[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5566-5591]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 DATE CERTAIN TAX CODE REPLACEMENT ACT

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 473 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 473

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     4199) to terminate the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The 
     bill shall be considered as read for amendment. An amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 
     4230 shall be considered as adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to 
     final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour 
     of debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a customary rule for Tax Code-related 
legislation. It provides for the consideration of H.R. 4199, the Date 
Certain Tax Code Replacement Act. H.Res. 473 provides that the bill be 
considered as read and that the text of H.R. 4230 shall be considered 
as adopted. The rule further provides for 1 hour of general debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Finally, the rule provides 
for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions, as is the 
right of minority Members of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, what we have learned after 87 years of the current 
system is this: if we had sat down at the beginning of 1913 and asked 
ourselves how could we build a tax system that would punish people for 
earning and working hard, a system that would be obstructive of capital 
formation, we could not have done a better job. Our tax system is the 
largest impediment to people moving from the first rung of the economic 
ladder to the second, because the harder you work, the more you save, 
the more you invest, the more we take. It is a system that is 
inefficient. We have seen testimony from the Kemp Commission to Harvard 
studies that says for a small business man or woman to comply with the 
code and to collect and remit $1 in business income taxes, it costs 
them anywhere from $4 to $7.
  The current code is not understandable. Our own IRS tells us that if 
you call the IRS for help in filling out your own tax return, 25 
percent of the answers they give you will be given in error. Over 50 
percent of Americans have to pay others to decipher the Tax Code and do 
their taxes for them. In an effort to show how complex the IRS code has 
become, Money magazine created a fictional American family and asked 
tax professionals to prepare an IRS tax return. Incredibly, every one 
of the tax professionals came up with a different tax total, and not 
one of the tax professionals calculated what the editors of Money 
magazine believed to be the correct income tax.

[[Page 5567]]

  The current code invades the privacy of every single American 
citizen. There are 100,000 people at the IRS who know more about us 
than we are willing to tell our children. I want them out of our lives. 
These are not bad people. They are people doing the job that this 
Congress by statute has directed them to do, but we should not have any 
agency of government that knows how much money you make or how you 
spend it. That should be none of our business. We should not have 
anybody who can look into your records and know your history. The 
government should not be looking over your shoulder counting every dime 
you earn. Unfortunately, to the IRS we are all presumptive tax 
criminals, required to open up aspects of our lives to auditors at any 
given moment.

                              {time}  1330

  For all of these reasons, we are here today to debate and pass H.R. 
4199.
  What the legislation before us today does is to sunset the current 
Tax Code effective December 31, 2004, and require that Congress approve 
a replacement system no later than July 4, 2004, to ensure a smooth 
transition to the new system on the first day of 2005. This legislation 
also establishes a bipartisan National Commission on Tax Reform and 
Simplification that is required to report to Congress on a new, fair, 
simpler Tax Code.
  The overall intention of this bill is to do three things: One, sunset 
the current convoluted Tax Code; two, create a commission to consider 
alternative tax systems; and, three, foster a national debate on how to 
create a fair tax system for working Americans.
  This is not a jump over the cliff, as some will say. There are 
several proposals before the Congress now that have been carefully 
thought out. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) has one that he has 
written a book about, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has one 
that he has pushed for several years, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. English) has a very thoughtful proposal, and I have one too. All 
of these are ready to be placed in place. They are different, but every 
single one is better than the current system.
  Mr. Speaker, my bill, H.R. 2525, that I introduced with my friend the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) is a comprehensive tax reform 
bill. The national retail sales tax would put in place a transparent 
form of taxation that will end the confusion forever. This bill is 
known as the Fair Tax. It would repeal the Federal income tax, the 
capital gains tax, corporate and self-employment taxes, all payroll 
taxes, including Social Security and Medicare taxes, all estate and all 
gift taxes. Under the Fair Tax, Americans will be able to see exactly 
what they are paying in taxes, and the embedded costs of the IRS would 
be gone, because the IRS would be gone. Americans would be able to take 
their entire check home with them and the IRS would be shut down. 
Unlike the relatively simple tax return that you would get if we move 
toward a flat tax, under our system we would have no tax return at all, 
and you would never have to keep a receipt or a record, not one.
  Let me simply say that any of these proposals, as I said earlier, any 
of these tax reform changes would be better than the current system.
  I welcome the debate that will spread across America as we determine 
how to install a better system. All of us who introduced the 
legislation, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), 
and I simply want to give Americans a fresh break from a tired and 
unfair old system.
  Also I wanted to commend the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) 
for his work in crafting this legislation today. The product he has 
crafted will effectively prompt the national debate on this important 
issue, and it should be supported in the House today.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule was unanimously reported by the Committee on 
Rules. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so we may proceed with 
debate and consideration of the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has obviously decided that it is 
in their best interests to govern by press release rather than to 
actually work to pass legislation that addresses the most important 
needs of our great Nation. This bill, the so-called Scrap the Code Act, 
is a perfect case in point.
  Mr. Speaker, there is not a single Member of this body who is not 
acutely aware that this weekend marks the deadline for the annual 
ritual Americans hate most. In order to suitably take advantage of the 
possibilities for press releases that April 15 presents to my 
Republican friends, this week has seen a schedule jam packed with Tax 
Code-related legislation. But, Mr. Speaker, why is it that two of the 
three tax-related measures that have been on the floor this week lend 
themselves more rapidly to press release, and, in the case of today's 
bill, a bumper sticker, of course, than to actually doing something 
that will provide real benefit to real people?
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats in this body have said over and over again 
that the tax policies being pursued by the Republican majority serve 
the few at the expense of the many. It has been shown again and again 
that the American public agrees with our assessment. Democrats and the 
American public should view this latest proposal as the height of 
fiscal irresponsibility.
  This is no benign press release; it is a nightmare waiting to happen. 
It is a creation of uncertainty in the business world that risks 
further stock market destabilization, and, with it, derailing of the 
American economy.
  I would submit, Mr. Speaker, if the Republican majority in this body 
was truly serious about reforming the Tax Code, the past 5\1/2\ years 
have provided ample time to accomplish this. They could have brought a 
bill to the floor at any time during the last 5 years to change the 
Code in a sweeping way, and they have chosen not to do so.
  Our colleague the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) contends that 
H.R. 4199 is a vastly improved version of his earlier legislative 
attempt to scrap the Tax Code. He has provided us with a new name for 
his legislation, a name that implies by a date certain the current code 
will indeed be replaced. This is indeed good fodder for a press release 
or two.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma has also provided us with a colorful time 
line indicating who will act when, including the date July 4th, 2004, 
when Congress will approve a new Tax Code, thus setting the stage for 
the demise of the old code on December 31, 2004. The dates also lend 
themselves quite well to press releases. Of course, sometimes Congress 
does not act by dates, and what the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Largent) would have us do is establish a date, and, if Congress were 
not able to act by that date, then there would be no Tax Code in effect 
at all and the business climate of this country would be substantially 
interrupted and jeopardized.
  Again, let me point out the Republicans have had 5\1/2\ years to 
bring a revision, a rewrite of the code to the floor, and they have not 
chosen to do so during that time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not here to say that it is impossible for Congress 
to completely revamp the method by which we fund the important and 
necessary activities of this country by July 4, 2004. I would merely 
like to remind my Republican friends that with political will and a lot 
of hard work, this Congress can accomplish many important tasks that 
will make our country even better.
  So perhaps this might be an appropriate time to ask why there seems 
to be no political will on the part of the Republican majority to 
address matters that are also of great importance, like a Patients' 
Bill of Rights, prescription drug coverage for seniors, public 
education reform, raising the minimum wage, investing in our future by 
saving Social Security and Medicare, and paying down the public debt. 
Resolving these issues will take real solutions and hard work, Mr. 
Speaker. These issues cannot be resolved by

[[Page 5568]]

issuing a press release. If the Republican leadership cannot work to 
find an answer to these pressing questions, how can we expect the 
Republican leadership to resolve the issue of creating a simple and 
fair, and the key word is ``fair,'' Tax Code?
  Mr. Speaker, this proposal sounds good on paper and in a press 
release, but you really have to be able to read between the lines to 
understand the real intent. H.R. 4199 is a classic Trojan horse, Mr. 
Speaker. To the Republican majority, the bill presented by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) represents an opportunity to 
force the country into accepting a national sales tax, as the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Linder) would propose, or a flat tax, or some other 
scheme to risk total chaos in the domestic and world markets.
  Let us take a moment to examine what a national sales tax as 
advocated by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) would mean to 
working Americans. In order to replace the revenue that will be lost 
from scrapping the current code, however unwieldy and complicated, the 
Congress would have to pass a national sales tax of up to 60 percent, 
and that sales tax would also have to apply to the Internet, something 
which the Republicans recently have been claiming they do not want to 
do. By repealing all taxes currently in place, the national sales tax 
scheme would become the sole funding source for Social Security, which 
is a big part of the reason the percentage rate would be so high. I am 
forced to question how fair that kind of a tax would be to American 
families. In fact, such a tax would be a mammoth aggressive shift of 
the tax burden in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a number of requests for time on this rule, and 
each of these Members are prepared to detail the bad news that this 
Republican press release is really peddling. But let me close by saying 
the scheme behind the proposal of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) could result in 8 million Americans losing health insurance, a 
17 percent decline in the value of the U.S. housing market, it could 
impose a $200 billion per year unfunded mandate on State and local 
governments, and would dramatically reduce the amount of charitable 
giving. Mr. Speaker, I doubt if these possibilities will be part of the 
Republican press releases this weekend.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I regret the gentleman characterized my bill 
without having read it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Largent) to respond to another inaccuracy of the gentleman.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to respond to one thing that the 
gentleman from Texas said about the bill, and I would commend reading 
the bill to the gentleman from Texas. Perhaps he does not have time to 
read all 10,000 pages of our current Tax Code, but this bill is only 14 
pages long, and I think he can wade his way through that.
  At the end of the bill it says, ``If a new Federal tax system is not 
so approved by July 4, 2004, then Congress shall be required to vote to 
reauthorize the current code.''
  If the gentleman from Texas would like to vote to reauthorize the 
current code, he can do that, thereby assuring all our business 
community friends that there will be a Tax Code.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows that just requiring Congress to vote 
does not mean that something will pass. Congress votes all the time and 
defeats legislation. The gentleman would have us vote, but he cannot 
guarantee that Congress would actually pass anything, and we would be 
faced with a situation where no Tax Code would be in place.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule 
and the Date Certain Tax Code Replacement Act. I can think of no other 
issue that strikes up more anxiety and frustration with the American 
people than taxes. By passing this rule and this legislation, Congress 
is committing to the American taxpayer to replace the present code that 
is commonly viewed as obsolete, burdensome, intrusive and unfair.
  I am fully aware that many of my colleagues do not consider this an 
important issue. We have just heard the arguments once again, it is too 
risky, it is a scheme, total chaos.
  We do not need any more excuses, because a lot of us here in America 
are wrestling with this modern cyclops, the IRS code, as we speak. We 
are doing our taxes. The Tax Code is a giant, with more pages than the 
Bible. It is more complex than the Justice Department's case against 
Microsoft. It is cold, it is heartless, and it punishes almost 
everything we consider successful. It costs us $300 billion a year just 
to prepare our taxes, not to pay our taxes, just to get ready to pay 
our taxes.
  This Tax Code is a ball and chain locked on our leg. But there is 
hope. There is a solution, and it is in this rule and in this bill. Let 
us set a specific date to rid ourselves of this ball and chain, the IRS 
code. That will give us the discipline and the incentive to put in 
place a fair and flatter system to provide for those things we need.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this rule and vote 
for this Date Certain Tax Code Replacement Act.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, all of us who recognize the importance of 
the new economy and who believe we should encourage its expansion by 
minimizing regulation and taxes and maximizing the freedom to innovate 
should join together today to express our concerns.
  This cleverly packaged proposal that the Republicans are offering is 
really the very first vote in this Congress on whether to impose a new 
Federal tax on electronic commerce. I believe we should resoundingly 
reject it. Through 3 days of hearings this week before the Committee on 
Ways and Means, on which I serve, the same Republicans who are here 
today urging this proposal have been urging us to rely on taxation of 
electronic commerce as a major new source of Federal revenue.
  The Republican-appointed Director of the Joint Committee on Taxation 
issued a report this very week noting that these new Republican tax 
proposals assume ``that retail sales through the Internet would be 
subject to the same Federal tax as other retail sales, notwithstanding 
the current moratorium.''
  This same report notes that in order to maintain the existing level 
of Federal revenues, the tax that Republicans would impose on Internet 
sales and on sales across America would be 59.5 percent over 10 years. 
That is 60 percent. Those are not my numbers, those are the Republican 
numbers. I know that it sounds unbelievable that a Republican Congress 
would try to do this, but that is exactly what they are proposing, a 60 
percent tax, in addition to any State and local taxes on electronic 
commerce that might be imposed.

                              {time}  1345

  To our Republican colleagues who say they are going to pull the Tax 
Code up by the roots and replace it with this new e-commerce tax, I 
want to tell them that Americans who understand the new economy are not 
going to sit idly by while the Federal government imposes a 60 percent 
tax, a 60 percent addition on the cost of every online purchase.
  I believe that high-tech issues should be truly bipartisan in their 
consideration.
  The problem we have too often experienced from the Republicans on 
behalf of working together on high technology is that they reject 
bipartisan approaches. They prefer the politics of division, trying to 
divide Democrats from high-tech, even on issues as esoteric on digital 
signatures.
  Too often, as is the case here, they bear the burden of all their 
right wing ideological baggage. They have tied themselves to far right 
social groups who are endangering our educational

[[Page 5569]]

system with their insistence on rejecting evolution and the big bang 
theory of the origin of the universe, and it is those kinds of 
extremists who come here today insisting that Republicans must adhere 
to the doctrine that the progressive income tax system upon which this 
great Nation has relied for almost a century, that any form of this tax 
system is morally wrong.
  As an early supporter myself of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, I 
believe that if we overburden e-commerce, as they propose, with 
taxation and regulation in its infancy, it will be stifled. It will 
never be able to achieve its full economic potential.
  The Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce, which has been 
meeting this past year, could not achieve agreement on the question of 
State and local taxation of the Net. But I do not believe that even 
they considered this much more radical Republican alternative of the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) and his colleagues to use the Net 
as a major new source for Federal taxation.
  Imposing too heavy a burden on the Net too soon will have devastating 
consequences. Do not scrap the Code by scrapping the future of the new 
economy. Let us reject another misguided doctrinaire Republican 
proposal.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in a world in which all economists admit that the 
consumption base is larger than the income base and the average income 
tax to bring our revenues in is 28 percent, to suggest we have to have 
a 60 percent larger base is just silliness.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I think this is the very reason for this 
Code. We have heard the view of the left-wing extremists about the Tax 
Code. They think the present Tax Code is just real spiffy.
  We have also heard the numbers: 17,000 pages, 7 million words, 54,000 
changes, $134 billion in earlier compliance costs. Let me state that 
the last figure, $134 billion in compliance costs, imagine what our 
families, our small businesses, and even our big corporations could do 
with $134 billion they are spending on a hopelessly complex Federal Tax 
Code.
  I think this is the greatest legacy this Congress could leave the 
American people is to scrap the Code we have now, get rid of the IRS as 
we know it now. Everywhere I go, talk radio, town meetings, when this 
subject is brought up, there is disagreement on what the new tax system 
should be, but there is almost no disagreement about getting rid of the 
present system.
  No law-abiding citizen should be intimidated and made fearful by 
their government. Yet, if one gets an envelope in our mailbox, in our 
area it is from Ogden Utah, a little brown envelope from Ogden, Utah, 
we know it is from the IRS and we freeze in utter fear, no matter how 
honestly and carefully we have filled out our taxes, because we know we 
are probably about to get an audit.
  That is not right. We need a fair, we need a simple code that we can 
all understand and it will make us not fear our government. We need to 
pass this bill and we need to pass this rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt).
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, April Fool's day for the Republicans came 
a couple of weeks late. Every year they try to fool the American people 
during tax week into thinking that they are really doing something 
about the tax system that all of us struggle with and none of us are 
fond of.
  Are the American people supposed to believe that the party that is 
throwing a party for their wealthy friends and supporters with nearly 
$1 trillion in tax breaks really cares about the tax burden on middle-
income families? Do Republicans really think that most Americans would 
rather throw a party for the wealthiest Americans, instead of using 
this money to provide a prescription drug benefit for all seniors so 
that everyone, not just the wealthy, can afford the best health care 
coverage in the world?
  The American people are not fooled by this tired routine. Republicans 
have controlled Congress now for 5 years, yet during this time they 
have never, never passed any comprehensive tax reform that would make 
the lives of Americans easier.
  In fact, since the Republicans took over the Congress in 1995, the 
Tax Code has become more complex, and it takes the average person who 
files a form 1040 30 percent longer to fill out their forms. They talk 
about it for a couple of weeks in April, but that is the end of it. 
There is no follow-through. There is no new code coming into being.
  One conclusion from the inaction could be that Republicans actually 
like a Tax Code that is riddled with special interest exemptions and 
they want to keep it that way.
  This bill proposes ripping out the Tax Code by the roots, but does 
not put anything in its place. We do not reform the Tax Code by 
appointing a commission. We do it through the hard work of coming up 
with real reform, a real alternative, not burning down the current one 
and just hoping that something might come along.
  Many of us have proposed tax simplification. I have done that, and I 
would like to work a plan through the Congress. That is the responsible 
way: Put forward a plan, let people criticize it, reform the current 
system. Republicans would rather pull a stunt to create an illusion 
that there is reform going on when nothing is actually happening.
  What would happen if we just abolished the Code and put nothing in 
its place? It would be an economic disaster. The Tax Code influences so 
many economic decisions by businesses and individuals: Whether and when 
to invest in property, whether or not to save, whether or not to sell 
stocks. If we rip up the rules with indecision in its place, we create 
chaos. That is why the National Association of Realtors, the National 
Association of Manufacturers, have condemned this proposal as 
irresponsible.
  Let us be clear about what we want from a new system. Two prominent 
Republican proposals, the national sales tax and the flat tax, both 
would hurt middle-income families in serious ways. If we are going to 
destroy the Code, let us pledge today that the replacement would be an 
improvement, not worse than what we have.
  Let us join together on a bipartisan basis to declare that the new 
system should do the following:
  First, we should not put a retail sales tax on prescription drugs and 
other health care services;
  Second, that the reform should be fiscally responsible and protect 
social security;
  Third, that it should be less complicated than the current code, and 
should be fair to people at different income levels;
  Fourth, that we should not put a retail sales tax on Internet sales;
  Fifth, that we should not shift Federal tax burdens onto State and 
local governments;
  Seventh, we should not jeopardize the ability of people to get 
employer-paid health care;
  Lastly, we should not shift the tax burden to low- and middle-income 
families.
  If Republicans agree with these principles, they should vote for our 
alternative. If they feel compelled to vote against the alternative of 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), it is fair to ask why they 
are looking to tax prescription drugs and Internet sales, because that 
is exactly what the Republican national sales tax would do.
  I think it is time to vote for the alternative. If the alternative 
does not pass, I hope Members will vote down this very bad but often 
repeated idea.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say, it is hard to take seriously the words 
of a gentleman who introduced a flat tax with five different levels 
several years ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. 
Cubin).
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.

