Michael Burgess

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the boys' basketball team of Argyle High School for their Texas 3A state championship title this year. The title ``Champion'' is earned through the determination to succeed as individual athletes, working together as a team. Additional accolades to Coach John King and his staff for their outstanding leadership. Clarke Overlander was named the Class 3A state championship game Most Valuable Player. In these young men's perseverance and vision to succeed, they are held to rigorous standards of performance on the field as well as academics in the classroom. Winning many games on the way to the state championship, their road to victory is testament to a team always reaching for new heights. This milestone achievement speaks highly of each young man's motivation, teamwork, and willingness to face a challenge; they can be expected to prove themselves as champions in many ways throughout their lives. I am pleased to join the classmates, teachers, friends, family and Argyle community in honoring the athletic achievement of the Argyle Eagles boys' basketball team winning their first Texas 3A state championship. It is my privilege to represent you in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the opportunity over at the Supreme Court to witness the oral arguments on the individual mandate. I believe I could tell from the faces of the Justices that there was significant skepticism about this provision of the Affordable Care Act. You know, if we were smart, that skepticism could open the way for thoughtful alternatives by this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I want to preserve and protect Medicare. Speaker Pelosi last year cut $500 billion from Medicare, and the President has placed his bet on a bureaucratic control board, the Independent Payment Advisory Board. A trustees' report from a year ago suggested that the Medicare trust fund will be exhausted in less than a decade. That doesn't seem like a viable way forward. We've got a budget resolution up this week to preserve and protect Medicare. The Republican action ensures access to care in the future. This House has voted to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board, and maybe the Senate should take up the same action. We have to reduce the spending that diverts thought and effort from patient care and free up resources to focus on these patients. We are committed to protecting our seniors and Medicare, lowering the deficit, and creating a workable system that allows for good doctors to help more patients.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a brave and dedicated leader, Lewisville Fire Department Captain Terry Wilcox. Captain Wilcox has spent his entire career of almost 38 years serving in the Lewisville Fire Department, protecting and promoting the safety of the citizens of the City of Lewisville. Captain Wilcox is a highly respected member of both the community and the Fire Department. A lifelong resident of Lewisville, he graduated high school in May 1974 and joined the Fire Department in September of the same year to give back to the community that raised him. As a testament to his hard work and leadership, on May 1, 1985 he was promoted to Captain, a rank he has held for almost 27 years. Captain Wilcox is married to Charlotte Wilcox, who also gives back to the community by serving on the Highland Village, Texas City Council. Together they have two children, Tiffany and Travis, as well as two grandchildren. In what little spare time is available, Captain Wilcox is an avid fisherman and hunter, hobbies he enjoys together with his son. On March 31, 2012, Captain Wilcox will retire from the Lewisville Fire Department as the most senior officer ever in the history of the department. After almost four decades of public service, his leadership, professionalism and dedication will not be forgotten by the City of Lewisville. His devotion to his career, his fellow firefighters and the citizens of Lewisville are absolute and will be deeply missed by all those that he has had the opportunity to assist and influence. It is my great privilege to recognize Lewisville Fire Department Captain Terry Wilcox for his service, and I am privileged to represent the City of Lewisville in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the chairman for yielding. A lot of people have asked, if you're going to do a Republican budget, why do you even involve yourself in the President's new health care law? They've asked, Why is it necessary for the Republican budget to repeal the President's health care law and advance bipartisan solutions that take power away from the government and give it back to the people? The Joint Economic Committee prepared a chart dealing with the Affordable Care Act some 2 years ago, and it's an involved chart. You look at it and--it needs to be right side up, of course. But do you know what? It doesn't really matter. It makes just as much sense upside down. The only reason I wanted to turn it over is because, when you look at this thing, instead of the patient being at the center of all of this, the patient is way down here at the bottom. This chart was prepared, again, 2 years ago by the committee staff of the Joint Economic Committee, and this is precisely the reason why the Affordable Care Act has to be pulled up by the roots in order for us to get any semblance of economic sanity in this country. Ignore the fact for a moment that this thing busts the bank. Ignore the fact that this is a drain on the Federal Treasury unlike anything we've ever seen before. The bottom line is that this just does not work. Now, I spent yesterday at the Supreme Court, and I got to hear the oral arguments before the Supreme Court. It was astonishing to hear the arguments put forward as to why we had to take over one-sixth of the economy and why we had to expand government power in a way that's really going to fundamentally redefine the relationship of the government with the American people. The reason was, well, the uninsured cost us so much money. I've got to tell you something--that's nonsense. The uninsured, yes, may cost a little bit at the margin of the total health care system, but what's the real cost driver of health care in this country? What's the real reason that health insurance is going inexorably up and up and up? It is because the Federal Government does not pay its freight for Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP, and it is the cross-subsidization from the private sector to fill that hole by the public sector that causes the cost of insurance to go up so much. I was astounded that this argument was not made before the Supreme Court. I was concerned that they might be arguing from false premises. Regardless, what is the solution then to fixing this problem of the health care costs going up? We're going to put a subsidy out there for the middle class in the exchanges. Well, that will help. Then the worst part is we're going to double Medicaid. Medicaid is the problem. Medicaid is the reason this cost is going up inexorably year over year over year. What was the President's solution? What was Speaker Pelosi's solution? Let's double Medicaid in this country, and see if that won't fix the problem. Will it fix the problem? I submit it will not. You ask yourself, How could the law be so convoluted as shown on this graph? The reason is, if you look at the language that wrote that graph, this is not two copies of the law; this is one copy of the law in two volumes. How was it so badly done? You need do nothing more than to look at the title page of H.R. 3590 from December 24, 2009, in the Senate of the United States.

