares that any new 
     Federal tax system should be a simple and fair system that--
       (1) applies a low rate to all Americans,
       (2) provides tax relief for working Americans,
       (3) protects the rights of taxpayers and reduces tax 
     collection abuses,
       (4) eliminates the bias against savings and investment,
       (5) promotes economic growth and job creation, and
       (6) does not penalize marriage or families.
       (b) Timing of Implementation.--In order to ensure an easy 
     transition and effective implementation, the Congress hereby 
     declares that any new Federal tax system should be approved 
     by Congress in its final form no later than July 4, 2002.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) 
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each will control 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning).


                             General Leave

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 3097.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to open the debate on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the Federal income tax system is broken beyond repair. 
We cannot tinker with it any longer and make it work any better. We 
need to wholesale reform and totally overhaul the system.
  There are two basic elements that are absolutely necessary for a 
Federal tax system. It must be understandable, and it must be fair. As 
it now stands, our Federal income tax fails badly on both counts.
  Our Tax Code has become so complex that no one can understand it. 
When tax experts cannot agree on how much an American taxpayer owes, 
how can we expect the average taxpayer to understand it?
  This complexity is expensive. It costs over $300 billion a year for 
taxpayers to comply with the Tax Code. That is money that is totally 
wasted. It does not benefit government or increase funding for 
essential services. It does not benefit the private sector or create 
investment, develop jobs, or improve the quality of life. It is just 
money down the drain. It is a crime.
  Our Tax Code is unfair. We have focused a great deal of attention 
this year on the marriage penalty, but this is just one of hundreds of 
inequities in the existing law.
  Over the years, Congress has created a hodgepodge of loopholes and 
arcane tax incentives, most of which were well-intentioned. But when 
you take them altogether and weed them into a 5\1/2\ million word tax 
code, it creates such a mess that only the very wealthy have the 
ability to take advantage of them. That creates unfairness. As a 
result, the American people have lost confidence in their tax system.
  Incremental change is not enough. We have tried that. It has resulted 
in failure and more complexity. We need real reform, a total overhaul 
of the Tax Code. We need to restore that confidence.
  That is what this bill is all about. It simply says that the sun will 
set on the Internal Revenue Code as we know it on December 31, 2002. It 
gives Congress 3 years to debate and develop a new tax system.
  It would simply force Congress to do in a timely manner what we need, 
no, what needs to be done, to pull the Federal income tax code out by 
its roots and replace it with an income tax system that is fair and 
understandable. This bill will help us do that. I urge my colleagues to 
support and vote for H.R. 3097.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, this is a historic moment in the history 
because of our Congress, because I do not think that we will ever live 
to see a more irresponsible act committed by any Member of Congress.
  I know that this is an election year and so some leeway has to be 
given to the majority because, unfortunately, there is no institutional 
memory of them having passed any legislation this year. Being a 
politician myself, I can understand how they would like to capture the 
voters' imagination by doing something dramatic.
  But just to abolish the Tax Code, just to say that, by the year 2002, 
no tax shall be imposed by the Internal Revenue code, what a gift to 
give the American people. You will not have to pay any taxes until the 
Republicans, and do not laugh, until the Republican majority comes up 
with an idea as to how they are going to replace it.
  Let us think this one out. Who has been in charge for the last 3 
years? Who had the majority? Who had the opportunity, really, to 
substitute this complex mess that they talk about? But rather than to 
come together, as if that is possible, with some type of a meaningful, 
fair tax code that would increase economic productivity for our great 
Nation and to continue to propel the prosperity that President Clinton 
has brought to us, they would rather just pull up the Tax Code by the 
roots.
  I assume that, while they are pulling it up by the roots, that this 
800 pages of what they call a tax bill last year is mere fertilizer for 
the Tax Code that they are going to bring to us. Where are these great 
ideas that you have?
  Should the American people not have some idea as to where do you meet 
to come up with a new code? Years ago, Members would go to the 
Committee on Ways and Means. Now we go to the Committee on Rules. We 
have people just telling us what they are going to end, but no one is 
there to tell us what they are going to start.
  I have served on the Committee on Ways and Means for two decades. 
Every year, we had a tax bill; some good, some bad. For the last 3 
years, we have not had anything that is coming up that is new.
  I want the Republicans to understand this, if they do not understand 
anything at all, they are in charge. They have a majority. They have 
the ability to call their troops together and vote for anything that 
they want, whether it is good or, in most cases, bad. But for God's 
sake, just with all due intention I did not bring the Bible, so I did 
not mean to say that, but for goodness sake, do not end something 
unless you tell the American people what do you intend to replace it 
with.
  We have business people that are planning now for the future. I would 
want them to call their Congressman, but since this issue is not being 
dealt with with the Congress, and since we do not know where the Tax 
Code is going to come from, and since the Committee on Ways and Means 
has lost jurisdiction, whoever meets with the Speaker should know what 
he is going to come up with.
  I would say, if people are planning for the future, whether they are 
going to have bonds out there, whether the States are going to have 
municipal bonds, where people want to know how to plan, call the 
Speaker, because I think he has some good ideas that he will not share 
with us.
  Second, if you are a hospital, church, synagogue, charitable 
organization, there is nothing in this bill that terminates that says 
you are going to be protected. I know the Republicans are going to 
protect them, so do not be afraid, but ask them how are they going to 
be protected.
  If we own a home and we have mortgage payments and we have been 
deducting them, we can deduct until the year 2000, and then we do not 
have to deduct anymore.

[[Page H4656]]

                              {time}  1245

  Now, I do not know what happens, but we can call the Speaker and he 
will tell us what plans he has for mortgage deductions. And I tell my 
colleagues that, as complicated as this bill is, as bad as the 
Republican passed tax bill is, at least we know what we got. The fear 
is what are they going to come up with when for 3 years they have not 
even come up with a good idea.
  So I do hope that in the course of this debate that someone would 
come up with some kind of a plan that would give us some idea as to 
what they are going to fill this vacuum with. But I think killing the 
IRS, pulling it up by the roots, that the American people deserve 
better than just a bumper sticker.
  And if people do not like paying taxes and they think this is the 
solution, then I beg the Democrats in the minority, if they can just 
pass a law to keep us from paying taxes, why can we not pass a law to 
stop people from paying their debts? Why not? And if we do not like 
that, let us pass a law to terminate cancer. Let us think of something 
more exciting than our irresponsible brothers and sisters over here, 
and we will just say that if anyone votes against it, it means they 
support cancer; if they vote against it, they support paying back 
debts.
  I am ashamed that this is happening in the House, but I know the 
United States Chamber of Commerce and the local Chambers of Commerce 
around this country will study this termination bill and I hope we hear 
from them much before the election.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), one of the authors of the bill, to respond.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker got one thing right, 
this is an historic moment. Understand, no one likes to be forced to do 
anything. My children do not like to be forced to make their bed and 
Congress certainly does not like to be forced to do anything. This bill 
simply does that, it forces Congress to quit talking about 
comprehensive tax reform and actually do something about it.
  And I would suggest to the previous speaker that maybe the reason he 
is in the minority and not in control is because it was his side that 
gave us this, the 6,200 pages that we currently know as the tax forms 
and instructions about how to file our tax returns today.
  And the gentleman is also right about another thing. The way it has 
always been done before is to go to the Committee on Ways and Means, in 
a small room in the back, and a few people decide about what the Tax 
Code should look like for the American people. What we are trying to do 
is to include all of the American people in the debate and in the 
discussion and in coming up with a comprehensive tax reform that is 
written not by a few people on the Committee on Ways and Means but is a 
consensus opinion of the American people and the business people in the 
communities around the country, the people that are suffering through 
5.4 billion hours filing their tax return every year at a cost of 
somewhere over $200 billion just simply to comply with the current Tax 
Code.
  So the gentleman is right, we are trying to do it differently, we are 
trying to make sure it does not happen in the Speaker's room or in the 
Committee on Ways and Means but in the living rooms of the American 
people in this country, where they have a voice in the way their 
government writes a new comprehensive tax law.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say to the 
distinguished gentleman that he keeps referring to that pile there as 
being something that has been put together by the Democrats. When we 
had a debate on the rule, I thought he said that this 800 pound tax 
document was passed by the Republican majority and he voted for it. So 
I would be glad to go over there and just put this on that pile.
  The second thing is that, we do not have to be another tax expert to 
know that the Congress should not be having to be forced to do 
anything. The majority should not have to force themselves to be 
responsible. All they have to do is take their consensus from the 
people and pass a decent, respectable, fair and equitable progressive 
tax bill. They should not force themselves to do it; just do the right 
thing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Stark).
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  We have talked today about the asininity of this bill, the sheer 
folly, the sophomoric sort of approach. I guess I would remind the 
people that it is the Republicans that shut down the government several 
times because they were unable to come up with a budget. I would 
challenge any Republican who has an idea, much less an idea of what 
they would do just in the oft chance they fail to come up with a bill.
  And even if they were to come up with a bill, they are not telling us 
what happens, say, in health care, an issue which they postulate a good 
bit about and posture about. The Armey flat tax bill, which they might 
choose, imposes tax penalties on employers that provide health care 
benefits to their employees. The Tauzin retail sales tax bill imposes a 
sales tax on people when they pay for health insurance and health care. 
I wonder if that is what they intend to do.
  The Republicans voted to increase the rate at which self-employed 
people could deduct their health care. This will end that. I presume 
that they really do not care, as they have not in the past, about 
providing health care to the 45 million uninsured. I am sure that they 
do not want to help employers pay for it, because I think they are 
indifferent.
  I am not sure that anyplace in the King James version of the Bible it 
suggests that employers should pay for health care benefits or that we 
should insure people. Therefore, some Republicans will tend to ignore 
the suffering that people have for lack of health care. The basic fact 
is that this is sheer irresponsibility, obviously drafted by people 
with no understanding of business or the Tax Code or economics, some 
things that are important to having the country's economy function.
  One of the things that many of my colleagues on the Republican side 
have been very assertive of is States rights. But what they do not 
understand is that this would also destroy many States' ability to 
raise any revenue. Many States that have an income tax parallel or 
mirror the Internal Revenue Code. And if in fact, as their bill 
suggests, we would stop collecting funds in the year 2002, we would, 
therefore, put these States out of business. And we would not have, 
obviously, any Federal money to support them. So they are impacting 
many States. The unintended consequences of this bill are legion.
  So that I want to remind my friends and colleagues that no one 
suggests that we should not reform the Tax Code. The last major reform 
was led by Ronald Reagan, at his insistence. Much of what is stacked 
over on that table was Ronald Reagan's suggestion, which we passed. And 
it was not a bad bill, I might add. Now, we have no bill and we have a 
nonsensical campaign bumper sticker, and I hope we vote it down and do 
not see this kind of embarrassing legislation brought again.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Ms. Dunn).
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, after serving on the House Committee on Ways 
and Means for the past 3\1/2\ years, I am continuing to be amazed by 
the outrageous provisions that are involved in our current income Tax 
Code. In no small part, many of these provisions that are a function of 
the Tax Code have spiraled out of control. The irony is that while our 
Tax Code has just about 7 million words, it lacks two regular words, 
and those words, Mr. Speaker, are common sense.
  The current income tax system is far too complex and it is a source 
of utter frustration for millions of hardworking Americans and for 
their families. Over the past few years I have heard from thousands of 
constituents in my district alone and they have talked to me about 
hundreds of problems they have experienced with the system of taxation. 
A common theme, as we all know, has been the intrusive nature of the 
Internal Revenue Service. I believe it is time for this issue to be 
brought out of America's kitchen and on to the committee calendars of 
the Congress.

[[Page H4657]]

  Money magazine last year reported that not one of 45 professional tax 
preparers could accurately compute a hypothetical family's tax return. 
Fewer than one in four came within even $1,000 of the correct figure. 
How can we expect average citizens to comply with a code when licensed 
professionals, who have spent years studying the system, cannot even 
get it right.
  Not only this, but the cost of compliance for the average family is 
horrendous. Each year Americans devote 8 to 10 billion hours complying 
with our Tax Code. This amounts to over 5 million Americans working all 
year long, the equivalent of the entire work force of my State, 
Washington State, of Iowa and Maine. The cost of complying totals about 
$200 billion annually, or $700 for each, man, woman and child in 
America.
  These are just the numbers associated with following the law. The 
income tax system involves a number of other costs, including those 
associated with enforcement and collection, as well as the cost of tax 
litigation.
  Sunsetting the code will work. President Clinton described this plan 
as reckless or irresponsible. Actually, as the President should know, 
it is common practice. Major Federal Government programs, such as 
spending on highways, education and agriculture, regularly expire and 
are rewritten in 5-year increments. This is a strategy also used by the 
States, who understand that change will not occur unless they break 
through the gridlock. This is exactly how this legislation to sunset 
the Tax Code will work.
  There is a national debate going on outside the Congress, Mr. 
Speaker, on the direction of the Tax Code. We have a terrific 
opportunity here today to improve the Federal system of corporate and 
personal income taxation in a manner that will both significantly 
improve the economic performance of our Nation and substantially reduce 
the compliance and administrative burden on American families. By 
scrapping this code, we will bring this debate into focus and force 
ourselves to discuss this issue. I urge its support.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it is really hard to come down here and 
be serious about this kind of thing. No one likes to pay taxes, no one 
likes to have to sit down once a year and send money to the government 
to run it, but what we have today, in an effort to tap voter discontent 
by the Republicans, is a cheap campaign prop. This is a bumper strip we 
are doing today, that is why it is only about two sentences long.
  In order to take this seriously, we have to go back to a satirist who 
used to write for the Baltimore Sun by the name of H. L. Mencken. H. L. 
Mencken called the American public ``Boobis Americanus''. That is, they 
are all stupid. Now, in order for my colleagues to come with a bill 
like this, they have to think the American people are stupid; that they 
simply do not know what is going on. If we say to the American people 
that right now we spend $1,200,000,000 and we are going to wipe all 
that out and we are going to get it from somewhere else; now, where are 
they going to get it from? The moon? Or from somebody else? This sounds 
like a bill based on the Senator Long theory of, ``Don't tax you, don't 
tax me, tax that guy behind a tree.''
  The American public knows there has to be a Tax Code if we are going 
to have the kinds of goods and services that we want in this country: 
Social Security, Medicare, highways, national defense. My colleagues 
are not going to get rid of the money. They simply are creating the 
illusion for people that they will come up with a Tax Code that will 
not tax them, it will tax somebody else.
  Well, how stupid do my colleagues think the American people really 
are? They know that their deduction for their interest on their house 
they get now. My colleagues are not guaranteeing them anything on their 
house. My colleagues are not guaranteeing that their employer can 
deduct paying for health care for them. The average employer today, if 
he spends $100 on health insurance, actually costs him $65. If we 
repeal the code, it costs $120.
  Now, I know my colleagues will say, oh, we are going to take care of 
that. Well, if my colleagues are going to take care of it, why do they 
not put a proposal out here to simply say that they are going to wipe 
out the code and come back some day, some uncertain time?
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) raised another issue which 
my colleagues really are not thinking about. The Republicans are 
creating chaos in this country, in the business community planning. No 
businessman can plan 3 years out.

                              {time}  1300

  The problem with us is we plan 2 years out. Business plans 5, 10, 20. 
They want chaos. This is a bad piece of legislation.
  Seeking to tap into voter discontent about the complexity of the tax 
code, the Republican leadership today is disregarding the major issues 
confronting our nation in order to turn the House Floor into a cheap 
campaign prop. So while this bunch wastes your tax dollars by ranting, 
raving and campaigning about how they want to ``rip the tax code up by 
its roots''--without having any idea what tax system they want to 
replace it with--I am going to talk about what impact this rhetoric 
will have on real people. In particular, what this extremist 
legislation will mean to the ability of Americans to purchase 
affordable health care.
  Before I begin, it is important to note that the same people in the 
Republican majority currently peddling this ``scrap the code'' 
rhetoric, just last fall voted to add hundreds of new pages to the tax 
code and a myriad of new complex tax computations. Because of last 
year's tax law, this bunch added 35 new lines alone to taxpayers 
capital gains tax forms. So, keep that in mind that when you hear this 
bunch talk about tax simplicity--they are the ones who 6 months ago 
made the tax system a whole lot more complex.
  Most disturbing in their ``scrap the code'' rhetoric is the proposal 
to establish a rhetorically pleasing, yet critically flawed ``flat 
tax.'' This plan is often criticized because of its substantial revenue 
losses, its unfair redistribution of the tax burden, and its 
elimination of subsidies for home ownership.
  This push for the flat tax may help Republicans at the polls, but for 
the millions of American workers who need affordable health insurance, 
the flat tax is disastrous. While not necessarily ``news'' to the 42 
million uninsured and the 29 million more who are underinsured in this 
country, there is no question that the group of workers and early 
retirees who will get hurt by the flat tax are the same ones who are 
currently being threatened by rising health costs in this country.
  A recent study by the National Coalition for Health Care found that 
between 1985 and 1997, the cost of health care doubled and it is 
expected to double again in the next decade. Next year alone, health 
premiums are estimated to rise between 5 and 10 percent--a rate at 
least twice that of the increase in benefits and wages. The number of 
uninsured in this country will exceed 42 million next year and by 2005, 
it is estimated that one in five Americans under the age of 65 will be 
without health insurance.
  The impact passage of the flat tax will have on worker's health 
insurance would be devastating. Under current law, there are 
substantial income tax incentives for employer-provided health 
benefits, with additional tax-benefits available to the self-employed 
who purchase health insurance. Employer-provided health benefits are 
exempt from income tax, Social Security, and Medicare employment taxes. 
For example, under the current system, the after-tax cost to an 
employer that provides $100 in health benefits to their employees is 
$65. Yet, the flat-tax plan destroys this health insurance incentive by 
increasing the employer's after-tax cost to $120.
  Under the flat tax's domestic business tax, amounts paid for non-cash 
fringe benefits, such as health care, are not deductible. As a result, 
the plan would impose an onerous tax penalty on employers providing 
health benefits. This legislation goes a step further by including a 
new tax on tax-exempt charitable organizations and Federal, State, and 
local governments equal to 20 percent of the amount paid for health 
benefits for their workers.
  Health benefits to retired workers will also decline. Many companies 
have large and burdensome liabilities for retiree health benefits and 
in recent years, those same companies have tried to limit benefits.
  The likely response from employers to the flat tax's tax penalties 
will be a significant reduction in health care benefits available to 
its current, future, and retired workers. Just last year, MIT economist 
James Poterba warned that ending the tax preference for employers who 
provide health insurance would cause the number of American families 
without health insurance to increase by 20 percent!
  In fact, such a decline in employer-provided health benefits should 
not surprise anyone familiar with the history of the flat tax.