[[Page 5570]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the measure under debate 
today and in support of the rule.
  Our Tax Code, the one that we currently live under, has been tweaked 
and modified and transformed to such a point that all that remains is 
layer upon layer upon layer of incoherence and inconsistency. We have 
allowed confusion to replace common sense. Our garden has become so 
overrun with weeds that we do need to tear it up and start anew.
  I have heard several of my colleagues today express their concerns 
about tearing our Tax Code out by its roots. I guess I cannot fault 
them for their hesitancy. This is a monumental piece of legislation we 
are considering. As we work in the coming years to craft a new Tax 
Code, this legislative body will have no choice but to accept 
accountability for how much of the American family's paycheck the 
Federal government collects, and for all of the frustrations that they 
have to experience in filing their tax returns.
  For those Members who prefer big government and increased Federal 
spending, that will be a heavy burden for them to bear, as well it 
should be. But please, Mr. Speaker, do not be fooled by those today who 
try to dismiss this measure that we are debating as a political act. 
This bill does not establish a new tax policy. We will have plenty of 
time to determine what policy we should pass once we have begun debate 
on this bill. Where we will have time to adopt a realistic tax policy.
  Committing ourselves to replacing an overwhelming and inconsistent 
Tax Code is not a political issue, it is about making a promise to the 
American people that is long overdue. Passage of this measure clearly 
proclaims to American families in every congressional district that we 
know this Tax Code is broken, and that we are going to do everything 
that we can to replace it with one that works.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear what is going on here. We have a 
group of Fidel Castros and Che Guevaras on the other side. They are 
revolutionaries. They want to tear down the system, but they have no 
plan. They do not know how to govern. They have had 5\1/2\ years to 
bring a revision of the Tax Code to the floor and they have not done 
it. What makes us think they will do it now?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, we all got here the same way, we campaigned. 
During the campaigns we waged there were all kinds of political 
buttons, there were yard signs, there were balloons. Some people had 
hair combs with their names on, nail files. Of course, there is the 
traditional bumper sticker.
  Today what is being brought to the floor of the House in my view is a 
political bumper sticker. Why do I say that? Because the American 
people really want us, once that campaign is over, to come here, to be 
thoughtful, to work with the kind of earnestness that is going to 
produce sound public policy for our country.
  So what is on the floor? What are we debating for the American people 
that are tuned in today? Rather than a thoughtful, comprehensive 
alternative to our Nation's Tax Code, which is complex, which is 
confusing, and no one likes, we get a bumper sticker. It is flimsy 
because it is trying to sell a tax plan that taxes the Internet and 
derails our Nation's new economy.
  Yesterday there was a large press conference where the Speaker of the 
House accepted the report of the Internet Tax Advisory Commission, 
which recommended that the Internet not be taxed. The Speaker said, we 
intend to take this report seriously.
  Today, at this very moment, while we are here on the floor, the very 
same time, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means is holding a 
hearing where another Republican Member of Congress is testifying in 
favor of a national sales tax plan that will tax the Internet.
  Representing a good part of Silicon Valley, I want to tell the 
Members something, my constituents are asking right now, who is on 
first, who is on third? This is a 59.5 percent sales tax, Federal sales 
tax, not including State or local taxes, on electronic commerce.
  We cannot have it both ways. If we are going to pull something out by 
its roots, we have to plant thoughtful seeds that are going to produce 
something else for our Nation. Our Nation's economy, this new economy, 
is the envy of the entire world. If in fact we pile a 59.5 percent 
Internet tax on electronic commerce in this country, we will not only 
sink the Internet, sink the golden goose that is producing something 
for our Nation, but we will absolutely kill it off.
  So I ask my colleagues to reject this political bumper sticker, this 
ill-conceived plan. Our Nation deserves better.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say only this: those who choose to not put a 
sales tax on the Internet are picking winners and losers. The 
Government ought to be neutral. Our neighbors down the street ought to 
have the same treatment as the people that sell on the Internet in 
competition with them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of both the rule and this bill. 
Today is a good day because today is the day we learn which party 
really supports ethics and government reform, because this is where 
reform truly begins.
  One cannot, one cannot, seriously and sincerely be in favor of 
reforming the so-called iron triangle unless you strike at its heart. 
What is the iron triangle made out of? The Tax Code. That is why the 
Democrats and that is why the establishment hate this bill so much, 
because it goes to the heart of their iron triangle.
  Listen to the excuses they make; listen to how they try to change the 
subject. The truth is, what is it that Washington special interests 
focus on most? They focus on the Tax Code, because this Byzantine, 
complicated, confusing and complex Tax Code is such a monstrosity that 
it is this Tax Code where they can hide their special interest favors. 
That is why they support the current Tax Code. That is why they do not 
want the Tax Code scrapped. That is why they want to change the 
subject.
  So I say to my colleagues, if they are truly in favor of ethics 
reform and government reform and changing the system and changing 
America, they must support this rule, support this bill, and let us 
launch ourselves on the real road to reform.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of the Committee on Ways 
and Means and generally do not get terrifically involved in issues of 
taxation except when I, like all the other Americans, pay my taxes once 
a year. I know that I join many in America by saying that I do not like 
the current system. April 15 is not a delightful day, and I think we 
can agree on that on a bipartisan basis.
  However, the fact that the current Tax Code could be improved is 
really no good reason to propose to simply blow it up and thereby 
threaten the new economy.
  Now when I learned that the Republican-appointed director of the 
Joint Committee on Taxation had issued a report this week indicating 
that these proposals would require a 59.5 percent sales tax, well, heck 
let us round it up to 60 percent sales tax, and that that would have to 
be including Internet sales, I became actually pretty concerned.
  I do not really believe that this measure is going to become law; but 
if it were at this point, it would have a severe negative impact on the 
new economy.
  There are many who believe that the Internet eventually, the sale of 
goods on the Internet, will eventually be subject to taxation. I do not 
have a position on that at this point, but to suggest that a 60 percent 
taxation rate

[[Page 5571]]

would be appropriate for the Internet can do no good for the new 
economy.
  Having served 14 years in local government, I would note that this 
would be on top of whatever local governments do. In my own county of 
Santa Clara, the Silicon Valley, we have a State sales tax of 6 
percent; and we also have some voter-approved sales taxes that the 
voters have imposed on themselves to do highways and transit. So in 
Santa Clara County this would be a 68 percent Internet sales tax.
  I would urge Members to vote no.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Portman), from the Committee on Ways and Means, to respond.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the point to those in the Chamber 
and those who might be listening that the folks on the other side of 
the aisle who are talking about this bill must not have read it. This 
bill has nothing to do with a sales tax, nothing to do with a 60 
percent tax or a 20 percent tax or a 5 percent tax.
  This is about forcing Congress to deal with what the gentlewoman just 
said is a flawed Tax Code. We think it is broken. We think it ought to 
be fixed. We are not prejudging what it should be. This sets up a 
commission, which would be an 18-month bipartisan, bicameral 
commission, including the administration, that would analyze this 
situation and come back and report to Congress for Congress to make 
that decision.
  I just want to clarify the debate.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the time remaining on each 
side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost) has 13 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Linder) has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing as absurd as blowing 
something up if one does not know what they are going to have to 
replace it. Today, the Committee on Ways and Means is considering a 
national sales tax as if it is a panacea for complexity and unfairness.
  Mr. Speaker, for 6 years I headed the largest sales tax agency in 
this country, and I am here to testify that the sales tax offers an 
opportunity at every level for complexity, unfairness, special interest 
provisions. Everything that is hated about the Internal Revenue Code 
will be brought in to a sales Tax Code if the reasons for that 
complexity are not defeated, the reasons for that unfairness, and there 
is not real campaign finance reform.
  What does this closed rule do? It prevents us from bringing section 
527 and its unfair rules that hide political activity, prevent 
disclosure of campaign finance to the American people. So we have a 
rule designed to facilitate, not reform, but a national sales tax 
system to be implemented by a Congress put there by secret 
contributions, secret political organizations.
  Mr. Speaker, we should instead be trying to reform our tax laws code 
section by code section.
  This rule and the underlying bill is much sound and fury that will 
signify nothing, because what does a politician do if they want to do 
nothing? Appoint a commission. Great. We appoint a commission. It comes 
through with a national sales tax bill at 59.5 percent. We, of course, 
do not adopt that; and this Congress will be put in a position, having 
wasted years, having deflected any effort at real income tax reform, 
and be in a position where it must either let the Government expire or 
readopt a flawed Tax Code.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, at the risk of sounding remedial, I would like to point 
out to the previous speaker that this is not about campaign finance.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Staten Island, 
New York (Mr. Fossella).
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the question that we need to ask ourselves and 
the question that I think we owe to be answered by the American people 
is, does anybody in this Nation truly understand the Tax Code? I have 
yet to find anybody who truly understands the Tax Code.
  So then we have to ask a follow-up question: Is that right? Is it 
right for the American people not to understand their own Tax Code; 
that the taxi driver or the small business owner or the nurse or the 
teacher that when they get their tax bills at the end of the year and 
they are trembling when they have to go see an accountant because they 
have no idea what they are doing; is that right?
  Should the Congress be sending out a signal to the American people, 
here is the Tax Code and we do not care if they do not understand it? 
Is it not taken for granted the genius of the American people, the 
spirit of the American people, the productivity of the American people, 
the creativity of the American people, and then we give them this Tax 
Code?
  Then we have a reasonable approach that says, know what, Congress has 
a habit too often of imposing mandates on the private sector, to say to 
the private sector do this by such and such a date, and we do not care 
what the costs are, we do not care what they have to do to meet those 
goals. Congress speaks; they do, they follow.
  Well, now Congress, some people in Congress, are urging Congress to 
impose those standards on itself, to say to the American people we hear 
their plea, we hear their plea that the Tax Code is too complicated. We 
are going to give them a Tax Code that they can understand.
  What is wrong with that? One would be led to believe that this 
building is going to crumble, that the world is going to fall apart; 
but in reality what is going to happen is the responsible people in 
this House and across our country are going to say give us something 
simple; give us something that encourages productivity, encourages 
economic growth and does not penalize the hardworking taxpayers of this 
country.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker was asking about simplicity and how 
do we understand all of this.
  Let me read a memo from the Joint Committee on Taxation. This ought 
to be simple enough for the gentleman to understand.
  The memorandum is in response to their request for an estimate of the 
budget neutral tax rate for H.R. 2525. That is the bill of the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a bill to replace the current U.S. 
corporate and individual income, estate and gift and Federal income 
contributions act, payroll taxes, with a flat tax on retail sales of 
all goods and services.
  Then on the second page it has a little chart here, neutral over 5 
years, 59.5 percent. That is what they want to do, neutral over 5 
years, national sales tax 59.5 percent. I believe the American people 
can understand that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. 
Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
this rule. I represent thousands of Oregonians that work in the high-
tech industry. They tell me that the best way to encourage expansion of 
the new economy is to minimize government regulation and maximize a 
freedom to innovate. That is why high-tech issues should be considered 
on a truly bipartisan basis, and to date we have done that.
  In October of 1998, we overwhelmingly passed the Internet Tax Freedom 
Act, a law to keep the heavy hand of government off the Internet. We 
passed this law because we all know that if e-commerce is overburdened 
by taxing it and crippling it with government regulations, then it will 
never achieve its full potential.
  Then we turned around and last October overwhelmingly approved 
another bipartisan measure, the Global Internet Tax Freedom Act, to 
keep the Internet from being taxed by members of the WTO and the United 
Nations.

[[Page 5572]]

  That is why I am so disappointed the House leadership would approve 
this proposal because it is nothing more than a back-door attempt to 
impose a new Federal tax on electronic commerce. We have absolutely no 
business scrapping our Tax Code and replacing it with up to a 59.5 
percent national sales tax that would give the IRS jurisdiction over 
the Internet.
  I am not fond of the current system, and I will work to reform it; 
but this defies all common logic. It is a sure-fire way to ensure that 
we cripple the development of our high-tech industry.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and support common sense, 
bipartisan tax relief.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, America was founded by revolutionaries. 
America has a $300 billion trade deficit. I agree with the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Tax Code is designed to modify 
economic behavior, and that is why we have to throw it out. If the 
Founders wanted to modify economic behavior, they would have hired 
someone like Sigmund Freud to write it.
  The first Constitution allowed for slavery, treated women like 
property and Indians like buffaloes; but it had enough good sense to 
not allow an income tax.
  When the income tax was brought forward, the Supreme Court struck it 
down, and Members of Congress screwed it up with an amendment.
  I support the rule. I support the bill.
  Now the Linder-Peterson bill may have been scored but they are 
honest. They throw FICA in. The Tauzin- Traficant 15 percent has not 
been scored. We leave FICA alone, and so help me God a combination of 
Linder-Peterson/Tauzin-Traficant will be the law of this land.
  Now I can remember coming before the Democrats, and they all laughed 
at me. The Traficant bill would change the burden of proof in a civil 
tax case. It required judicial consent. They laughed at me. You never 
gave me a hearing. The Committee on Ways and Means laughed in my face. 
I want to thank the Republican Party for including the Traficant bill 
in the IRS reform.
  Now Democrats, listen to what the Republicans did for the American 
people. In 1997, before the new reform law, there were 3.1 million 
attachments on wages and accounts.

                              {time}  1415

  In 1999, 540,000. Property liens, 1997, 680,000. In 1999, Mr. 
Speaker, 168,000. But listen to the big one. Life, liberty, and pursuit 
of property. The last amendment to the document we are talking about 
was life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, I say to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu). Property seizures, 1997, 10,037. Requiring judicial 
consent, 161 in 1999.
  My colleagues were wrong then. They are wrong now. They are going to 
be in the minority for a long time if they do not get progressive. 
Scrap this Tax Code. It will give King Kong a hernia. It rewards 
dependency. It penalizes achievement. It subsidizes illegitimacy.
  What can we do to perfect this bad document? The 15 percent national 
retail sales tax leaves FICA alone. It exempts all property taxes up to 
the poverty level. It adjusts the Consumer Price Index that, if it 
affects seniors, the COLA will be increased. They are scoring it now.
  The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) and the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) have been honest. They throw FICA in. We do 
not. We think we have got to study it. We have enough time in 5 years 
to change this code.
  Let me say one last thing to Democrats, 25 percent of a manufactured 
item's clause is complying with the Tax Code. That Toyota made in Japan 
has a 25 percent advantage right off the start against my Cavalier in 
Lordstown. I will have no more of it. Damn it, I want a study. I want 
it to be known that there is a Democrat involved in the national sales 
tax that leaves FICA alone for now, and Tauzin- Traficant-Linder-
Peterson must get a look, or we will have failed our people.
  There is one last thing I would like to say to everybody in this 
room. We have a $300 billion trade deficit. We are not going to solve 
it modifying economic behavior.
  We abolish the IRS, abolish all income tax, abolish all debt taxes, 
capital gains taxes, all taxes on savings, all taxes on investment, all 
taxes on education. Why should we be paying double taxes on an income 
dollar and then a dollar of savings. Beam me up here.
  The American people are going to have to change the Tax Code. My 
colleagues should make it a part of the presidential debate. Because 
the Democrats do not have enough anatomy to address the progressive 
thinking that the American people need.
  The Tauzin-Traficant bill is going to be scored. If my colleagues 
continue to scare people with the 59.5 percent, and, personally, I 
believe they were smoking dope when they gave it, then they are going 
to have a hell of a rough time with me.
  I urge the Congress to overwhelmingly support this rule and to 
support this bill. The Democrats who would not listen to the burden of 
proof and judicial consent, they should pay a little attention and get 
on board. They might be able to help us make this new scheme a better 
one for all Americans.