Mr. BURGESS. Christmas Eve, December 24, 2009, Resolved, that the bill from the House of Representatives H.R. 3590 entitled, An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time home buyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes. Well, wait a minute. That doesn't sound like a health care law. How did it become a health care law? It's called an amendment. An amendment to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the remaining 2,700 pages. I submit to you, this thing was flawed from start to finish. It must be struck out by the roots; otherwise, fiscal sanity cannot be restored back it to this country.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a remarkable individual, admired for his public service and expert contributions to meteorology and weather forecasting, Mr. William F. Bunting. Mr. Bunting is an esteemed veteran of his field. His more than 25 years of experience has taken him across this land--from New York City to Lansing, MI to Norman, OK, to Kansas City, MO, and for the last decade to Fort Worth, TX. He has painstakingly forecast and monitored a number of major weather events during his time in the weather service, including the chain of 59 tornadoes in Oklahoma and Kansas in 1990, the Kansas City flash flood in the fall of 1998, and the urban tornado in downtown Fort Worth in 2000. Mr. Bunting's judgment and decision-making in weather forecasting and storm damage assessment has been of tremendous value in service to the public. Mr. Bunting has made significant contributions to research and public understanding of severe storms. He has assembled an extensive website of data to upper air soundings, surface analyses, and weather prediction satellite imagery. He has authored many papers on severe storms and climatic weather, lectured at more than a dozen weather warning workshops and conducted more than 500 presentations to spotter and emergency management groups, civic organizations, businesses and schools. There is no question that Bill Bunting has invested his knowledge and concerns to enhance the safety of hundreds of thousands of people. As Meteorologist in Charge at the National Weather Service's forecast office in Fort Worth, Mr. Bunting has supervised a staff of more than 25 forecasters, technicians and support personnel and been responsible for all forecasts, weather advisories, watches and warnings for 46 North Texas counties. Now, after 10 years in Fort Worth, Mr. Bunting is called to serve as Operations Branch Chief at the Storm Prediction Center in Oklahoma beginning in early April. We wish him well in this new position. It is my great privilege to recognize Mr. Bill Bunting, Meteorologist-in-Charge at the National Weather Service, for his commitment to people's safety, his dedication to the study and understanding of meteorology and for his service to the many citizens whose lives have been saved by being forewarned by his forecasts.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the chairman for the recognition. Mr. Chairman, I will focus my remarks on the Independent Payment Advisory Board because it encompasses all that is wrong with the Affordable Care Act. The health law itself contains policies that will disrupt the practice of medicine. Along with the many excesses and constrictions within the law, the Independent Payment Advisory Board represents the very worst of the worst of what will happen. As a physician, as a Member of Congress, as a father, as a husband, as a patient in his sixties, I am offended by the Independent Payment Advisory Board. This board is not accountable to any constituency, and it exists only to cut provider payments to fit a mathematically created target. The board throws the government into the middle of what should be a sacred relationship between the doctor and the patient. The doctor and the patient should have the power to influence prices and guide care, not this board. Beyond controlling Medicare, the Independent Payment Advisory Board's rationing edicts will serve as a benchmark for private insurance carriers' own payment changes. Although Mr. Waxman bemoaned the fact that private insurance would be part of Medicare, this thing will actually dictate the behavior of private insurances in this country. The board will have far-reaching implications beyond Medicare for our Nation's doctors. Because of the limitations on what the control board can cut, the majority of spending reductions will come from cuts to part B, the doctors' fees. Doctors will become increasingly unable to provide the services that the board has decided are not valuable. Is the answer to squeeze out doctors? Sounds like rationing to me. So which sounds like the better--Medicare bankruptcy and an unelected board deciding the care of Medicare beneficiaries or doctors and patients deciding and defending the right of the care that they receive? The future of American health care should not be left up to this board, to this panel. It's an aloof arbiter of health care for seniors who depend on Medicare. I support the repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board. I'll just leave you with a quote from the American Medical Association: It puts our health policy and payment decisions in the hands of an independent body with no accountability. Major changes in the Medicare program should be decided by elected officials. The American Medical Association.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, this week and next, there will be two opportunities for a thoughtful, forward course on health care here in the people's House, and across the street at the highest court of the land. The Supreme Court next week hears out arguments on the limits to Federal control in health care. A ruling is expected later this summer. Perhaps our long national nightmare will be over. And guess what? Half of America, as reported in The Hill today in a poll, thinks the Supreme Court will do just that. This week, Americans will witness the House embarking on a course of their treatment for the health care law. We are going to vote to repeal the unelected and unaccountable panel that's squeezing out patient access. We will insist on medical justice reform to drive down the costs of liability coverage for doctors who make sound treatment decisions. Madam Speaker, the last Congress force-fed the American people a new health care law. Americans are demanding a second opinion. After revelations of unrealistic assumptions and cost overruns, Americans want a change of course, and now this Congress will act.