[[Page H4658]]

  When the Kemp Commission first proposed adoption of the flat tax, 
even the Health Insurance Association of America--the same group that 
spent millions of dollars to kill expansion of health care coverage in 
1994 and is on the verge of spending millions more to kill managed care 
safeguards--warned ``one of the unintended consequences of eliminating 
the exclusion for health insurance premiums is likely to be a rapid 
increase in the number of people without private health insurance 
coverage.''
  If you want to terminate the tax code, it is vital that you 
understand the ramifications of each remedy. There's no question that 
ripping away crucial tax incentives will increase the cost of health 
care in this country.
  I find it amazing that instead of finding ways to improve the 
quality, affordability, and availably of health insurance, the Majority 
is using its control of Congress to make America's health care problems 
worse.
  Before you jump on the ``scrap the code'' bandwagon, think, for a 
second, abut what this legislation will mean to the affordability of 
health car for America's workers, their families, and their employers. 
Unfortunately, it's clear form this debate that all this bunch is 
interested in doing is devaluing the legislative process of our 
democracy in order to create a simplistic bumper-sticker slogan in time 
for November's elections.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, our tax system hangs like an albatross around the neck 
of the American taxpayer, stifling savings and productive investment, 
and arbitrarily punishing or subsidizing activity and making the 
process of paying taxes nightmarishly complex even for those of modest 
means.
  In my view, the time has come to replace our current tax system. But 
we will never do it unless we overcome the inertia of the legislative 
process, unless we override the influence of the entrenched special 
interests who have a stake in the complexity of the Tax Code and who 
savor gridlock on this issue, and unless and until we force the issue 
and put everyone's feet to the fire.
  We propose to do that today. I rise in strong support of the Tax Code 
Termination Act, legislation that will finally give American taxpayers 
a solid time line for fundamental tax reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been a strong advocate of replacing our current 
Tax Code with a system that is fairer, radically simpler, eliminates 
the bias against savings, and will allow the U.S. to be more 
competitive internationally. I am prepared to accept the challenge of 
the gentleman from California to put forward my proposal this year. But 
replacing the Tax Code will be an enormous undertaking, and the time 
line for consideration should not be put off one more day.
  I challenge my colleagues, if they do not believe we can replace the 
current Tax Code with something simpler and fairer that will meet the 
needs of the American public, then vote against this bill. If they feel 
that any tax reform inevitably is going to be an improvement, as I do, 
vote for this legislation and put our feet to the fire.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the current Tax Code 
and in support of comprehensive reform of our Federal tax system.
  I, too, agree that our Federal tax system is too complex, it is not 
efficient, it costs our taxpayers too much to comply with it, it is not 
sensitive for savings, we rely too much on income taxes. But the 
legislation before us is one of the strangest notions I have 
encountered in the 12 years I have served in this body.
  The bill is a result of frustration in our current tax structure, and 
it tells a Congress in the future to do something about it. We have had 
4 years under Republican leadership to try to do something about our 
Tax Code. In this term, I thought we were going to do something.
  Last year, in a bipartisan way, we joined Democrats and Republicans 
to reform the Internal Revenue Service. We thought that bill would pass 
last year. It is still lingering within a conference committee. If we 
want to do something, why are we not using the time today to at least 
reform the IRS and deal with the tax collecting agency? But instead, 
no, we are debating some myth about what we are going to do in the 
future. It is outrageous.
  It is not even a fig leaf. We have not had a hearing on this 
proposal. We do not know what it is all about. Why are we not debating 
specific proposals on this floor?
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Baltimore Sun, my local paper, I 
authored an article about why I thought a VAT tax is better than a flat 
tax and why we do not need a corporate income tax and we should be 
encouraging more savings. Why are we not having that proposal on the 
floor today and debating? Why is the Republican leadership not giving 
the American public real reform rather than bringing up a hope of what 
is going to happen 4 years from now, causing all types of panic about 
people trying to plan for their futures.
  People are trying to figure out how to save for their retirement. 
They want to know what the tax rules are going to be. And we are going 
to tell them, we are going to change them, but we are not going to tell 
them what it is going to be? How irresponsible. How wrong.
  Use the time we have. This schedule this year has been embarrassing. 
We have not been here most of the time. Why are we not using the time 
this year to have a serious debate on tax reform rather than bringing 
up this sham?
  It is wrong. They know it is wrong. This is not the right way to go. 
I urge my colleagues to defeat the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the current tax code, and in 
support of a real debate on comprehensive reform of the federal tax 
system.
  The legislation before us is one of the strangest notions I have 
encountered in the twelve years I have served in this House. The bill 
is the result of frustration with the current tax system. Normally, 
when members of Congress seek to change existing law, they introduce 
legislation to make the changes they support.
  But this bill doesn't do that. We are here, in the 105th Congress, 
debating a bill that says that the tax code is such a mess that the 
107th Congress should do something about it.
  That's not a serious proposal for simplifying the tax code. Instead 
of real tax reform, it is just an empty promise.
  Yesterday, the op-ed page of the Baltimore Sun, my home town 
newspaper, printed my article titled ``Why a VAT tax is better than a 
flat tax.''
  The article presented my view that we should replace the existing tax 
code with a broad-based consumption tax, and relieve 75 million 
Americans of the burden of the individual income tax. I support repeal 
of the corporate income tax. Some members of the House will agree with 
my position; others will disagree.
  We should begin this debate now, rather than putting it off until the 
year 2002. We need to reform the tax code, and when we have done our 
jobs, and written a tax code that does not punish the American people, 
I will be proud to join in voting to sunset the existing code. Until 
then, Mr. Speaker, this process is nothing but talk.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
  (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have had hearings, and 2\1/
2\ years ought to be long enough for the people of the United States to 
speak and determine what tax they want.
  The current Tax Code is complex, confusing, corrupt, costly, 
coercive, and a lot of other Cs that I cannot think of. But so far 
there is a lot of talk and no action. When it comes to tax reform, a 
sunset date will force us to take action and relieve the American 
taxpayer.
  We ought to also repeal the 16th Amendment of the Constitution, and I 
have introduced a bill to do such a thing, the Tax Freedom Act. It 
outlaws Congress' ability to collect taxes on income except in time of 
war. Both these bills accomplish one common goal. No matter whether you 
support a flat tax, consumption tax, value-added tax, national sales 
tax, blue, black, brown, whatever, the common goal is replacing the 
current complicated Tax Code.
  Fundamental and comprehensive tax reform will be one of the most 
profound changes this Nation experiences this century. The Tax Code 
Termination Act brings us one step closer to achieving that change and 
restoring freedom to the American taxpayer.
  Americans want, need, and deserve to get rid of IRS oppression. We 
have been

[[Page H4659]]

talking about tax reform for years. Mr. Speaker, it is time to quit 
talking and start action, and this bill does just that.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am reminded that when Dr. Frankenstein 
created his monster, he went immediately to trying to get rid of it. 
And, so, as the Republicans pass this tax bill, this is the same bill 
they want to pull up and pull up by the roots.
  Gentlemen, it is your bill. Do with it what you want.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly).
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong 
opposition to this legislation to terminate the Internal Revenue Code 
without replacing it with a system that is fairer, that is simpler, and 
encourages economic growth.
  I come from a State, a small State, Connecticut. But in that State, 
we have 18 of the Fortune 500 companies. Now, I can just imagine a 
conversation between a CEO and a board of directors when they hear that 
this bill is passed, because he or she would have to explain to the 
respective boards of directors how millions, and in some cases 
billions, in assets will disappear from their corporate balance sheets 
because of this legislation.
  The chief financial officer will have to explain there is nothing 
that can be done to prevent this because the Congress passed a bill to 
eliminate the Code and did not replace it with anything. And as a 
result of this bill, excess foreign tax credits would disappear, 
reducing the company's net worth.
  As we all know, foreign tax credits are carried as assets in today's 
corporate balance sheets. As a result of this bill, the corporate 
alternative minimum tax credit carried forward would disappear, 
reducing the company's net worth. Of course, as we know, the corporate 
alternative minimum tax credits are carried as assets on today's 
balance sheets.
  And as a result of this bill, research and experimentation credits 
would disappear, because as we know, R&E credits are carried as assets 
and those would just go away.
  As a result of this bill, deferred tax assets representing retiree 
health obligations would disappear, reducing the company's net worth. 
Not to mention providing retiree health benefits would then disappear 
because they could not write them off.
  The Financial Standards Accounting Board happens to require companies 
to charge retiree health obligations against current earnings. Retiree 
health obligations are deductible when actually paid. These deductions 
carried on today's corporate balance sheets are deferred tax assets. 
They would disappear.
  And as a result of this bill, operating loss carried forward would 
disappear, reducing the company's net worth. Net operating loss carried 
forward are carried as assets on today's corporate balance sheets.
  Unfortunately, many of these CEOs are going to find themselves 
explaining more than one of these things. In a few cases, the loss of 
the impact on these changes on the balance sheets could result in a 
profitable company losing all their positive net worth. Because this is 
the fact of the Code as it exists today, and if we do not replace it 
with something, all these things happen.
  I thought the majority in this Congress was opposed to takings. But, 
as I read this list, I guess not. But it gets worse.
  While the CEO needs to explain to the board that the business plan is 
no longer operative, the small businessman finds he is facing the same 
problem. A businessman or businesswoman would have to realize the rate 
of return on capital can no longer be projected.
  She has no idea how the company should calculate labor costs. She has 
no idea how to determine the most efficient financing mechanism for the 
new building that they will have purchased. They have no idea of the 
period over which the new equipment could be depreciated. I wonder how 
many CEOs would lose their jobs or how many small businesses would go 
out of business.
  It is because of these concerns, very real concerns, and I have been 
on the Committee on Ways and Means for now 13 years, that the National 
Association of Manufacturers are opposed to this bill.
  The Internal Revenue Code is far from perfect. We all know it. But if 
we are going to eliminate it, replace it with something that is 
simpler, fairer, and encourages economic growth. That is all we ask 
today. Do the whole job, not just half of it.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Dan Schaefer).
  (Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, if we would listen to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly), who just spoke, what we would have to 
believe is that the business world did not exist prior to the invention 
of the Internal Revenue Tax Code; that corporations offer health care 
only because they get a tax deduction; without the tax deduction, there 
would be no compassion on the part of the owner to the worker; and that 
all of the complications that a CEO would have to deal with, in fact 
jeopardizing their job, are essential to running a business.
  What in the world did business do before there was an Internal 
Revenue Service?
  Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, during my 15 years here in 
the House, literally thousands of taxpayers have contacted me to 
express their frustration with the current code that we have.
  The Tax Code is so complicated that even those who call themselves 
tax experts cannot figure it out. Let me give my colleagues a good 
example.
  Last November, Money Magazine gave 45 accountants nationwide a 
financial profile of a fictional family and asked them to prepare a 
hypothetical tax return. Not only did all 45 come up with different 
answers, but the computed tax liability ranged from $36,000 to $94,000.
  No one knows whether they are illegal or not illegal anymore when 
they file their returns. Today, the average family pays more in taxes 
than it spends on food, clothing, and shelter combined. As a whole, 
Americans will spend at least $200 billion and over $5 billion 
complying with the income tax this year alone. This is more time than 
it takes to produce every car, truck, and van in the United States each 
year.
  Tracking all this paperwork requires the Internal Revenue Service, 
five times larger than the Federal Bureau of Investigation. And unlike 
the FBI, the IRS's power is nearly absolute. It may search our property 
and records without a court order. And although both the House and 
Senate have overwhelmingly passed substantial IRS reform bills, I do 
not believe that that alone will prove successful.
  Over the past several years, I have talked to audiences nationwide 
about the case of replacing the Federal income tax with a national 
sales tax. Two years ago we introduced the National Retail Tax Act of 
1996, and just last year reintroduced it again in H.R. 2001. This 
legislation is going to abolish the IRS completely, eliminate corporate 
taxes, gift taxes, capital gains tax, inheritance taxes, gift taxes, 
and all excise taxes unless they are tied to a trust fund.
  I think this is the way to do it. Let us for once take the power of 
taxation away from Congress, give it to the American people, and let 
then decide. And once and for all, let us eliminate 8,000-plus pages in 
the Tax Code and replace it with a Tax Code that is going to say April 
15 is another bright, spring day.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow).
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge a no vote on the 
bill, but to first indicate that I have voted for IRS reform that we 
are still waiting to pass this Congress. I support real tax reform. And 
I would even support a deadline if there were alternatives proposed by 
the other side, by the majority, that were good for hard-working men 
and women in my district.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. Speaker, before coming to Congress, I served for 16 years on the 
tax and finance committees in the Michigan legislature. I supported and 
sponsored numerous tax cut bills. But in

[[Page H4660]]

each case, they were making things better for the middle-class 
families, family farmers and small business people that I represented. 
Unfortunately in this case, the alternatives proposed by the majority 
are even worse, even more unfair than the current system. For instance, 
a national retail sales tax, which is also a use tax on professionals 
and entrepreneurs, would, according to the tax analysts, raise the cost 
of buying goods and services something close to 30 percent when all is 
figured. Houses, cars, food, prescription drugs for our senior 
citizens, on and on. Insurance premiums. It goes on and on. In addition 
to that, it would tax doctor's visits. It would tax accountant's 
visits. It would create a situation where every small business person 
and entrepreneur in my district, every professional, would have to 
become a tax collector. I do not call that better than what we have 
right now. Let us really fix it and really do something that is better 
by proposing a real alternative. In addition, the flat taxes that have 
been proposed by the other side just shift from wealthy individuals to 
the middle-class families in my district.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to see something simpler. I want to see reform. 
But let us do it in a way that does not involve the proposals coming 
from the other side which are not good certainly for the people that I 
represent in Michigan.
  I would urge a ``no'' vote on the bill. I would urge my colleagues 
instead to do what we did last year. Let us join together in a 
bipartisan way. We passed a balanced budget amendment. We passed tax 
cuts last year. Let us join together and create real reform for the 
real hard-working families, middle-class Americans that deserve the 
relief in this country.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
the Tax Code Termination Act. I have been in favor of scrapping this 
code and starting over for a long time. I am one of the few Members of 
this body that is a certified public accountant that has actually done 
tax returns for a living and have lived with this code for a long time.
  This Congress, under both parties, has contributed to this problem. 
The people on my side of the aisle might have a good point. I say to 
them that if they do not like this method of trying to get at this 
problem, then put something else forward.
  I think it makes sense for us to come up with a date certain. We did 
that when we balanced the budget and it helped us focus our attention. 
We have a date certain on when we are going to overhaul this Tax Code. 
I think it helps us. But, as I have said, I have been for reforming 
this system ever since 1986 when, under the guise of tax 
simplification, we passed a bill which I think was arguably the worst 
piece of legislation that has ever been passed in this Congress. We 
made it worse in 1990, and we made it worse last year when they passed 
the 1997 tax act to the point where my partner, who is still doing tax 
returns, told me this weekend that this is so complicated that he does 
not think he can any longer do a tax return by hand. The only way he 
can do a tax return is if he has a computer to be able to make all 
these computations and go back and forth.
  Mr. Speaker, this code has gotten completely out of hand. It needs to 
be simplified. It is not happening under the current process. I am not 
sure this is the best process in the world but it is the only thing we 
have in front of us today. I am in favor of overhauling the code. I 
think the way we do that is we start from scratch, with a clean slate, 
and then try to build up something that is simpler and makes more 
sense. I support this bill and encourage everybody's support.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the proposal 
today; however, I do support simplifying the Tax Code.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are involved in this afternoon is a new form of 
roulette. This afternoon we are playing Gingrich roulette. I say to all 
Members, it is a most dangerous game.
  Mr. Speaker, I happen to serve on the Committee on Ways and Means. 
This bill comes before us with no hearings, no committee deliberations, 
no contingency plans should we not have a new Tax Code ready by July 4, 
2002. So what we are doing is we are just shooting in the wind, hoping 
that Congress can develop a whole new Tax Code that is better than the 
current system.
  Let us talk about the current system for a moment. The gentleman from 
Oklahoma brings forth the 6,000 pages that he claims to be the Tax 
Code. Where does he think that came from? How many pages of that Tax 
Code give tax relief to my constituents? Oh, some do. There are some 
child credit tax provisions in there, there are some earned income tax 
credit provisions in there, but know full well the bulk of that 
document you have before the House today is there for the benefit of 
the moneyed special interests in this country.
  How many pages did Ronald Reagan and his 8 years add to the Code? Of 
the 6,000, I will bet 2,000. How many did President Bush and his 
administration add to the Code? Probably more than one thousand. But no 
Republicans are coming up and decrying those enormous and complex 
additions to the Tax Code. Why? Because all that is good Tax Code. It 
is good Tax Code because many of those provisions apply to your 
constituents.
  While I am talking about your constituents, let me congratulate you 
on a very successful fund-raiser last night. Mr. Speaker, I am told 
that you folks raised in excess of $10 million last evening alone. All 
the wealthy people that showered you with that money were there because 
they were crying out for tax fairness? Who do you think you are 
kidding? Those folks who pumped $10 million into the coffers of the 
Republican Party are part and parcel of that Tax Code. And their 
presence last night to eat your chicken was a hearty thank-you. But now 
you stand before us cleansed and pure decrying, ``We don't like the Tax 
Code because it is too complex and too unfair.'' But what are you going 
to tell the folks when you go to your parades on July 4 and you see 
their little Johnny or Jane and you hug them and say, ``Your family 
will get an extra $400 for each of them because we passed a child tax 
credit for you.'' They say, ``Yeah, but you also passed this bill that 
will take the credit away from us. What's going to happen to the child 
credit in 2002?''
  ``I don't know.''
  How about the home mortgage deduction? Every constituent of yours 
that owns a home wants that deduction retained. They may ask the 
gentleman from Oklahoma, ``What is going to happen in 2002 with that?''
  ``I don't know.''
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know what you guys are doing here today. But, 
again, congratulations on the $10 million fundraiser last night. You 
did a good job.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. It is better 
than taking money from the Chinese government.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Metcalf).
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, this legislation defines the Republican 
commitment to reduction of the tax burden on working Americans and 
thereby taking a mighty step toward ensuring a brighter future for 
people of all income levels.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Tax Code Termination 
Act. This legislation will provide for the abolition of the current 
unfair and burdensome Tax Code by 2001. This legislation does not 
carelessly abolish our current structure. Instead, the legislation 
requires the enactment of a replacement code by Independence Day, and 
that is a fitting day for this, 2001, that will be a fairer, simpler 
tax and reduce the tax burden on all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, the current Tax Code has simply become too big and too 
complex to correct. You cannot fix it. All Members of the House should 
join us to replace the current Tax Code with a system that is fairer, 
less complicated and takes less money from working Americans.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, if there is anybody in this body that knows 
of anyone that has taken money from the government of China, they would 
be aiding and abetting and involved as an accomplice in a felony unless 
they reported it to our Attorney General.