                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The gallery is 
advised that they are not supposed to applaud.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I agree with everyone who thinks that the 
current Tax Code is broken. I am on the committee. Let me say at the 
outset how hard it is to reach a consensus for any change in the Tax 
Code.
  The Republicans know they have been in charge 5\1/2\ years now, and 
it is just not easy when one is running a train to reach a consensus. 
We cannot reach a consensus on things that the American people seem to 
have a consensus about. The danger of this approach, in my view, is for 
that very reason.
  If we enacted a bill that did away with, pulled it out by its root, 
as has been said, on a day certain, and that Congress at that later 
date could not reach a consensus on what ought to replace it, we will 
throw, not only this country, but the world into a recession in the 
likes in which, in my judgment, have never been seen, because of one 
thing, the uncertainty of the American economy.
  As bad as this is, and we must continue every time we meet to work on 
making it simpler, making it fair, all the things that everybody here 
agrees on, as bad as that is, the uncertainty injected into the 
markets, the uncertainty injected into what would happen to the 
American dollar, the bedrock of international currency if this actually 
took place is, in my view, appalling.
  No sane, rational business person would say scrap it, but then we 
will just take a look and see whether what we can come up with a 
consensus on to replace it. That is not a thoughtful way to go about 
the Nation's business as stewards.
  I tell my colleagues, this is a nice exercise in bashing the Tax 
Code, and I will join in on that one every day. But this approach, when 
we do not know if we can reach a consensus, in my view, is not only 
dangerous, but it is counterproductive.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Thune).
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that this time of year, there 
are millions of Americans who are sitting in their living rooms and 
their kitchen tables and going through this process that we do 
annually, the annual ritual of filling out their tax return and 
thinking to themselves this is absolutely insane.
  There is no justification. It is absolutely indefensible what we ask 
the American people to do to comply with the Tax Code. One looks at 
what we spend in terms of resources and time and energy, cost, it costs 
over $200 billion a year just to comply with the Tax

[[Page 5573]]

Code in this country. Annually, Americans spend over 5 billion hours 
filling out IRS forms, equal to about the equivalent of almost 3 
million people working full time, doing nothing but complying with IRS 
paperwork.
  There was a poll done about a year ago, Mr. Speaker, which asked the 
question, ``If you could just choose one person to have audited by the 
IRS, who would it be? Your mother-in-law? Your boss? Or your 
congressman?''
  The mother-in-law ironically only got 3 percent. The boss got 8 
percent. The congressman got 68 percent. People in this country are 
looking for us to help solve the problem.
  If my colleagues cannot take the legislation that has been introduced 
by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) who has accommodated a lot 
of the concerns that were raised by our colleagues in the last session 
of Congress, and address those, they cannot be against that without 
saying I accept the status quo. The status quo, in my opinion, Mr. 
Speaker, is a national tragedy.
  We have to do better because the American people deserve better. They 
deserve a Tax Code that is simple and clear and fair and in which they 
do not have to be fearful every year when they go through this process 
of trying to fill it out that they may be audited by the IRS for 
something they do not even know about, because we go through the ritual 
of adding to and the myriad and the Byzantine regulations and the 
number of laws that are consistently put on the books each year to try 
to make this thing more complicated.
  We have a responsibility to the American people. I urge the adoption 
of this rule and the passage of the bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 
6\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) has 
5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  The other side has used words like absurd, Byzantine, ludicrous to 
describe the Tax Code. There are a lot of problems with the Tax Code. I 
would only add one word to that, and I would apply it to the other 
side, that is ``timid.''
  They are too timid to bring a real bill to the floor that actually 
changes the code. If my colleagues want a change, they control the 
committee, they control the process here, albeit temporarily, bring a 
bill to the floor that changes the code.
  They do not have, one of the other speakers made some reference to 
anatomy. I would only say they are very, very timid when it comes to 
actually solving the problems that face this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for 
yielding me the time. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) 
for his premature recognition. To further discuss what the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Frost) and the gentleman from Ohio mentioned, it is 
obvious that it was not anatomy that got me here. It was a sound 
consideration of policy, a measured approach to fiscal responsibility, 
and basically being responsible and exercising common sense.
  Now, I do not like the current Tax Code. I do not know anyone who 
does. But to toss it out without a replacement is absolutely 
irresponsible. The business uncertainty that it injects into the 
economy alone, that uncertainty alone should get this bill tossed.
  Even worse, the likely replacement for this, the likely replacement 
for the current system is a national sales tax.
  I would like to say two things about a national sales tax, first of 
all, its devastating effect on e-commerce. E-commerce is burgeoning 
right now. It cannot stand the projected 50 percent tax. It would choke 
e-commerce in its infancy. It would consign e-commerce to an early crib 
death.
  Secondly, and perhaps more importantly to me and to a few other 
folks, my home State of Oregon does not have a sales tax. We have voted 
on it several times, and we have repeatedly rejected a sales tax. 
Alaska does not have a State sales tax. Delaware does not have a State 
sales tax. Montana does not have a State sales Tax. New Hampshire does 
not have a State sales tax. My dear State of Oregon does not have a 
State sales tax.
  I will be darned if I will see a Federal Government impose a form of 
taxation on my State that my constituents have repeatedly rejected.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), the sponsor of the measure we 
are about to take up.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I have been 
the husband of one wife for 25 years, the father of four children that 
are productive members of our community, been elected to Congress three 
times by overwhelming majorities, and I feel like that is some kind of 
track record on being a responsible person.
  But sometimes it takes some irresponsible acts, some radical acts to 
make some changes that are needed. I would tell my colleagues that 
there would be many people that were probably in this House Chamber 
that said that dropping a bomb on Japan to end World War II, at least 
precipitate the end of World War II, was a radical act, and that we 
need to think about that, that we need to be more responsible. But, no, 
sometimes it takes something more radical to make significant changes.
  I want to tell my colleagues the IRS and the Tax Code are waging a 
war on our families, on individuals, on small business, on the business 
community at large.
  My colleagues say it would create uncertainty in the markets. What 
could be more uncertain than the 6,000 changes that this Congress has 
made since 1986? That is what is creating the uncertainty is the fact 
that, every time Congress messes with the Tax Code, it gets longer and 
it gets more complex. It is time to stop the nonsense.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I suppose, unlike some of the debates we 
have here in this House, that the amazing thing about this debate is 
that the comments that our colleagues on the Republican side have made 
confirm all of our concerns about this measure.
  Indeed, they defend the principal sponsor of one of these measures to 
tax e-commerce. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) defends the 
taxation of e-commerce as a new Federal revenue source. One of his 
principal supporters testifying in the committee indicated it would be 
a major source of future Federal revenue.
  No one, until this radical proposal was presented here in Congress, 
has proposed that the Federal Government should rely on e-commerce to 
finance the operations of the entire Federal Government. There has been 
considerable debate over whether there should even be State or local 
sales tax on e-commerce. That is a debate for another day.
  But the idea of imposing on top of State and local taxes a major 
Federal sales tax on all e-commerce is likely to have a devastating 
impact on e-commerce. These are young companies. These are start-up 
companies.
  Sometimes the true dream of American capitalism is that one can begin 
in a garage and grow to be a major part of the American economy. Those 
are the kinds of little companies that are out there that need to be 
given room to grow. Americans are finding as consumers that there are 
many opportunities offered through e-commerce.

                              {time}  1430

  These Republicans would come forward and scrap the code by scrapping 
the new economy, by imposing up to a 60 percent tax on these major 
participants in our new economy.
  Now, they claim that it is not 60 percent; that maybe it is just 20 
or 30 percent. Is 20 or 30 percent not enough to alarm anyone who is 
concerned about whether or not we are going to encourage and develop e-
commerce? But it is the Republicans' own analysis by the Joint Tax 
Committee, issued on April 7 by a Republican-appointed director, who 
says that the Internet is going to be subject to up to a 59.5 percent 
tax.

[[Page 5574]]

  It is the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) who testified in 
writing to the Committee on Ways and Means yesterday that ``all goods 
and services for consumption would be taxed at the same rate. No 
exceptions.'' That means, just like the bill of the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Linder), that there is no exception for e-commerce.
  So the proposal we have today before us is one that scraps the code 
by transferring the burden on to e-commerce. If my colleagues think 
that is a good idea, if they want to pay 60 percent, maybe just 20 or 
30 on top of every e-commerce transaction, sign onto this Scrap the 
Code because that is what it is all about.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear what this is all about. This is a 
bumper sticker. That is what we are debating today. We are debating a 
bumper sticker and a press release. We are not debating action. We are 
not debating a legislative proposal that would actually help the 
American public.
  I just want to reiterate. If the people on the other side really 
wanted to change the Tax Code, they have had 5\1/2\ years to do it, and 
they have not brought a proposal to the floor of the House to do that. 
All they want is the opportunity to give a speech and to issue a press 
release.
  Well, they have had that, and I think the American people should 
understand that that is all they get out of what is going on today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the IRS has made criminals of us all, and it is time for 
it to go away. And that is what this is about, scrapping the code. This 
is real. Now, it may be a joke for Democrats, who have spent 40 years 
building up this monstrosity, but this is very real.
  And there are some very real proposals to replace it, proposals that 
have been studied for years. My proposal, which has been ridiculed 
today, has been studied for over 3\1/2\ years, with $15 million spent 
in universities from Harvard to Boston College to MIT to Stanford to 
Rice, and none of them came up with a 60 percent tax rate.
  Guess who did? A committee whose members have their entire political 
capital invested, or their intellectual capital invested in the Tax 
Code. They would lie to get this thing defeated, because we have 
depreciated their intellectual capital if we get rid of all the income 
taxes and all the difficulties and the taxes are transparent and easy 
to understand. They will not be needed any more.
  If we get rid of this Tax Code with a single transparent, 
straightforward, simple sales tax, Americans will know what it costs 
every time they buy something, what it costs for government. What they 
are not telling the American public is that currently, as the gentleman 
from Ohio pointed out, we know that 22 to 25 percent, according to 
various studies, of what taxpayers currently pay for at retail is the 
current embedded cost of this tax system.
  They would rather have a hidden tax than a transparent tax because 
they know, if taxpayers saw how much government was costing them, they 
would rebel and ask us to reduce the role of government in their lives. 
We are currently paying it. It is hidden. They like that.
  This income tax was originally intended and promised to only tax the 
top 2 percent of the income earners in America. That was the promise 
that was made in 1913. And indeed, if we think back to the last two tax 
increases, 1990 and 1993, the promise was made we are only going to 
raise the taxes on the top 1 percent. Well, guess what? In 1990, the 
top 1 percent paid $106 billion in taxes. And after the tax increase on 
them, the following year they paid $100 billion. Because rich people 
are often smart people, they can find ways to rearrange their income.
  But each of these tax increases, that these folks so love, 
reverberates through the system and we all pay. We all pay. All we want 
is to get rid of a monstrosity that no one understands; that confuses 
every taxpayer and keeps hidden what the actual cost of government is, 
and then let us have a debate on what to replace it with. It may not be 
my tax bill; perhaps it will be the bill offered by the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Armey) or the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) or the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). But it will be simpler, more 
understandable, and it will be fairer.
  One of my favorite stories about the 1913 debate on the 16th 
amendment to impose the income tax was that one of the Senators was 
ridiculed and laughed off the floor of the United States Senate for 
saying something absolutely outrageous. He said this: ``Mark my words, 
before this is over, the government will be taking 10 percent of 
everything you earn.'' It was considered so outrageous by his 
colleagues that they ridiculed him off the floor of the Senate.
  I feel certain that is what gave fresh meaning to my favorite country 
western song, ``If 10 Percent Is Enough for Jesus it Ought to be Enough 
for Uncle Sam.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 473, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 4199) to terminate the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 473, the bill is considered read for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 4199 is as follows:

                               H.R. 4199

       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 ``Date Certain Tax Code 
     Replacement Act''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to set a date certain for 
     replacing the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with a simple and 
     fair alternative.

     SEC. 3. 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, 2004; 
     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, 2004.
       (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. 4. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TAX REFORM AND SIMPLIFICATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is overly complex, 
     imposes significant burdens on individuals and businesses and 
     the economy, is extremely difficult for the Internal Revenue 
     Service to administer, and is in need of fundamental reform 
     and simplification.
       (2) Many of the problems encountered by taxpayers in 
     dealing with the Internal Revenue Service could be eliminated 
     or alleviated by fundamental reform and simplification.
       (3) The Federal Government's present fiscal outlook for 
     continuing and sustained budget surpluses provides a unique 
     opportunity for the Congress to consider measures for 
     fundamental reform and simplification of the tax laws.
       (4) Recent efforts to simplify or reform the tax laws have 
     not been successful due in part to the difficulty of 
     developing broad-based, nonpartisan support for proposals to 
     make such changes.
       (5) Many of the problems with the Internal Revenue Service 
     stem from the overly complex tax code the agency is asked to 
     administer.
       (b) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--To carry out the purposes of this section, 
     there is established within the legislative branch a National 
     Commission on Tax Reform and Simplification (in this section 
     referred to as the ``Commission'').
       (2) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 15 
     members, as follows:
       (A) Three members appointed by the President, two from the 
     executive branch of the Government and one from private life.
       (B) Four members appointed by the majority leader of the 
     Senate, one from Members of the Senate and three from private 
     life.

[[Page 5575]]

       (C) Two members appointed by the minority leader of the 
     Senate, one from Members of the Senate and one from private 
     life.
       (D) Four members appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, one from Members of the House and three from 
     private life.
       (E) Two members appointed by the minority leader of the 
     House of Representatives, one from Members of the House and 
     one from private life.
       (3) Chair.--The Commission shall elect a Chair (or two Co-
     Chairs) from among its members.
       (4) Meetings, quorums, vacancies.--After its initial 
     meeting, the Commission shall meet upon the call of the Chair 
     (Co-Chairs, if elected) or a majority of its members. Nine 
     members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum. Any 
     vacancy in the Commission shall not affect its powers, but 
     shall be filled in the same manner in which the original 
     appointment was made. Any meeting of the Commission or any 
     subcommittee thereof may be held in executive session to the 
     extent that the Chair (Co-Chairs, if elected) or a majority 
     of the members of the Commission or subcommittee determine 
     appropriate.
       (5) Continuation of membership.--If--
       (A) any individual who appointed a member to the Commission 
     by virtue of holding a position described in paragraph (2) 
     ceases to hold such position before the report of the 
     Commission is submitted under subsection (g), or
       (B) a member was appointed to the Commission as a Member of 
     Congress and the member ceases to be a Member of Congress, or 
     was appointed to the Commission because the member was not an 
     officer or employee of any government and later becomes an 
     officer or employee of a government, that member may continue 
     as a member for not longer than the 30-day period beginning 
     on the date that such individual ceases to hold such position 
     or such member ceases to be a Member of Congress or becomes 
     such an officer or employee, as the case may be.
       (6) Appointment; initial meeting.--
       (A) Appointment.--It is the sense of the Congress that 
     members of the Commission should be appointed not more than 
     60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (B) Initial meeting.--If, after 60 days from the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, eight or more members of the 
     Commission have been appointed, members who have been 
     appointed may meet and select the Chair (or Co-Chairs) who 
     thereafter shall have the authority to begin the operations 
     of the Commission, including the hiring of staff.
       (c) Functions of the Commission.--
       (1) In general.--The functions of the Commission shall be--
       (A) to conduct, for a period of not to exceed 18 months 
     from the date of its first meeting, the review described in 
     paragraph (2), and
       (B) to submit to the Congress a report of the results of 
     such review, including recommendations for fundamental reform 
     and simplification of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as 
     described in subsection (g).
       (2) Review.--The Commission shall review--
       (A) the present structure and provisions of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986, especially with respect to--
       (i) its impact on the economy (including the impact on 
     savings, capital formation and capital investment);
       (ii) its impact on families and the workforce (including 
     issues relating to distribution of tax burden);
       (iii) the compliance cost to taxpayers; and
       (iv) the ability of the Internal Revenue Service to 
     administer such provisions;
       (B) whether tax systems imposed under the laws of other 
     countries could provide more efficient and fair methods of 
     funding the revenue requirements of the government;
       (C) whether the income tax should be replaced with a tax 
     imposed in a different manner or on a different base; and
       (D) whether the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 can be 
     simplified, absent wholesale restructuring or replacement 
     thereof.
       (d) Powers of the Commission.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission or, on the authorization of 
     the Commission, any subcommittee or member thereof, may, for 
     the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this section, 
     hold such hearings and sit and act at such times and places, 
     take such testimony, receive such evidence, and administer 
     such oaths, as the Commission or such designated subcommittee 
     or designated member may deem advisable.
       (2) Contracting.--The Commission may, to such extent and in 
     such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter 
     into contracts to enable the Commission to discharge its 
     duties under this section.
       (3) Assistance from federal agencies and offices.--
       (A) Information.--The Commission is authorized to secure 
     directly from any executive department, bureau, agency, 
     board, commission, office, independent establishment, or 
     instrumentality of the Government, as well as from any 
     committee or other office of the legislative branch, such 
     information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics as it 
     requires for the purposes of its review and report. Each such 
     department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, 
     establishment, instrumentality, or committee shall, to the 
     extent not prohibited by law, furnish such information, 
     suggestions, estimates, and statistics directly to the 
     Commission, upon request made by the Chair (Co-Chairs, if 
     elected).
       (B) Treasury department.--The Secretary of the Treasury is 
     authorized on a nonreimbursable basis to provide the 
     Commission with administrative services, funds, facilities, 
     staff, and other support services for the performance of the 
     Commission's functions.
       (C) General services administration.--The Administrator of 
     General Services shall provide to the Commission on a 
     nonreimbursable basis such administrative support services as 
     the Commission may request.
       (D) Joint committee on taxation.--The staff of the Joint 
     Committee on Taxation is authorized on a nonreimbursable 
     basis to provide the Commission with such legal, economic, or 
     policy analysis, including revenue estimates, as the 
     Commission may request.
       (E) Other assistance.--In addition to the assistance set 
     forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C) and (D), departments and 
     agencies of the United States are authorized to provide to 
     the Commission such services, funds, facilities, staff, and 
     other support services as they may deem advisable and as may 
     be authorized by law.
       (5) Postal services.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as departments and agencies of the United States.
       (6) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of 
     gifts or donations of services or property in carrying out 
     its duties under this section.
       (e) Staff of the Commission.--
       (1) In general.--The Chair (Co-Chairs, if elected), in 
     accordance with rules agreed upon by the Commission, may 
     appoint and fix the compensation of a staff director and such 
     other personnel as may be necessary to enable the Commission 
     to carry out its functions without regard to the provisions 
     of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the 
     competitive service, and without regard to the provisions of 
     chapter 51 and subchapter III or chapter 53 of such title 
     relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, 
     except that no rate of pay fixed under this subsection may 
     exceed the equivalent of that payable to a person occupying a 
     position at level V of the Executive Schedule under section 
     5316 of title 5, United States Code. Any Federal Government 
     employee may be detailed to the Commission without 
     reimbursement from the Commission, and such detailee shall 
     retain the rights, status, and privileges of his or her 
     regular employment without interruption.
       (2) Consultant services.--The Commission is authorized to 
     procure the services of experts and consultants in accordance 
     with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, but at 
     rates not to exceed the daily rate paid a person occupying a 
     position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 
     5315 of title 5, United States Code.
       (f) Compensation and Travel Expenses.--
       (1) Compensation.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     each member of the Commission may be compensated at not to 
     exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     in effect for a position at level IV of the Executive 
     Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, 
     for each day during which that member is engaged in the 
     actual performance of the duties of the Commission.
       (B) Exception.--Members of the Commission who are officers 
     or employees of the United States or Members of Congress 
     shall receive no additional pay on account of their service 
     on the Commission.
       (2) Travel expenses.--While away from their homes or 
     regular places of business in the performance of services for 
     the Commission, members of the Commission shall be allowed 
     travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, 
     in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the 
     Government service are allowed expenses under section 5703 
     (b) of title 5, United States Code.
       (g) Report of the Commission; Termination.--
       (1) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the 
     first meeting of the Commission, the Commission shall submit 
     a report to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate. 
     The report of the Commission shall describe the results of 
     its review (as described in subsection (c)(2)), shall make 
     such recommendations for fundamental reform and 
     simplification of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as the 
     Commission considers appropriate, and shall describe the 
     expected impact of such recommendations on the economy and 
     progressivity and general administrability of the tax laws.
       (2) Termination.--
       (A) In general.--The Commission, and all the authorities of 
     this section, shall terminate on the date which is 90 days 
     after the date on which the report is required to be 
     submitted under paragraph (1).
       (B) Concluding activities.--The Commission may use the 90-
     day period referred to in subparagraph (A) for the purposes 
     of concluding its activities, including providing

