Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to a friend and distinguished constituent, the Honorable Nathaniel R. Jones, who will receive the Distinguished Service Citation from the National Conference for Community Justice (NCCJ) on May 25. Judge Jones was selected for this esteemed award for his outstanding work, personally and professionally, that has promoted the cause of inter-group understanding in our community. Judge Jones was born and raised in Youngstown, Ohio. He served our nation in the Air Force during World War II. Following the war, he attended Youngstown State University, graduating with degrees of Bachelor of Arts in 1951 and Juris Doctor in 1956. In 1957, he was admitted to the Ohio Bar. In 1961, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy named Judge Jones an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, where he served for nearly 7 years. He continued his service as Assistant General Counsel to the Kerner Commission, studying the causes of urban riots in the 1960s. In 1969, Judge Jones was asked to serve as General Counsel for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). For 10 years, he worked tirelessly for the NAACP, organizing and arguing a number of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1979, he came to the Cincinnati area after President Carter appointed him to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Judge Jones is deeply involved in legal education, having taught at the University of Cincinnati College of Law and a number of other law schools. He recently was chosen to deliver the inaugural Judge A. Leon Higginbotham Distinguished Memorial Lecture at Harvard Law School. He also regularly writes and lectures on a wide range of legal and social issues. Judge Jones played a role in helping to end apartheid in South Africa; monitored the election process leading to Namibia's independence; participated in a U.S.-Egypt Judicial Exchange program; and went to the Soviet Union in 1986 to meet with officials in connection with human rights. Judge Jones has received numerous awards and distinctions, including the Millennium International Volunteer Award from the State Department. In addition, Congress recently named the new federal courthouse in Youngstown, Ohio after Judge Jones. Among his extensive list of civic activities locally and nationally, Judge Jones serves as a Co-Chair of the Board of Trustees for the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center, and as Co-Chairman of the Roundtable, which works to broaden the involvement of minorities in the legal profession. Judge Jones and his wife currently live in Mt. Lookout. They have four children and six grandchildren. One of his children, a former law colleague of mine, Stephanie Jones, currently serves as a Chief of Staff to a Member of Congress. We are most fortunate for his service and commitment to our nation and local community, and I congratulate him on this well deserved honor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I honor Neil K. Bortz, a friend and community leader, who will receive the Distinguished Service Citation from the National Conference for Community Justice (NCCJ) on May 25. Neil was selected for this prestigious award for distinguishing himself personally and professionally and for furthering the cause of inter- group understanding in our community. Neil is a Cincinnati native. He earned a Bachelor of Arts from Harvard University, and continued his studies at the Harvard Graduate School of Business, where he received an M.B.A. Neil also served our nation as a Lieutenant in naval aviation. Neil has been very active in our community. He is one of the founding partners of Towne Properties, a real estate development and management company that specializes in mixed use projects and suburban residential developments. He has served on the boards of the Harvard Business School Club of Cincinnati, where he served as Chairman; the Playhouse in the Park; Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce; the Harvard Club of Cincinnati; Cincinnati 2000 Planning Committee; Cincinnati Country Day School; and the Greater Cincinnati Convention and Visitors Bureau. He also was a member of the Young Presidents Organization. Neil currently serves on the boards of many local organizations, including the Walnut Hills High School Alumni Foundation, where he is Chairman, and where I recently had the opportunity to join him at an event to celebrate an extraordinarily successful private fundraising effort for this top-ranked public high school. He is also on the board of United Jewish Appeal, where he is Co-Chairman; Cincinnati Equity Fund; Cincinnati Olympic 2012 Committee; and the National Multi-Housing Council. He is a member of the Urban Land Institute Multi-Family Committee and the Presidents Organization. All of us in Cincinnati are grateful to him for his full devotion and service to our community.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute to Joseph and Susan Pichler, good friends and recipients of the Distinguished Service Citation from the National Conference for Community Justice (NCCJ) on May 25. They were selected for this award for their personal and professional qualities that have furthered the cause of inter-group understanding in our community. Susan attended St. Mary's College, where she received a Bachelor of Arts in English. A dedicated volunteer for many years, she has done a great deal to improve inner-city education. She is a strong supporter of the Junior Great Books reading enrichment program, and locally, she initiated this program at Washington Park School and St. Francis Seraph School. While in Kansas, she worked with Junior Great Books at St. John the Evangelist Grade School; taught CCD (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine) at Our Lady of Guadalupe; initiated Junior Great Books at Avenue A School; chaired the Hutchinson High School Evaluation Committee for the School Board; and served on the Parent Teacher Association. Currently, Susan is active with the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center, serving as a member of the National Advisory Board and the Board of Trustees. She also serves on the Board of Trustees for St. Mary's College in Notre Dame, Indiana, and has spent 10 years as a volunteer librarian at St. Francis Seraph School. Joe is Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer at the Kroger Company, one of America's largest companies, and a company that gives much to our community. He graduated magna cum laude from Notre Dame University, and went on to obtain his M.B.