[[Page H4661]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Matsui).
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is really hard to take this whole issue seriously 
this afternoon. We all know that it is not going to become law. It is 
going to pass out of the House but the Senate will not take action on 
it. That is why we are not seeing lobbyists clamber down on Capitol 
Hill. That is why we are not seeing letters to the editor. That is why 
we are seeing no stories in the major newspapers throughout the 
country. This is really a political opportunity for one of the parties. 
This is not going to become law. So it is really hard to get 
particularly pushed out of shape or excited or concerned about this. It 
is just not going to become law. Because the reality of the situation 
is that those that are advancing this particular proposal really in 
1997 added thousands of pages to the Tax Code. In fact, we have added 
in 1997 when the Republicans were in control of the Congress 285 new 
sections to the Tax Code, 824 new amendments to the Tax Code. This is 
just in 1 year. There are now five ways, five separate ways to do 
capital gains. In fact, Schedule D, which had 23 lines, now has 54 
lines, and it really does take H&R Block to really figure it out. The 
average person cannot do their taxes. Most of them do not have capital 
gains so they do not have to worry about it. In addition to that, there 
are now two different way to do IRAs, a back-ended way and a front-
ended way. In addition, you can convert over, but you better make sure 
you understand your economic situation before you do.
  We also have a number of different ways either to take a credit or a 
deduction if you are a student. Should the student take it? Should the 
student's parents take it? Should the grandparents take it? We have 
really added complexity to the Code. The 1997 bill was probably the 
worst tax bill the United States has ever had, because it added more 
complexity to the Code than we have had in the last 25 years. And so 
this is not a real exercise in good government. This is really a show 
game.
  I have to say that if it were taken seriously, I think people in this 
country today would be really concerned. You would have to say, shall I 
buy a house because I get a deduction on my home, and that is an 
incentive, that reduces my taxes. But obviously if we changed the Code 
or the Code is eliminated in 3 years, I may lose that deduction and all 
of a sudden I might not be able to make my monthly payments on my other 
expenses. But no one is saying that, because this is not a serious 
effort. It is really a shame. We are going to be in until midnight 
tonight and we are not going to take any really substantive action. The 
irony of it is that we have 13 appropriations bills that are supposed 
to pass, we have a budget, but we do not have it out of the House yet. 
Not one appropriations bill has been taken to this body. There has been 
no budget reconciled between the House and the Senate. It was supposed 
to be done on April 15. Here we are at June 17, 2 months later. It is 
amazing. It is absolutely amazing that we are wasting our time engaged 
in this kind of activity that has no relevance, no value and certainly 
it is something that is a political exercise that I think the American 
public will eventually get disgusted with.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hall).
  (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to be logical about this. I 
have thought a lot about it. I rise today in support of the Tax Code 
Termination Act. I rise at a time when we are doing better. We are 
doing better from the standpoint of economics. You can sell a piece of 
property now. People can find a job. We have got the lowest inflation. 
We have the lowest unemployment. Knowledgeable economists have told us 
that we have the best economy we have had since the late 1940s and 
early 1950s when we had the strongest financial position and strongest 
geopolitical position in the history of this country. So I guess you 
have to ask, why? Why are we where we are?
  I think the President, the present President thinks that he caused 
it. I think Mr. Dole probably think he did. I think Mr. Bush thinks it 
is something he put into motion. But really and truly I believe it is 
because we are just now getting over the lousy 1986 so-called Tax 
Reform Act.
  A lot of us have talked enthusiastically over the past few years 
about the need to replace our current tax with one that is more 
equitable, one that is more fair. Specific proposals for both a flat 
tax and a sales tax replacement have been debated throughout this 
country by proponents of these plans. A lot of us have signed on to 
both of these bills.
  The IRS administered Tax Code does not work. It has been the source 
of endless anguish, unfairness, confusion and the invasion of privacy 
for a lot of hard-working, well-intentioned Americans. In the interest 
of fairness, however, I must say it is only accurate to note that many 
hard-working and honest employees of the U.S. Treasury Department have 
been embarrassed and appalled by some of the testimony by their fellow 
employees during congressional hearings on IRS abuses. So I think they 
know from within that we need to do something about the Tax Code that 
we have. We have to recognize the fact that our Tax Code has 
facilitated, and in many cases encouraged outrageous abuses while 
escaping all attempts at reason and justice.
  The American people deserve the right to know when it will end. We 
need to be able to collectively undertake this important goal as 
opposed to a mere debate.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Houghton).
  (Mr. HOUGHTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take long here, but I do 
think that this is something which I would like to share an idea or two 
with my colleagues. Let me tell them a story.
  There was a man called Robert Ruark, and he wrote a story called 
``Something of Value'' which talked about the end of colonialism in 
Africa and the total chaos, and the reason there was chaos is that 
there was nothing to take the place of the old governments. And I think 
he said we could say as almost a general statement, ``When you take 
something away, you must be able to put something in its place.''
  Now I do not consider this a political argument at all. I consider 
this an argument of technique. Some people think that the idea of 
forcing an issue is the better way to get to an end rather than 
logically taking a look at what the steps are in order to get where we 
ultimately want to be.
  I do not think anybody is happy with this Tax Code. I do not think 
anybody is happy, as my colleagues know, really since the days of our 
Lord when the Publicans were running around. I say ``Publicans,'' not 
``Republicans,'' were going around and trying to collect taxes.
  But really the question is: What is out there? I think we must exert 
an element of judgment here.
  As my colleagues know, to force something without anything at the 
end, and let us say at the end of June in the year 2002 we have 
nothing; what do we do? Where do we go? How does somebody plan? Will 
there be Social Security? Will there be Medicare? Will there be 
anything else? No one really knows.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very high stakes game, and to use a technique 
of forcing something without any anything on the other end I think is 
highly irresponsible, and therefore I think it is a bad measure and 
something which we should vote against.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3097, the 
Tax Code Termination Act. I intend to vote for the passage of this 
legislation, not just because I am a cosponsor of the bill, but also 
because it makes sense. I have to just take exception with some 
statements by the speaker from California who talked about increasing 
people's taxes because of the possibility of not being able to deduct 
mortgage interest from their income and

[[Page H4662]]

charitable contributions. There is in no way an intention to increase, 
nor decrease, revenues to the Treasury of the United States by changing 
the Tax Code. We simply want to make it more fair, more equitable and 
simpler so that the American public can do their own taxes and 
understand exactly what they are doing.
  I am also glad that the fine gentleman from New York is on record as 
saying that if anyone did take money from the Chinese Government, that 
it would be a felony, and I know that when the time comes that he will 
see, if that is exposed, he will see that the full force of the law is 
enforced.
  Mr. Speaker, I recently held two public forums in my State of Wyoming 
on the Internal Revenue Service and the experiences that people have 
had, both good and bad. One person told us about having underpaid her 
taxes in the amount of 3 cents, and she received a bill for over $1400 
from the Internal Revenue Service. Time and time again I heard how the 
Internal Revenue Service abuses its power, and in lieu of attempting to 
work with people and provide some flexibility on how to address a 
certain tax problem the Internal Revenue Service seemed to always take 
a hard-line approach. Mr. Speaker, we can and should make the Internal 
Revenue Service personnel more accountable for their actions.
  Finally, the Tax Code must be simplified. The average person is 
increasingly frustrated with the time and expense involved in the 
preparation of their tax return.
  I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill, and I look 
forward to participating in the subsequent debates on how to address 
the challenge of replacing the current Tax Code.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself and others 
who feel as I do with the remarks which the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Houghton) made. I think what people want us to do is to act 
reasonably to try to make a fair Tax Code, to try to raise the revenues 
that are necessary to buy the aircraft carriers, and the planes and the 
tanks we need for our defense, to try to do some of the things that we 
spend money on in terms of helping all of us as American citizens 
whether it is roads and bridges and infrastructure, water and sewer 
systems, those things that we need to do as a government that private 
enterprise cannot do, and I think in the end they want us to behave 
reasonably.
  Now it is hard for me to understand why a bill that forces us, all of 
us, not just Members of Congress, all of us as citizens, to either, 1, 
say it is everyone for himself or herself from now until the year 2002, 
as this new code that we do not know what is going to look like is 
rewritten; or, 2, if we cannot come to closure, and, my lord, it is 
hard enough to reach a consensus on tinkering with it around here, and 
I am on the Committee on Ways and Means, I see it; if we cannot come to 
consensus, then what happens? Nobody knows. It would be hard for me to 
think we could sit here as American citizens and padlock the Pentagon 
so that whoever wants can come in here in the year 2002 and take 
whatever is left. I do not think that would happen, but who knows? If 
we cannot reach a consensus in June of 2002, what is the country going 
to do?
  Now I just do not think that this approach, as the gentleman from New 
York states it, I do not think that people who think about this and 
think it through believe that is reasonable to put a gun to the 
collective head of every citizen in this country between now and the 
year 2002 to say, ``You write the Tax Code.'' Gentlemen say, well, we 
are going to let the American people write it. Great. How they going to 
do that? They have got a gun to their head under this bill.
  Now later on the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) and myself and 
others are going to have a motion to recommit this as a resolution, a 
sense of Congress, that says the Committee on Ways and Means will go to 
work now by a day certain to come up with a Tax Code that does not 
endanger the balanced budget agreement we just worked so hard to reach. 
We would like to see that work and get us out of what has been an 
abysmal hole in the wall of debt that is fair, that is more simple, 
that encourages savings and investment to make our country stronger, 
that protects Social Security and those things we want, and to 
undertake hearings. Can my colleagues imagine it being reasonable to 
come and scrap the Tax Code without one single moment of hearing on 
this bill in the Committee on Ways and Means, the committee of 
jurisdiction? I just do not think it is reasonable, and for that reason 
I urge a no vote.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) the Majority Leader.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I suppose it would be fair to say that I, along with 
perhaps my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), have 
traveled more miles, visited more cities, spoken before more 
organizations and groups of people, talked to more individuals in the 
grocery stores and wherever we have been in America on this subject of 
tax reform than perhaps anybody. And what the gentleman from Louisiana 
will tell us and what I will tell our colleagues:
  In all of these miles and all of these meetings and all these 
discussions with all these thousands of people that we talk to there is 
one consensus that comes burning through. The current Tax Code is an 
abomination to the human spirit, it goes against everything that we 
think is important, necessary, beneficial, useful and healthy in the 
life of our family or our business, and we cannot and will not suffer 
it any longer, and we expect Congress to do something and do something 
about it now. They have had a great opportunity to look at what I have 
offered, the flat tax, or what the gentleman from Louisiana has 
offered, the flat sales tax, and there is a commanding concession, 
shows up in the polls, shows up in all our discussions, that one or the 
other, either of these would be a godsend and a relief by comparison to 
the current struggles had with the current Tax Code.
  Now what are we doing here today? We are saying to the American 
people, ``We offer you here a bill that expresses the resolve of the 
Congress of the United States to sunset this code that is driving you 
crazy, Mr. and Mrs. America, that costs you $200 billion in compliance 
costs, that costs the average small business in America today $4 in 
compliance costs for every dollar's worth of revenue that accrues to 
the American government and tears up your family life for at least 5 
months out of your year. But we will sunset that in the year 2002, and 
by a timetable stipulated in the bill the Congress of the United States 
working with the President will develop that replacement code.''
  Now let us suppose that we pass this legislation, let us suppose that 
the President signs this legislation, let us suppose that for the next 
year and a half or so we labor under this law, and let us suppose that 
Congress finds itself incapable of doing that. Congress then can come 
to the floor with a bill that says, ``Mr. and Mrs. America, we vote now 
to continue the existing code.'' How would my colleagues like to make 
that vote as a confession to the American people that after 2 years, 
2\1/2\ years, we are incapable of producing that new Tax Code? I do not 
think we want to make that vote. So what this says is Congress, having 
made this vote, will get down to business, get the job done. That is 
what is expected of us.
  Now one final point:
  The American people will tell us that the problem they have with the 
code is it is too intrusive. It governs the way they make decisions. 
They cannot make a decision in the family or in their business based on 
family, the financial economic criteria. They have to make decisions 
based on tax criteria, and it is a burden to them.
  And listen to the defense of the existing code in opposition to this 
initiative today. It is a validation of that argument. It is saying 
that if, in fact, we tell the American people they will not have this 
code, they will have another code in just a few short years, the 
American people are supposed to be people that would go into a frenzy 
of insecurity for they will not know how to make their decisions 
without this code. What could more validate their complaints?

[[Page H4663]]

  Let me suggest the spirit of the American people is quite different. 
The spirit of the American people will be we have got a promise to be 
relieved of this burden in our lives, we have a commitment, and we 
should plan for freedom, dignity, respect, honesty, fairness, 
simplicity, decency. We should plan on the day soon when the government 
of this country will finally know the goodness of the American people 
and have the decency to respect that in the manner in which they 
extract these necessary funds.
  I think we will not find an insecure American people. I think we will 
find an elated American people.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say to the majority leader that he has 
been providing such strong leadership for the last 3 years, and no one 
can doubt the leadership of the Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Gingrich). They have got outstanding leaders on that side of the 
aisle, intelligent, bright, creative people. Why should we believe, if 
they have not been able to come up with anything in 3 years, that they 
are going to come up with anything in the next 3 years, which of course 
assumes that my colleagues also know that they are going to retain the 
majority?
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for just a moment 
for a response since he directed the question to me?
  Mr. RANGEL. Always being the courteous one, Mr. Speaker, I yield to 
the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point the gentleman is 
making. I would just say to the gentleman the leadership this 
Republican majority has, I think gentleman is right, for too long too 
much occupied itself with trying to clean up the mess of the prior 40 
years, and it is now just time to cut the cancer out altogether and 
start afresh, and I appreciate his point.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California, (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our ranking member, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), for giving me the opportunity to 
speak in strong opposition to the Tax Code Termination Act, H.R. 3097. 
It is really difficult to believe that Republicans would actually 
submit this unworkable, impractical legislation.
  Yes, Democrats and Republicans have different values and support 
policies that have significant impacts which are different on all of 
us, but historically, legislation that has been introduced by a 
majority party most often has merited serious consideration, especially 
on controversial issues like taxes.
  It is important for all Americans to know that this extreme bill has 
had no committee deliberations, no hearings, and thus has had no input 
from Democrats and the public.
  Mr. Speaker, when I served on the Revenue and Taxation Committee in 
the California State Senate, one of our most important responsibilities 
was to determine the fiscal and economic impact of tax policy. 
Committee deliberation was an essential part of our responsibility as 
legislators.
  This bill to sunset the Tax Code cannot be serious. The impact of 
this bill, were it to pass, would make planning impossible for anyone 
who plans to make a financial transaction, such as selling a house. The 
bill sunsets most of the Tax Code effective in the year 2002, and there 
is no replacement tax system. Does our country actually need another 
threat such as this one?
  The bill could knock out municipal and State bonds which offer tax-
exempt status and are a significant part of our economy. School 
construction cannot be financed. Companies will not be able to make 
sound investment plans.
  This is not the way our democracy should work. Our work here has 
serious, profound consequences. So I ask that we defeat this obviously 
unworkable, foolish and foolhardy proposal.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth).
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise in strong support of the Tax Code Termination Act, a bill that 
would eliminate a 5.5 million word Tax Code, and it is time that we do 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting the debate that we hear, those who 
would defend the status quo and those who would say that there have not 
been any hearings held. I can tell my colleagues that there have been 
hundreds of my colleagues who have joined me in going across this 
Nation holding hearings, listening to the American people where they 
live and work and raise their families, and overwhelmingly we have 
heard that there is a sense of urgency in that we must make an 
immediate change.
  I commend the sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from Oklahoma, for 
his courage and his vision. I am very pleased to be an original 
cosponsor to this very necessary piece of legislation. Because indeed, 
if we do not hold some sort of a gun to this body's head, it will never 
change, because there are too many people willing to defend the status 
quo, to defend an Internal Revenue Service that breaks lives and breaks 
futures and breaks bank accounts.
  It is time that we break through the fear and intimidation that we 
are hearing from the other side and bring a sense of freedom and self-
determination back to the American people.
  What we intend to do, let me tell my colleagues, and the American 
people love it, is to shift power to the local and State governments. 
We are eliminating waste and curtailing the abuse of the Internal 
Revenue Service. We are eliminating an agency whose budget has tripled 
in the last 16 years, and yet failed a government audit because it 
could not account for hundreds of millions of dollars, and people in 
this body are trying to defend the status quo? I do not think so. This 
bill is necessary and it is timely.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I thank him for his leadership.
  The gentleman made a point earlier today about how easy it would be 
for legislators to take this political vote and eliminate the Tax Code. 
I would simply put it slightly differently. It is going to be easy for 
me to vote against it, because I represent working men and women.
  I represent those who benefited from the earned income tax credit of 
which we were very right to ensure that we protect those men and women 
who made under $30,000 a year. I would like to think that I represent 
men and women who go to work every day and want to ensure that their 
employer provides them with the kind of health care of which the Armey 
flat tax would eliminate and the Tauzin retail sales tax, which must be 
the result of eliminating the Tax Code. So I cannot afford to vote for 
this legislation, because I have to vote for health care.
  Frankly, as someone who believes in the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts 
and the United Way, I cannot afford to vote for a piece of legislation 
that eliminates and disregards all of the charitable donations that we 
give around this Nation.
  This is a frightening piece of legislation, and frankly, I think if 
the American people knew what we were doing here, they would be 
bombarding these chambers begging us not to do it.
  Then all of the homeowners, as I participated in the Habitat for 
Humanity this week, the largest project going on in Houston, Texas, and 
seeing their work and tears in the potential homeowner's eyes as they 
will pay their meager earnings to provide for a house, and we want to 
take away the homeownership deduction, the mortgage deduction. This is 
a frightening piece of legislation.
  I can only say that I understand the concerns about the Internal 
Revenue Service. I have legislation to make it a softer, nicer Internal 
Revenue Service, to eliminate the marriage penalty. But the American 
people realize that they want good health, they want a good 
environment, they want the Yellowstone Parks, as they venture out into 
the summer for their summer vacations; they want to be protected on the 
highways and byways.
  This is a bill that would cause a stampede to this Congress begging 
us