[[Page 5576]]

     testimony to committees of Congress concerning its report and 
     disseminating that report.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for the 
     activities of the Commission. Until such time as funds are 
     specifically appropriated for such activities, $2,000,000 
     shall be available from fiscal year 2001 funds appropriated 
     to the Treasury Department, ``Departmental Offices'' account, 
     for the activities of the Commission, to remain available 
     until expended.

     SEC. 5. 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, 2004.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. An amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
consisting of the text of H.R. 4230, is adopted.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 4230

       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 ``Date Certain Tax Code 
     Replacement Act''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of this Act is to set a date certain for 
     replacing the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with a simple and 
     fair alternative.

     SEC. 3. 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, 2004; 
     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, 2004.
       (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. 4. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TAX REFORM AND
                   SIMPLIFICATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is overly complex, 
     imposes significant burdens on individuals and businesses and 
     the economy, is extremely difficult for the Internal Revenue 
     Service to administer, and is in need of fundamental reform 
     and simplification.
       (2) Many of the problems encountered by taxpayers in 
     dealing with the Internal Revenue Service could be eliminated 
     or alleviated by fundamental reform and simplification.
       (3) The Federal Government's present fiscal outlook for 
     continuing and sustained budget surpluses provides a unique 
     opportunity for the Congress to consider measures for 
     fundamental reform and simplification of the tax laws.
       (4) Recent efforts to simplify or reform the tax laws have 
     not been successful due in part to the difficulty of 
     developing broad-based, nonpartisan support for proposals to 
     make such changes.
       (5) Many of the problems with the Internal Revenue Service 
     stem from the overly complex tax code the agency is asked to 
     administer.
       (b) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--To carry out the purposes of this section, 
     there is established within the legislative branch a National 
     Commission on Tax Reform and Simplification (in this section 
     referred to as the ``Commission'').
       (2) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 15 
     members, as follows:
       (A) Three members appointed by the President, two from the 
     executive branch of the Government and one from private life.
       (B) Four members appointed by the majority leader of the 
     Senate, one from Members of the Senate and three from private 
     life.
       (C) Two members appointed by the minority leader of the 
     Senate, one from Members of the Senate and one from private 
     life.
       (D) Four members appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, one from Members of the House and three from 
     private life.
       (E) Two members appointed by the minority leader of the 
     House of Representatives, one from Members of the House and 
     one from private life.
       (3) Chair.--The Commission shall elect a Chair (or two Co-
     Chairs) from among its members.
       (4) Meetings, quorums, vacancies.--After its initial 
     meeting, the Commission shall meet upon the call of the Chair 
     (Co-Chairs, if elected) or a majority of its members. Nine 
     members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum. Any 
     vacancy in the Commission shall not affect its powers, but 
     shall be filled in the same manner in which the original 
     appointment was made. Any meeting of the Commission or any 
     subcommittee thereof may be held in executive session to the 
     extent that the Chair (Co-Chairs, if elected) or a majority 
     of the members of the Commission or subcommittee determine 
     appropriate.
       (5) Continuation of membership.--If--
       (A) any individual who appointed a member to the Commission 
     by virtue of holding a position described in paragraph (2) 
     ceases to hold such position before the report of the 
     Commission is submitted under subsection (g), or
       (B) a member was appointed to the Commission as a Member of 
     Congress and the member ceases to be a Member of Congress, or 
     was appointed to the Commission because the member was not an 
     officer or employee of any government and later becomes an 
     officer or employee of a government, that member may continue 
     as a member for not longer than the 30-day period beginning 
     on the date that such individual ceases to hold such position 
     or such member ceases to be a Member of Congress or becomes 
     such an officer or employee, as the case may be.
       (6) Appointment; initial meeting.--
       (A) Appointment.--It is the sense of the Congress that 
     members of the Commission should be appointed not more than 
     60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (B) Initial meeting.--If, after 60 days from the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, eight or more members of the 
     Commission have been appointed, members who have been 
     appointed may meet and select the Chair (or Co-Chairs) who 
     thereafter shall have the authority to begin the operations 
     of the Commission, including the hiring of staff.
       (c) Functions of the Commission.--
       (1) In general.--The functions of the Commission shall be--
       (A) to conduct, for a period of not to exceed 18 months 
     from the date of its first meeting, the review described in 
     paragraph (2), and
       (B) to submit to the Congress a report of the results of 
     such review, including recommendations for fundamental reform 
     and simplification of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as 
     described in subsection (g).
       (2) Review.--The Commission shall review--
       (A) the present structure and provisions of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986, especially with respect to--
       (i) its impact on the economy (including the impact on 
     savings, capital formation and capital investment);
       (ii) its impact on families and the workforce (including 
     issues relating to distribution of tax burden);
       (iii) the compliance cost to taxpayers; and
       (iv) the ability of the Internal Revenue Service to 
     administer such provisions;
       (B) whether tax systems imposed under the laws of other 
     countries could provide more efficient and fair methods of 
     funding the revenue requirements of the government;
       (C) whether the income tax should be replaced with a tax 
     imposed in a different manner or on a different base; and
       (D) whether the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 can be 
     simplified, absent wholesale restructuring or replacement 
     thereof.
       (d) Powers of the Commission.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission or, on the authorization of 
     the Commission, any subcommittee or member thereof, may, for 
     the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this section, 
     hold such hearings and sit and act at such times and places, 
     take such testimony, receive such evidence, and administer 
     such oaths, as the Commission or such designated subcommittee 
     or designated member may deem advisable.
       (2) Contracting.--The Commission may, to such extent and in 
     such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter 
     into contracts to enable the Commission to discharge its 
     duties under this section.
       (3) Assistance from federal agencies and offices.--
       (A) Information.--The Commission is authorized to secure 
     directly from any executive department, bureau, agency, 
     board, commission, office, independent establishment, or 
     instrumentality of the Government, as well as from any 
     committee or other office of the legislative branch, such 
     information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics as it 
     requires for the purposes of its review and report. Each such 
     department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, 
     establishment, instrumentality, or committee shall, to the 
     extent not prohibited by law, furnish such information, 
     suggestions, estimates, and statistics directly to the 
     Commission, upon request made by the Chair (Co-Chairs, if 
     elected).
       (B) Treasury department.--The Secretary of the Treasury is 
     authorized on a nonreimbursable basis to provide the 
     Commission with administrative services, funds, facilities, 
     staff, and other support services for the performance of the 
     Commission's functions.
       (C) General services administration.--The Administrator of 
     General Services shall provide to the Commission on a 
     nonreimbursable basis such administrative support services as 
     the Commission may request.
       (D) Joint committee on taxation.--The staff of the Joint 
     Committee on Taxation is authorized on a nonreimbursable 
     basis to provide the Commission with such legal, economic, or 
     policy analysis, including revenue estimates, as the 
     Commission may request.

[[Page 5577]]

       (E) Other assistance.--In addition to the assistance set 
     forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C) and (D), departments and 
     agencies of the United States are authorized to provide to 
     the Commission such services, funds, facilities, staff, and 
     other support services as they may deem advisable and as may 
     be authorized by law.
       (5) Postal services.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as departments and agencies of the United States.
       (6) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of 
     gifts or donations of services or property in carrying out 
     its duties under this section.
       (e) Staff of the Commission.--
       (1) In general.--The Chair (Co-Chairs, if elected), in 
     accordance with rules agreed upon by the Commission, may 
     appoint and fix the compensation of a staff director and such 
     other personnel as may be necessary to enable the Commission 
     to carry out its functions without regard to the provisions 
     of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the 
     competitive service, and without regard to the provisions of 
     chapter 51 and subchapter III or chapter 53 of such title 
     relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, 
     except that no rate of pay fixed under this subsection may 
     exceed the equivalent of that payable to a person occupying a 
     position at level V of the Executive Schedule under section 
     5316 of title 5, United States Code. Any Federal Government 
     employee may be detailed to the Commission without 
     reimbursement from the Commission, and such detailee shall 
     retain the rights, status, and privileges of his or her 
     regular employment without interruption.
       (2) Consultant services.--The Commission is authorized to 
     procure the services of experts and consultants in accordance 
     with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, but at 
     rates not to exceed the daily rate paid a person occupying a 
     position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 
     5315 of title 5, United States Code.
       (f) Compensation and Travel Expenses.--
       (1) Compensation.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     each member of the Commission may be compensated at not to 
     exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     in effect for a position at level IV of the Executive 
     Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, 
     for each day during which that member is engaged in the 
     actual performance of the duties of the Commission.
       (B) Exception.--Members of the Commission who are officers 
     or employees of the United States or Members of Congress 
     shall receive no additional pay on account of their service 
     on the Commission.
       (2) Travel expenses.--While away from their homes or 
     regular places of business in the performance of services for 
     the Commission, members of the Commission shall be allowed 
     travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, 
     in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the 
     Government service are allowed expenses under section 5703(b) 
     of title 5, United States Code.
       (g) Report of the Commission; Termination.--
       (1) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the 
     first meeting of the Commission, the Commission shall submit 
     a report to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate. 
     The report of the Commission shall describe the results of 
     its review (as described in subsection (c)(2)), shall make 
     such recommendations for fundamental reform and 
     simplification of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as the 
     Commission considers appropriate, and shall describe the 
     expected impact of such recommendations on the economy and 
     progressivity and general administrability of the tax laws.
       (2) Termination.--
       (A) In general.--The Commission, and all the authorities of 
     this section, shall terminate on the date which is 90 days 
     after the date on which the report is required to be 
     submitted under paragraph (1).
       (B) Concluding activities.--The Commission may use the 90-
     day period referred to in subparagraph (A) for the purposes 
     of concluding its activities, including providing testimony 
     to committees of Congress concerning its report and 
     disseminating that report.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for the 
     activities of the Commission. Until such time as funds are 
     specifically appropriated for such activities, $2,000,000 
     shall be available from fiscal year 2001 funds appropriated 
     to the Treasury Department, ``Departmental Offices'' account, 
     for the activities of the Commission, to remain available 
     until expended.

     SEC. 5. TIMING OF IMPLEMENTATION.

       In order to ensure an easy transition and effective 
     implementation, the Congress hereby declares that any new 
     Federal tax system shall be approved by Congress in its final 
     form no later than July 4, 2004. If a new Federal tax system 
     is not so approved by July 4, 2004, then Congress shall be 
     required to vote to reauthorize the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and 
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).


                             General Leave

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 4199.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a week when millions of us, Americans all around 
this great country, are experiencing the annual confusion, the 
frustration, and the anxiety that comes with filling out our Federal 
income tax returns.
  It is certainly understandable. The current income tax code and its 
associated regulations now contain, I am told, over 5.6 million words. 
I am informed that is seven times as long as the Bible, and I know it 
is not nearly as interesting. Taxpayers now spend 5.4 billion hours a 
year trying to comply with 2,500 pages of tax laws, 6,500 pages of tax 
rules, and millions of pages of forms.
  The cost of complying with our Tax Code in this country is now 
believed to be well in excess of $200 billion a year. That is about 20 
percent of the revenues raised. What a waste of money. What a waste of 
time, of effort, of resources. What a drag on our economy. And that 
does not get at the way the code taxes income and investment that hurts 
savings, job growth, productivity and, again, means less economic 
opportunity for us and for future Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, 4 years ago Congress set up a commission, I cochaired 
it, to look into the problems that plague the Internal Revenue Service. 
There I learned firsthand that the problems our Tax Code causes is not 
just for taxpayers, but it is also for the Internal Revenue Service 
itself; and we cannot forget that. The complexity of our Tax Code makes 
the IRS bigger and more intrusive than we as taxpayers would like for 
it to be. The Tax Code itself makes the IRS more costly and less 
efficient than it should be.
  In the short term, tax relief simplification of specific areas of the 
Tax Code can help. There are important steps we can and should take to 
make it fairer and less burdensome for all Americans. And Congress has 
already made some progress on this front. We passed tax relief so that 
no longer do people have to worry about capital gains tax on the sale 
of a primary residence. At least, almost no Americans do. Which means 
not only less tax but less associated record keeping; therefore a great 
simplification. That was good.
  We did reform the IRS for the first time since 1952 to make it easier 
for all taxpayers to interact with this agency. But, again, we are not 
going to have a good IRS until we have a simpler Tax Code.
  And for the first time we also here in Congress, 2 years ago, made it 
more difficult for us in Congress and for the administration to further 
complicate the code by subjecting every proposed tax law change 
prospectively to what is called a complexity analysis. Again, a good 
step forward.
  But, ultimately, no amount of tinkering with the current Tax Code can 
solve the problem. We need to produce a Tax Code that will be fairer to 
all Americans. It is just too complicated now. It is too intrusive. It 
is too burdensome to the taxpayers of this country. That is why many of 
us in Congress, on both sides of this aisle, believe now we need to 
take the next step. We need to replace the current code with something 
better, something simpler, something fairer, something less intrusive 
for all Americans.
  For the last several years, we have come to the floor, most recently 
2 years ago, with a Sunset the Code bill that would eliminate the 
current Tax Code by a date certain and force Congress and the 
administration to work together to develop an appropriate alternative. 
The legislation before us

[[Page 5578]]

today that my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), is 
again championing is called the Date Certain Tax Code Replacement Act, 
and it does exactly that. It sunsets the current Tax Code by December 
31, 2004; and it sets in motion a specific time line and process for 
replacing the Tax Code.
  It is an important statement, I think, to be made by this Congress, 
that we share the frustration all Americans have with our current Tax 
Code; that we think this Congress should commit itself to replace what 
is a broken system. But very importantly, and let me spell this out 
today for some of my colleagues on the other side who have misstated 
what is in this bill, it does not prejudge any particular kind of Tax 
Code. That is going to be up to this Congress to decide.
  There has never been major tax reform in the country, Mr. Speaker, 
without the administration taking the lead. The Treasury Department is 
critical to it. We have seen in the last 6 years no interest on the 
part of the administration. In fact, we have seen a disdain for any of 
the major reform ideas. Therefore, we are not going to get it from the 
administration. We may not get it from the next administration, whether 
it is Republican or Democrat.
  What we do put into this legislation is very important to force the 
administration to the table, to force Members of Congress to the table, 
to begin to air this issue out in public so that people around the 
country can hear about it. We can begin to educate people about the 
issue so we can come up with a better, smarter approach, and that is 
that in this legislation, for the first time this year, we have a 
concept where we create a specific mechanism for getting to a new Tax 
Code. It is called the Bipartisan National Commission on Tax Reform and 
Simplification.
  This commission is modeled after the National Commission on 
Restructuring the IRS, which was very successful. We have also had a 
very successful bipartisan commission recently on Medicare reform, the 
Thomas Breaux Commission.
  Now, I know it is easy to say that commissions do not work, and I am 
sure they have a checkered past in this town. Some have worked and some 
have not. But the fact is we have proven with the IRS Commission, with 
the Medicare Commission, that as long as they focus on building broad-
based nonpartisan support for recommendations, they can be very 
successful and play a very constructive role in moving the debate 
forward.
  This commission would have 15 members: 3 appointed by the President; 
4 each by the Senate majority leader and the Speaker; 2 each appointed 
by the House and Senate minority leaders. We do not know who is going 
to control the next Congress. But whoever does will have a slightly 
higher representation on the commission than the party in the minority. 
But it will be entirely bipartisan, bicameral and, again, will include 
the administration.
  It will have a short timetable. Not years, as someone said earlier 
today. Read the legislation. It is 18 months. We think that is enough 
time, although it is a very complex and difficult task. And that will 
be a report to this Congress. It will then be up to Congress to decide 
what to do with it. We cannot prejudge what the report will be; we 
cannot prejudge what the Congress will do with it. But we know it will 
move the process forward. It will move the ball forward to begin to 
come to some kind of resolution as to how we can fix, how we must fix a 
tax code that I think everyone in this Chamber agrees is broken.

