[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 9734]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 EXPRESSING SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING REFORM OF INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. PETER A. DeFAZIO

                               of oregon

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, April 9, 2003

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I am voting yes on H. Con. Res. 141, a 
hortative resolution with no legally-binding impact, but which has a 
lot of predictable political rhetoric about the need to reform the 
enormously complex and loophole-ridden federal tax code.
  I am voting yes because the ``whereas'' clauses in the resolution are 
by and large inoffensive, if deliberately vague about the true 
intention behind the rhetoric, which is to fundamentally reform the 
U.S. tax code in a way that eases the tax burden on the rich and 
corporations and raises the burden on middle and lower-income 
Americans.
  I agree that the federal tax code is too complex. Billions are spent 
trying to comply with its provisions. Though, I would also point out 
that the wealthiest Americans and most profitable corporations also 
spend billions in an effort to avoid their fair share of the federal 
tax burden.
  The resolution is also correct to say the tax code is full of 
loopholes and special interest exemptions. Though, I would point out 
that these loopholes and exemptions, which largely benefit the most 
powerful in our society, did not get into the tax code by accident or 
osmosis. They were put there by Members of Congress at the behest of 
wealthy campaign contributors.
  Although I am voting yes, I want to go on the record in opposition to 
the second ``resolved'' clause of the resolution, which in my opinion 
is too deferential to the tax reform concepts laid out in the February 
2003 Economic Report of the President.
  The President's report lays out its utopian vision of reduced, or 
ideally zero, taxes on corporations, reduced taxes on capital, and 
increased taxes on consumption and wages, which would hurt middle and 
lower-income Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, if the U.S. tax code is going to be overhauled, I 
believe it should be made more progressive than it is today. That would 
mean eliminating special interest loopholes for corporations and 
wealthy Americans. Cracking down on tax dodging by powerful individuals 
and businesses. Doing so would allow us to relieve some of the tax 
burden on middle and lower-income Americans. Further, any overhaul of 
the federal tax code must not add to the crushing burden of debt we are 
leaving to the next generation.
  Like Adam Smith, author of the pro-capitalism tome ``The Wealth of 
Nations,'' I believe in progressive taxation. Adam Smith wrote, ``The 
subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the 
government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective 
abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they 
respectively enjoy under the protection of the state . . . [As Henry 
Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to] `remedy 
inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and 
burdening the rich.'''

                          ____________________