[[Page H4664]]

to vote ``no,'' and I am glad I will be standing with the American 
people. I will be voting ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Riley).
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Speaker, our Tax Code is a monstrosity. It is one that 
I do not believe can be tinkered with or reformed. It has become a 
Goliath that has to be slain. It is 17,000 pages, 5 and-a-half million 
words, and 3 times longer than our Bible. Our Tax Code is too 
complicated and it is far too complex. Even worse, it is unfair and 
counterproductive.
  Why? Because it penalizes the people of this country for being 
married; it penalizes them for working, for being productive, for 
saving. It even penalizes the people of this country for dying.
  Mr. Speaker, this is insane. It is time to scrap this code, and we 
have a bill before us today that will do just that. The Tax Code 
Termination Act will put an end to one of the largest, most complicated 
and detrimental tax systems in the world. This legislation will at 
least force Congress into a serious and open debate on the best way to 
replace this old Tax Code.
  Mr. Speaker, a vote against this bill is a vote for the same tax 
policies we have suffered under for the last 30 years. A vote for this 
bill is a vote for finding a better, fairer, simpler way for Americans 
to perform their civic duty. In short, this will be a vote for the 
American people.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  This is another in those proposals that have become familiar around 
here. We call it ``government by gimmick.''
  What should we do? We ought to have term limits and then spend all of 
our time trying to figure out on the other side how to get out of those 
commitments we made. Then we ought to have the line-item veto around 
here so that we can pray that the Supreme Court will turn it down. Then 
we ought to have the Balanced Budget Amendment which we were able to 
accomplish without disturbing the Constitution.
  What is the latest gimmick? The latest gimmick is, how do we tell the 
American people we are now sunsetting the Tax Code when there is not 
anybody here who believes that 5 years from now or 4 years from now 
that that is going to occur.
  This outrageous bill, which they propose and suggest would terminate 
our current system, is nothing more than another effort to convince the 
public that government solutions are all going to be easy. Nobody here 
defends the current tax system or says that it does not need some 
improvement. Nobody says that the IRS here is not in need of 
improvement. But what The Washington Post did say in response to this 
proposal was, why do we not just sunset the House?
  Let me give you a brief quote from that editorial. ``House 
Republicans have scheduled a show vote this week on what is arguably 
the least responsible idea in American politics. They would sunset most 
of the Tax Code effective January 1, 2002, without having agreed upon 
what ought to be the replacement.''
  Now, let me suggest on this occasion, they have not told us what they 
are going to do with the homeowner deduction. We know that the flat tax 
would cost 17 percent, and that simply is not enough to generate the 
current support and level of services that the American people have 
come to accept and enjoy. The Department of Treasury believes that the 
tax rate needed to raise the current amount of revenue would raise 
taxes on middle income Americans if their proposal was to pass by 
$1,500, and the top 1 percent would get a tax break of $44,000. So what 
their proposal means is this: The wealthy are going to pay less and 
average Americans are simply going to pay more.
  The national sales tax calls for a 23 percent sales tax to replace 
all individual and corporate income taxes, the Social Security payroll 
tax, and the estate taxes. These are hidden taxes on State and local 
government that could result in the expenditure of up to $120 billion 
in new taxes at the State and local levels. These tax proposals would 
be nearly impossible to enforce.
  We should not sunset the code before we agree through consensus of 
Democrats and Republicans how to improve the system. We should not 
provide uncertainty to the system. We all agree that the current system 
is flawed, but we have to have worthwhile provisions that the American 
people will come to regard with an element of respect. I wish I had 
more time to go on and on about this, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a bill that Secretary Rubin called 
``semi-ludicrous.'' This outrageous bill would terminate our current 
tax system and not set a date for enacting a new system. I do not think 
that one Member of this body does not think that our current tax system 
needs improvement. I do not think that one Member of our body thinks 
that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) does not need improvement.
  This does not mean that we should support irrational legislation. On 
Sunday, the Washington Post ran an editorial entitled ``Why Not Sunset 
the House?'' Let me give a brief quote from the editorial ``* * * House 
Republicans have scheduled a show vote this week on what is arguably 
the least responsible idea in American Politics. They would sunset most 
of the tax code, effective Jan. 1, 2002, without having agreed on the 
replacement.''
  Congress is in the process of taking responsible action on the IRS. 
The House and the Senate are in the process of a conference agreement 
to iron out the differences in the House and Senate passed IRS bills. 
Commissioner Rosotti is committed to improving the IRS and I believe he 
has already made progress.
  The two leading proposals for tax reform are a flat tax and a 
national sales tax. Both these proposals have fundamental flaws. The 
flat tax would replace our current system with one rate and that rate 
would be 17%. The Department of the Treasury believes that the rate 
needed to raise the current amount of revenue would raise taxes on 
middle-income families by $1,500 and the top 1% would get a tax break 
of $44,000. A flat tax kills the progressivity of our current tax 
system.
  The national sales tax proposal calls for a 23% sales tax to replace 
all individual and corporate income taxes, the Social Security payroll 
tax, and the estate tax. There are hidden taxes on state and local 
governments that could result in $120 billion in new taxes for state 
and local governments. This tax would be difficult to enforce.
  We should not sunset the code before we have a solution to fix the 
system. We should not provide uncertainty to the system. I agree our 
current system is flawed, but we do have some worthwhile provisions 
that provide protections that many taxpayers rely upon.
  Let me talk for a second about the home mortgage interest deduction. 
This provision has benefited millions of Americans. Twenty-eight 
million Americans benefit from this deduction and more than 50% of 
these taxpayers earn less than $75,000. This deduction has helped many 
of us with the American dream of owning our own home. Scrapping the 
code leaves this deduction uncertain. Also, the deduction of state and 
local property taxes would be uncertain. This deduction helps make it 
easier to own a home.
  We also have many other valuable deductions such as the deduction for 
health insurance of the self-employed and charitable deductions. 
Retirement savings receive preferential benefits from our current tax 
system. Scrapping the code does not protect retirement savings. Why 
should we encourage investment in Roth IRAs if they may no longer exist 
in 2002?
  Let's stop this nonsense and address real tax reform. The Democrats 
on the Committee on Ways and Means have introduced a series of bills to 
make it easier for taxpayers to compute their taxes. These bills 
address the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT), individual 
capital gains, and the calculation individual phaseouts and deductions.
  I urge my colleagues not to be part of this outrageous proposal. We 
should get back to work and work together to simplify our current tax 
system.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
just to respond.
  I did not know The Washington Post was the expert on tax policy in 
this country, especially their editorial page.
  The markets are panicking so much that we are about to pass this on 
the floor that the Dow Jones is up 180 points, the Standard & Poor 20 
points and the NASDAQ is 38 points today in response to the fact that 
we are going to pass this horrible, irresponsible bill, and the 
financial markets are in a panic today.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUNNING. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

[[Page H4665]]

  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, is the stock market growth 
that we witnessed in response to the Clinton budget that we passed in 
this institution without any help from the other side?
  Mr. BUNNING. No, it absolutely is not. It is in response to the fact 
that we have balanced the budget and the Republican Congress is the 
persons that passed the balanced budget bill.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if I recall, there was not 
one vote from the other side.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, let us clarify what this debate is about. We 
are not changing the Tax Code overnight, but for those who come to the 
floor and defend this and defend this number of books, I urge the 
Members who defend this to go ahead and sit down and try and figure out 
their own taxes. If Members of Congress were required to do their own 
income taxes every year, they would realize the severity by which we 
have inflicted pain on the American public.
  I also heard today that this is about politics, today's vote is about 
politics. What do we think represents every page in this book? About 
politics, about adding amendments.
  Now, I did not hear the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) or 
anyone else defending the Republicans who added amendments. He did not 
say that, nor do I. I suggest both parties are responsible for the 
promulgation of these rules, regulations, amendments, addendums that 
require every average American citizen to hire expensive accountants in 
order to just comply with the law. Money Magazine challenged 50 tax 
preparers to prepare the return for an average family of 4, the same 
return. Forty-eight failed to get the same answer. Only 2 were 
successful in completing the equation.
  Now, that should speak volumes, as the books do, about the complexity 
of the code. Every law we pass in Florida now has a sunset provision. 
That is a normal, standard operating procedure, because laws do not 
exist forever. I remember as a young person when rust would appear on 
my car and I would try to sand the rust and put bonding on it, and I 
was so surprised months later that rust reappeared. If we merely tinker 
with this, it will continue to haunt us, and I urge Members to support 
this bill.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Sanchez).
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I have a record in support of reforming and 
simplifying the Tax Code and in favor of reducing the tax burden. As a 
businesswoman, I know how this complicated system undermines the 
success of entrepreneurs and small businesses. But tossing out the code 
without any notion of what will replace it is dangerous.
  I worked in the financial markets and my colleagues on Wall Street 
tell me that this will create uncertainty in the marketplace, and that 
is America's pension plans on the line.
  The Secretary of the Treasury says that it will create dangerous 
uncertainty in the marketplace. And think about the uncertainty that 
this creates at the kitchen tables around America. Do we want to see 
the value of our homes decrease next month over the uncertainty of 
whether the home mortgage deduction will survive the ban? Do we want to 
see a drop in charitable contributions because people do not know 
whether they will remain deductible? Would any American vote for a 
proposal like this without knowing whether it would result in their own 
taxes going up because of an unknown plan that might replace the 
current code?
  Mr. Speaker, we need the courage to propose a replacement before we 
toss this out.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, we have seen this year that the American 
people have a hard time saying good-bye, good-bye to anything. The 
final episode of Seinfeld was a national event earlier this spring. We 
made it clear that we did not want to say good-bye to our favorite cast 
of characters.
  And after the Denver Broncos won the Super Bowl this year, the big 
question was whether John Elway would return and come back to defend 
the crown. Fans of the Broncos begged John to return for just one more 
year. We did not want to say good-bye to one of the greatest 
quarterbacks ever to play the game.
  The NBA Finals this year received huge ratings, partly because 
America knew we might be saying good-bye to a sports dynasty.
  Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity this year in this place, this 
day, to begin saying one more good-bye. If we pass this bill, we will 
say good-bye to 800,000 words of Tax Code. We will make the statement, 
our Tax Code is not worthy or capable of reform, but of replacement.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people have spoken. Some of them want a 
national sales tax. Some of them want a flat tax. But all of them seem 
to agree on one thing: They want to scrap our current Tax Code and 
start over.
  Most importantly, it is time to say good-bye to the IRS. America held 
Seinfeld parties, we held Superbowl parties, we held NBA parties. Mr. 
Speaker, let me assure my colleagues that if Congress votes to sunset 
the Tax Code, we will see parties across this country like we cannot 
believe.
  America does not like to say good-bye, but in this one case I think 
we would be willing to make an exception.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I was reminded of some questions recently 
that my daughter was asking me and when I had to say no, she kept 
saying to me why, why, why? This whole debate reminds me of that 
conversation. Why, why, why?
  If the majority wants to get rid of it, what will they do? Do not 
tell us in the year 2002, tell us now. For those families who are 
thinking about buying a home, what will the price of the home be now? 
They need to know. Will they be able to deduct the mortgage interest on 
the home or not? Will that increase the price they have to pay or 
diminish the property value once they purchase?
  Will that individual, thinking of moving to a new company, have a 
pension plan because the company knows that right now the Tax Code 
provides an incentive for companies to provide employees with a 
retirement plan, and as a result, they get to deduct some of that from 
their taxes. But if we are going to abolish the Tax Code, will the 
company be offering pension plans to their new employees?
  Why? If my child is entitled to an answer, certainly the American 
public is entitled to an answer.
  Why? What? How? When?
  This is nothing but bumper sticker politics. We want to be able to go 
into November saying, ``We did this. We talked about abolishing the Tax 
Code.'' It does sound very good, and I suspect after the vote in this 
House by the majority party here, they will have the votes to pass it 
on. It will not become law, but they will be able to say they tried to 
abolish the Tax Code and it will sound great.
  But, Mr. Speaker, all the kids in America will still ask why, how, 
what, and they will never give them an answer. The majority will do the 
worst kind of policymaking that is possible in this country, and that 
is legislating by fiat, legislating by show, legislating by theater, 
legislating by bumper sticker.
  Mr. Speaker, that does not do anyone any good. We ought to give the 
American public, and America's children, whom this will affect most, an 
answer.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado, Mr. Bob Schaffer.
  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is no small debate. But the National Federation of 
Independent Business, the Nation's largest advocate for small 
businesses in our country, supports the sunsetting of the Internal 
Revenue Service Tax Code. They have gone all across the country 
surveying their members, talking to people throughout the Nation, and 
small businesses have told us over and over again that this IRS Tax 
Code is too cumbersome, it represses small business in America. It 
represses the

[[Page H4666]]

entrepreneurial spirit of the American people and a Tax Code needs to 
be reviewed.
  This is not new, when it comes right down to it. Most States 
throughout the country have sunset codes on all of their regulatory 
law. This is true in Colorado. There are sunset dates, termination 
dates, on every single regulatory function of State governments in many 
States throughout our country. It really does turn the tables and gives 
the advantage back to the taxpayer and takes the upper hand away from 
the government. That is what Democrats fear. They fear that because, 
when it comes to what side we are on, that of the government or that of 
the people, Democrats always side with the government. We side with the 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, our main supporters want to see lower taxes, more tax 
relief. Their side enjoys bigger government and more revenue for the 
government, because those are their constituents. That is fine. They 
have become the tax collectors of the welfare state. We have become the 
party of the people that want to be taxed less.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, well, I have listened to some of this debate 
and I think I can sum it up very quickly. I am not in favor of the 
status quo, but I am not in favor of anarchy.
  Anarchy is not being on the side of the American people. The majority 
is proposing to tear down a house before they have even put one block 
into a new one. It will not sell. I have heard some say, we need to 
force Congress to do something. Who has had the majority in this place 
for 4 years? Where have they been?
  They had the majority in both the House and the Senate to pass 
something. Maybe the President would have vetoed it. But they have not 
passed a comprehensive tax bill that he could say yes or no to. They 
say we have to force ourselves?
  Mr. Speaker, I suggest the fault is not in the stars, I say to those 
in the majority, but it is with yourself.
  Why is the bill opposed by such a full spectrum from the labor 
movement to the National Association of Manufacturers? Do not take 
comfort that when most everybody is against you, it is something good. 
The people will not buy this.
  How are they going to plan mortgages? How are they going to plan 
their estates if they have no idea what charitable deductions will look 
like? How are companies going to plan health care coverage if they do 
not know whether they will be deductible? How do municipalities begin 
to issue bonds? It is chaos.
  Is the majority going to suggest we sunset Social Security next 
because they do not like the Social Security system?
  Mr. Speaker, after the sunset comes darkness where I come from. This 
is a very dark proposal. If my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle think the American people will buy this, they are only fooling 
themselves.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope the gentleman from Michigan has read the bill. 
The sixteenth line of the second page, ``In order to ensure an easy 
transition and effective implementation, the Congress hereby declares 
that any new Federal tax system should be approved by the Congress in 
its final form no later than July 4, 2002.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Fossella).
  (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of this 
legislation. Indeed, I think if there is one thing all Americans can 
agree on, and indeed Members of this body, it is that we have always 
been the beacon of freedom around the world. We have always been the 
place where people have come to free themselves of religious 
persecution and the Nation that still cherishes the notion of life, 
liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
  Mr. Speaker, I think if our Founding Fathers were alive today, they 
would be looking at our Tax Code with disbelief. Indeed, I stand with 
all of my Republican colleagues, or at least most of them, to say that 
the time has come to end the rusty rhetoric that we have been hearing 
for years to delay, stall and obfuscate what the real issue is, and to 
tear down this Tax Code once and for all.
  There has always been a constant struggle since the beginning of the 
Republic between and among those who believe that government serves a 
purpose, but it serves a purpose to unleash the American spirit of hope 
and opportunity and belief that limited government is the right role 
for government, that the decisions made in our towns and villages and 
States across this country, like Staten Island, Brooklyn, the places I 
represent, are better than those made here in Washington.
  What we have created here is a praetorian guard that has defended 
this Tax Code. The defenders of the status quo who proclaim that if we 
engage in this 4\1/2\ year mission to reform and revamp the Tax Code to 
make it simpler and fairer and flatter, one that promotes growth, one 
that promotes savings and investments, one that tries to take money out 
of Washington and puts it back home in Staten Island and New York where 
I think it belongs with the hard-working people of this country, and 
they say that we will have Armageddon.
  This country has defied every obstacle known to man, defied the odds, 
overcome obstacles. Just this century we have won two world wars. We 
have lost valiant veterans in Korea and Vietnam fighting for freedom, 
and just recently in the Persian Gulf. Are we to believe that we cannot 
overcome this challenge?
  Mr. Speaker, this is the time to end the rusty rhetoric, to throw out 
the garbage that we have been hearing. Let us show the defenders of the 
status quo that America indeed is ready for this long overdue 
challenge.
  America has proven its greatness time and time again. Sunsetting the 
Tax Code, a complete disgrace to all of us as we have all acknowledged 
here today, is no exception. I congratulate the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Largent) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Paxon) for 
introducing this bill. I urge, for the sake of all America and its 
future, that we pass it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bentsen).
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, after the highway bill that busts the budget and all the 
pork projects in it, and the fact that we debated the Republican budget 
resolution at 12:30 in the morning because they did not want to debate 
it in the light of day, I did not I think the fiasco of the House 
Republican leadership could be topped until this ``special order'' 
piece of legislation was brought to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. We 
are going to throw out the Tax Code, tell American business that they 
are not going to know how to invest, not going to know what to issue 
debt to, issue stock, not going to be able to know what to do because 
maybe we will do a new Tax Code by 2002.
  The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) says that the bill says, 
``Congress should.'' There is a difference between ``should'' and 
``shall.'' The fact is that if we want to do tax reform, we should get 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, my good friend and colleague from Texas, to mark up a 
bill and bring it to the floor. Let us debate it now. Bring the 
American people in on the deal.
  All this does is set up the Congress for failure and set up American 
business for failure.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  One of the primary reasons why fundamental tax reform has not been 
enacted, and I hear many Members over there saying, well, you are in 
the majority, let us go enact these changes, is that the person who 
occupies the Oval Office is opposed to any kind of tax reform. He likes 
it. He likes the code as