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. BURGESS. According to H&R Block, which is one of the major preparers of income taxes in this country, now 60 percent of Americans use some type of preparer for their income tax return, and quite likely that number is going to increase. In 1960, less than a fifth of taxpayers used tax preparers. In 2011, H&R Block garnered $3 billion in tax preparation revenue, up from $1.5 billion, so they doubled in the previous 10 years. I've got nothing against this company. I think they do a good job. I've got nothing against my own accountant. But it's an indictment of our system when a tax preparer has seen their revenues increase so much, and it really is a shame. The United States Congress has it within their power to change this, to transform this, and they simply will not do it, and instead they continue to create a system that is so complicated that more than half of the public feel the need to pay someone else just what they owe at the end of the year to Uncle Sam. I will tell you, it just simply does not have to be this complicated. Let me show you what is possible if we were to transform the system into a simple, single-rate tax. Here is the form. This is not the long form. It's not the short form. It is simply the tax form. Maybe someone at home should time me, But here you go: Write in your name, a little bit of identification data, your income, a line for personal exemptions, calculate your deductions from your personal exemptions, your taxable income, and calculate your tax by multiplying by a flat rate, subtract the taxes already withheld, and you're done. So what did that take? Thirty seconds, a minute if you write slow? This is not a complicated formula. This is not a complicated scheme, and most people would be able to do this themselves without a lot of outside work or outside preparation. So no more tax preparation bills, no more tax attorney bills. Gone are the hours of stressful research trying to figure out things like how your marital status will affect your return or how many children affect your return. No more headaches in trying to determine where the estimated tax payments go. No more Congress picking one group over another just because they've got a clever lobbyist to advocate on their behalf. Instead, we just deliver a simple system to the American people. Now, as you have said, a single-rate structure would eliminate the taxes on capital gains, taxes on dividends, taxes on savings. Those things should only be taxed one time. Personal savings would increase. I will never forget the time during the prior recession in this country--the savings and loan debacle, the meltdown. I was in solo practice in Texas, and I got worried at one point that I was not going to be able to meet my obligations. As we emerged from that and as cash flow picked up a little bit, I thought, you know, I am going to keep money in certificates of deposit, enough to cover 3 months of operating expenses so that I'll never again have to worry about the dire wolf being at the door. So I did that, and I kept that money there for a couple of years. What I found out by doing that maneuver is that when that money eventually returned to the partnership and was distributed to the partners, we had paid corporate taxes on it at 38 percent, and then we had paid personal income taxes at 39.6 percent because we were all doing pretty well by that time. Needless to say, my partners were not amused by the fact that I had conjured up a scheme that I had thought would save us from ruin but that, in fact, exposed us to double taxation under the IRS code.

Mr. BURGESS. I think the result would be absolutely outstanding. One of my wishes is that I live long enough to see that glorious day when the chains are taken off the American economy, the chains imposed by the Tax Code. I actually wasn't going to bring up some of our esteemed heads of Federal agencies, even the esteemed heads of congressional committees last year charged with writing the laws that govern what other Americans are having to pay in their taxes. These individuals simply could not comply because it was too complicated. The very individual who was in charge of the committee with writing the tax laws found himself afoul of those same laws. The very head of the U.S. Department of the Treasury found himself afoul of some of the Tax Code because, again, he alleged the complexity in the system. So the Tax Code has grown by so much since it was introduced some 99 years ago. When it was first created that infamous year, the Tax Code comprised a total of 400 pages. As the gentleman from Florida just mentioned, it has grown to almost 70,000 pages. Remember, one of the fundamental tenets of the American legal system, including the tax system, is that ``ignorance of the law is no excuse.'' Therefore, theoretically, every single American who is merely trying to comply with the law and get their taxes filed by April 17 this year is required to be familiar with 70,000 pages of tax rules. Now, I don't do my own taxes. I don't trust myself to do my own taxes. I know I'm not smart enough. With four college degrees, I couldn't possibly handle this. But I doubt that even the tax attorney that I employ at great expense is familiar with all 70,000 pages, let alone the single mom back in Dallas, Texas, that I referenced. The complexity of the Tax Code is a consequence of countless deductions and exemptions aimed at steering a social agenda. That might surprise some people. The Tax Code is used to steer a social agenda. But it's supposed to be a Tax Code. So what does that mean? It means that the special interests are running rampant in the Code. Any time Congress wants to punish or reward--we call it incent behavior--we add either a credit or a tax to the IRS code. An example of this would be the, say, 23 new taxes that were included in the Affordable Care Act. Let me pause for just a minute. I get a lot of criticism from people who say: You're a doctor. You should have been for health care reform. But the bill that was signed by the President 2 years ago this March was not a health care bill; it was a tax bill. Now, how do I know that? I know that because, of course, the House passed its own bill on health reform, but when the Senate passed a bill on health reform, it wasn't the bill the House had worked on. It was not H.R. 3200. H.R. 3200 passed in this house November 9, 2009, and it immediately went to the dustbin of history. The bill that ultimately became the Affordable Care Act was called H.R. 3590, and it passed the Senate famously on Christmas Eve. Oh, wait a minute. It was the Senate. Why was it a House bill number? Interestingly, H.R. 3590 started life as a housing bill, a bill to deal with veterans housing. It passed this House in July of 2009. I think I voted against it. I honestly don't remember. But H.R. 3590 had not one word about health care; it had not one word about taxes. It goes over to the Senate, sits in the hopper, gets picked up by the Senate majority leader when he needed a vehicle to put a health care bill through the House. But he knew that it was fundamentally a tax bill and not a health care bill, so it had to originate in the House of Representatives. So here's a convenient bill number, H.R. 3590. Amend it, strip all the housing language out of it, and then you start putting the health care language in it. That's how we get a health care bill that is really a tax bill passed initially by the Senate and then subsequently ratified by the House in March of 2010. It was a dreadful process; and for anyone who remembers those days, it was certainly some pretty dark dealing from the bottom of the deck, and that's why the health care bill has been so unpopular. It was unpopular when it passed, and it stays unpopular to this day. And I hope that we are going to be able to get something done about it, if not this year, then next. But back to the Tax Code. Twenty-three new taxes in the Affordable Care Act because, again, Congress wants to punish their enemies or reward their friends. Well, how do you figure special interests like ethanol and the special treatment they get in the Tax Code? The results of these actions is a compilation of laws fraught with opportunities for, yes, avoiding taxes, but also perhaps just simply making a mistake or not understanding all of the loopholes. And all of this, then, comes down to the expense of fellow Americans. Now, everyone's familiar with the problems of the Tax Code. We all criticize it. It's almost like an American pastime to do that. But here are some interesting facts that further demonstrate why we need fundamental tax reform.