                              {time}  1445

  Now, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will argue 
this legislation is unnecessary, that it is just rhetoric today. I, 
again, would urge them to read the legislation. Because what we are 
voting on here today is a referendum about the status quo. If they 
believe in the status quo that our current Tax Code is the way to go, 
fine, vote no. But if they believe that all those special interests 
that have been tucked in over the years, if they believe it is too 
complex, if they believe it is too burdensome, if they believe it is 
intrusive, if they believe there ought to be a change, a fundamental 
reform, without prejudging what it will be, then they ought to support 
this very strong statement and this very important legislation 
establishing the commission that is before us today.
  I want to also say that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) has 
also improved his legislation by adding a provision that says that, if 
Congress has not acted in the next 4 years on a new Tax Code, he will 
vote to reauthorize the current Code. There is no uncertainty there. We 
are going to have the same thing we have got now unless we can come 
together as Republicans and Democrats and Independents through, again, 
a bipartisan, bicameral process to come up with something that makes 
sense.
  If my colleagues think that our current Tax Code is broken, if they 
think the current system is too complicated, unfair, and intrusive, if 
they think the Congress and administration should be held accountable 
for coming up with a better system to replace it and doing it in a 
responsible way, then they ought to vote for this bill today. It is a 
good bill, it is a better bill than 2 years ago, and it is a different 
bill.
  I urge my colleagues to take a look at the bill, and I urge all my 
colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 4199.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the previous 
speaker, is one of the brightest Members that we have in the House; and 
certainly it is a pleasure for me to serve with him on the Committee on 
Ways and Means. Some of his ideas in terms of how we could reform the 
tax system, to me, just makes a lot of sense.
  But I know one thing that he will never, never challenge is the fact 
that any political party that holds a majority by only six, whether 
that is a Democratic majority or Republican majority, cannot even hope 
to reform the tax system unless we are working together in a bipartisan 
way.
  There is no Republican way to correct this Internal Revenue Code. I 
would agree with anybody who would say and there certainly is not a 
Democratic Party way to do it. But what the American people want is not 
for each one of us to be political victors. What they want is a 
Congress that is working to their best interests.
  Can we say that this Code is working to their best interests, that 
this is the best we can do? I would say the answer would be no. We 
could do a heck of a lot better.
  But one thing that we would have to start doing just for openers is 
to start talking with each other. Forget the mutual respect. Forget the 
professionalism. Let us start talking and seeing what we can do to work 
together.
  I would think if we were talking about Social Security, if we were 
talking about Medicare, if we were talking about the tax system that we 
would have to find a way where, working together, we could come up with 
the right solution.
  And quite frankly, in the other areas, I would think that there would 
be enough difference between Democrats and Republicans that we could 
fight the different way, different philosophical and political beliefs, 
so that we will always maintain the difference between Republicans and 
Democrats.
  So I am not saying that we should all look alike. But on these 
important issues, it really bothers me that the chairman of the 
committee could schedule hearings about different alternatives to this 
tax system on the week the taxpayers have to file taxes.
  I do not challenge the sincerity of my Republican friend on the 
committee or on the House leadership. But why this week? Why would we 
have 3 days of hearings and alternatives to this system, as burdensome 
as it is, when we know that the legislative calendar does not permit us 
to do anything, nothing?
  We are going out for 2 weeks. We will be out next month for Memorial 
Day. Come July 4, we will be out. In August we will be out. September 
we have the Labor Day recess. We have to do August recess for the 
convention. We have

[[Page 5579]]

to get reelected. So we are not even thinking about changing the 
Internal Revenue Code. So why do we sit up there for 3 days talking 
about it? Oh, because it is April 15, and we want to make a political 
statement.
  Well, for 5 years, for 5 years they have enjoyed being in the 
majority party, the Speaker, the distinguished majority leader, the 
chairmanships of every committee, the chairmanship of the once awesome 
powerful Committee on Ways and Means. My God, in 5 years, why have we 
not seen a change in the Tax Code? Why do we wait 5 years to bring it 
up again?
  As a matter of fact, just between us legislators, I weighed the Code 
as to how much it weighed when the Democrats were in charge; and then I 
weighed it just last week. My colleagues would not believe the increase 
in weight. My God, there is about a hundred new sections added on to 
the old Code. The people that make up the returns say it takes 3.5 
hours more even to figure out the complexities. It is that way when 
they are putting in loopholes, it is more complicated.
  But all I am saying is that many people ask, well, we always are 
complaining about the Republican majority. What the devil would we do 
if we ever were in charge?
  Number one, we will talk to them. Number two, in any legislation, we 
would ask you for their ideas. Number three, we would know ahead of 
time if it is bipartisan, if it is not bipartisan, it is just not going 
to fly.
  We have learned so much about how difficult it is to lead when we do 
not have a meaningful majority. But we hope that we will not slip into 
the posture that just because we cannot lead, just because we cannot 
legislate that we would say, let us close down the shop, let us close 
down the Internal Revenue Service, let us close down the tax collection 
business, let us really get rid of the Code and tell millions of 
American businessmen and small businessmen, we cannot tell them right 
now what we are going to replace it with. All we can tell them is that 
we are mandated that we must come up with something.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has the unique idea that, even 
if the Congress cannot come up with something, let us get a commission 
to come up with something. In other words, some Member was being very, 
very critical in the Committee on Ways and Means before I came to the 
floor and said that we were trying to hold on to our jurisdiction.
  Well, do my colleagues know something? He is right. Because it is the 
only committee that is there in the Constitution saying that the 
Committee on Ways and Means shall provide the ways and means for the 
United States Government to operate.
  But, then again, they may want to change the Constitution. But I hope 
we do not change it to set up for a commission for ways and means. 
Because then I see a commission for an appropriation, a commission for 
commerce, a commission for education, and one day we will wake up and 
we will find out that there is really no need for the U.S. House of 
Representatives as we know it.
  And so, I would suggest this: There is nothing wrong with 
commissions, but there is something wrong when we refuse to assume our 
responsibility to do what? To legislate. It is not just to criticize 
against this Code that most Americans are annoyed with this week. It is 
not enough to say get rid of it in the year 2004.
  What is important to do is to have hearings, to have meetings and to 
legislate, to educate the American people as to that we can do a better 
job and to have the political courage and the guts to come down here 
and to vote for something instead of just cursing the doctors.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first I would like to just say to my friend the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) that there were some implicit 
endorsements of the concept behind the commission and even though at 
the end there seem to be less than great enthusiasm for it, which is 
that this would be a bipartisan exercise, it would report back to 
Congress and would then allow the Committee on Ways and Means to do its 
work with better information, more public education, and all the other 
things.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the Congress, if 
we assume this awesome responsibility to produce a better Internal 
Revenue Code, would need outside help. But to abolish the existing 
system before we do that is where the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) 
and I differ.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would just say that 
if the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) looks at the legislation, 
what is nice about it is that we do not sunset the Code prior to the 
commission. In fact, the commission is only 18 months and then we have 
another couple of years for the Committee on Ways and Mean, regardless 
of who is chairman, to do its work.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) about whom I spoke a moment ago and who is 
the author of this much needed legislation, and I ask unanimous consent 
that he be permitted to control the time for the majority.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Armey) the majority leader.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Largent) for yielding me the time, and I thank him for bringing this 
legislation to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great deal today about people who are 
willing to work with us on the Tax Code and to fix the horrifying 
inequities that we find in the Tax Code that are so bothersome to the 
American people.
  I have been gratified to hear these expressions of commitment from 
both sides of the aisle, and I have been particularly gratified to hear 
the number of Democrats who have spoken so eloquently today for the 
need to avoid discriminatory taxation on the Internet.
  I must say, I certainly agree with them on that; and I am looking 
forward, then, to counting on their vote when we bring a moratorium on 
discriminatory taxation on the Internet to the floor later this year.
  But for the business at hand today, Mr. Speaker, we are again 
demonstrating to the American people that we are on the side of Mr. and 
Mrs. America. When they tell us that the extraordinary taxation and 
punitive provisions called the earnings limitation on senior citizens 
is unfair because it denies them the benefits they paid in all their 
lives, we agree. We passed the law, and the President signed it just 
last week.
  When we observe that we must eliminate the marriage penalty because 
it is unfair to tax people who want to get married, the American people 
have agreed. We passed it through the House. They will pass it through 
the Senate. And I am sure the President will sign that into law.
  And when we all agree, as we do, that it is unfair to tax people's 
estate when they die and, therefore, commit to eliminating the death 
tax because it is unfair to deny the children the legacy of their 
parents, I am sure we will pass that and it will be passed into law.
  Today we are saying, indeed, the entire Tax Code as we know it in 
America is today unfair because it drives the American people crazy 
with frustration and despair. Two hundred billion dollars, more man-
hours than is spent on the production of every car, truck, and van 
produced in the United States, is devoted to just complying with this 
awful red tape nightmare called the Tax Code.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) says let us get rid of it, 
let us make a pledge, a commitment amongst ourselves today to be done 
with it, to scrap this Code, sunset this Code, have it out of our lives 
once and

[[Page 5580]]

for all. I cannot tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, how near universal 
agreement there is among the American people with the need to do that.
  Ah, but the nay sayers arise, we cannot do that unless we know 
perfectly well today down to the last jot and tittle what will be in 
the next Code. There is no plan to replace this Code, they say, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Let me say there is a plan. There are at least three plans that I 
know of, all well-conceived, all very deeply well worked on, all very 
well publicized. It is not for me to describe all three, Mr. Speaker, 
but let me remind my colleagues about the first best plan to replace 
this awful nightmare.
  It is the flat tax, first conceived in 1984 by Professors Hall and 
Rabushka at the distinguished Hoover Institute in California, later 
revived in 1994 by myself.

                              {time}  1500

  It does exist. It has been worked on in great detail. It has been 
examined, criticized, reexamined, refined. Mr. Speaker, for any of our 
colleagues that are unaware of this work, let me just say to my 
colleagues, while they have heretofore been given a free copy of my 
book The Flat Tax, should they have lost that or should it have been 
absconded with by one of their staff, let me remind them that today, 
even today, they can look it up on the Internet, flattax.house.gov, or 
even better, they could buy and read my book, in which case we could 
both profit.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a member of the committee.
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the majority leader to 
bring his bill up here and let us vote on it if it is that good. The 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has worked well with us on the 
committee. I do not have any quarrel with the criticism of the present 
system. But when Mr. Churchill one time was asked how was his wife, his 
response was, ``Compared to what?'' We do not have the ``what'' here.
  If my colleagues want to seriously work on tax reform and the code, I 
think they will find many Members over here ready, willing and able to 
pitch in. But to go about this matter scrapping something is like a 
businessperson saying, Look, we don't like your sales or distribution 
system that gives your company the revenue with which you do business; 
we're going to scrap that on a date certain in 2 years, and we'll have 
the board of directors figure out what we're going to replace it with.
  Nobody would do that in the real world. Not one single person that I 
know of would say, We don't know what we're going to do. We're going to 
do something, hopefully. What if we cannot get a consensus on the flat 
tax? The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), who spoke earlier, has a 
bill, a sales tax. What if the Congress in that day cannot come up with 
a consensus? What are we going to do, have a continuing resolution on 
the code? That will make a lot of sense to Wall Street.
  I tell my colleagues as earnestly as I know how, if this bill were 
serious and was going to be signed, the uncertainty that it would 
immediately inject into Wall Street, in the markets, into all the 
countries around the world that rely on the bedrock of the 
international financial currency, the United States dollar, the 
consequences of this could be devastating.
  I do not quarrel with bashing the code. That is an easy one. I do not 
know anybody that thinks this is the best work product imaginable. But 
I do say this: the way to fix it is to come on down to the committee 
and let us vote on the flat tax, a sales tax or let us schedule bills 
for hearing, votes and reported out to the floor and then we will see 
if we can get a consensus. That is how we do as a steward, I think, of 
this Nation. That is how we do business. I know this will probably 
pass, but I hope we will think about what we are doing and what kind of 
signal we are sending. I do not think it is one that is very 
responsible.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, borrowing on the gentleman's word picture, 
if we are comparing the tax code to a wife, what we are saying on this 
side is this wife is so ugly that we know we can do better. With that, 
I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I guess I have to say I do not want to 
associate myself with those remarks; however, I did want to rise in 
strong support of this legislation and thank my colleagues for bringing 
it to the floor. I guess I am saying with a sigh of relief that at last 
we are making progress. I am not being facetious, because I think this 
is very serious business. I have personally, as many of my colleagues 
know, for several years been urging our Republican leadership and the 
tax committee to make major tax reform job number one. At last we are 
here. This is an excellent means of doing that. We are on a substantial 
route to getting there in real terms.
  Let us try to get beyond the political rhetoric of this debate, and 
let us focus on the substance of this bill. The bill calls for an 
enactment of a new Tax Code by 2004. In order to provide a solid basis 
for congressional debate, the bill establishes a commission on tax 
reform and simplification. The commission would completely analyze the 
current tax law, especially with respect to the code's impact on the 
economy, savings, capital formation and capital investment, and its 
impact on families and the workplace. That is in the body of the orders 
to the commission. The commission would also explore, as has been 
already mentioned, alternative methods of taxation.
  In the past, everyone knows that I have had deep concerns about 
scrapping the Tax Code without a new structure in its place. I said 
frankly at the time that it seemed reckless and it was more like show 
business. But this is real business. This legislation pushes the tax 
reform debate ahead in a responsible, rational way while setting the 
stage for common sense transition to a fairer, flatter, and simpler tax 
code. We need this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for it. This is 
job number one for the Congress.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Baltimore, Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the committee.
  Mr. CARDIN. Let me thank my friend from New York for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we should not be talking about a sunset today. We should 
be talking about a sunrise, a sunrise for tax reform. I am very 
disappointed that we do not have legislation on the floor that would 
talk about tax reform because we do need tax reform. What this 
legislation represents is a failure, a failure by this body to take up 
tax reform, a signal that we will not deal with it in this Congress, 
the third consecutive Congress under the control of the Republicans in 
which they have not brought tax reform to the floor of this House.
  If my colleagues are looking for agreement on both sides of the 
aisle, we agree that the current income tax code is too complicated. So 
what do we do about it during these past 3 terms? Add another 100 
sections and make it more complicated? Make it more difficult for our 
constituents to understand how to file their tax returns? That is not 
tax reform. Those actions became law. If my colleagues want agreement 
on both sides of the aisle that we should have less income taxes, they 
will get that agreement. Let us bring forward bills that do it.
  I strongly support the expansion of the earned income tax credit. 
That has helped many taxpayers get the relief that they need. But we 
sometimes find that on the other side of the aisle, they fight us on 
that type of legislation. Or targeted relief that would let less people 
need to file income tax returns in our country. But no, they do not 
seem to want to do it that way. So why not work together on tax reform 
so that we can really get something done in this Congress rather than 
having a tool that is just basically used for the 30-second commercial. 
That does not befit this body.
  And the tragedy is that if this legislation were to become law, what 
would be the consequences? The first thing is, we would not know what 
the tax revenue system of this country would be.