[[Page H4667]]

it is, as do many Members on the other side of the aisle who, for 40 
years, when they controlled the House of Representatives, used it as a 
means of redistribution of income in favor of their constituents and 
their supporters. That is why we need to replace this Tax Code as soon 
as possible.
  Despite the 40 years of Democrat controls, they wrote a code which no 
one considers fair or simple. How and now is the time to redo it. They 
did not do it for 40 years when they were in command. We want to do it 
and start it today. Legislation that we have in front of us is the 
first step in making that change.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to respond to my friend. It is almost 
funny. If the gentleman is saying that the Republican majority could 
not possibly pass any meaningful tax reform legislation because of our 
distinguished President being in the White House for the last 3 years, 
then what he is really saying now is, since the gentleman and I know 
the President is going to be there for 2 more years, that they will not 
be able to do anything for 2 years. Give me a break.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  No one likes taxes, but taxes are how we fund our schools, our 
national defense, our police, our parks, environmental protections, 
highways, and roads. Unless we are going to do away with all those 
things, do not let anyone fool you into believing they are going to do 
away totally with your taxes. They are not. If we do away with this Tax 
Code, we have got to have another.
  The first problem with this bill is, they do not have another. This 
bill eliminates one Tax Code without proposing a new one. In other 
words, Republicans want to do the easy thing now before the election 
and save the hard part for later.
  Republicans say let us eliminate the home mortgage interest deduction 
now and, trust us, we will make it up to you later. Let us eliminate 
incentives for employers to provide health care and pension plans and, 
trust us, we will make it up to you later. Trust us, they say.
  But do you know who does not trust them? The National Association of 
Manufacturers does not trust them. The AFL-CIO does not trust them. How 
many times do we get the unions and the manufacturers opposed to the 
same bill? That tells us something.
  Both groups want to keep the economy strong and save American jobs, 
and they know if business cannot count on the reliability of the Tax 
Code to plan ahead, to calculate the after-tax costs of investments in 
plants and equipment and people, then jobs will be lost, the economy 
will suffer. That is why they are united against this bill. That is why 
middle-class Americans should be, too.
  Any bill that gives a full tax break to someone who inherits a 
fortune and has never worked a day in their life but takes away a home 
mortgage interest deduction makes no sense.
  Let us have a new Tax Code. But it has got to be fair, not just 
simple, and it has got to be ready before we eliminate the old one. Do 
not ask for our trust to fix it later. Give the American public the 
facts now, unless my colleagues are afraid of what they are offering.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. 
Speaker, this is an important debate. Really what is happening here 
today, this whole argument is about power, about who has it, and who 
does not have it. As long as we have this existing Tax Code in 
Washington, the Federal bureaucracy and the Internal Revenue Service 
have the power, and the American citizens do not.
  I think that one of the reasons we hear the liberal left squealing on 
the floor today is because they hear that big sucking sound, being 
power going out of Washington, D.C., and back to individuals and 
families in this country. That is really what all of this is about.
  So people today who want to vote for the status quo, who want to vote 
for the current Tax Code and for keeping power in Washington and power 
with the Federal bureaucracy, vote against this legislation. But if my 
colleagues are in favor of doing something that is responsible and 
going to say to the American people that we want them to have power and 
we want them to have control, and we want to take all of this 
bureaucracy and all of this special interest money that the other side 
has talked about today that feeds into keeping the Tax Code the way 
that it is so the Washington bureaucracy can continue to stay the way 
it is, then vote with the other side.
  We have heard a lot of talk today about the word ``irrelevant.'' We 
have a Tax Code that is so complicated that Americans are forced to 
spend over 6 billion hours and $190 billion complying with it. The Tax 
Code is cumbersome. It is complicated. It is burdensome. If that is not 
irresponsible, I do not know what is.
  The other word I heard today thrown out was ``semi-ludicrous.'' The 
IRS fined a taxpayer recently $10,000 for using a 12-pitch typewriter 
instead of a 10-pitch typewriter to fill out his tax forms. That is not 
just semi-ludicrous, that is fully and completely ludicrous.
  We have a major problem. The other side said, when we were talking 
about the balanced budget, that you cannot balance the budget in 7 
years because it is going to destroy the consumers. The nay-sayers, the 
doom-and-gloom prophesies that are coming from the other side are just 
exactly what they are; and that is a desperate attempt to try and keep 
power in Washington, D.C., and keep from giving it back to the American 
people. We need to support this legislation.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, you have probably heard it all about status quo, agents 
for change. Eventually, you are going to get a team to pick, and 
everybody in America can choose up a side. We have got two leaders here 
today that are in the Hall of Fame, one in baseball and one in 
football.
  This really is about team sports; politics are about team sports. 
Politics are really about team sports. Two teams are going to take the 
field today when we vote. One team is going to say the Tax Code is too 
large, too cumbersome, and we are going to replace it in a timely 
process, in a reasonable process. We are going to give ourselves 3 or 4 
years to do it. If at the end of the 3 or 4 years we do not have a 
compromise that will work, we will just extend the current Tax Code and 
keep working on it until we get it right.
  That team says what we have today is wrong, and we are going to work 
on it until we get it right. We think 3\1/2\ to 4 years is enough, but 
if we are wrong, we will extend it. But we are not going to sit by and 
let the Tax Code be unnoticed. We are going to be agents for change.
  The other team is going to say it is irresponsible to take a Tax Code 
that manages the economy to the extent that this Tax Code does and 
manages people's lives and replace it without knowing where you are 
going to go. There is a certainly logic to that argument. But a 4-year 
period, knowing that you are not bound by the 4 years, if you need to 
extend it, you can, I think that argument sort of falls flat; and it 
really is a status quo argument.
  That team is divided into two camps. One group really believes you 
need something certain before you replace the current Tax Code. A group 
within that group never wants change, and they are just saying it as a 
way to avoid change.
  But if you took that logic and applied it to the history of this 
country, I doubt it if you would have had much teeth on it in Boston 
Harbor. I guarantee the first militiamen who fired the shots at 
Lexington-Concord did not know how that thing was going to end, but 
they knew they were doing the right thing. They knew that they were 
taking a stand, and what they were leaving behind was unacceptable.
  That has been the history of this country, people being bold when 
they need to be bold, taking oppression and throwing it off the yokes 
of the working people. That is what this vote is about. That kind of 
logic, if we had had

[[Page H4668]]

it in the mid-part of our country here in the 18th century, we would 
still be in Ohio because nobody would want to go any farther West 
because they do not know what was over the hill.
  I can tell you what is over the hill for the American worker: a new 
Tax Code that is simpler, that is fair, that does not chill you to the 
bone is a good day. That day is going to come sooner or later. I hope 
it comes by the year 2003.
  The only way it is going to happen is if we set a date certain and 
put a closing date like we do on our House. Anybody that has ever been 
in litigation, anybody that has ever been a lawyer, they do most of 
their work on the steps of the courthouse because they have got 
something to do. You have got a date to meet.
  We need a date to take this Tax Code and put it in the history books, 
put it in the history books where it belongs and replace it with 
something that helps the working people of this country. We can do it, 
Republicans and Democrats alike. The reason we know we can do it is, we 
balanced the budget together. But we have got to buy into it. The 
status quo has got to go.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Tax Code 
Termination Act. Really, when you think about it, this is a rather 
momentous day, the fact that the United States Congress would come 
together and have a vote on this matter. Whether we are against this or 
for it, this is a very significant period in our history to be able to 
come on the House floor and say we are against the present Tax Code and 
we wish to change it.
  It is important to relate to the constituents and to Members that 
there is an exception in this for Social Security and Medicare. So when 
we are eliminating the Tax Code, we are not attacking Social Security. 
We are not attacking Medicare.
  Be that as it may, the last tax decreases in this country provided 
300 changes to the Tax Code. If all of us on the Republican side and on 
the Democrat side go out and say, oh, we have decreased taxes, but at 
the same time, changed the Tax Code 300 times, what have we done? If we 
do that year after year after year, it is going to get impossible. In 
fact, that is where we are today. It is literally impossible to do our 
taxes.
  We are starting the debate by saying, okay, let us do away with the 
Tax Code by 2002 and replace it with a sales tax or a flat tax or a 
combination thereof. What is wrong with that? If anybody is going to 
vote against this, they are voting against open discussion to have a 
new system. So how can anybody be against the idea of reforming.
  In America, there are seven traits that make up all of us because we 
are an American; and one of them is we like choice, and the other is we 
like reform. We are willing to change things. We are not satisfied with 
the status quo. We are always trying to improve.
  A third thing is we are impatient as Americans. We believe there is a 
better way. So what we are doing this afternoon is we are saying there 
is a better way for America to pay their taxes.
  Secondly, we think we can reform the system we have, and let us make 
the decision, the choice if you will, now to eliminate the Tax Code and 
get the discussion going.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Everett). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) has 9 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Bunning) has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Cannon).
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support of H.R. 
3097, the Tax Code Termination Act. In 1996, during my campaign, I 
pledged, like many of you, to reduce the tax burden on the American 
family. This legislation is a step in that direction.
  The current Tax Code puts an onerous burden on every American family. 
It is complex, confusing, corrupt, costly, and coercive. Americans work 
nearly 5 months of the year, until May 10, just to pay their Federal 
tax bill.
  We are taking a first step today to reduce this burden. This bill 
sets a clear direction, a direction toward reforming by triggering a 
national discussion. A deadline will work wonders in focusing the 
energy of the American people, Congress, and the President on real tax 
reform.
  The national debate is the only real hope of transforming the IRS 
code to a clear, unimplemented, and fair Tax Code. The American people 
deserve this debate. It is our job to start this debate with clear 
action by sunsetting the Tax Code today.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. I rise in strong support 
of responsible, credible tax reform. But H.R. 3097 is not about tax 
reform. It is an effort to take up our time with a meaningless 
political statement designed for a 20-second sound bite.
  I believe that Congress should begin to roll up its sleeves and begin 
to work on serious tax reform. We should have done it last year, the 
year before, the year before that; 4 years we have had.
  The same people that talk about the need, and I agree on this, we 
need to change our Tax Code and encourage savings and investment. Above 
all, we need to be careful that tax reform is handled responsibly to 
ensure that we do not jeopardize the economic expansion that we are now 
enjoying.
  The House will have an opportunity to express its support for 
responsible, credible tax reform by voting for the Rangel-Boyd-Tanner 
motion to recommit.

                              {time}  1430

  It is irresponsible to pass legislation that will require future 
Congresses to establish a new Tax Code without knowing how the new Tax 
Code will affect taxpayers.
  A businessman trying to decide whether or not to make a new 
investment for the next 4 years is going to deal with tremendous 
uncertainty. A community considering issuing a tax exempt bond, again, 
uncertainty. Businesses deciding what type of health insurance or 
pension, uncertainty. Families who want to purchase a new home, 
uncertainty. Farmers and ranchers will not know how the new Tax Code 
will treat the sale of their land and other assets. Uncertainty. Why 
not deal with certainty? Why not have the debate about how we do these 
things before. That is what the motion to recommit is all about.
  Before I commit to supporting a new Tax Code, I need to know how it 
will treat farmers and ranchers, how it will treat the oil and gas 
industry, how it will treat small businesses who are now trying to 
compete in an international marketplace. I need to know how it will 
treat the average man and woman in my district before I vote to do away 
with the Tax Code, as politically appealing as that might be.
  This legislation is another example of the fiscal recklessness of the 
Republican leadership. Just last month the chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget was quoted widely saying, ``Balancing the budget was never 
our goal.'' Recently, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means 
issued a press release expressing grave concern that we are running 
surpluses that allow us to pay down the debt. Last week the leadership 
tried to intimidate CBO to change their estimates to fit the Republican 
agenda.
  A vote against this resolution says that the American people, get 
this, a vote against this resolution says the American people want 
proof up front what we are talking about doing, not endless political 
promises. If my colleagues are willing to jeopardize the growing 
strength of the economy and balanced budget plan in order to make a 
political statement, vote for this resolution. However, if my 
colleagues want Congress to begin serious work on responsible, credible 
tax reform, vote for the Rangel-Boyd-Tanner motion to recommit.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Paxon), a coauthor of this legislation.
  Mr. PAXON. Mr. Speaker, about a year ago I was holding a town meeting 
outside of Rochester, New York, and as I often do, I talked about our 
agenda.

[[Page H4669]]