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. From 1968-1970, Joe served in the U.S. Department of Labor. He also taught at the University of Kansas School of Business for 15 years, and served as Dean from 1974-1980. Joe has been involved in a number of civic and charitable activities. He is a former member of the Board of Advisors with the Salvation Army School for Officers Training. He is an Honorary Lifetime Member of the University of Kansas School of Fine Arts; a member of the Catholic Commission on Intellectual and Cultural Affairs; and a member of the Board of Trustees of Tougaloo College in Mississippi. Locally, Joe is Co-Chairman of the Greater Cincinnati Scholarship Association; a member of the Xavier University Board of Trustees; an Advisory Member of the Cincinnati Opera; and a member of the Advisory Board of the Cincinnati Chapter of the Salvation Army. Joe also is active as a member of the Board of Directors of Federated Department Stores, Inc., and Milacron, Inc. He is a member of the Board at Catalyst; a member of the Business Council; past Chairman of the National Alliance of Business; and a member of the Cincinnati Business Committee. All of us in the Cincinnati area are grateful to Susan and Joe for their numerous contributions to our community, and congratulate them on receiving this prestigious NCCJ award.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I honor Richard N. Aft, a valued friend and constituent, who has served as president of the Greater Cincinnati United Way & Community Chest for 13 years. He announced that he will step down as president in December. In his capacity as president, Dick leads the United Way staff, represents United Way in the Greater Cincinnati area, manages the annual fund drive, and involves community leaders in carrying out the mission of United Way, which is: ``To increase the capacity of our diverse community to prevent and alleviate human suffering.'' Under Dick's leadership, our United Way & Community Chest has been making progress each year in accomplishing this critical mission. The organization has grown to serve approximately 1,500,000 people in a seven country, two-state metropolitan area. And the United Way campaign now raises over $58 million per year. Dick has not only expanded the responsibilities of our United Way and increased its annual revenues, he also has taken creative measures to address tough issues facing our community. For example, under his leadership, United Way formed an innovative and successful partnership called ``Every Child Succeeds'' with Children's Hospital Medical Center and the Cincinnati-Hamilton County Community Action Agency/Head Start. Dick is a graduate of Knox College, and received an M.A. in social service administration from the University of Chicago, He is currently a Ph.D. candidate in Organizational Leadership and Development at the Union Institute in Cincinnati. Actively involved with other organizations, Dick currently serves as a board member for the Coalition for a Drug-Free Greater Cincinnati; the Health Improvement Collaborative of Greater Cincinnati; Xavier University Advisors; Leadership Ohio; and Ohio United Way. He is an executive committee member for the Cincinnati Youth Collaborative; Hamilton County Family and Children First Council; and the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce Public Affairs Council. Dick and his wife, Mary Lu, live in Cincinnati. They have three sons, David, Rob, and Eric. All of us in the Greater Cincinnati area congratulate Dick on his extraordinary service to our community. We appreciate his leadership and friendship, and wish him well in his final months as United Way president and with the new challenges to come.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute to Bill and Helen Williams, friends and community leaders, who will be honored by St. Joseph Orphanage at the 2000 Scholar of Life Banquet, on May 19. They were selected for the Scholar of Life Award for their life-long charitable work assisting needy children and their families, their support to St. Joseph Orphanage, the significant and meaningful impact they have had on young people, and for their support to cultural institutions in Greater Cincinnati. The contributions made by Bill and Helen go back a long way. Bill, who is currently chairman of the board of Western-Southern Life Insurance, says that when he first began selling insurance, he saw that some children did not always have the basic necessities. Bill said, ``I remember my father taking orphans to Coney Island, [and my family] helping to organize donations through the downtown churches.'' In the 1950's and '60's, Helen says that ``a group of women and I would take some of the children at Washington Park Elementary School to Old St. Mary's Church . . . adding a spiritual side to their lives they would not otherwise have had.'' The Williamses have improved the quality of life and education for the Cincinnati area's most needy in many ways. Over 10 years ago, Bill set out to improve the housing for the less fortunate in downtown Cincinnati. He has had tremendous success since then, improving the living standards for hundreds in Over-the-Rhine. Believing a solid education to be one of the keys to living a meaningful life, the Williams family sponsors scholarships for children who need financial assistance at Xavier University, the University of Notre Dame, and Georgetown University. In addition, Bill supports the Catholic Inner City Schools Education [CISE] organization where he has served as chairman of its annual campaign. CISE is a non-profit group that provides financial aid to inner city schools, and Bill helped to forge a working program between Hoffman Elementary in the Cincinnati Public School System and CISE. In addition, Bill has administered the O'Brien Fund through the Williams Foundation, which helps children in need. Last year, he was inducted into the Greater Cincinnati Business Hall of Fame. In 1995, he received the Great Living Cincinnatian Award. Helen also has had a profound impact on our area, and she has been very active in many charitable causes, serving as a trustee of St. Margaret Hall, the National Conference of Christians and Jews, Mercy Hospital Foundation, Wilberforce University, and Summit Country Day School. Helen formerly served on advisory boards at Mt. St. Joseph College and Christ Child Day Nursery. She also was a trustee and past president of the Beechwood Home for Incurables. All of us in Cincinnati are most grateful to Bill and Helen Williams for their leadership, service, and commitment to our community.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I honor Robert F. Schueler, a dear friend and community leader who recently passed away. Bob was a faithful member of St. Saviour Church in Rossmoyne, and is survived by Virginia (Ginny), his wife of over 29 years. Bob dedicated much of his life to public service. Since December 1, 1973, he served tirelessly as Blue Ash's Ward 4 council representative. He also served as Blue Ash's mayor from 1987 to 1991 and as vice mayor from 1985 to 1987. He was a council representative for the city of Reading for several years prior to 1973, an active member and past president of the Blue Ash Civil League, and president of the Blue Ash Republican Club. Bob was also active with the St. Patrick Council Knights of Columbus, as the president of the Hamilton County Republican Party, and as the ward chairman for Blue Ash. Bob lived in, served, and represented Blue Ash for nearly 30 years. All of us in the Greater Cincinnati Area will remember his full devotion and service to our community.