Mr. BURGESS. The country of Estonia was a case in point a few years ago when they reported on their experience with the flat tax. I think this is a good system, but do you know what? I am willing to admit to you that I do not know the best for every family in America. Some people would criticize this system by saying, Well, wait a minute. I need that income tax deduction for my home mortgage. I need that income tax deduction for charitable donations. That may be right; but I do know this, that you should have the option of saying, I accept a single flat-rate tax, and I am going to give up those other deductions. It should be your option. It should not be the United States Congress that is dictating to each and every American what they shall and shall not do. If you have constructed your life by living around the IRS code, then you should be able to continue doing that. If that is the reason by which you've made economic decisions in your life, you should be able to live by those decisions. Congress should not be disruptive in this process. I, personally, would give up all of the itemized deductions that I keep in order to get rid of having to keep up with those itemized deductions. Would I still give money to charity? Absolutely. Would I still turn stuff over to the Salvation Army and to Goodwill? Absolutely. It's no fun keeping up with those things and then having to report them to my accountant, and I always worry that I've left something off and that I'm not getting all that's owed to me off of my income tax return. I would so much rather have a system that was simple and with which, within a few hours every spring, I could be done. The United States gets its money. I get the satisfaction of knowing I've done it correctly, that I'm not going to jail for some perceived misconstruction on the Tax Code, and that no others have gotten a better deal than I have because they were more clever about how they declared those charitable deductions, for example. Let me give you an example of the mortgage tax deduction, because I do have a lot of friends who are in the real estate business, and they're concerned about losing that home mortgage deduction. It's one of the bedrocks on which the economy has been built over the years: If you have invested in a starter castle in California and if your house payments are largely of interest and not much of principal, you probably don't want to do this because that number is likely very high; but if you live in Fort Worth or San Antonio, Texas, where the average home mortgage is much, much smaller, if you do the numbers, if you run the numbers, you'll find that the amount of money you actually get to keep from that mortgage income tax deduction is actually fairly modest. I would give that up in a heartbeat to be out from under the tyranny of the shoebox full of receipts, but I fully understand how some families have made the decision. A home is a pretty important investment. After all, I get to write off the cost of the mortgage home deduction, so I will make this investment in this size of a home. It would be wrong for the United States Congress to say, as of next year, you don't get to do that anymore. The real estate market has already suffered, and it would suffer worse if Congress were to make a sudden decision like that. So make it optional. You can either stay in the Code and keep doing what you've been doing, or you can evolve and come into the promised land of a flat tax and give up that shoebox full of receipts. The important thing here is it's your choice; it's your option. Now, I will say that once you opt into the flat tax, you can't go back and forth into the Code and out of the Code depending upon what kind of year you have and what kind of investments you make. Once you make the decision to go into the flat tax, there you'll stay. I fully believe that, even though some people might not do as well under a flat tax system, because it is so much simpler and because it returns time to their lives, they will opt for this; and as a consequence, we will see the number of people participating in the IRS Code dwindle down to an ever-smaller number until, one day, it just vanishes under its own weight and the country is completely freed from the tyranny of the IRS Code.