 And a major part of my agenda is ending the tax system as we know it, 
replacing it with a fairer system, whether it is a national sales tax 
or a flat rate income tax or some other system. And I made that comment 
and a constituent raised his hand and said, ``Paxon, I have heard you 
talk about this for years. I have heard your colleagues in Congress on 
both sides of the aisle talk about fundamental tax reform for years. 
Why don't you stop talking about it and do it. Put in a bill that ends 
this system so we believe you are serious for a change.''
  As a result of that, I put forward my piece of legislation last fall 
that is designed to do one thing above all others: End the skepticism 
of the American people; make it clear we are serious about tax reform 
that does not just make the code more complicated, complex and taxes 
higher, but involves the American people for a change by making it 
clear where this code is going so they can step forward and be involved 
in the process.
  Now, we are hearing a lot today across the aisle from our colleagues 
in the other party who say, why do we not just bring it up, bring to 
the floor today our bill, put it before this Congress and vote on it. 
My colleagues, that is exactly the thing that contributes to the 
skepticism of the American people. For years that is exactly what the 
former majority party in this Congress did time and time again; in the 
dead of night bring forth a bill that ended up raising taxes, all in 
the guise of tax relief and reform.
  We do not want to contribute to that skepticism. Our goal is to end 
the cynicism of the American people in the way the process works, to 
open this process to the American people, to say 4 years from now the 
current Tax Code ends; that the American people should come forward, 
get ahold of their Congressman or their Congresswoman or their United 
States Senator and tell them what they think. We allow two elections to 
intervene so that the American people can find out how their 
representatives really feel about this issue.
  What might happen, my colleagues, is that something amazing may 
actually occur. A citizen may well come forward with an idea nobody in 
this Congress has ever thought of before, an idea that may be 
revolutionary and be able to be put in place to replace the current tax 
system.
  Now, our friends on the other side of the aisle also make the 
argument that this will fundamentally ruin the markets; that it creates 
uncertainty. That is nonsense. Uncertainty? Every single time this 
Congress meets there is uncertainty. Any day Members of Congress walk 
to the floor and put in a piece of legislation it can create 
uncertainty. And, yes, it does create uncertainty. In 1986, it 
destroyed the real estate market. Other tax relief bills down the years 
have changed fundamentally the way people have paid their taxes and 
changed the way investments were made.
  We are doing something different, we are saying 4 years from now we 
intend to make a change that will help the economy of this country. The 
people will have a voice. It will not just be done in the cloakrooms 
and the back rooms of Washington, D.C., where only the special 
interests will have a voice in what happens.
  We also heard this same argument when the Republicans put forth for 
years balancing our Nation's budget. We heard not only in this Chamber 
but from the White House that balancing the budget will create 
uncertainty in the markets. They have to be able to have deficit 
spending, and it will be harmful to our economy. Ultimately, the 
President signed our bill because we proved that if we are serious and 
involve the American people in a dialogue, there is not uncertainty nor 
is there skepticism. It lifts this Nation, working together, moving 
this Nation forward.
  Today, the Tax Code Termination Act, I believe, will be one of the 
most historic votes this House of Representatives will ever cast. It is 
turning on its head the system where for years and years only a few 
insiders, working in the dead of night, could impact on our tax system 
and on our legislative process. It will ultimately result in the end of 
the 5.5 million word Tax Code. It will end the authority of 113,000 
nameless, faceless bureaucrats. And, yes, frankly, it will end the 
meddling of 535 people in Congress and a President in a tax system.
  Right now it is so complex and confusing, that any time this Congress 
meets and plays with it, the results are so uncertain most Americans 
have to go out and hire someone. Fifty percent today hire somebody to 
help them do their taxes, and then, at the end of it, they do not 
really know what the Congress did to them. If this code is replaced 
with a fairer system the American people design, I believe it will be 
done in such a way that it will be impossible for Congress to play 
those dead-of-night games. Very, very, very much more difficult for 
Congress to raise taxes, because the American people understand 
directly and dramatically how it impacts on their budgets and on their 
families. And, most importantly, as I mentioned before, it will allow 
the American people an historic level of involvement in this system.
  Now, I find it fascinating, as I travel around this country, and I 
have been in 65 congressional districts in the past months talking 
about this and listening to folks about this, that I find unbelievable 
acceptance, Republicans and Democrats and independents, everywhere I 
go, and my colleagues I talk to say the same thing. Yet here in this 
chamber and in Washington, oh, there are folks that are nervous. Of 
course they are, because we are changing the equation, giving the 
American people a chance to make history.
  My colleagues, I think this is an historic day. I know that the 
American people will be pleased when they see us move on this 
legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote with us in support of the Tax 
Code Termination Act.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. LaFalce).
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, today is a shameful day. This body used to 
be called the most deliberative legislative body in the world. It has 
deteriorated, in my judgment. It has degenerated into an arena 
primarily for political posturing. That is all this bill is about. It 
is not a serious bill. It is not taken seriously by serious 
individuals. It is pure political demagoguery.
  What does this bill do? It does not reform the Tax Code, it 
terminates the Tax Code. The Tax Code raises the revenues for the 
conduct of government. If we terminate the Tax Code with nothing in its 
place, we strike a dagger at the heart of government. Government cannot 
function. We are not, therefore, talking about reform of the Tax Code 
or reform of government, we are talking about the termination of the 
Tax Code with a date certain when nothing else is in its place.
  What would that mean for certain? Nobody would know what would happen 
during that period of time. We know we would be pulling the foundation 
out from under our domestic economy. And the domestic economy of the 
United States is the foundation for the international economy. And my 
colleagues would play games with that? This is not a responsible 
approach. This is the height of irresponsibility.
  If we can improve the Tax Code, let us come in with the specific 
improvements. If there are reforms, let us consider them. If there are 
alternatives, let us consider them. If we want to make termination of 
the income Tax Code effective only with the effective date of an 
alternative, that is a different story. But we are not doing that.
  The only solace we have is everyone in the world knows this will 
never become law; that this is simply a political ploy.
  Mr. Speaker, I am concerned by today's childish political ploy. If 
anyone is truly serious about tax code reform, they would have a 
serious alternative to offer. But they offer no alternative for two 
reasons. First, they have no better alternative, and second, they know 
this bill simply terminating the income tax, without the necessity of 
an alternative being in place, will not become law.
  Let's consider for a moment, however, the consequences of this bill 
if it did become law. Our entire economy, indeed our society, is built 
on the provisions of the tax code. This bill would pull the very 
foundation out from under our economy, and have profoundly damaging--in 
fact, devastating--domestic and international repercussions.
  Private savings and investment would be devastated because neither 
individuals nor businesses would want to make investments that may not 
be tax-advantaged in the future. Financial markets would be thrown into 
chaos,

[[Page H4670]]

and interest rates would skyrocket because lenders would have no 
assurance whatsoever that the government would not default on its debt. 
Maybe this is why private business organizations such as the National 
Association of Manufacturers, the Mortgage Bankers Association, and 
National Small Business United all strongly oppose this bill, and why 
the Chief Economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce called it ``more 
than a little dangerous.''
  In fact, every security on which American families depend is 
threatened by this bill. Their health insurance. Their pensions. Even 
their jobs. Employers' deductions for offering their employees health 
insurance would be in jeopardy, and over 165 million Americans are 
covered by employer-provided health benefits. The retirement benefits 
of 60 million Americans who have tax-preferred IRAs or employee 
retirement plans would be at risk. And rising interest rates and slowed 
investments would slow the economy, forcing many employers to downsize.
  So this is not a pro-taxpayer bill. Taxpayers want answers and 
solutions, and this bill gives them neither. This bill is pure, total, 
unadulterated political gimmickry. It has nothing to do with an adult, 
responsible approach to legislating. It is either child's play or 
dangerous demagoguery--or, more likely, a combination of both.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time and for his leadership on this issue and so many 
other issues important to our State of New York.
  I believe it is very fair to say that none of us enjoys paying taxes. 
But instead of having an honest debate about the Tax Code, the 
Republican leadership has presented us with irresponsible election year 
pandering.
  This bill brings dangerous uncertainty to the American economy, which 
has been so successful for the past 6 years, while it puts off the real 
work of determining what the Tax Code should look like to two 
Congresses in the future, the summer of the year 2002. That is right, 
the Republicans are saying let us take credit now for something someone 
else will have to work on 3 years from now.
  I am certainly in support of an honest debate about the Tax Code, but 
an honest debate means that a real alternative is on the table. If we 
could consider the national sales tax or the flat tax that the 
Republicans have been proposing, then we could have a debate on the 
merits. But, instead, the majority appears to be afraid of a debate on 
the merits and has before us an election year pandering proposal.
  I urge a ``no'' vote and a ``yes'' for Rangel-Boyd-Tanner.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, this is a risky tax scheme cloaked in a 
sound bite that could jeopardize our strong economy.
  Two weeks ago the Gingrich Republicans tried unsuccessfully to amend 
the Bill of Rights, our first amendment, after less than 17 days of 
committee hearings. Today, the Republican leadership wants to pass a 
bill to repeal the entire Tax Code without even having 1 hour of 
committee hearings. The pattern is clear: Gingrich Republicans seem 
more interested in sound bites than in sound public policy.
  This irresponsible approach to the serious business of governing our 
Nation was captured by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), head of 
the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, in his recent memo to 
Republican House Members. He said this, and I quote: ``Write the 60-
second commercial we want to run the last week of the campaign, then 
focus the rest of the year aiming toward it.''
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are hungry for more than just 
meaningless sound bites. They want meaningful reforms on health care, 
education, and campaign finance. Let us kill this bill, which should be 
called the Full Employment Act for D.C. Tax Lobbyists.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  If this is really the best campaign gimmick the majority can come up 
with, we are not in as bad a shape as I thought we were. I think it is 
shameful that we should try to play a hoax on the American people and 
have them believe that we are going to throw away the Tax Code that the 
Republicans helped to complicate. And they keep throwing all those 
papers there that they added 800 pages to it.
  People used to say that we have to live with death and taxes. 
Republicans say, no, they can eliminate taxes. And soon, before the 
election, they may eliminate death. I do not know.
  It was interesting to see how my friend, the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Bunning), explained why in 3 years the majority party just could 
not pass a meaningful bill, because Mr. Bill Clinton is in the White 
House. Well, let me say once again, Mr. Bill Clinton is in the White 
House now and will be in the White House next year and will be in the 
White House the year after that. It seems to me that if the 
distinguished Hall of Famer makes sense in terms of saying that the 
President has prevented them from legislating for 3 years, I do not 
know what in God's name would make him think that the President is 
going to yield to him in the next 2 years.
  In any event, I think what we are saying is that there is going to be 
a vacuum as to where do we stand in taxes. And one of the Republicans 
took the well and said it was something like the Boston Tea Party and 
that we had to be revolutionary about this. The other side really knows 
how to be revolutionary in terms of closing down the government. They 
did it once, and they got so good at it they went and did it again.

                              {time}  1445

  And so, maybe there is a lot of support for this type of way that 
they run government. If they do not like the tax system, say there are 
no taxes. If they do not like government, just close it on down.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to my 
good friend from New York and tell him that we will have a bill ready 
to go when the present occupancy of the White House is removed from the 
White House so that we can get the cooperation of the new President and 
work with him to make a bill that the American people have participated 
in and they have let their representatives know that the Tax Code that 
we presently have is unacceptable and that they are the defenders, my 
good friend from New York, are the defenders of the status quo and they 
want to keep the code and redistribute the income of their current 
people that they represent and make sure that their supporters are part 
of that Tax Code and they get that income and make sure that they 
continue to support that.
  But we do not want to do that. We want to make sure that we have a 
new code and a new occupancy of the White House. As soon as we can get 
that done, we will have a code ready to go. And that is what the law 
that we have proposed says. The law, not a substitute for the law.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Largent).
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, let me first of all give my colleagues just 
a little brief history on how this came about and tell them that I am 
really saddened by the course of debate that we have had today.
  I will tell my colleagues and confess freely to the gentleman from 
New York that the Tax Code and the problems that we have with the Tax 
Code today is not a Democrat problem, it is not a Republican problem, 
it is everybody's problem. It is an American problem and we need to 
address it, and that is what the Tax Code Termination Act is attempting 
to do.
  I would tell the gentleman and all of my colleagues in the House that 
the very first person that I went to after we wrote this bill was a 
Democrat, was Senator John Breaux in the Senate, and I told him about 
this idea and asked for his support.
  One of the next people that I went to was the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Gephardt), the distinguished minority leader, and asked him for 
his support. I had read his comments out on the campaign trail where he 
was talking about, and these are his quotes, ``Decades of toying and 
tinkering at the margins have only made the problem worse. And I have 
concluded that the only way to fix everything is to replace everything, 
to overhaul the entire system from top to bottom.''
  That is what Congressman Gephardt said. So I thought, surely, he 
would support this measure. That is what he is saying on the campaign 
trail, that we need to abolish the Tax Code.

[[Page H4671]]

  I personally feel soiled as a result of the debate and the rhetoric 
and the condemnation that has been displayed on the House floor today. 
I have been called a lot of things before in my life, but I have never 
been called irresponsible. And I do not believe that I am, and I do not 
believe that this legislation is.
  The thing that really puzzles me is how when the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) goes on the President's campaign trail and 
talks about pulling the Tax Code out by the roots, those are his words, 
how come it is responsible when he says it, but when I say it, it is 
``irresponsible,'' it is ``irrational,'' ``the stupidest idea that has 
ever been introduced to Congress in 10 years.'' Those were some of the 
quotes. I do not understand that.
  Why is it that when the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) says 
abolish the Tax Code it is not a dumb idea, it is responsible, but when 
I say it, it is irresponsible? They cannot have it both ways.
  Let me say another thing. I am positive that there is no member of 
the Committee on Ways and Means that has ever read the entire Tax Code. 
And we heard from a lot of them here. I guarantee my colleagues, there 
is not a member on either side that has ever read all the pages of the 
Tax Code. And I understand that. I have not either. I do not plan to. I 
do not know any of America that has ever read the entire Tax Code.
  But let me tell my colleagues about the Tax Code Termination Act. It 
is a page and a half long. I am pretty sure that most Members of 
Congress can get through a page and a half of the Tax Code. But the 
problem is that we have not read it, at least according to a lot of the 
debate that has been heard on this side tonight.
  Because what has been said is what we are talking about doing is 
abolishing the Tax Code, throwing us into a vacuum, jeopardizing the 
economy. Not true. Read the bill. It is a page and a half long. I am 
confident my colleagues can get through it. It is very simple. It is 
written in plain English.
  What it says is that we will replace the Tax Code 6 months prior to 
the sunset provision. So, in other words, we replace the Tax Code, then 
we sunset the old code. Let me make that point again because I am sure 
that most Members did not get that. We replace the Tax Code and we take 
4 years to get there.
  I am pretty sure if we get the best minds in Congress and the best 
minds in the business community and the best minds in academia that we 
can do something comprehensive that will be simple, that will be fair, 
that will be a lot better than what we have got right now. I am sure we 
can do that in 4 years.
  I know we can do better than what we have got. We can come up with a 
system that is more fair, that is more simple than what we have 
currently. And that is the idea behind the Tax Code Termination Act. 
Again, replace, sunset. In that order. Replace, then sunset. No vacuum. 
No jeopardy.
  Another comment that has been made several times is the threat to the 
economy. Let me just tell my colleagues that one of the strongest 
proponents of this legislation is the small business guy. They ask, why 
would small business be in favor of getting rid of the Tax Code that 
many believe is so beneficial to the small business guy? Why would they 
be wanting to get rid of it? Because it is not fair.
  The fact is that an average small business guy ends up paying more to 
file his tax return and the various other forms to the IRS Tax Code, he 
spends more to do that than he actually owes in taxes. He spends more 
time complying to the Tax Code and spends more money than he actually 
owes in taxes.
  This is stifling the small businessman. And understand that the small 
business guy in everybody's district creates about 80 percent of all 
jobs in this country. So the business community is not threatened by 
the Tax Code Termination Act. They are begging for it. And so are the 
American people.
  Let me say that I understand why people are scared. Because, like I 
said earlier, nobody likes to be forced to do anything. And I can tell 
why Members of this House are scared, as well. Because this is one of 
those pivotal and rare votes that separates the sheep from the goats. 
It separates the wheat from the tare. It separates the hypocrites from 
those who really are serious about doing what is right and replacing 
the Tax Code.
  Because either they are for this and for comprehensive tax reform and 
doing it sooner, not later, or else they just want to get an applause 
line at political functions and rail on the IRS, even though it was 
Congress that created the Tax Code, and get an applause line, knowing 
that they are really never going to do anything about it. This bill 
forces us to do something about it.
  Let me say, one other thing is that there have been many that have 
come up and said that in our economy that is strong, no question about 
it today, that the real heartbeat of our economy and the reason it is 
doing so well and the reason that we have prospered in this country is 
not because of the hard work of men and women, not because of the 
creative genius of the business community in this country, not because 
we advocate free enterprize in this country and free trade and that we 
are engaged globally, but because of the Tax Code, that is the real 
heartbeat of the economy. That is not true.
  I urge everyone, if they really are for tax reform, if they really 
want to do it, vote for the Tax Code Termination Act.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in exception to 
H.R. 3097, the Tax Code Termination Act. This bill represents the 
Speaker and Republican leadership taking a huge gamble with the future 
and dreams of all American people of average income, state and local 
governments needing to raise capital, and homeowners. While this 
proposal offers an interesting challenge, the uncertainty surrounding 
the bill could cripple our economy that is just now standing on its 
own.
  This bill is purely and simply a political ploy for the upcoming 
election. Unfortunately it is not even a good one.
  Republicans claim they want a ``national debate culminating in 
sweeping reform.'' If they truly wanted an open debate on tax reform 
then why was this bill never discussed in committee? Why have no 
hearings ever been held on this bill? Why not bring their reform ideas 
to the floor right now?
  The truth is that they do not want to discuss the details of these 
issues, details like: their proposals for a new tax system will tax 
working families at a higher rate than they are paying now and that the 
people that get the biggest tax breaks are the ones who need it the 
least, the rich. I would be more than happy to engage in a national 
debate on real tax reform, so that we can discuss some of our 
comprehensive tax reform that is more efficient, fairer and less 
intrusive.
  Since this bill only uproots the current tax system and does not 
enact reform, it puts the whole country in a state of chaos. Small 
businesses and investors would be faced with substantial uncertainty 
when making decisions as to whether or not to make an investment in 
their future prosperity. Homeowners and people contemplating a new home 
purchase would not know if they could count on the home mortgage 
deduction, nor whether the value of that home would be adversely 
affected by whatever new tax plan is eventually put in place.
  Some of the hardest hit by this bill would be state and local 
governments who depend on tax-exempt borrowing to finance repairs of 
schools, building new roads, and other improvements which spur economic 
development in depressed areas. Investors would shy away from low 
interest rates on tax-exempt bonds if there is even the slightest fear 
that the income tax would be repealed in the future.
  If we do this right, there will come a day when we can sunset the 
current tax system and replace it with a simpler one. But today's 
debate is not about what achieving a simplified tax code.
  Just think about it. If we scuttle the code and this will put Speaker 
Gingrich in charge of writing out a new one. This is the same Speaker 
Gingrich who in his first week as Speaker came up with a plan to slash 
$300 billion from Medicare to pay for bigger tax breaks for the 
wealthy.
  We need to deal with tax reform responsibly. Not pass gimmicks that 
will do nothing to reform the system and has troubling consequences for 
the future. The American people deserve more than what this bill has to 
offer. I hope my colleagues will join me in saying ``NO'' to Speaker 
Gingrich and ``NO'' to this bill.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Tax Code 
Elimination Act.
  I strongly support reforming the nation's tax code to make it fairer, 
simpler, and less burdensome on the American people. Unfortunately, 
rather than advancing a constructive tax reform measure, the leadership 
has proposed a political gimmick--a bill to terminate