[[Page 5581]]

What advice would my colleagues give to their constituents, their young 
married couple who wants to purchase a home but needs to know the tax 
consequences of that home purchase in order to make sure that their 
budget makes sense to buy that home? What will they tell them when 
there is no Tax Code in place and we have not quite figured out what 
the revenue code will be for our country? The uncertainty will be very 
damaging to American families.
  That is not what we should be doing. And then what Tax Code will we 
put into effect? I know there has been a lot of debate about this. 
Quite frankly I have a good tax plan that I would like to be able to 
talk about, and if we bring a bill to the floor, I will certainly be 
offering an alternative or amendments to that tax bill. But the reason 
why we use the retail sales tax is because that is the one I think our 
constituents understand the best, to allow us some ability to compare 
between one tax code and the other. If we translate what the repeal of 
all income taxes is on a retail sales tax, that is 59.5 percent added 
to the price of all goods, all services. That is not my estimate, that 
is the Joint Tax Committee's estimate.
  I do not want to be responsible for increasing prescription drugs and 
increasing Internet service and increasing clothing and increasing food 
by that type of price. That is not good for our economy. Let us think 
about what we are doing, let us work together, let us work on tax 
reform and not on a bill that will have no impact on real tax reform.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Oklahoma deserves a large 
amount of credit. Let me say that to me there is not any question this 
ought to be a bipartisan vote. I will tell my colleagues why. The Tax 
Code should be put in place that enables the Government to collect 
revenue but at the same time fosters economic growth, does not impede 
economic growth. Frankly, the ability to abolish this code after having 
served in this House for 18 years, if we do not do something dramatic 
around here, we are going to be talking about this until doomsday, or 
when people at our town hall meetings start heating up the tar, because 
people are fed up with this Tax Code, and they are fed up with it not 
just because it is complicated but frankly that it does keep us from 
realizing the kind of complete economic growth that brings more to 
every family.
  Now, here we are in the 21st century with a Tax Code that is not 
encouraging higher savings, and if there is anything we know we need to 
do in America it is to encourage a higher savings rate. We know we need 
to have a higher investment rate. We want people to take their money 
and to risk it in enterprising ideas that can improve the lives of 
people not just in America but around the world. That gives us 
increased productivity, more for families.
  We want to have a Tax Code that provides a higher reward for people 
who risk-take. If we punish people when they are successful, then they 
are going to stop taking risks. They are going to sit on their money. 
Frankly, the hallmark of a new Tax Code in the 21st century is one that 
fosters higher savings, higher investment, and produces higher reward 
for risk-taking.
  What we have in the 21st century now is a Tax Code that works an 
awful lot like putting a Volkswagen engine in a Jaguar. The fact is the 
21st century is about speed, not about strength. It is about the power 
of knowledge, not the power of toil. It is about the entrepreneurship 
which rewards individual efforts and achievement. And the fact is the 
Tax Code is not aligned with the rest of this economy. If we want to 
have a sleek sports car that can run around that track at Indianapolis 
and set economic records for the American people, then it must have an 
engine that empowers that car to travel at the speed of knowledge and 
the speed of entrepreneurship.
  Mr. Madison in the Federalist Paper 41 says that a country that is 
not capable of changing the way in which it collects revenues to match 
its economy is a country that will not continue to be prosperous and to 
advance. That was a warning to us in the 21st century. We talked today 
about taxing the Internet. The fact is that we have a parallel universe 
right now that allows us to take advantage of the power of ideas and 
knowledge. It is ridiculous to try to saddle the new economy with an 
old tax scheme.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a great opportunity to say to the American 
people, we are going to throw it out. If we cannot devise a better 
system, we will put it back in. But the fact is we will devise a better 
system because we know the Jaguar needs a modern engine, not an old 
engine; and we want to make sure that the American people have the 
tools they need to drive this economy like it has never been seen 
before. If we do not do it, we will pay a price economically. If we do 
do it, there ain't no stopping the United States of America and the 
free market.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with everything the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kasich) has just said. We have to rethink, relook and revise our 
current Tax Code. But we have not done that yet. And for us to put the 
cart before the horse, to repeal the current code before we have an 
agreement on that new code, is not only irresponsible, but I would 
reterm this legislation as a pig in a poke, because we do not know what 
is going to be the replacement code.
  All week long before the Committee on Ways and Means, we have had 
hearings on three different types of alternatives to the current code, 
and the more questions we asked about the alternatives, the more 
questions went unanswered.
  The most popular was the one introduced by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Linder). He is touting this as a national sales tax, and the rate 
he pegged within the committee was 23 percent. Upon questioning, we 
found out that it is not 23 percent, it was almost 30 percent, on every 
good and service produced in this country, prescription drugs, funeral 
services, everything. We talked to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 
which is a scientific committee, to give us expertise. They said that 
national sales tax, to be revenue neutral, would have to be a 59 
percent rate. Is that what you are going to replace the current code 
with?
  Interesting, I asked the gentleman a question. I said, Mr. Linder, 
would the national sales tax apply to wages for municipal employees? He 
said, Oh, no, no, no, no. Then one of his staff persons poked him on 
the back and said, it is in the bill. It is in the bill. So the authors 
do not even know what their proposal is.
  As the questioning developed, your municipality would have to pay the 
Federal Government 30 percent of their municipal wage base, because it 
is a service. And where would your municipalities get the money from? 
They would radically increase the property tax. In the City of 
Milwaukee, that would be a very, very bad mistake, because property 
taxes are relatively high.
  So that is a half-baked idea. So my friend, we are not ready to go 
yet. I agree with one part of the bill of the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Largent), and that is the commission. We have had hearings, we 
have had experts come in all week. Have the commission work with us on 
something, and then we will come to the floor with a consensus change 
and then repeal the current Tax Code. Not repeal first. That is 
irresponsible.
  The gentleman talked about the atomic bomb and how we dropped it on 
Japan and it ended the war. But what the gentleman's bill would do 
would drop the atomic bomb on us. That is silly.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, what is silly is to continue this current 
system.

[[Page 5582]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on 
this issue.
  I certainly believe, Mr. Speaker, if the economy either turns down or 
experiences some restrictions, that the American people will be heard 
demanding change, because I still hear it a lot, frustration with this 
current Tax Code, people who are both paying too much in taxes and also 
experiencing too much red tape with this Tax Code, spending too much of 
their time wrestling with this Tax Code.
  I really believe as the economy goes through its normal cycles and 
turns down, we will hear loud and clear that this is one of those 
issues that the American people demand change on, is a simpler, more 
fair tax system.
  Frankly, welfare laws changed, not because of Republicans or 
Democrats, but because the American people demanded it. The budget is 
balanced not really because Republicans or Democrats, but because the 
American people demanded it. The American people are going to be 
demanding a more simple and fair Tax Code. I think ultimately those 
that come today against this legislation will support it, because the 
American people will demand it.
  I would love to see our campaign finance laws change, but until the 
American people get more engaged, the folks up here are not going to 
change it. The American people need to lead this. We have presidential 
candidates now espousing certain philosophies. They need to be telling 
the American people what kind of Tax Code they will sign into law and, 
therefore, we need to take this action so that we have some limits, we 
have a firewall. We say we are going to do this, we have plenty of 
time, 4 years. The gentleman is being very reasonable setting up a time 
frame so that we can make these plans and get the presidential 
candidates to say yes, I will sign this.
  We have at least three options: Either keep the current system; 
single rate income tax with fewer deductions; or wipe out the income 
tax and replace it with a national sales tax. Let the debate begin. Let 
the candidates for President, for Congress, declare what will you have, 
what will you sign, what will you agree to. The American people need a 
simpler Tax Code, they need lower taxes, they need less interference 
from the Federal Government, so that free enterprise system can 
continue to carry the world economy.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not understand what the disagreements are about 
here. In fact, there is so much agreement between their side and our 
side, I think we can close this debate out right now and say we all 
agree that our Tax Code is too complex, that it is too burdensome, that 
it is too hard to fill out the tax forms, and it does not work for a 
modern economy. We all agree with that.
  The question is whether we are just going to talk today and come back 
again with sound and fury, which in the end will actually signify 
nothing. We need a replacement vehicle for our Tax Code. On that we all 
agree. And if it were true that this bill provided that, that would be 
good news for all Americans. We could all come and cheer, Democrats and 
Republicans alike. But sadly, it is not true, Mr. Speaker. The truth is 
we are no closer to eliminating the Tax Code today than we were when we 
started out talking about this because we have no replacement vehicle.
  This business about putting a Volkswagen engine into a Jaguar, we 
would have the Jaguar first to put the engine in. We do not have the 
Jaguar to even talk about putting a Volkswagen engine in it. We do not 
have the replacement. Democrats know it, the Republicans know it, and 
it is really time now we make sure all of the American people know it 
to.
  Democrats and Republicans both agree the Tax Code is too complex, 
that our current tax filings are too burdensome. So why can we not stop 
this political charade and get down to serious bipartisan tax reform. 
This bill is an invitation to put the ball on tax reform, rather than 
to tackle it. It amounts to throwing up our hands and giving it to a 
commission, handing it over to a commission, admitting to the American 
people who hired us that we cannot do the job.
  Five years ago the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), my good friend 
and our distinguished chairman, promised to abolish the Tax Code and 
replace it with a better system. I and many of my Democratic colleagues 
on the Committee on Ways and Means applauded this goal and expressed 
our willingness to work together to achieve meaningful tax reform.
  But instead of working together to reform our Nation's ailing tax 
system, to make it more simple and fair and efficient, my Republican 
colleagues have repeatedly introduced ridiculous legislation to 
eliminate the code, without offering any credible alternative system.
  Telling the American people you are going to eliminate the Tax Code 
is sure to score political points. However, we all know that nothing 
can be done here without a system to replace it, and, as speakers 
before me have said, that will destroy our economy. No lesser expert 
than Chairman Greenspan, the number one authority on our economy, has 
said so.
  So have my Republican friends forgotten that our duty as members of 
the Committee on Ways and Means is to develop tax policy and not to 
advance campaign politics? It is time for us to tell the American 
people the truth. We cannot abolish the tax system unless we develop 
another means of funding the government.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to replace irrationality 
with reason, to replace emotions with practicality, and to replace 
politics with sound policy. Support motion to recommit H.R. 4199 to be 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) with instructions 
to require Congress to enact comprehensive tax reform of the Tax Code 
prior to the July 4, 2004, sunset date. The American people deserve 
true tax reform, and not just political rhetoric.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Camp)
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I 
want to commend the gentleman for his leadership on this important 
issue.
  Mr. Speaker, we do agree that the Tax Code is complex and burdensome. 
I am sure these statistics have been cited before, but the IRS laws and 
regulations are currently 17,000 pages, more than 5\1/2\ million words. 
The complexity and difficulty of filling out the tax forms each year 
get worse and worse.
  What this legislation will do is it will sunset the Tax Code in 4 
years. Also what this legislation does is it creates a commission, and 
I want to commend also the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Portman, for his 
leadership not on a commission that helped us restructure the IRS, but 
also a commission contained within this bill which will help us replace 
our current income tax code.
  This bipartisan commission is modeled on the IRS commission that was 
successful in 1996 and 1997. This will have 15 members appointed by the 
President, the Senate majority leader, the Speaker, and two appointed 
by the House and Senate minority leaders. It will have a short 
timetable. This commission will have to act within 18 months. If we do 
not, what is also in this legislation, which is new this time around, 
we will have to reauthorize it by 2004 if we do not adopt a new system 
of taxation. I think it is important we repeal the complex and 
difficult code. Any of these efforts are in the right direction.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) and also 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for helping make this a reality.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

[[Page 5583]]


  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, for 5 years we have heard the majority talk about 
changing the Tax Code and giving us something that is better. No one 
disagrees with that. All of us are here ready and prepared to discuss 
that. But now, for the last 5 years that we have been discussing it, 
nothing has been done. We have a bill on the floor that would say in 
about 4 years, let us get rid of the Tax Code we have, and who knows 
what we will replace it with?
  Now, if we are brought up here to be responsible, here to Washington, 
D.C., then let us give the American people some sense of where we will 
go. If we cannot do that, then the frustration the American people have 
expressed with our Tax Code will just grow and grow and grow. Yes, they 
are all fed up with this current Tax Code. Rather than become more 
simple, it has become more complex over these last 5 years. What is to 
make it less complex over the next 4 years as we get ready to scrap it? 
All we are going to get ready to do is create chaos.
  If you are an American and you are thinking of buying a home right 
now, what do you do? Do you buy right now, or wait 4 years from now? 
Because if we go with one of the ideas out there that we have a 
national sales tax replace our code where you would not have any more 
mortgage interest deductions and not be able to deduct the property 
taxes you pay on that home, should someone buy now, or wait 4 years? 
Because if you waited 4 years and there is a national sales tax, if you 
buy a $200,000 home and the sales tax is 30 percent, then you are 
paying 30 percent tax on that $200,000 purchase. Do you buy now or buy 
later?
  What if you are someone who is planning for a funeral for an elderly 
parent? Do you buy your plot now for your parent, or later? Because if 
you have a national sales tax, you will pay 30 percent on the purchase 
of that plot or for that coffin.
  Or what if you are elderly on a fixed income? What do you do about 
prescription drug coverage? Do you plan now to buy a whole bunch of 
drugs now, or wait until that sales tax kicks in at 30 percent? And the 
Joint Committee on Taxation, our Joint Committee on Taxation, which is 
to advise us on taxes, tells us that would probably be higher, about 50 
to 60 percent. Do you buy drugs now, or wait?
  This is sheer chaos. The only thing certain about this particular act 
is the date it would be enacted. But there is no certainty as to what 
we do with Americans and the taxes. What does the market do? How do we 
invest? Are we going to be able to have our monies invested in Roth 
IRAs, or will those be eliminated, so no longer can we put money in the 
investment accounts and say in the future we will not pay interest on 
them? What do we do? What is an investor to tell any American that is 
trying to save money? We have to give the American people some sense of 
what is going on. We have had 5 years of discussions, and we have not 
come up with anything.
  So, yes, let us reform the code. Let us make it simpler. Let us make 
it so everyone believes it is fair. But let us give the American people 
some sense of where we are going. Let us not do anything that makes it 
less certain. The only thing certain about this bill is it makes it 
clear what date this is. This is an election year.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that the previous 
speaker makes our point perfectly. The Tax Code controls whether we buy 
prescription drugs, houses, whether we save, whether we even invest, 
and that is not right.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. DeMint).
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, this has been helpful, because it seems that 
we all agree that Americans deserve a fair and simple Tax Code that 
takes only the amount of their money that is needed to run a limited 
and efficient government.

                              {time}  1530

  We all seem to agree also that our current Tax Code does not meet 
this test, because it not only takes too much of our money, it controls 
a large part of our lives. Not only does it take over 5 billion hours 
of our time every year and billions of dollars of our money, it 
controls many of the decisions in our personal lives about our savings, 
about our investment, about our retirement. Even how we die is decided 
by the Tax Code.
  In our businesses, when we decide whether to hire workers or contract 
that work out, or to buy or lease something, or to merge or to grow a 
business, just about everything we do in this country in some way is 
related to trying to manipulate a Tax Code that is so complex that even 
the experts cannot understand it.
  The only question today, the only question is, do we have the courage 
to set a deadline to change it; do we have the courage to give the 
American people a commitment, rather than 5 more years of talk? We have 
proven we will not do it without a deadline.
  It is not irresponsible to set a deadline, it is irresponsible to 
continue to give the American people talk without a deadline.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am certain that the gentleman who just spoke did not mean that for 
the last 5 years that all we got from the Republican leadership is 
talk, but if he does, then we cannot have any guarantee. If things 
remain the same, then it would be an additional 5 years of talk.
  Why do we not produce first, and then we will be in a position really 
to put in something, rather than just be against something.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, having authored the Texas Sunset Act during 
my service as a Texas State Senator, I believe there is merit in the 
sunset process. That Texas law limits the life of every State agency, 
and I am working with a bipartisan coalition here in Congress to apply 
the same concept to limit the life and require sunsetting of each of 
our Federal agencies.
  Certainly our Tax Code could have a similar concept applied to it if 
done in the appropriate way. This Tax Code is overflowing with 
loopholes, it is permissive toward abusive corporate tax shelters, it 
is not fair to middle class taxpayers.
  Under this Republican congressional leadership, it has only gotten 
worse. The Tax Code has gotten bigger, it has gotten more inequitable, 
it has been filled with more special interest provisions. We can all 
certainly remember the effort of the Republican House leadership to 
sneak through here a $50 billion tax credit for the tobacco industry 
hidden in a small business tax bill.
  But the sunset process has to be applied in a systematic way, not as 
a political polemic. If we look at related provisions of the Tax Code 
together, we do not abolish the entire code without anything to replace 
it.
  We all know how skilled our Republican colleagues are at railing 
against taxes. We have heard from them over and over all the taxes they 
do not like and all the reasons they do not like those taxes. But they 
seem to lose their ability to speak when it is time to talk about what 
tax system they would substitute. They are so very skilled about 
complaining about the tax system, but they lack skill in being able to 
offer a more fair and equitable system. After 5\1/2\ years, they have 
given us hearings and they have given us speeches, but they have given 
us no real alternative.
  This week, however, we learned what they have in mind if this country 
has the misfortune of having to endure another 2 years of a Republican 
Congress.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) told us he did not want to 
saddle our new economy with an old tax system, but this week we learned 
they have a new tax for the new economy, a 60 percent tax on every 
online purchase.
  They claim that they are still revolutionaries. If they want a real 
tax rebellion in this country, tell Americans that they are going to 
have to pay 60 percent on every online purchase and there will be an 
uproar.