Mr. PORTMAN

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.

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. 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.

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 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. 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. PORTMAN. Do not hold that against me.

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. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

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.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am claiming the time.

Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.

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. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

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.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), champion on this issue.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to Dr. Henry J. Heimlich, a community hero, an internationally recognized leader in health care, and a dear friend who will be honored on April 20 by the Rotary Club of Cincinnati. This recognition will come during National Heimlich Maneuver Week. He was selected for these honors because of his outstanding contributions to the medical community that have literally saved thousands of lives. In fact, Dr. Heimlich has been credited with saving more lives than any other living person. Dr. Heimlich's most notable accomplishment, of course, is the Heimlich Maneuver, which he created in 1974. Since its creation, the Heimlich Maneuver has been used to save the lives of countless people from choking deaths, to prevent and halt asthma attacks, and to clear near-drowning victims' water-filled lungs more safely. Perhaps lesser known is the Heimlich Operation, which is considered the first successful organ transplant in history. This operation enables patients with an esophagus birth defect, who previously only could be fed through a tube inserted into their stomachs, to eat normally. Dr. Heimlich also invented the Heimlich Micro Trach, a tiny tube that is inserted into the trachea to deliver oxygen from a small tank directly to the lungs, enabling oxygen-dependent patients to become mobile and return to work and social activities. Dr. Heimlich's Chest Drain Valve is credited with saving the lives of thousands of American soldiers during the Vietnam War. It is used in emergency treatment of people with chest wounds to clear air and fluids from the chest cavity. Up to a quarter million of these valves are used worldwide every year in civilian and military medicine. Although he has already achieved much, Dr. Heimlich is still working to save lives. He continues development of malariotherapy, which, through a curable form of malaria, increases the body's immune responses to fight viruses and cancer by increasing production of such biochemicals as interferon, interleukin-1 and tumor necrosis factor. Dr. Heimlich believes that malariotherapy can be used, with more research, to fight cancer, AIDS, and Lyme disease. At the age of 80, Dr. Heimlich continues his important work at the Heimlich Institute where new ways to improve and save lives are being researched. All of us in Cincinnati are grateful to him for his full devotion, service, and most impressive contributions to our community and the world.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Houghton) for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this package. I hate to disappoint the crowd who has gathered here, but I am going to talk about taxpayer rights and not campaign finance reform. As someone who has worked for the last 7 years on IRS reform with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne) and with others, I think this is something that we ought to focus on, which is expanding taxpayer rights. I think this campaign finance discussion, while interesting, is an entirely different subject that ought not to be part of this bill. I think it is incorrect to say that tax bills come up on this floor under an open rule or anybody can offer an amendment. It has never happened in the 7 years that I have served. I think that the legislation that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) is talking about is not ready as compared to this legislation, which is carefully considered, the result of numerous reports, including from the Joint Committee on Taxation, including from the IRS, the Taxpayer Advocate. I think, in fact, that we ought to wait for the Treasury Department's report on this very topic, which is, incidentally, already late, overdue, under the law. It was supposed to already be here; it is not here yet. I think at the very least my friends on the other side of the aisle would want to wait until the Clinton administration Treasury Department comes up with its recommendations on this topic. Again, I hate to disappoint folks, but rather than killing these important taxpayer rights provisions with a partisan poison pill on 527, a campaign finance issue, rather than focusing on that, I would like to focus on what we are doing together on a bipartisan basis to continue the effort to reform the IRS and make our tax system work better. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Houghton) for his work in this regard; the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), who was here earlier who worked on the taxpayer rights; the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne); and others who put together this legislation that we are considering. The gentleman from New York (Chairman Houghton) has touched on a lot of the key provisions. Let me just talk about how this came about because I think it is important for the House to understand where we are and why we are here. Two years ago, after 2 years of work, this Congress passed the historic IRS Restructuring and Reform Act. It did a lot of things. But it was based on a year-long, bipartisan national commission on restructuring the IRS. It was the most dramatic overhall of the IRS since 1952, long overdue. Yes, among other things, we dramatically improved taxpayer rights. We added over 50 new taxpayer rights. We affected over 70 taxpayer rights, changing them to make the IRS work better for the taxpayer. The long-term goal of these reforms is that, within a period of time, we think 3 to 5 years, we will have an IRS that actually offers every taxpayer the level of service, efficiency, and respect that they deserve and that approaches the private sector customer service standards. It is a daunting task. But by our action today, if we can approve these taxpayer rights and keep to this topic and move this forward, we will actually be continuing our efforts, which are encouraging and bipartisan, to truly have a new IRS and new taxpayer system. One of the taxpayers rights that we changed, for instance, 2 years ago was shifting the burden of proof. So now when one goes to tax court, rather than having the burden of proof be on one as a taxpayer, it is on the IRS, as it should be, as it is in the criminal justice system, as it is in other forums. We also do not allow the IRS to seize one's homes and properties anymore unless they are subject to judicial reviews. We also allow taxpayers to seek damages from the IRS for wrongful collection actions. These are very significant reforms, again, that this Congress put forward after a lot of work over a 2-year period as part of last year's, or 2 years ago, through the Structuring and Reform Act. Finally, it did two very important things with regard to taxpayer rights for the future. It required that the Taxpayer Advocate issue a report and made the Taxpayer Advocate independent enough to be able to issue a bona fide report on problems taxpayers face, to encourage more taxpayer rights. What are we talking about today? We are talking about provisions that come from that Taxpayer Advocate's report, which was reported on earlier this year. Second, we required that the Joint Committee on Taxation conduct studies on two issues: one is interest and penalties, a very complex, difficult issue for the IRS and for many taxpayers. And, second, on taxpayer privacy, such as the disclosure of tax return information. Two good Joint Tax Committee reports underlie what we are doing today. In fact, a number of our provisions come straight out of those Joint Tax Committee reports that were mandated under the Restructuring and Reform Act. Again, these are common sense proposals that are the natural next step in our ongoing effort to create a better tax system and to truly reform the IRS. I hope we will keep our focus on that this afternoon. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) again has talked about some of these provisions, and I will just touch on a couple. One, it does expand privacy with regard to taxpayers. Very important. We provide more protection against computer hackers gaining access to your and my taxpayer records. We require the IRS to notify taxpayers immediately if taxpayer information has been obtained illegally. We increase tax fairness in a number of ways, including improving notification of undelivered refund checks. For taxpayers who pay estimated taxes, we increase the estimated tax threshold providing more of a buffer, doubling it from $1,000 to $2,000. We have very important provisions that enable taxpayers to stop the escalation of interest charges that build up and up and up during disputes with the IRS and taxpayers. We encourage taxpayers and, by the way, we drafted this provision to get into installment agreements with the IRS to resolve their issues. These are important provisions. And, Mr. Speaker, I would just say finally that this is a carefully considered, thoughtful package, and I hope all my colleagues will support it.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from New York who said he would be willing to vote for these $116 billion in new taxes and fees if he knew we could preserve Social Security and maintain and improve Medicare, I have good news for him. The Republicans are going to make good on our budget resolution that passed the floor and we are going to give him the opportunity to preserve Social Security and improve Medicare, including offering prescription drug coverage, without any tax increases. So I think we can do both. I think we can address the necessary problems, the problems that we face as a country as well as not adding to the already very high burden on the American people of the highest per capita tax that we have faced since World War II. This resolution is great. It is straightforward. It just says, yes or no, do you support or not support the President's own budget proposal? It is interesting a Republican is offering it because I am going to have to vote no on it. I hope the gentleman from Nebraska and the gentleman from Colorado do not mind. The reason I have to vote no on it and the reason they are going to vote