[[Page H4672]]

the tax code without saying what sort of system should replace it. This 
bill is not only the height of political cynicism, but if enacted, it 
could have devastating consequences for American families, farmers, and 
businesses.
  During my tenure in Congress, I have worked to encourage employers to 
offer health and pension benefits to working families by providing 
adequate tax incentives and cutting unnecessary red tape. Under this 
bill, employers would freeze health and retirement benefits until the 
tax treatment of these benefit costs was determined. In fact, employers 
might even reduce benefits as a hedge against Congress deciding not to 
extend the tax deductibility of employee benefits. Likewise, the value 
of American homes would be adversely impacted as the real estate market 
would wait to see whether Congress would continue the mortgage interest 
deduction.
  For farmers, the consequences would be even more severe. On the Upper 
Great Plains, farmers are already struggling with low market prices, 
devastating crop disease, and adverse growing conditions. Even with the 
best financial planning and management, many farmers are finding it 
nearly impossible to make ends meet. Farming is, by nature, a highly 
risky proposition. Added uncertainty about the deductibility of 
interest on operating loans, equipment and land, would move farming 
from risky to almost foolhardy.
  I believe that North Dakotans want fundamental tax reform. However, 
they're unwilling to buy a ``pig and a poke,'' especially when it 
relates to taxes. They want to see what system is being proposed as a 
replacement before simply terminating the code and turning giving a 
blank check to Congress.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, too little is known about the effects that 
this legislation would have on the U.S. economy. This bill as amended 
would eliminate the Internal Revenue Code by December 31, 2002, except 
for Social Security, Medicare and Railroad Retirement taxes. The bill 
would also give Congress until July 4, 2002, to devise a new tax 
system, while providing only the most general guidance as to what would 
replace it. What this bill does not do is specify what will replace the 
current system, once we eliminate those taxes that raise most of the 
government's revenue.
  In Fiscal Year 1997, the U.S. tax system raised $1.57 trillion in tax 
revenue from all sources. In one stroke, this bill would eliminate the 
individual and corporate income tax and all excise taxes, which 
constitute almost two-thirds of the federal government's revenues. 
Astonishing as it may seem, it would do so without providing any 
specific alternative except for a simple deadline requiring that the 
new tax system be in place four years from now.
  We have worked on a bipartisan basis on the House Ways and Means 
Committee and on the IRS Restructuring Commission to advance solutions 
to the difficulties that many Americans experience in complying with 
the tax law. We have worked constantly to simplify the tax code, to 
eliminate unnecessary regulations and paperwork, and to improve IRS 
taxpayer service. We have made great strides toward these objectives by 
passing such important legislation as the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 1 and 
2. This year, we hope to make additional progress when we complete the 
IRS restructuring and reform bill.
  Our efforts in simplifying the tax code and streamlining IRS 
administration have not been easy. However, we have, in a bipartisan 
manner, engaged in thoughtful discussion and analysis of the specific 
problems facing taxpayers and the IRS. This debate has necessarily 
factored in the complexity of the tax code. In these efforts, most 
participants have come to realize that the complexity of the tax code 
is only one part of the problem, and most agree that Congress should 
always strive to simplify the Internal Revenue Code wherever possible. 
But, we should not lose sight of the fact that tax simplification is a 
goal that must be weighed against other important considerations, such 
as ensuring that the tax law is fair to all Americans. Provisions of 
the tax code also provide opportunity for millions of Americans through 
the earned income tax credit, the HOPE Scholarship, the expanded IRA, 
and the like.
  To date, our efforts have focussed on identifying specific, realistic 
proposals to solve the problems facing average taxpayers and the IRS. 
However, unless and until we agree upon a new tax system, we must first 
fix the problems with the current system by advancing specific 
solutions such as the IRS restructuring and reform legislation. This is 
relief that is available now for the American taxpayer, not four years 
from now. If we then consider fundamental tax reform, our approach 
should first clearly identify a specific replacement which meets such 
important criteria as fairness, efficiency and administrability.
  Finally, we must also consider this bill's potential adverse effects 
on the U.S. economy. One of the most important perceptions that a 
government must project to its citizens is that of consistency and 
predictability in its tax policies. Given the magnitude of this change, 
this bill would throw into doubt for four years the basic fiscal 
mechanisms of the U.S. government. While Congress debates, countless 
individual and corporate economic decisions would be deferred while the 
nation awaits the result.
  At the individual level, we need to anticipate this bill's effect on 
the ability of taxpayers to plan for their financial security. Consider 
the effects of abolishing some of the most widely-used tax provisions, 
such as the mortgage interest and property tax deductions. How will 
average homeowners react when they realize, according to a DRI/McGraw-
Hill study, that their house may now be worth 15 percent less, or 
$22,500 dollars on a $150,000 home, because they can't take these 
deductions. Since this is usually their most valuable asset, how will 
this affect their ability to plan for their financial future, and how 
will it affect their current spending? What will be the reaction of 
financial institutions, and the secondary mortgage markets, when they 
realize that millions of homes upon which they have written mortgages 
have just decreased in value?
  What will happen to charitable giving if we abolish this deduction 
under the bill? While Americans lose a tax break, they also lose a 
significant incentive to give more to charitable causes, and now may 
give less. If millions of taxpayers contribute less to charity, what 
will happen to the many socially beneficial activities, such as caring 
for the nation's needy, that these charitable institutions perform on a 
daily basis? A weakening of these institutions could unfavorably affect 
millions of Americans, with no guarantee that the federal, state or 
local government would fill the void.
  These are only a few tax provisions, but look at the effect that they 
would have on the nation if we eliminate them with no specific 
alternative or sensible transition relief. This bill's fundamental 
problem is that we do not really know how it would affect the economy 
and average Americans, while most would agree that there is significant 
potential for short-term disruption.
  Mr. Speaker, do we really want to gamble with the financial security 
of millions of Americans, the health of the U.S. economy, and the 
stability of the U.S. government by abolishing the tax code without 
first providing a specific alternative? As much as we want to simplify 
the tax code and reduce the presence of the IRS in our lives, I do not 
think that this legislation provides an acceptable, responsible 
solution.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3097, 
the ``Tax Code Termination Act.'' This ill-conceived legislation would 
terminate the entire federal tax code, except for those provisions that 
fund Social Security and Medicare, on December 31, 2002. It also 
requires Congress to enact a new tax code by July 4, 2002, six months 
before the current tax code would end.
  It is undeniable that our federal tax code is complex. Yet, throwing 
out the entire system will not simplify matters. Eliminating the 
current tax system with no viable alternative in place will only send 
this country's economy into utter chaos. If this bill is enacted into 
law, all financial activity in this country could very well stop 
because no one would know the tax status of their investments, 
purchases, mortgages or savings accounts until July 4, 2002.
  I would welcome a serious debate on real comprehensive tax reform, 
but what is before us today is simply a political gimmick and certainly 
not real reform. This bill raises a multitude of questions but provides 
no answers.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, as President Reagan said, ``Here you go 
again.'' Once again the Republican majority party is demonstrating how 
out of touch it is with the American people. In 1993, the American 
people sent a message to Congress that they wanted the budget deficit 
reduced. It was a straight forward message, easily understandable and a 
demand to which Congress responded. The Democratic controlled Congress, 
working with President Clinton and without a single Republican vote, 
made the tough decisions and put in place the foundation for today's 
strong economy and this year's budget surplus.
  In 1995, the new Republican Majority took charge with this sound 
Democratic economic plan in place. But instead of working with the 
Clinton Administration to develop a rational budget plan to move 
forward with deficit reduction, the GOP majority sought to undermine 
the real progress that had been made. Instead of the responsible policy 
course, the majority party chose slogans over substance in 1995-96. The 
GOP to save money, just shut down the entire federal government, they 
said. Ignore the consequences of this irresponsible action they urged. 
As a result, they held the American people hostage over their radical 
demands.
  One would assume that the leadership would have learned a lesson from 
this 95-96 public policy and political disaster. But no. Today, in a 
massive misreading of what the American people really want, this 
legislation is offered. The Majority party believes that the public is 
so mad at the IRS that they are blind

[[Page H4673]]

to the fact that the Republicans do not have an answer, that all they 
want to do is to vote to scrap the tax code and pray that things work 
out. This action also abolishes the financial certainty that 
individuals, families and businesses rely upon to make investments and 
to plan for their future.
  With this bill, the family home mortgage interest and charitable 
contribution deductions are eliminated. The new child credit and 
incentives to save for college are wiped out. At a time when Congress 
is telling the American people to assume greater responsibility for 
their retirement planning, this Republican proposal will repeal the 
basic rules upon which the American taxpayer must comply. No. IRA. No 
401K. Just a vacuum awaiting some future Congressional action to solve 
the problem that this Congress is creating putting the American people 
into today.
  And that is just the individual side of the tax code. For businesses, 
decisions on expansion, the installation of new equipment, and 
personnel matters will be clouded by this legislation. Future plans 
will be put on hold, until Congress provides the public with some 
answers. The end result would be uncertainty and no predictability. 
This would be bad for the economy and bad policy.
  Instead of providing individuals and businesses with the answers and 
certainty that are needed, this legislation leaves a huge hole in our 
economic foundation with a billboard announcing: ``Under construction--
check back in 2002 for details.'' Ironically with the backlog of policy 
issues not just regards tax policy, but the budget appropriation and 
it's a rare program these past four years that has been reauthorized. 
The Republican Majority plans through this bill to junk and destroy tax 
law.
  This Republican-led economic self-destruction is not what the 
American people want. They do not want their entire financial life to 
be a pawn in a political consultants' media game. They want Congress to 
go to work and do its job. The American taxpayer does not want their 
home mortgage interest deduction eliminated, the exemption on their 
home sale loss, or their entire retirement plan thrown into an economic 
limbo for Republican or Democratic political gain. They do not want the 
very tax breaks that many of us hailed in 1997 to be eliminated in 
1998!
  What the American people want is true tax simplification. This is an 
issue we could agree upon and enact this Congress rather than the 
hollow promises in this legislation. Today, it takes too long for the 
average taxpayer to file their taxes. In fact, the American taxpayer is 
taxed twice. Not only do we pay our taxes, but our time is taxed as 
well. At this time of year, instead of spending time with our families, 
working around the home, or just taking a break, we spend hour after 
hour punching numbers into a calculator, trying to decipher IRS 
directions and tables, and searching through our financial records to 
find that last receipt for a charitable contribution that we made.
  According to the IRS, this annual spring exercise will take the 
average taxpayer 15 hours and 47 minutes to prepare and file a typical 
tax return (Form 1040 and Schedules A and B). Add in other forms, such 
as Schedule C, the business profit and loss schedule, and the total 
time for tax compliance can be in excess of 30 hours.
  Congress should address those issues now instead of this tax code 
repeal political gimmick. Earlier this year, I introduced the ``10 for 
60'' Resolution. My resolution directs the Internal Revenue Service and 
Congress to begin this year the process of cutting in half the time 
that it takes the average taxpayer to file their tax returns. As the 
first step, the ``10 for 60'' Resolution calls for 10 changes in law or 
regulation this year to cut 60 minutes from tax preparation time. The 
``10 for 60'' Resolution intends that these proposals should be revenue 
neutral and should focus on changes that benefit as large a group of 
taxpayers as possible. This proposal may not have the shock value of 
scrapping the whole tax code, but ``10 for 60'' will respond to the 
call for true simplification now.
  There are plenty of examples of ways that we can simplify tax code 
now. The mileage deduction was intended to help not only those with 
business expenses, but individuals with medical, charitable and moving 
travel costs. However, the tax code contains three separate 
reimbursement rates for travel. Why should a taxpayer be required to 
keep three separate records for using the same car?
  The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), designed to help low income 
families and reward work, is good policy. In fact, an analysis by the 
non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, reveals that the 
EITC ``lifts more children out of poverty than any other government 
program.'' Yet, this single credit has been changed twelve times in the 
past 20 years. The credit contains nine eligibility standards and could 
require one checklist, two worksheets, one schedule and a normal 1040 
to complete.
  Congress should focus on what the taxpayers really need--true tax 
simplification. Concrete proposals already exist to simplify the 
existing tax code with minimal revenue changes. The House included in 
the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act the requirement that any new tax 
legislation include a complexity analysis before enactment. Why not 
apply such an analysis to existing provisions of law?
  Tax simplification this year is an achievable goal but not if 
Congress gets bogged down in debating unrealistic gimmicks and 
proposals to abolish the tax code or initiate other radical changes. 
These are Trojan horses being advanced as tax simplification. It is 
time to address real tax simplification as more than a rhetorical tool 
and to make it a policy priority. My ``10 for 60'' resolution places 
the American taxpayer, not politics, first by focusing on real, 
attainable tax simplification for this year. My resolution gives 
everyone something they need more of--time.
  I urge my Colleagues to join with me in rejecting this political 
document and instead, make tax simplification a reality in 1998. It is 
time to get something positive done. Congress needs to get to work on 
good policy. That is the best politics. There is plenty to do, the 
majority leadership need not invent issues like H.R. 3097 to distract 
Congress or the American people from the real issues which are here and 
waiting for action!
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, like everyone, I am severely distressed 
about the complexity of the tax code and the high rate of taxes. As a 
nation, each year we spend 5.2 billion hours complying with and 
enforcing the tax code. That is more hours than the Department of 
Defense spends defending the nation.
  My first instinct when I hear statistics like this is to tear the tax 
code up by its roots and replace it with a simplified system. However, 
the plain facts are that in our complex, hi-tech global economy, such a 
move would introduce tremendous uncertainty into our markets and 
threaten the sustained prosperity this nation is enjoying. Unemployment 
is at its lowest rate in 28 years, 16 million new jobs have been 
created, and CBO projects that we will have a budget surplus for the 
first time since 1969.
  The simple fact is that businesses, families, and charities need to 
plan. Without a tax code in place, families looking to buy homes based 
upon the tax advantages of the home mortgage deduction would hold off 
their purchase thus crippling the housing market. Family health 
insurance would be threatened because the tax status of employer-
provided health benefits would be uncertain. Businesses rely on various 
tax credits to give them the incentive to invest in research and 
development, to engage in environmentally sound behavior, and to 
overcome various market failures. Scraping the tax code invites the 
return of those market failures and the inefficiencies that accompany 
them. Charities rely on $80 billion in deductible charitable 
contributions each year. Churches, synagogues, medical research 
institutes, colleges, universities, and relief organizations will all 
face tremendous uncertainty in their annual budgets without the 
incentive to donate in order to lower taxes.
  In addition, there is no consensus that terminating the tax code 
without an alternative is a good idea. It is simply irresponsible for 
Congress to propose eliminating the tax code without a ready 
substitute. There are plenty of respected sources who have been 
advising Congress against this. Chief among them are our own 
constituents. The Republican National Committee reportedly found that 
most voters oppose the Act because they believe it will create 
dangerous economic risks. NFIB may have 500,000 signatures supporting 
the Act, but there are many more businessmen and there who oppose it. 
The US Chamber of Commerce polled their members and found significant 
division on whether the tax code should be terminated and which reform 
proposal should replace it. The National Association of Manufacturers 
opposes the Act. The tax directors from the 2,800 largest American 
corporations have said that ``individuals and businesses--the U.S. 
economy as a whole--cannot convert to a new system with the ease of 
flicking a light switch.''
  Congress should stay on track with IRS reform and annual manageable 
tax cuts. Before the July 4th recess, Congress will likely vote to 
create a taxpayer friendly, accountable IRS. Federal and State 
governments are passing sensible tax cuts that promote investment and 
economic growth. This is a much better approach that scraping the code 
altogether and risk crippling the economy in the process. Let's work 
toward fundamental reform of the tax code, but do not throw out the tax 
code before we have a new one in sight.''
  When I was a child and wanted to get something my way. I would argue 
to my mother that everyone else was doing it. She would respond, ``if 
everyone was jumping off a cliff with darkness below, would you jump 
just because everyone else was doing it? I would hope that Congress 
would not risk our economic prosperity by jumping off this cliff into 
darkness.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member opposes H.R. 3097, the Tax 
Code Termination

[[Page H4674]]