[[Page 5584]]

  That is the wrong system. That is what this is all about: enabling 
the Republicans to put in place a new tax on e-commerce. It is wrong 
and it ought to be rejected.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I agree with both the Democratic side 
and the Republican side, this is an issue of great importance to the 
American people. It is not a Democrat or Republican issue, it is a 
people's issue. We are the people's House. We are elected by the people 
to come up here and make the decisions for them that hopefully will be 
the best decisions.
  I want to say, because I have great respect for the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Rangel), as I do the gentleman from Texas (Chairman 
Archer), they are two men I really do have great respect for, but I 
think about the fact that prior to 1995, and I was not here, let me say 
that, but I do not remember reading in the paper where there was any 
debate on the floor of the House to even give tax relief, because I 
believe when we passed the tax relief bill in 1997 we were the first 
Congress in 16 years to give the American people tax relief.
  I realize today we are talking about simplifying the Tax Code. I want 
to compliment my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma, because 
truthfully, yes, maybe we have been talking about this for 5 years, but 
the thing that is important, we are talking about it. Now we need to do 
something about it. If this effort by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Largent) will help us move further down the field, so to speak, so that 
we will reach the goalpost and we will change this tax system, that is 
what all this is about.
  I do hope, I will say, quite frankly, in my town meetings, because in 
Eastern North Carolina, the biggest concern from the people that I have 
the privilege to represent, when I am in these town meetings what they 
say to me, is, Walter, go back is to Washington, get your colleagues on 
both sides of the political aisles to do something about this Tax Code, 
because it is out of control.
  My own CPA, who is very qualified, tells me every year that I do my 
taxes, Walter, you all have to do something about this Tax Code. It is 
overburdening and it needs to be simplified.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope today, truthfully, as we cast our votes this 
afternoon, that even though this is not perfect, this is the start that 
we need I think to force the Congress in the future to do something 
about this tax system and to make it simpler.
  Quite frankly, I have written to Governor George Bush and I will 
encourage Al Gore to please do something to help the American people 
and simplify this tax system, and to debate the issue this fall.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me. I am honored to be here. I had with me just a few moments 
ago a couple of little exhibits I was going to take with me to the 
podium, but they had to go back to the gallery to their mother. They 
are from my home county, 4 years old and 6 years old. It is really for 
youngsters like them that we need to really look at this Code.
  I think they would tell me, if they could understand, that they need 
a date certain Tax Code for this House to do something. That is not 
putting them under the gun too much. I will tell Members what it does, 
it tells us that we need to go out and come in again with a Code. The 
sensible part of it is that we are not going out before we come in.
  The provisions are that we have to come in with a bill, a sensible 
bill to take the place of the Code before the Code goes out. I really 
do not see anything pressing about that. It simply says to us, get 
about your work now, and do not wait until the last day and rush in 
there and try to get it done.
  I think it also knocks out estate tax, capital gains taxes, a lot of 
things that a lot of people want to knock out, but they are waiting to 
put it with something that is more desperate or tougher to pass. We 
will get a chance to get rid of those two things now, too.
  A lot of us have signed onto one or both of the bills. I do not care 
what bill comes down the line, I think I am a coauthor on it. We need a 
change. That is not to say that everything about the present Code is 
bad or everybody that works for the IRS is bad. There are a lot of good 
people with the Treasury Department, and a lot of them are embarrassed 
about the actions of some in the Treasury Department.
  I would just say, we need to go out and come back in again. When I 
say go out, I am talking about go out into the countryside, go out into 
the district, talk to Republicans, Democrats, talk to anyone in any 
occupation and ask them, would you like to have a new Tax Code? Do you 
like the Tax Code you are operating under?
  I think that little 2-year-old and little 4-year-old and 6-year-old 
that were here that I was going to use as exhibits, I think they would 
tell us 10 out of 10, yes, we need a new Code. That Code was brought in 
when our grandfather was not even born. We need a new Code.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to come to Washington and hear a sales 
tax is going to be the tax panacea and give us fairness and simplicity. 
Because before I came here, I spent 6 years running the largest sales 
tax agency in the country. Let me tell the Members, sales tax laws have 
the same kind of special interest provisions that we come across in the 
Internal Revenue Code.
  Sales tax laws can affect what we do and what our behavior is, and 
let me give one example. We would need a 60 percent sales tax rate in 
order to replace existing Federal taxes. There is much debate on the 
floor today as to whether that rate would apply to those purchases made 
over the Internet. Who is going to buy a sweater or a television set at 
the local mall if it is 60 percent cheaper online? So we may have a 
sales tax code designed to take the Federal government out of 
involvement in private decisions leading to closing every mall in 
America. That is a significant private effect.
  Finally, we are told that the sales tax, the national sales tax, 
would be fair. What is fair about a law that says that Steve Forbes can 
go make a $10 million profit, invest it all in a villa on the Italian 
Riviera, and not pay a single penny in American taxes?
  Mr. Speaker, this bill pretends to impose a deadline, but it is 
really just a show line, because in Washington whenever we do not want 
to do anything at all, we appoint a commission. The commission will 
come back in several years, tell us what we already know, that it would 
take a 60 percent sales tax rate to replace existing taxes, and then 
that commission's report would be thrown away and the existing code 
would be reenacted.
  Let us have real reform, Code section by Code section.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the discussion has been good and healthy, 
especially during this time of the year, when American taxpayers 
recognize the complexity of the Code.
  One of the previous speakers from the other side said for the last 5 
years all we have done is talk about changing the Code. I would like to 
believe that if they are in the majority and in charge of the tax-
writing committee, that instead of talking about changing the Code, 
they would have changed the Code, if they had the votes to do it.
  On the other hand, I think the most frightening thing about this 
argument is what do we replace it with. No matter how much we complain 
about the complexity and the unfairness and the inequity of the Code, I 
do not think that any American would support just changing the Code 
until they fully understood what impact the new Code

[[Page 5585]]

would have on them in their lives. We have not the faintest idea as to 
what we would replace it with.
  The best idea, in my opinion, that came from the other side as to 
what we would replace the Code with, it would be with a 15-person 
commission, taking it out of the hands of the Congress, having four 
Members appointed from the Congress and the rest of them private 
citizens, to come back to the Congress to tell the American people what 
the new Code should be. I do not think that is right. Commissioners do 
not get elected, we do.
  It is no profile in courage on the eve of tax payment day to come 
here and talk about they do not like the Code. No one likes the Code in 
its present form. What does take courage is to say that, I am in the 
majority, we are proud of it, we are doing something about it, here is 
the new Internal Revenue Code. We ask Americans to come forward and to 
vote for it.

                              {time}  1545

  Now we are saying let us sunset what we are talking about. Well, at 
the appropriate time, what I hope to do is to say that if we do have 
this new code, maybe in the motion to recommit we might be willing to 
consider just a question of making the code equitable, making it fair, 
making certain we do not tax prescription drugs, that we do not hurt 
people in terms of the deduction of mortgage interest. At least send 
some signal as to what is being talked about.
  There are a half a dozen bills over there. The commission has not 
even gotten up to what my dear friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Portman), is talking about. We do not know who is going to be on that 
commission, and I think that is going to be very, very important before 
we determine what we are doing. So I hope that we turn down this offer 
and support the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time to close.
  Mr. Speaker, this has been a great debate, as my friend, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), has said. It is an important 
debate. This is a good time to have this debate. Many taxpayers are 
filing their tax returns as we speak. We have heard the numbers, 5.4 
billion hours that we spend doing tax returns. That would cost 
somewhere around $225 billion wasted to file those tax returns.
  If someone calls the IRS and they ask them a question about their tax 
returns, statistics show 47 percent of the time the IRS gets the answer 
wrong. If one fills in the blank with the answer the IRS gives them, 
they punish that person; they can give them a penalty and charge them 
interest for taxes they did not pay.
  Here is a 1040-EZ form, the easiest way to file a tax return in this 
country. Along with it, a 32-page document explaining how to file the 
1040-EZ form.
  Here is an article from the Wall Street Journal, three organizations 
which will urge Congress later this week to simplify the tax laws. Want 
to know who those groups are? The American Bar Association Tax Section; 
the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Tax Division; 
and the Tax Executives Institute. The experts are saying, please, 
simplify the Tax Code.
  The experts do not understand the Tax Code. How can the American 
people understand the Tax Code?
  If anyone has listened to this debate for the last couple of hours, 
what they will understand is nobody is defending the current code. The 
left is not defending the current Tax Code. The right is not defending 
the current Tax Code. No one is.
  In fact, one of my personal heroes talking about replacing the Tax 
Code says the American taxpayers deserve better than they got on tax 
reform. We have an outdated, complicated, unfair system that should be 
abolished so that we can start over. Decades of toying and tinkering at 
the margins have only made problems worse, and I conclude that there is 
only one way to fix anything and that is to replace everything, to 
overhaul the entire system from top to bottom. Our Tax Code has become 
a dense fog of incentives and inducements and penalties that distort 
the most basic economic decisions, constrain the free market and make 
it hard for Americans to run their lives. The current system is 
indefensible.
  The speaker of those quotes: The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt), the distinguished minority leader.
  So with all of those people saying the Tax Code is bad and we need to 
replace it, why has it not been replaced?
  I will freely acknowledge and confess to my friend, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Rangel), Republicans have been in the majority for 
5\1/2\ years. We have not done anything about it. We have not gotten 
rid of the Tax Code. We have made it worse, as he said. It has gotten 
heavier, more complex, with Republicans in control. What he did not say 
was we have been in control for 5\1/2\ years, but the Democrats were in 
control for 40 years and they had the same problem.
  It is endemic to Democrats. It is endemic to Republicans. We have the 
same problem. Why are we not doing something about it? It is because we 
do not have to. What this bill is about is saying to Congress, what 
Congress so freely says to the rest of the Americans on every bill that 
we pass, that they have to do this by this date, we are now saying to 
Congress, to ourselves, confessing our own failure and not doing what 
the American people are begging us to do, we are going to impose a date 
on Congress and we are going to say we have to replace this stinking 
Tax Code in 4 years and 3 months from today.
  I think when this bill passes this House that there will be an 
audible ovation around the country saying, here, here, it is about time 
Congress did something about the Tax Code.
  Here is the bill. It is very simple. This is not a complicated bill. 
It is 15 pages long. If one has not read it, shame on them. We vote 
today. We have 4 years and 3 months before we replace the code; July 4, 
Independence Day, 2004, we replace the code. We get a report from a 
commission to do what we need to do, to look at all of the options that 
are out there, flat tax, consumption tax and every variety in between. 
Then 6 months after that the old Tax Code is gone.
  Mr. Speaker, I will just conclude by saying that it is time. We need 
to just do it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on 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, I am, 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. 4199 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.--Congress shall enact a comprehensive reform 
     of the Tax Code not later than July 4, 2004.
       (b) Principles.--Any comprehensive reform of the Tax Code 
     shall be consistent with the following principles:
       (1) Such reform shall be fiscally responsible and it shall 
     not endanger a balanced budget nor use funds devoted to the 
     social security system.
       (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.
       (c) Consequences of Pending Retail Sales Tax Proposals To 
     Be Avoided.--In no event shall the comprehensive reform 
     enacted pursuant to this section include the following 
     aspects of pending legislation proposing a retail sales tax 
     as a replacement for the current tax code:

[[Page 5586]]

       (1) Health care should not be jeopardized.--The imposition 
     of a retail sales tax on prescription drugs and other health 
     care goods and services thereby--
       (A) further increasing hardships on the elderly and other 
     individuals dealing with high drug prices,
       (B) increasing the cost of nursing home care and other 
     long-term care services,
       (C) accelerating the insolvency of the medicare system by 
     increasing the cost of goods and services reimbursed by 
     medicare, and
       (D) increasing the cost of health insurance and thereby 
     increasing the number of uninsured.
       (2) Federal tax burden should not be shifted to states.--
     The imposition of a retail sales tax on goods and services 
     (including wages of government employees) purchased by State 
     and local governments, thereby forcing State and local 
     governments either to drastically reduce the level of 
     services provided to their citizens or to dramatically 
     increase State tax burdens.
       (3) National defense should not be endangered.--The 
     imposition of a retail sales tax on goods and services 
     purchased by the Federal Government, thereby endangering the 
     National defense by increasing the cost to the Federal 
     Government of meeting its military needs.
       (4) Costs of owning or renting a home should not 
     increase.--The imposition of a retail sales tax on purchases 
     of new homes and on rentals of apartments and other 
     residences, thereby threatening the ability of many 
     individuals to afford adequate housing.
       (5) Internet should not be subject to retail sales tax.--
     The imposition of a retail sales tax on Internet access.
       (d) Consequences of Pending Flat Tax Proposals To Be 
     Avoided.--In no event shall the comprehensive reform enacted 
     pursuant to this section include the following aspects of 
     pending legislation proposing a flat tax:
       (1) Burden of financing social security and medicare should 
     not increase.--An increase in the burden of the social 
     security and medicare payroll taxes by denying employers a 
     deduction for those taxes when none of the additional 
     revenues raised by increasing the burden of those taxes is 
     devoted to the social security or medicare trust funds.
       (2) Costs of owning a home should not increase.--The 
     elimination of current law subsidies for home ownership by 
     repealing the deductions for mortgage interest and real 
     estate taxes.
       (3) Costs of employer-provided health care should not 
     increase.--The imposition of substantial penalties on 
     employers who provide health care coverage for their 
     employees, thereby increasing the number of individuals 
     without private health insurance.
       (4) Burden of state and local taxation should not 
     increase.--An increase in the burden of State and local taxes 
     by denying any deduction for those taxes, including taxes 
     paid by businesses in the ordinary course of their 
     operations.
       (5) Charitable contributions should not be discouraged.--
     The repeal all current tax incentives for charitable giving 
     at a time when the congressional majority is increasingly 
     attempting to shift the burden of meeting the needs of the 
     poor and disadvantaged to private organizations.
       (6) Runaway plants should not be encouraged.--Encouraging 
     United States corporations to move their businesses overseas 
     by taxing their domestic operations but exempting their 
     foreign operations from tax.
       (7) Tax burdens on farmers and small businesses should not 
     increase.--A dramatic increase in the tax burden on family 
     farms and small businesses that rely on debt financing or 
     have substantial amounts of currently depreciable assets by 
     repealing the deduction for interest and eliminating 
     depreciation deductions for existing assets.
       (e) Regressivity of Pending Flat Tax Proposals and Retail 
     Sales Tax Proposals To Be Avoided.--In no event shall the 
     comprehensive reform enacted pursuant to this section include 
     the substantial and regressive shift of the burden of Federal 
     taxation as under pending flat tax and retail sales tax 
     proposals.

  Mr. PORTMAN (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will continue reading the motion 
to recommit.
  The Clerk continued reading the motion to recommit.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. THOMAS (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, is it appropriate, since it has been 
objected to, dispensing with the reading, to inquire how many pages 
there are that will be read?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk is about finished. The Clerk will 
continue reading the motion to recommit.
  The Clerk continued reading the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) is recognized for 5 minutes on his motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to vote for this motion 
to recommit, on the basis of a letter which we got from the Tax 
Executive Institute of the United States. It is all the corporate 
executives of the country who said these proposals reflect either a 
misapprehension of the importance of certainty and predictability to 
business enterprise and individuals or a disregard for the consequences 
of terminating the tax structure. They illustrate the folly of making 
tax policy by sound bite and should be rejected.
  Former directors of the Internal Revenue Service, both Republicans 
and Democrats, wrote that this approach does not meet the standards of 
reasoned and responsible legislation. Now, if it were for only one 
issue here, I would say that was why we should go back to the committee 
and add at least one protection for health care. Companies can deduct 
right now what they spend on health care for their employees. They 
would lose that here because that is part of the income Tax Code. So 
that means there would be no incentive for any major company in my 
district or anybody else's to provide health insurance.
  Also, individuals would lose the tax deductibility of what they 
purchased so they would not only lose it from their employer but they 
would lose it on an individual basis. Then when they went out and paid 
for it, they would have to pay a sales tax on not only the policy they 
bought but everything that they bought in the process of having their 
health care taken care of, including prescription drugs.
  Yesterday everybody was walking in here saying that the Republicans 
have come out with their principles about how to provide a prescription 
drug benefit for the senior citizens in this country who on average 
spend $2,500 out-of-pocket paying for pharmaceuticals. Now I guess it 
makes sense to the Republicans to come out here and propose that they 
are going to slap a $250 tax on every senior citizen when they buy 
their drugs. Vote for the motion.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, the majority party clearly has shown their 
unity on the question of sunsetting and polishing the Internal Revenue 
Code at some time in the future, 2004. I guess that is pretty 
courageous to say on the eve of April 15 that they want to get rid of 
this code.
  We do not know whether they have enough votes to come back with 
something before we get out of session. We have not the slightest clue 
as to what they would replace it with.
  So we are saying this, if they are going to overwhelm us with their 
votes and abolish the code, we ask them to support the motion to 
recommit at least to put some protections in it for the taxpayer for 
the American people; that it be fiscally responsible; that whatever 
they come up with, that it is fair; that it be certainly more simple 
than the code that they are trying to replace; that they not pick up 
some of these ideas that are floating in their side about taxing 
prescription drugs; that they do not make home purchasing more 
difficult by eliminating the deduction of mortgage interest. For God's 
sake, do not hurt charitable giving by removing the deductibility. Do 
not hurt our schools, our churches, our synagogues and our mosques.
  We do have a pretty progressive tax system. From what I have heard 
with some of the things that are being considered on the other side, it 
might be a little too difficult for the working poor.
  We also are asking in the motion to recommit that our colleagues do 
not