Mr. BURGESS. Our time here has almost concluded. The gentleman is exactly right. All of the improvements in the Tax Code really become meaningless if we don't reduce the size and scope and the footprint of the Federal Government. You're right about the cranes that are all over town. But after those buildings are built, let's be honest in that the money invested in the Federal Government doesn't really produce all that much, does it? We don't make things here during the day other than laws and regulations that interfere with other people's lives. We need to have this government smaller and more manageable. We talk a lot about transparency, and I think transparency is good. The problem is you have something that is so complex, like the IRS Code, that even though you may have the ability to look inside it, you won't know what you're finding when you get there. If you have a system that's as simple as this, people are able to know what their government is costing them and what they are getting from that bond with the government. If they didn't like that equation, they could change. They could change their Members of Congress; they could change their Senators; they could change their President. That's the beauty of living in the representational Republic that we all know and love here in the United States of America, and it is the thing that, arguably, has made us great--government with the consent of the governed. Wouldn't it be great if that governed knew just exactly what it was costing them, and then perhaps they could find out where those dollars were going. I mentioned earlier that Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has called for broadening the base and lowering the rates. Obviously, I want to work together with him. Ways and Means Chairman David Camp has promoted the simplification of the Tax Code. The President, himself, through the Bowles-Simpson Commission, talked about it. Whatever the tax proposals are that we look to in the future, we need to remember that a flat-tax system could be less costly, saving the taxpayer over $160 billion a year, reducing tax compliance costs by over 90 percent, with a resulting increase in personal savings. Here you go. How about a debt-free stimulus package, a gift to the American people, that could have an immediate effect on the American economy. American Solutions looked into this question in 2009: 80 percent of Americans favor an optional one-page tax form with a single rate. Who could complain about making something easier? And we've got 70,000 pages of the Tax Code and more on the way this December when we get through with the so-called ``lame duck session.'' I don't know about you, Mr. West, but it scares me half to death to think about what's coming at the end of this year. The current process comes at a cost that's way too high for the American people and that costs way too much time.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, of course, I know I must direct my comments to you. April 17 is coming up. It's rapidly approaching. I know people are focusing and will begin to focus more and more on this issue for what remains of the month of March and the first couple of weeks of April, because they'll be having to arrange their own taxes, deal with their own shoe boxes full of receipts. This is the time to make the point that it is time to return time and money to the American people. Let's get behind the flat tax. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURGESS. Well, they might spend it on goods and services produced by other Americans, which would help their businesses; or they might reinvest it in their own business and perhaps hire a new person, even with the threat of the health care act hanging over their heads. The Tax Foundation estimated in 2007 that the average person spends 79 days working to pay their Federal taxes, another 41 days for their State and local taxes. To pay the Federal taxes is more than people pay in health care, housing, and transportation. You can kind of see the return on investment for those other areas, but I'm not quite sure that people see the return on investment as they're forced to pay their Federal income taxes. We all complain about paying taxes; but the fact is, if the system was fair and simple, it would be easier to take. Now, Americans don't mind paying for roads. They don't mind paying for a strong defense or for health care. But if the family who lives next door is paying a smaller share of the tax burden than you, living right next door, are forced to pay at a higher rate just because they have a better accountant, that simply doesn't make sense to people. The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal, and I believe that should apply to our Tax Code. Time is precious. All of us don't have enough time to do all of the things that are in our daily living. We've got to earn a living, raise our family, discipline our kids, spend time with friends. And then the dollars-and-cents side of the equation, where time is money, valuable resources are squandered navigating the tax laws instead of growing the economy and instead of creating jobs. Taken together, this is a strong prescription for real change in our Tax Code. And the good news is we know it works. We've seen it before. We caught a glimpse of it in 1986 when Ronald Reagan cut the Code in half. As a result of that reform, the economy grew, revenues increased, jobs were created. I can't think of a better prescription for our economy than replicating the reform of the Tax Code on an even greater scale. So what to do? To me, the prescription is very simple. Flatten the tax, broaden the base, shift the burden away from families and small businesses. Simplify the Tax Code and make it easier for businesses and families to use. Now, even the National Taxpayer Advocate, Nina Olson, repeatedly states simplification of the Tax Code as one of her recommendations to her annual report to Congress. In 2009 she was quoted as saying, the complexity of the Code leads to perverse results. On one hand, taxpayers who honestly seek to comply with the law can make inadvertent errors, causing them to either overpay their tax, or to become the subject of an IRS enforcement action for mistaken payments of tax. On the other hand, sophisticated taxpayers often find loopholes that enable them to reduce or eliminate their tax liability. Now, look, this is the National Taxpayer Advocate, and she thinks it's best for our constituents if we simplify the system. So it makes sense for Members of Congress to take up that sentiment and work toward that goal. Mr. West, I can assure you your constituents and my constituents already know that.