Act, both as introduced and in the form of the Manager's Amendment.
  Before going into the reasoning behind this opposition, this Member 
would like to preface his comments by the following statement. This 
Member unequivocally believes that substantial but very careful reform 
is needed for the U.S. tax Code. Examples abound of inefficiencies and 
counterproductive elements of the Internal Revenue Code as it operates 
today. However, this Member opposes H.R. 3097 for the following four 
reasons:
  (1) This Member does not think that we should delay decision-making 
as H.R. 3097 does. We need to decide today's issues today and not defer 
them to tomorrow.
  (2) H.R. 3097 fails for its lack of precision. H.R. 3097, in its 
manager's amendment version, would sunset the current tax code 
effective December 31, 2002. It is certainly not legislatively wise to 
eliminate the tax code without an alternative to replace it with. If 
such major action should be taken as contemplated by H.R. 3097, a 
precise alternative of a federal tax system needs to be simultaneously 
discussed.
  (3) This Member does not support this legislation because it could 
dramatically discourage investment as investors are faced with great 
uncertainty. If H.R. 3097 is passed, Americans will be in a state of 
great confusion and apprehension until a replacement tax code is 
enacted, which could be as late as December 31, 2002 (the manager's 
substitute amendment date). We are in June of 1998. It may be 4\1/2\ 
years until a new tax system is passed, if H.R. 3097 is adopted. 
Members of the House need to put themselves in the position of their 
constituents. For example, can a corporation make a prudent investment 
decision if they do not know what the tax consequences will be of that 
decision just a few years hence? No, they cannot. Will investors 
continue to be as ready to buy tax-exempt bonds if they are not sure 
whether this tax exempt status will continue?
  Another example of the potentially very negative effects of H.R. 3097 
concerns the mortgage interest deduction. A young family, who desires 
to purchase a home for the first time, will not know in the future if 
they can count on the mortgage interest deduction if H.R. 3097 is 
passed. In fact, this uncertainty may be enough to deter someone from 
purchasing a house until a replacement tax code is in place.
  (4) H.R. 3097 would have a negative effect on state and local 
entities. For example, there would surely be a lack of confidence in 
private municipal bonds due to the uncertainty created by H.R. 3097. 
Certainly, local school districts could be adversely affected, along 
with most other varieties of local governmental bodies.
  Mr. Speaker, for these four reasons just briefly described by limited 
available examples, this Member must oppose H.R. 3097. We need a 
fundamental reexamination of America's Federal tax code and it should 
begin now, but rash action like H.R. 3097 is most assuredly not the way 
to proceed. It would have a chilling effect upon our economy and cause 
greater difficulty in pubic and private decision-making. All that is 
lacking to begin such a comprehensive review and reform of our Federal 
system of taxation is the will or commitment to begin and the 
organizational and legislative skills to implement such changes. With 
such a narrow majority in this House, it will also take bipartisan 
cooperation and good will.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I have worked my entire life to improve 
the fairness of the tax code--first in Oregon and now as a member of 
the House of Representatives. I also know how politics work.
  It is irresponsible to vote for a massive change without telling the 
American people how this will impact them. No one knows what would 
replace the current tax code--who is going to win, who is going to 
lose, and why. Improving the tax code is of critical importance and I 
welcome an open national discussion and full congressional debate on 
the merits of real proposals. However, I cannot support H.R. 3097.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
  I agree with my colleagues that our tax code is far too complex, and 
that hard working middle class families are paying too much in taxes. 
In fact, the first bill I introduced as a member of Congress was the 
Middle Class Tax Relief Act. But this bill is not the solution.
  But do you wonder why the sponsors of this bill are in such a hurry 
to eliminate the tax without saying what they would replace it with? 
They are pushing flat tax or sales tax systems that would reduce taxes 
for the wealthiest Americans, and raise them for the rest of us. Flat 
tax sounds easy, doesn't it? Only this tax medication is pure snake oil 
for the middle class.
  According to the Treasury Department, under Mr. Armey's 17% flat tax, 
the typical middle-income family would see its federal taxes increase 
by about $1,500. By contrast, the richest 1% of taxpayers get an 
average tax cut of $44,000.
  And if we adopted a sales tax instead, there would be a new 30% tax 
on everything you buy. A monthly prescription for a senior's blood 
pressure medication which currently costs around $110 would go up to 
$143. A $23 box of diapers would increase to $29.90. A pair of 
children's shoes which costs $20 would go up to $26. And who bears the 
brunt of this tax increase? Hard working middle class people.
  This bill is also opposed by the business community. Business needs 
to know what the tax law will be so they can make informed and rational 
economic decisions. Ignorance about the tax consequences of investment 
decisions could have a crippling effect on the economy. That's why the 
National Association of Realtors, National Association of 
Manufacturers, Mortgage Bankers Association and National Small Business 
United have publicly opposed this proposal as irresponsible.
  Finally, the Republican plan to scrap the code would also scrap the 
American Dream for millions of working families who depend on the 
mortgage interest deduction and the deduction for real property taxes 
to afford their home. Today, the average mortgage interest deduction 
for the 29 million Americans who have home mortgage expenses is almost 
$7,000.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this radical proposal. Let's work 
together for the real tax reform.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3097, 
the Tax Code Termination Act. America's income tax code is a heavy and 
complex burden for America's families and small businesses. The 
complete income tax code is, in fact, 3,400 pages long. No wonder so 
many Americans are fed up with the federal tax code and want Congress 
to enact a simpler tax code. This is a most reasonable request.
  It's bad enough that the average family's taxes are too high. 
According to the Tax Foundation, forty percent of the average family's 
income goes to pay federal, state and local taxes. Mr. Speaker, this is 
much too high a tax burden. The American people should not have to work 
for the government and only get a sixty percent commission on their 
earnings. Congress should take steps this year to lower taxes so hard-
working Americans can keep more of their paycheck for themselves and 
their families.
  Nonetheless, sooner or later, Congress is going to have to overhaul 
the tax system completely, and put in place new tax laws which are 
easily understood and easy to comply with. Families and small 
businesses should not have to spend hundreds of dollars to hire lawyers 
and accountants to do their taxes. A newer and simpler tax code will 
save taxpayers time and money.
  There a good debate in Congress these days about which type of new 
tax code is best. Some support a flat tax, which has its merits. Others 
support a national sales tax, an idea which also has its merits. No 
matter which one of these plans is enacted, everyone in this chamber 
should agree that the current tax code is broken and should be 
replaced. The climate in America is right for such a change, and there 
is a consensus in the country--especially in my home state of 
Oklahoma--that the current income tax code should be scrapped as soon 
as possible, and a new code put in its place. I rise today to support 
these efforts, Mr. Speaker, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2097, the Tax 
Code Termination Act. I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of this 
legislation which will sunset the current tax code effective December 
31, 2002 and require that Congress enact a new code by July 4, 2002. It 
is time that this Congress began the effort to fundamentally reform the 
way government collects revenue.
  Mr. Speaker: The reason I support this bill is simple: The current 
tax code is unfair, too complex, and too burdensome on America's 
families. The debate over the tax code is now becoming one on not 
whether it should be replaced, but how to do it. Whether it's a flat 
tax or a national sales tax, I believe that the federal income tax is 
economically destructive and that almost any alternative would be 
better than the status quo. I have been literally inundated by letters, 
calls, and emails from my constituents who are fed up with the 
unfairness and unnecessary complexity of our current tax code.
  Mr. Speaker: Just consider these appalling statistics--the total tax 
burden on Americans is the highest ever, a whopping 31.7 percent of 
income. Not only are our taxes way too high, the size and complexity of 
the current code serve to compound the burden. Families and businesses 
spend over $225 billion per year to figure out how to comply with our 
federal tax code. What began, in 1913, as a one-page form, 14 pages of 
tax law and a top tax rate of just 7 percent has evolved into the 
unwieldy monster we know today. Consider this as well--the current tax 
code is seven million words! Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is only 269 
words, and the Declaration of Independence a total 1,337 worlds.

[[Page H4675]]

  Mr. Speaker, I have not made up my mind about the form a new tax 
system should take; but I am certain that no matter what replaces the 
current system it will undoubtedly be far superior. That is why passage 
of this bill is so important. Once Congress has determined that a 
change must occur--that the tax code will cease to exist on a date 
certain--one of the most important debates in the history of our great 
Nation can take place. In this clash of competing ideas, I am confident 
that we can come together on a new tax code that applies a single, low 
rate to all Americans, requires a supermajority of both chambers of 
Congress to raise new taxes, provides tax relief for working Americans, 
protects the rights of taxpayers and reduces tax collection abuses, 
eliminates the bias against savings and investment, and promotes 
economic growth, jobs, and opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be part of this historic effort today. 
Sunsetting the current tax code is a first step along the road to 
fundamental tax reform. I urge my colleagues to support this important 
legislation. A vote for this bill is a vote in favor of the American 
taxpayer and the American family.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3097, the 
Tax Code Termination Act, offered by my good friend from Oklahoma, Mr. 
Largent. I want to commend the gentleman for offering this important 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, our tax code is a seven million word monster that has 
simply grown out of control. Hard working Americans are being punished 
every day by a tax code that is complicated and confusing. It penalizes 
success, discourages growth and overburdens individuals and families.
  Mr. Speaker, something's clearly wrong with our system when Money 
magazine asks 50 professional tax prepares to file a return for a 
fictional family and not one of them--not one out of fifty--came up 
with the same total, nor did any of the preparers calculate what Money 
magazine thought was the correct federal income tax. How can we expect 
the American people who are busy working and taking care of their 
families to sort through a tax code that is too complicated for 
professional tax preparers to figure out?
  Something's wrong when Americans have to devote 5.4 billion hours 
each year just to comply with the tax code--that's more time than it 
takes to manufacture every car, truck and van made in the United 
States.
  Something's wrong when the American people spend hundreds of billions 
of dollars each year to pay for tax lawyers, accountants, and other 
related expenses just to make sure they don't violate any of the seven 
thousand pages of burdensome IRS rules and regulations. That's money 
taken from the taxpayers' pockets that could be put toward retirement 
savings or invested to pay for the child's education.
  The Tax Code Termination Act will force us to work together to 
develop a new system. By setting definite date when the current, 
abusive code is terminated, we will ensure that action is taken 
immediately to study new and innovative proposals to create a system 
that is simple and fair to every American.
  Mr. Speaker, our system is broken. It's time to stand up for the 
American people and scrap this abusive tax code. It's time we take 
action and get this monster off the back of the American people once 
and for all.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation.
  Mr. ARCHER. Mr. Speaker, the issue before us today presents a simple 
question--whose side are you on?
  Are you a defender of the unfair, complicated, high-tax status quo, 
or are you in favor of reform? If you support reform, then I urge you 
to join me in a bipartisan show of support for changing the code.
  I support nothing less than pulling the code out by its roots and 
throwing it away so it never grows back. The current code is unfair, 
punitive, anti-growth, and anti-taxpayer. American workers today are 
caught in a tax trap. The longer they work, the harder they work, the 
more they pay.
  I want to create a new code that says the more you spend, the more 
you pay. We need to stop punishing success in this country and start 
toward savings and hard work.
  Mr. Speaker some have asked me why, if I feel so strongly about this, 
am I not passing a bill to create this new tax code today.
  If I thought for a minute that President Clinton would join this 
Congress in pursuing a new tax code, we would today be voting on a 
replacement code instead of sunsetting the current code.
  Unfortunately, President Clinton has given no sign that he will 
abandon his embrace of the tax status quo. As a result we are passing 
this measure to highlight the importance of this issue and to establish 
its proper place as a top priority in our national agenda.
  Perhaps this vote will help the President to join with us next year 
in making the sunset a reality. I haven't given up hope and I urge the 
President to join with us.
  Before I close, let me address the ``sky is falling'' opponents of 
this bill who claim uncertainty and havoc will be created in the 
marketplace as a result of this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, the stock market today is up almost 200 points. If their 
doomsday predictions were right, the market would be in sharp decline. 
The markets, being smarter than politicians, recognize this measure for 
what it is.
  It's a very powerful symbol of where we want to go. That's why I urge 
my friends in both parties to show that you want to take this nation in 
the right direction and that you don't support the failed status quo.
  Join me in voting to sunset the code.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Everett). All time for general debate 
has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 472, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Rangel

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. RANGEL. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Rangel moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3097 to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. COMPREHENSIVE REFORM OF TAX CODE.

       (a) Deadline.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     comprehensive reform of the Tax Code should be enacted not 
     later than April 15, 2001.
       (b) Principles.--Any comprehensive reform of the Tax Code 
     shall be consistent with the following principles:
       (1) Such reform shall be fiscally responsible and not 
     endanger the Balanced Budget Agreement.
       (2) Such reform shall be fair to all income classes.
       (3) Such reform shall emphasize simplicity, thereby 
     resulting in a Tax Code that is less complicated.
       (4) Such reform shall promote economic growth by 
     encouraging savings and investment.
       (5) Such reform shall ensure adequate funding for the 
     Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds, both for current 
     beneficiaries and future beneficiaries.
       (c) Implementation.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Committee on Ways and Means of 
     the House of Representatives should commence hearings on 
     proposals for comprehensive tax reform. Such hearings should, 
     at a minimum, involve an examination of the impact of current 
     and prospective tax restructuring plans on--
       (1) availability of employer-provided health care,
       (2) employer pension plans,
       (3) home ownership,
       (4) charitable organizations,
       (5) State and local governments, and
       (6) farmers and other small businesses.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, under the rule, only one Member may offer 
the recommittal motion. But in the spirit of trying to have broad-based 
support for what we are going to do and to make certain that we did not 
have this frightening idea where the original legislation said that 
they should do the right thing by having a bill, we say they do not 
repeal it unless they do the right thing by having a bill.
  But we Democrats all do not think alike; and, so, what we have done 
is try to work together now to see what we could work with so that if 
we were the majority, we would be able to come to the Republicans and 
say, what can we do as a Congress for the people of the United States, 
not what we can do for the Democratic Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), my 
cosponsor.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel) for allowing me this time to talk about this 
motion.
  First of all, I want to say to my friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) 
that I believe that his intentions are very good in trying to move this 
debate forward, in trying to develop something that serves this country 
better. I certainly do not question those intentions.

[[Page H4676]]

  I spent the last couple hours watching on television, though, as 
Member after Member came to the podium; and, basically, it was a 
partisan shouting match, and that somewhat disappointed me that we 
carried it to that level.
  My colleagues, we live in the greatest country in the world. Our 
economy is clicking at a rate that it has not clicked at for more than 
50 years. Certainly, there is nothing perfect about our Tax Code, and I 
believe that it needs changing. But I think we ought to be very careful 
in the way that we change that.
  I agree that the Tax Code needs to be reformed. There are some parts 
of the Tax Code, however, which provide real benefits to millions of 
taxpayers that will be thrown out if this bill is enacted. Any business 
owner knows there are many important decisions which are made, at least 
in part, because of the tax treatment those investments receive.
  As a former State legislator, I am well aware of the important role 
municipal and State bonds play in funding new schools, roads, and other 
infrastructure construction. This bill could throw the bond market into 
chaos as municipal bondholders and State and local governments who 
offer those bonds will not know how the Tax Code will treat their 
investments after the year 2002.
  Every day business owners make decisions based on the tax treatment 
of certain investments. Hiring new employees, purchasing new equipment, 
those are decisions which are influenced by the Tax Code. Upsetting the 
Tax Code could paralyze investment in new plants and equipment because 
business owners will be unwilling to hire new employees or build new 
manufacturing facilities because of the uncertainty this bill would 
create.
  Under the current Tax Code, employers who provide insurance benefits 
to their employees receive 100 percent tax deduction. This bill would 
scrap that provision and cause many businesses to eliminate health 
insurance benefits for their employees.
  Yesterday, the National Association of Manufacturers announced their 
opposition to this bill because it does not allow businesses to plan 
for the future.

                              {time}  1500

  Also, I heard earlier that the Chamber of Commerce had taken a 
position that they were going to score this in opposition to this but 
there may have been some calls from some very important Members of this 
body who have changed their mind. I am unclear at this point as we 
begin to take a vote on it whether that will be done.
  It is clear that the vast majority of business owners realize 
sunsetting the Tax Code is an irresponsible move that will jeopardize 
our country's remarkable economic growth.
  The motion to recommit before Members now seeks to address the 
problems in this bill and pushes the Committee on Ways and Means to do 
something it should have been doing for months, hold comprehensive 
hearings on reforming the Tax Code. H.R. 3097 states the obvious, that 
the current Tax Code needs to be reformed. Unfortunately, it leaves the 
hard work of developing a fair and understandable replacement to a 
future Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Rangel-Boyd-Tanner-Stenholm 
motion to recommit and send this bill back to the Committee on Ways and 
Means so we can get a responsible piece of legislation that addresses 
the needs of business owners and taxpayers.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, Members have heard how we have tried to come 
together and work together with the diversity that we have in the 
Democratic Party, in hoping that if we were going to have meaningful 
legislation, that no one party can do it, it takes Republicans and 
Democrats coming together and doing what is best for the American 
people, not just someone just singularly saying that they are going to 
deep-six the Code.
  In our recommittal, we say that it has to be fiscally responsible. We 
do not want to have the reputation of closing down government. We say 
that it has to be fair. We say that it has to emphasize simplicity, and 
it has to encourage economic growth and competition.
  We have certain things that we think are so important in the Tax Code 
that we hope that Members would vote for what the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) has contributed to, and that would be the Boyd-
Tanner-Rangel-Stenholm recommittal motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Everett). Is the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Bunning) opposed to the motion?
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrich), the Speaker of the House.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this motion to recommit, 
because I think it is a clever device to avoid the changes that are 
necessary.
  The question here is very simple: Do you believe the current Internal 
Revenue Code, thousands of pages, described differently in every region 
of the country by the Internal Revenue Service, total uncertainty about 
what is involved, millions of pages of filings every year, actually 2.2 
billion pages filed annually. If you think this is a good system, if 
you want to defend this system, you should vote for the motion to 
recommit. Because it is a smoke screen designed to avoid change.
  On the other hand, if you think the time has come to send a clear 
signal, the President of the United States should start to prepare to 
replace the current cumbersome, complex code with a much simpler 
version. The President could propose a simplified flat tax, the 
President could propose a replacement with a consumption tax, but the 
President should recognize that the American people are tired of 
thousands of pages of regulations, of audits they do not understand, by 
agents they cannot talk with, from a bureaucracy they cannot control. 
This bill says, the Congress is committed to replacing the current 
Internal Revenue Code.
  It is ironic. I actually had a copy of the 1913 tax filing form. It 
is two pages. The entire form is two pages, and the instructions that 
were sent out with it, they were two pages. Today you cannot even get 
through the introduction to the introduction of the basic outline to 
the simplified form in two pages.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from New York, this is a 
nice effort to avoid the issue. If you do not want us to replace the 
code, vote ``no'' when the bill comes up for final passage. Stand 
proudly with the current Internal Revenue Service. Stand proudly with 
the current complicated code. But then you go back home to your small 
businessman and your small businesswoman and you tell them why you did 
not want to help relieve them of the tax burden and relieve them of the 
paperwork burden and relieve them of all the attorneys' fees and all 
the accounting fees and all the bookkeeper fees.
  Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Largent) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Paxon), working closely 
with the National Federation of Independent Businesses and 600,000 
businessmen and businesswomen, people like my daughter Kathy who owns a 
small coffee store and who knows how many hours she puts in personally 
because she is her own bookkeeper, she knows how much it means to her 
to pay her accountant, she knows how complex the code is, she knows how 
difficult the IRS is to deal with, and they have had the courage, 
Largent and Paxon, to have come to this floor and said, ``Let's draw a 
line in the sand. We want to replace the current Tax Code by the end of 
2002.'' That is clearly plenty of time. That is clearly reasonable 
notice.
  That gives us the entire next Congress to think it out, to lay it 
out. It gives the presidential candidates time to lay it out. It means 
this country can debate it in 2000. It means in 2001 the new President 
can recommend a specific replacement. It means by 2002 we can have 
passed it and sent it to the President.
  It is an orderly, practical and reasonable step. And to suggest that 
we replace that with a press release that, instead of having a real law 
offering a real change, we have a press release sense of the Congress 
resolution, I think, is an insult to every American

[[Page H4677]]

who wants to replace the code and an insult to every American who is 
fed up with the Internal Revenue Service.
  I urge my colleagues, vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit, vote 
``yes'' on final passage. This is the right signal that we are going to 
move toward a better Tax Code for all Americans.

                          ____________________