[[Page 5587]]

restructure the tax system so that they are shifting the burden to 
local and State governments because they have enough.
  Our concern also deals with the Internet with the structuring of some 
of the recommendations they are making that would put a 60 percent 
increase in the sales tax on the Internet. Well, we do not know where 
they are going, and they do not either. All we know is that they want 
to get rid of the code as we see it.
  Maybe if we are lucky, we can get someone of the caliber of the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) to sit on this 15-person commission. 
Other than that, I do not know who even would be on the commission to 
come and tell us what we should be doing. If they do a good enough job, 
maybe we do not even need the Committee on Ways and Means. If that 
works for the tax-writing committee, maybe we can get a commission for 
the Committee on Appropriations and a commission for the Committee on 
Commerce.
  I know we have not done much work around here in the last couple of 
years, but I hate to see the day that we just set up commissions to do 
our legislative work. But I support the motion to recommit, Mr. 
Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Does the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Portman) claim the time in opposition?
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am claiming the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio and fellow 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means for the yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) a typical lament that is really based in the realm of political 
science fiction, because typical of the motions to recommit, it 
basically says, golly, gee, there really should be some tax reform. But 
rather than commit to it, we will throw out a variety of ideas, a grab 
bag for you and say that, oh, yeah, us, too. We really want to see 
reform in the code. But not now.
  The gentleman from New York laments what he says is a lack of 
cooperation and communication between the sides of the Committee on 
Ways and Means. Yet, in this tax summit, when the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader, was invited to offer 
his plan for a 10 percent code, he declined. How can we have honest 
communication?
  Reject the motion to recommit. Vote for the bill.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), champion on this issue.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit takes away the sunset. It says 
we are going to keep this good old income Tax Code a lot longer. Maybe 
if we come up with a new one, we will get rid of it one day.
  The bill sets the sunset. It says this income Tax Code that ravages 
Americans ought to go. We ought to pull it out by its roots so it does 
not grow back again. We ought to come up with a simple, clean, decent 
one for Americans again.
  Mr. Speaker, the power to tax is the power to destroy. My colleagues 
ought to think about what this current code does. It punishes one for 
earning income, for saving, for investing, for giving things to one's 
kids in life through the gift tax and for giving things to them when 
one dies through the death tax.
  It even punishes one when one buys American-made products. According 
to the Harvard study, it adds 25 percent to the cost of everything we 
make and consume in America.
  It taxes one coming. It taxes one going. It taxes one when one earns 
income and when one spends it. We ought to get rid of it. This bill 
gets rid of it.
  This motion to recommit says let us keep it. If my colleagues want to 
keep it, vote for the recommit. If they want to get rid of it, vote 
against the motion to recommit.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am now reading the Democrat motion to 
recommit, and it is interesting. It lays out a set of principles. I, 
frankly, do not think it is inconsistent with the underlying bill. But 
it does not get the job done.
  It does not do anything to force this Congress and this 
administration to come to grips with this problem. It does not sunset 
the code. It does not set up a commission. It does not say that we have 
to deal with this problem.
  Now, if we are not going to come to grips with it, if we are not 
going to begin the process of getting rid of an overly complex, overly 
burdensome, overly intrusive Internal Revenue Code, then we are not 
serving our constituents.
  This is a good bill. What this bill that the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Largent) put together does is very simple. It does say, over a 4-
year period of time, we ought to sunset the code. In the meantime, 
though, we are going to put together a bipartisan, bicameral commission 
that forces the administration to work with Congress to come up with 
analyses of the various proposals out there, allow some public 
education on this issue, go out among the people, yes, bring in outside 
expertise, not rely on Congress to provide every answer. We do not have 
a monopoly on all the good answers. Then come back and report to 
Congress, after 18 months, as to what they have learned.
  Congress then does its work, and the Committee on Ways and Means and 
the finance committee in this House does its work, and the elected 
Representatives make the decision. But this is responsible.
  Then, very importantly, if Congress still cannot come to grips with 
this issue, cannot do what is right for the American people, then the 
legislation says specifically that Congress must vote to reauthorize 
the existing Tax Code. There is no uncertainty here.
  I have heard speakers come up and say this creates great uncertainty. 
This does not create great uncertainty. What it creates is a great 
potential for us to move this country forward on an issue that is 
absolutely essential to the well-being of our constituents and to the 
prosperity of this country in the 21st Century.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, we heard the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel). I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) on his 
knowledge and his wisdom in the area.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Do not hold that against me.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, given that fact that I agree with it, is the 
gentleman from Ohio for or against the motion to recommit?
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am glad the gentleman 
from California asked. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
motion to recommit because it does not get the job done, as well 
meaning as it might be, and to support, strongly support, on a 
bipartisan basis the responsible legislation this year, which 
establishes the ability for us to actually move forward on this issue 
that we talk and talk and talk about and deliver for our constituents 
and the American people.
  Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit. Vote ``yes'' on the underlying 
bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am in total agreement that 
the IRS tax code is confusing. In fact, I affirm making the tax code 
more understandable for average Americans. I even hope to address 
outdated tax issues such as the telephone excise tax adopted a century 
ago to help fund the Spanish American War in 1898 and re-imposed during 
World War I, which is still with us today.
  However, this bill is another attempt by the Republicans to enact 
irresponsible legislation. The notion that Congress should abolish most 
of the tax code by December 31, 2004 is not in the best interest of 
America's hard working families. The Republicans are offering this bill 
with no viable alternative to the tax code in place.

[[Page 5588]]

  The notion that we can enact legislation essentially eliminating the 
tax code without a well-reasoned alternative is a violation of the 
public trust. This measure is nothing more than another election year 
ploy designed by the Republicans around tax time. This is nothing more 
than a tax gift to the special interests that would like nothing more 
than to scrap the tax code. The termination of the tax code has become 
a top priority of the Republican agenda. To vote for this bill without 
coming forward with a credible alternative to finance our government's 
operations is playing our nation's taxpayers for fools.
  The most glaring aspect of this measure is the fact the if we pass a 
bill which terminates the tax code between now and December 21, 2002, 
our entire economy will be in a state of confusion. The capital markets 
do not like uncertainty in our country's fiscal policy.
  Our industrial and commercial sectors will not have the certainty and 
predictability required to have an efficient economy. If we pass this 
bill it is highly likely that the long period of prosperity enjoyed by 
our nation will soon end. How long can our economy operate without 
knowing what the tax consequences of their investment decisions will 
yield? We have come too far from the days of recession in 1991 to take 
actions that will threaten the hard won progress made to date.
  State and local governments that issue tax-exempt municipal bonds 
with low interest rates to finance capital activity: If we eliminate 
the tax code without assuring current holders of tax-exempt municipal 
bonds of their tax status many Americans will be adversely affected.
  What about home mortgages? The home mortgage deduction is one of the 
linchpins of the American dream. Without it, many moderate and low-
income Americans would not be able to own their homes. The tax 
deductibility of home mortgages is not only a great advantage, but it 
also impacts the entire home builder and mortgage industry that relies 
on a healthy housing market.
  The Scrap the Tax Code Act deserves to be scrapped itself. This bill 
has nothing but the interest of the wealthy who seek tax relief on the 
backs of our nation's workers. Let us get onto serious legislation such 
as gun control, strengthening Social Security and Medicare, as well as 
paying down the national debt. If we need to have additional hearings 
on improving the tax code I am in favor of looking at alternatives. Our 
people deserve more than election year gimmicks; they deserve serious 
legislators who produce meaningful legislation that puts families 
first. Thank you and God bless America.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Date Certain 
Tax Code Replacement 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 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 
serious negative consequences for American families, farmers, and 
businesses.
  Families and businesses rely on the tax treatment of certain 
expenditures in making their financial decisions. For example, 
employers budget for the health and pension benefits of their workers 
based on the tax deductibility of these expenses. With the uncertainty 
created by this legislation, however, employers might very well freeze 
health and retirement benefits until their tax treatment is 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, 
adverse growing conditions, and a farm policy that includes no safety 
net. 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 in 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 giving a blank check 
to Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to reject this legislation and to get to 
work on real meaningful tax reform.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I've been trying to figure out 
just what this bill really is, and I've got it narrowed down to two 
choices. Either this is a belated April Fool's prank or it's the 
scariest thing since last Halloween.
  The idea that Congress would repeal all Federal income, estate and 
gift and excise tax laws without a plan for how to replace them sounds 
like a joke. But for anybody who's trying to plan, it's not funny. How 
can a company decide whether to make a multi-year investment if it 
doesn't know what will be the basis for future tax laws? How can people 
decide how to invest for their retirement if they don't know what 
Congress might decide to do about the tax status of their investments?
  If the sponsors of this bill are serious--and they are asking us to 
assume that they are--then they are being remarkably careless. If they 
aren't serious--and it's tempting to treat this as a joke--then they 
seem pretty irresponsible. Either way, this is not the kind of 
legislation that we should be debating today or any day.
  But, here it is and we do have to vote. So, I will support the motion 
to recommit because it would at least fill in some of the blanks in the 
bill. It would spell out that any replacement for the income and excise 
tax laws has to be fiscally responsible and not endanger Social 
Security or Medicare. It would require that the replacement taxes 
emphasize simplicity and be fair to people at all income levels. And it 
would rule out any new federal sales taxes on prescription drugs and 
other health-care necessities or on home purchases and rentals. I think 
most Americans would agree that these are pretty basic principles that 
should be followed in shaping any new tax system.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, while I don't think the way to go about the 
hard work of reform is to burn down the house in hopes of putting up 
something better, we should at least define ``better'' before we start 
the fire.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I adamantly oppose H.R. 4199, a bill to 
sunset the current Internal Revenue Code without a replacement plan. It 
is completely ludicrous to bring legislation to the floor that will 
eliminate the only Tax Code the U.S. Government has to collect revenue 
and pay for entitlements and various programs. This bill suggests to 
the American people that in four years, the 108th Congress will come up 
with a plan to replace the current system, but there are no guarantees. 
The bill before us today is irresponsible, negligent and hypocritical.


               i. irresponsible--no need for a commission

  Last year's failed Medicine Commission provides ample evidence that 
the last thing Congress needs is another commission upon which to place 
its responsibility.
  This bill hands over the responsibility to tax U.S. income to yet 
another commission. Congress already has an ``in-House'' commission to 
address problems with the current Tax Code--it's called the Ways and 
Means Committee. But the Committee on Ways and Means didn't hold a 
hearing or a markup on the bill before us today. In fact, we've had 
hearings all week on fundamental tax reform; yet H.R. 4199 was never 
brought before the Committee.
  It's high time the leadership stops the charade and works in a 
bipartisan fashion to address critical problems facing working 
Americans.


                   ii. negligent--no replacement plan

  This bill neglects to offer a plan in the event that the 108th 
Congress doesn't actually come up with an alternative approach to 
current U.S. taxes.
  Are we to assume that one of the recent proposals before the Ways and 
Means Committee will replace the current Code? I would imagine that the 
GOP's leading testimony on H.R. 2525, the Fair Tax Act, would be a 
proposal of consideration. If this is the case, then I must fiercely 
warn my colleagues against supporting H.R. 4199.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation--a bipartisan and bicameral 
Congressional Committee--has concluded that the Fair Tax Act, the 
leading proposal at this week's Ways & Means tax hearing, will need to 
impose a near 60 percent tax on goods and services in the U.S. in order 
to remain revenue neutral. I have a chart here (see attached) to show 
how this will effect the price of top selling seniors' prescription 
drugs. Seniors are currently struggling to pay for their prescription 
drugs and often have to go without them. It is unfathomable that the 
leadership would want to scrap the current Code only to suggest that 
proposals as awful as the Fair Tax Act await its replacement.
  The GOP has had 5 years to devise a better way to tax U.S. income. 
But for the past five years all they have given us is an April 15 song 
and dance.


               iii. this bill is hypocritical and hollow

  I believe the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Armey, is sincere about 
trying to obtain health

[[Page 5589]]

insurance for the 44 million Americans without it through a refundable 
tax cut credit, but we won't reach this goal by ripping out the 
existing tax code by its roots without replacing it first with a system 
of either refundable tax credits or subsidies for employer-provided 
health insurance.
  I oppose the current tax structure with respect to the treatment of 
the pharmaceutical industry and I did something about it. I have 
introduced a couple of bills that address the unfair tax treatment 
given to pharmaceutical companies.
  I have introduced H.R. 4089, the Save Money for Prescription Drug 
Research Act of 2000 to deny tax deductions to pharmaceutical firms for 
spending on unnecessary promotions and gifts (other than drug samples) 
to physicians. These drug companies currently deduct a portion of the 
over $11 billion spent per year on very questionable physician gifts. 
This bill encourages dedication of these funds for a much more 
important use--pharmaceutical research and development.
  I have also introduced H.R. 3665, the Prescription Price Equity Act 
of 2000 which would deny research tax credits to pharmaceutical 
companies that sell their products at significantly higher prices in 
the U.S. as compared to their sales in other industrialized nations.
  My bills accomplish something. My bills address the fact that drug 
company profits are over three times greater than the average profits 
of all other U.S. industries while U.S. seniors spend more money on 
medications than seniors in other parts of the world.
  We must have a tax plan in place to ensure that our seniors will 
receive affordable prescription drugs and that the uninsured have 
access to health care before we hastily scrap our current Tax Code.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 4199, the Date Certain Tax 
Replacement Act and support the motion to recommit.

                                                       REPUBLICAN TAX PROPOSALS WILL MAKE YOU SICK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Average retail      Retail price       Retail price
Top selling seniors' prescription drugs         Manufacturer                     Use                 price for        after Linder-      after Fair Tax
                                                                                                 uninsured seniors   Peterson tax \1\   Act of 1999 \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zocor..................................  Merck.....................  Cholesterol...............            $107.66            $139.96            $172.26
Norvasc................................  Pfizer, Inc...............  High Blood Pressure.......             118.96             154.65             190.34
Prilosec...............................  Astra/Merck...............  Ulcers....................             117.56             152.83             188.10
Procardia XL...........................  Pfizer, Inc...............  Heart Problems............             133.22             173.19             213.15
Zoloft.................................  Pfizer, Inc...............  Depression................             223.61             290.69             357.78
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reps. Linder and Collin Peterson's proposal will impose a 30% national retail sales tax.
\2\ According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Fair Tax Act of 1999 would require a 59.5% sales tax rate to be revenue neutral over five years.
  We assume this would cause a 60% increase in prices to consumers.
 
Note.--Chart lists drug prices in common dosage, form, and package sizes.


  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member opposes H.R. 4199, the Tax 
Code Termination Act.
  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. 4199 for the following four 
reasons:
  (1) This Member does not think that we should delay decision-making 
as H.R. 4199 provides. We need to decide today's issues today and not 
defer them to tomorrow.
  (2) H.R. 4199 fails for its lack of precision. H.R. 4199 would sunset 
the current tax code effective December 31, 2004. It is certainly not 
legislatively, statutorily wise to decide to eliminate the tax code 
without determining a revenue alternative to replace it with. If such 
major action should be taken as contemplated by H.R. 4199, a precise 
alternative Federal tax system needs to be simultaneously decided.
  (3) This Member does not support this legislation because it could 
dramatically discourage investment and cause economic chaos as 
investors are faced with great uncertainty. If H.R. 4199 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 July 4, 
2004. Members of the House need to really consider the decisions that 
would face businesses and their constituents in this environment of 
uncertainty. For example, can a corporation make a prudent investment 
decision if they do not know what the tax consequences of that decision 
will be 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? No, they will not.
  Another example of the potentially very negative effects of H.R. 4199 
relates to the mortgage interest deduction. A young family which 
desires to purchase a home for the first time will not know if they can 
count on a mortgage interest deduction in the future if H.R. 4199 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. 4199 would have a negative effect on state and local 
entities. The tax benefits, for example, of the investors in public 
bonds would be negatively affected by the uncertainty created by H.R. 
4199. 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, this 
Member must oppose H.R. 4199. We need a fundamental re-examination of 
America's Federal tax code and it should begin now, but rash action 
like H.R. 4199 is most assuredly not the way to proceed. Its enactment 
would have a chilling effect upon our economy and cause greater 
difficulty in public 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for electronic voting on 
final passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 191, 
nays 228, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 126]

                               YEAS--191

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez

[[Page 5590]]


     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--228

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bliley
     Borski
     Callahan
     Clay
     Cook
     Evans
     Hilliard
     Houghton
     Miller, George
     Myrick
     Quinn
     Serrano
     Stark
     Wexler
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1630

  Messrs. BILIRAKIS, GANSKE, SHERWOOD, CAMP, BEREUTER, WATKINS, 
McINTYRE, and WHITFIELD changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. RIVERS, and Messrs. KIND, BARRETT of Wisconsin, GREEN of Texas, 
and GEPHARDT, Ms. DeLAURO, and Messrs. FATTAH, LARSON, SHERMAN, BERMAN, 
Ms. SLAUGHTER, and Messrs. LIPINSKI, OWENS, TAYLOR of Mississippi, and 
GORDON changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on passage of 
the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the yeas appeared to have it.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229, 
nays 187, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 127]

                               YEAS--229

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--187

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman

[[Page 5591]]


     Weiner
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bishop
     Bliley
     Borski
     Callahan
     Clay
     Cook
     Evans
     Hilliard
     Houghton
     Lazio
     Miller, George
     Myrick
     Owens
     Quinn
     Sandlin
     Stark
     Wexler
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1638

  Mr. WOLF and Mr. LEACH changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 127, I was unavoidably 
detained and unable to be present for the vote. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 127 I inserted my card in 
the voting machine and voted ``aye''. The board was closing and the 
vote did not register. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent on a matter of 
critical importance and missed the following vote:
  On H.R. 4199, to terminate the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 
introduced by the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Largent, I would have 
voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________