Mr. BURGESS. Just a few years ago, a group called American Solutions conducted a nationwide poll on different topics relating to the Tax Code and on taxes and jobs. They crossed gender, ethnicity, economic, and party lines and discovered the following interesting facts about America: The majority of people in America, 69 percent to 27, think the American tax system is unfair; A majority believe that the death tax should be abolished, 65 percent; A majority favor tax incentives for companies who keep their headquarters in the United States of America, 70 to 26; Taxpayers should be given the option of a single income tax rate of 17 percent; Taxpayers would still have the option of filing their taxes in the current system if they chose to do so. That was a 61 percent favorable; The option of a single-rate system should give taxpayers the convenience of filing their taxes on a single sheet of paper. Guess what. That one was 82 percent of our constituents believe, our fellow Americans, believe they should be able to file their Federal income taxes on a single sheet of paper. America has spoken. The evidence is clear, and we need real change in our tax system. The encouraging news is that we do have a practical and effective blueprint for making this change across the board. The blueprint, of course, is the flat tax. In 1981, Robert Hall proposed a new and radically simple structure that would transform the Internal Revenue Service and our economy by creating a single rate of taxation for all Americans. Today, several States with their State income taxes have implemented single-rate tax structures for their State income taxes. From Utah to Massachusetts, citizens are seeing the benefit. In Colorado, a single tax rate generated so much income that the revenue--that lawmakers were actually able to reduce rates. In Indiana, the economy boomed after a single rate went into effect in 2003, and the following 3 years the corporate tax receipts rose by 250 percent. Here in Congress, there is no shortage of champions who've worked on the problem. I've been involved in this for a number of years, but prior to my coming here, Congressman David Dreier of California, the chairman of the Rules Committee, has spent a number of years working on this concept. Paul Ryan, our budget chairman, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, chairman of the Budget Committee, has worked on this problem for a long time. Mike Pence of Indiana, who was our conference chair last term, of course my friend Allen West of Florida, all working to establish a simple tax rate structure for our country. Other Members are working on this in the Senate as well. And let's be honest: This is a time where Congress is not held in high regard, and this would be a tremendous deliverable for the House and the Senate to work together on simplifying the Tax Code and actually returning not just dollars to the American people, but giving them back their time that we rob from them every year when we enforce compliance with the Tax Code. Not everyone may agree on precisely where the flat tax rate should be. Seventeen percent, no deductions, is something that's been talked about for some time. I think that is certainly a system that is worthy of study. But if someone else wants to talk about a system with two or three rates or if they want to maintain deductions, we should be able to have that debate. We should have it civilly. It shouldn't be something that we clobber each other over the head about. But every American should bear this burden equally at the lowest rate possible, and everyone should be able to do their taxes without the help of a professional. People should be confident that when you earn the same income as the person across the street, you pay the same income taxes at the end of that year. Just by way of comparison, according to the Internal Revenue Service, there are 1.2 million tax professionals preparing taxes during the tax season, which is roughly equal to the population of the State of Hawaii. There are 950,000 doctors in the United States. Now, as a physician, I think this number is off; it's askew. Healers should not be outnumbered by tax preparers. It makes no sense. More people should go into medicine and less into tax preparation, and it will provide them the simplicity in the Tax Code. Perhaps that can happen. But let's also be honest. The accountants who do your taxes would much rather be talking to you about your long-term life planning, your planning for your retirement, your planning for covering expenses if you become disabled; they would much rather talk to you about life planning than they would talk to you about how they disrupt your life with the Tax Code. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. BURGESS. That's absolutely correct. Here's a few fun facts that I've compiled over the years on the income tax code. Each year, America spends 6.1 billion hours preparing their tax form. It turns out that's 254 million days. Who knew? The cost of compliance for Federal taxpayers filling out their returns and related chores was $163 billion in 2008. That's 11 percent of all income tax receipts. Think about that just for a moment. We could have an 11 percent increase in revenue to the Federal Treasury if these costs were not incurred. The Tax Code has grown so long that it's become challenging even to figure out how long it is. A search of the Tax Code in 2010 turned up 3.8 million words. A 2001 study published by the Joint Commission on Taxation put the number at 1.3 million words. A 2005 report put the number of words had almost tripled since 1975. Such is the pace, the rate, at which new regulations are being added. A study done in 1998, when the forms were even less complicated, was surveyed by 46 tax experts. They kind of ran some hypothetical numbers on a hypothetical earning, and each expert came up with 46 different answers from 46 tax experts when determining tax liability. The calculations ranged from a low of $34,000 to a high of $68,000. The one who directed the test even stated that his computation is not the only possible correct answer. And yet we are asking our fellow Americans, our fellow citizens, to make this same type of leap of faith every year when they fill out these forms. They don't want to be non-tax compliant. They don't want to be perhaps afoul of the law. But the problem is it is so complicated that they literally have no choice.

Mr. BURGESS. Well, very good. I hope the gentleman will stick around. I've got a few points I want to make, but at any point you feel like you want to expand upon something, please feel free to join back in. We often hear the saying that there's nothing in this world that's certain except death and taxes; they're both unavoidable. I will tell you, as a practicing physician for 25 years back in Texas, sometimes death seems a little less complicated than our Tax Code. But again, I draw your attention to H.R. 1040. This is an optional flat tax bill that I have introduced this year--and really for several Congresses now. It does have a number of cosponsors. We are yet to get to ramming speed, as the gentleman pointed out, but I think with the additional emphasis that has been placed on fundamental tax reform by the Simpson-Bowles Commission, by the Republican Presidential debates, I think this is a debate in which the American people are anxious to participate. Here's an interesting quote, and it's so interesting that I had a poster made of it. The tax system is so complicated that even IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman has said, ``I find the Tax Code complex, so I use a preparer.'' Wow, the very guy who's in charge of the whole shindig cannot do his own taxes, so he has to hire it out. So if this learned individual, who is the IRS Commissioner, cannot figure out how to do his own income taxes without a preparer, how in the world is the average Joe supposed to be able to figure this out? I ask that question because I've used this quote for a couple of years. Then last weekend, in The Dallas Morning News, I was struck by this quote, an article where just a regular small business woman was interviewed about how she could possibly file her income taxes, which she didn't understand. She told The Dallas Morning News reporter: I don't care what the IRS says, it's complicated. It's much more confusing than I understand. We don't know what we're going to do. Now, I don't know what this says to you, but it certainly says to me: Time for a change. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, here we are 5 weeks from the time that we all have to file our income taxes--April 17 this year. It's 99 years since this House enacted the progressive income tax that we now all know by its familiar names that we all use for it. I thought it might be appropriate to spend some time this evening talking about our Tax Code and talking about what might be possible in fundamental reform of the Tax Code. I have long been a proponent of what is known as a flat tax. I think that is something that is worthy of this House taking up and debating. There is legislation that has been introduced, H.R. 1040 for people who are keeping score at home, and I think this would be a rational approach for people who want to be treated fairly by the Tax Code--our President does talk about fairness in the Tax Code--and for people who are wanting to get out of the tyranny of having to live with a shoe box full of receipts every spring, because I know this weekend when I go home, I'm going to be spending some time with that shoe box of receipts. The flat tax is an idea that was promulgated by my predecessor here in this House, the former majority leader, Dick Armey. He wrote a book about the flat tax in 1995. I've read it, I embraced it, and I thought it was some of the smartest economic policy I had ever read because I had just lived through what I described as the Clinton paradox. In 1993, President Bill Clinton, in his first year of office, earned almost an identical amount of money that I earned in my medical practice back in Texas. Now, when the taxes were filed and the reports were given on how much Mr. Clinton had paid that year, he returned about 20 percent of his income in the taxes that he paid. We had earned an identical amount. When I did the same calculation on myself, it was 32 percent. Why should two people who had an identical earning level pay vastly different amounts on their income tax? The fundamental unfairness of the system as it existed--better accountant, just simply differences in math, why should it account for that type of discrepancy? So this is a concept that I came to Congress and wanted to push. I have been anxious for this Congress to enter into the debate on fundamental tax reform. I am somewhat encouraged during the Presidential debates that we've heard over the past several months that Presidential candidates have been talking about fundamental tax reform, and the President himself has mentioned creating increased fairness in the Tax Code. I'm all for that. I think that this is one way that this House could entertain at least having the debate and perhaps provide a way forward for a more sensible structuring of the payment of income taxes in this country. I'm so very happy tonight to be joined by another Member. Allen West of Florida has agreed to speak with us during this hour and share with us his thoughts on fundamental tax reform. I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. West).

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, health care continues to be an important topic in this country. A lot of people ask me, What keeps you awake at night? I'll tell you. Right now, the Supreme Court is going to hear this law. They could find the individual mandate is unconstitutional, and I hope they do. But what if they leave the rest of the law intact? Then we will have a real problem, and this House needs to be prepared to deal with that problem and lead on this issue. In recent filings by the administration, it's apparent that they even acknowledge the difficulties inherent in throwing out the individual mandate but keeping things like guarantee issue and community rating; and, in fact, they asked that these two codependent policies be severed under the law. States' attempts in the past to constitute guarantee issue and community rating have resulted in insurance costs becoming inexorably higher, the number of people who purchase insurance irrevocably lower, and, as a consequence, the entire system is at risk of completely imploding. Mr. Speaker, we need to be prepared for this. The Supreme Court is going to hear the case next month. They'll rule by the end of June, and this House needs to be ready to lead.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an acclaimed educator, Dr. Curtis Ramsey. Dr. Ramsey has over 60 years of experience in education and has served as a member of the Denton Independent School District (ISD) Board of Trustees for 18 years. He has taught internationally as a public classroom teacher, college professor, dean, and educational consultant. Dr. Ramsey has not only dedicated his life to the teaching of others but was equally as passionate about learning himself. Dr. Ramsey received his bachelor's and master's degrees from North Texas State University, now the University of North Texas. He received his doctorate from Vanderbilt University, where he was a professor of teacher education, and completed his post-doctoral work at Teachers College at Columbia University. Dr. Ramsey has served professionally at local, state, national and international levels. Previously, he held positions as dean of the College of Education at the University of Bridgeport, Connecticut, Professor of teacher education at Vanderbilt University's George Peabody College, Chair of Elementary Education at Kent State University, and as Distinguished Visiting Professor at Bir Zeit University near Ramallah in the West Bank of Palestine. He has been recognized for his contributions to the field of education and has been a member for 10 years on the Legislative Advisory Committee to the Texas Association of School Boards. In addition, he was a member of the North Texas Area Association of School Boards' executive committee for six years. In 2010, he received an award of distinguished service at the TASB and TASA state conference, and in 1996 he achieved the Master Trustee status from TASB. Dr. Ramsey has shared his expertise as an educational consultant and witness before the Texas Legislature. He dedicated hundreds of hours to visit and speak to legislators about many proposed bills that could have a direct impact on education, Texas students, and the country. His dedication and public service on behalf of Texas students and teachers has never wavered. Earlier this month, Dr. Ramsey announced that he will be retiring from the Denton ISD Board of Trustees in May. His valuable contributions to education and the Denton community have been unparalleled and his departure will leave an outstanding legacy of service. I am pleased to recognize Dr. Curtis Ramsey and am privileged to represent Denton ISD in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to note the recent visit of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili to Washington. He met with President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary Clinton, and many Members of Congress. President Saakashvili's high-profile visit helped consolidate bilateral relations, and the NATO Summit in Chicago in May could witness progress towards Georgia's membership. At home, however, Georgia confronts the unresolved conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In December, I chaired a briefing by the Helsinki Commission that examined the conflicts in the Caucasus, including Abkhazia and South Ossetia as well as Nagorno-Karabakh. I was impressed by the witnesses' expert testimony but concerned by their warning about the possibility of renewed hostilities in this strategically important region. Despite mediation by the OSCE Minsk Group, the parties seem no closer to a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute than they were years ago. Prospects for settling the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia are even more remote, with Russia having recognized the independence of those separatist regions, where OSCE monitors have also been excluded. Of course, the U.S. Government has for years been involved in negotiating a settlement of these conflicts, through participation in the Minsk Group and by attempting to move Russia toward a constructive approach in the Geneva talks on Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Washington's efforts have unfortunately not resulted in a resolution of these protracted disputes. We have seen how quickly so-called ``frozen'' conflicts can come unfrozen, with terrible consequences. It is my understanding that Secretary Clinton is planning a trip to Georgia. I hope this is a sign that the region will receive a continuing and high priority in U.S. diplomacy.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, this week is Rare Disease Day, which will take place on February 29. I want to acknowledge the work of the National Institutes of Health in their efforts to bring down rare diseases. I also want to acknowledge the thousands of Americans who are afflicted with diseases whose systems are so complex that they simply remain undiagnosed. The majority of these disorders have genetic causes, and over half affect children. The National Institutes of Health has joined a worldwide effort with more than 40 countries to recognize and seek better ways to diagnose and treat patients. On February 29, the NIH is observing the fifth annual Rare Disease Day and hosting a daylong program of activities highlighting the rare disease research community. In conjunction with that, NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins will announce the launch of the Genetic Testing Registry. This is an online tool developed by NIH scientists providing health care providers and patients access to information on genetic tests. I also have legislation that would expand on these efforts. This Wednesday, February 29, the rarest of days on the calendar, we will pause to honor those who are working hard to research, diagnose, treat, and empower patients with the rarest of rare diseases. I want to acknowledge the work of the NIH. I'm grateful that they're organizing an event like Rare Disease Day.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, today I want to acknowledge a colleague, a fellow Texan, a veteran, and a true American hero. Congressman Sam Johnson served in the United States Air Force for 29 years. During service, he flew in 62 combat missions in the Korean war and 25 missions in the Vietnam war. While flying in his 25th Vietnam combat mission, Congressman Johnson was shot down and captured in North Vietnam. On February 12, 1973, after 7 years of imprisonment, Congressman Johnson was returned to the United States and reunited with his wife and daughters. This week, we honor Congressman Johnson and we celebrate the 39th anniversary of his homecoming. Through the years of agony, he persevered, and he left Vietnam with the resolution to support every man and every woman fighting for the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, we are all called to office for different reasons. For Members of my class 10 years ago, it was the tragic events of September 11. For Congressman Johnson, it was his imprisonment that empowered him to run for office. It is an honor to celebrate a man who has given not only part of his life to protect our freedoms, but a man who continues to represent the American people with dignity and respect. Thank you, Congressman Johnson, for your service to our Nation.

Mr. BURGESS

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a remarkable woman, Dr. Mary Ellen Weber. She is a veteran Astronaut, an instrument-rated pilot, a world-class skydiver, and Vice President of Government Affairs and Policy at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas. As a NASA Astronaut for ten years, Dr. Weber inspired and awed our nation by completing two Space Shuttle flights, 297 earth orbits, and traveling 7.8 million miles. Among the youngest Astronauts ever to venture into space, she served as a pioneer for space exploration by flying aboard the Atlantis on mission STS-101. The mission was a critical early construction project for the International Space Station, in which she spent over eighteen days in space. She helped launch $200 million communications satellite into Earth orbit when she flew aboard Discovery in 1995 on mission STS-70. After holding prestigious positions relaying reports to NASA's highest directors, she was awarded the NASA Exceptional Service Medal. Not only is she a veteran in space, but she is an avid skydiver and pilot. She shares a world record for the largest freefall formation with 300 skydivers. She has logged over 4,000 skydives, and received twelve silver and bronze medals from the U.S. National Skydiving Championships. In addition, she is an instrument-rated pilot with over 600 hours in NASA's jet aircraft. Dr. Weber was destined to share her knowledge of science. She received an M.B.A. from Southern Methodist University, a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from the University of California at Berkeley, and a B.S. in chemical engineering from Purdue University. She published eight scientific papers and received one patent. In 2003, she became Vice President of Government Affairs and Policy at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. UT Southwestern Medical Center is one highest acclaimed medical school, research, and hospital complex in Dallas, Texas. I was sworn in as a Member of Congress in 2003 and that is how I met Dr. Weber in her role with UT Southwestern Medical Center. With her support and leadership, we were able to create a Health Care Fellowship between my office and UT Southwestern Medical Center. This successful program has provided what has become a very well regarded opportunity for Medical Doctors to have a front row seat in Congress to participate in the health care policy process. We have also partnered with UT Southwestern Medical Center on several joint events on their campus in Dallas. The Fellowship and events could not have been successfully executed without the guidance provided by Dr. Weber and the leadership at UT Southwestern. On February 8, 2012, Dr. Weber will be leaving UT Southwestern after nine years in government affairs. Her contribution to the NASA's space program and UT Southwestern Medical Center has been unprecedented and her departure will soon leave a void in many hearts. It is my great privilege to recognize Dr. Mary Ellen Weber for the ingenuity and commitment she has shown to the people of UT Southwestern, NASA, and our Nation.