no on it is that it increases taxes in a number of critical areas. One is Medicare premiums. It contains $3.2 billion in increased Medicare premiums. Again we have disagreements on where Medicare ought to go maybe, but I do not think we want to overburden people even further on the Medicare system and take away even more funding from Medicare by adding $3.2 billion in increased Medicare premiums. $1.5 billion in increased energy costs at a time we are all worried about rising gas prices. $3.5 billion in increased death taxes, $12.8 billion in increased costs and fees on insurance products, primarily these are products that would lead to savings. These are ways in which Americans save for their retirement. At a time when all economists, right, left and center, agree we have a savings crisis in this country, let us not add $12.8 billion in increased costs and fees on savings. I think that does not make any sense at all. A report issued recently, just last month by the Employee Benefits Research Institute showed that personal savings have dropped by 50 percent in the last 5 years. This is a crisis. It is not something that we ought to tax, it is something we ought to encourage, which is more savings. I am pleased my colleagues will have an opportunity to vote on the Clinton/Gore budget today. I commend my colleagues from Colorado and Nebraska for raising it.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am here to talk about taxes. April 15 is drawing near once again, and I am joined by my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and others, to talk about taxes, a topic that is on a lot of Americans' minds right now. It is a bottom line issue for families and businesses in my district and around the country as we draw close to tax filing deadline. Tax season is, in a sense, a time for renewed focus, and that focus, I think, ought to be on two things. First is the fact that taxes are too high, and second the fact that our Tax Code is far too complex. This afternoon we are going to focus a little on what this Congress has done and what it is trying to do to address these problems through real tax relief, through tax simplification, and through tax reform. There are a lot of different ideas out there, a lot of good ideas, and I think we will hear a little about them this afternoon. I would like to start by stepping back a few years, back when I was first elected to Congress, which was 1993. Just before I was elected, Congress, then run by the other party on the other side of the aisle, passed the largest tax increase in American history. In fact, Vice President Al Gore had to go to the Senate to break the tie vote in order for that to pass. We have to look at the changes that have happened since then, in a relatively short period of time. It has been 6 or 7 years, and we have made some progress. Instead of the tax increases that did mark those first years of the Clinton-Gore administration, we have had some tax relief. We have held the line on taxes and also we have been able to put through some good proposals. One is the child tax credit. A $500 per child tax credit to help families make ends meet. We have gotten that signed into law. We have also eliminated the unfair capital gains that people paid when they sold their homes. This is both tax relief and tax simplification. No longer do people have to keep records of every home improvement they make to make sure they can reduce their capital gains. This is the kind of legislation Congress ought to be passing. We have also developed, and we got it enacted into law, legislation that dramatically reforms and overhauls the Internal Revenue Service. That happened in 1998. It was the first time we had had major reform of the IRS in 46 years. It expanded taxpayer rights, adding 52 new taxpayer rights. It improves taxpayer services and brings the second largest agency in the Federal Government into the information technology age. We have still got a lot of work to do with the IRS, but at least now they are on a track towards real reform and reorganization. Just last year we attempted to follow through on these successes by passing legislation in this House that attempted to return a substantial portion of the nonSocial Security tax surplus. Not the surplus that goes into Social Security and Medicare, but the general revenues surplus. We tried to pass a substantial amount of that back to the taxpayers, who, after all, earned every dime of it. We did it because we believe that taxes are too high, that tax relief is appropriate as we build up these big surpluses, but also because we think the Tax Code is unfair. Yes, we provided tax relief across the board, tax relief to millions of Americans, but we also went into the Tax Code and found out what is not working. For instance, there is an unfair penalizing of marriage today. The marriage penalty is something we addressed in our tax legislation. We did this because we believe that families ought to be encouraged and we ought not to have a higher tax just because someone gets married. On average, it is $1400 per couple in this country. We also do not believe in taxation without representation, which is why we believe the unfair death tax ought to be repealed, and we passed that in this House. We also passed education tax relief. We passed health care tax relief. We passed tax relief for those who want to save and invest in our economy. And, finally, yes, we passed tax relief in the area of expanding 401(k)s, IRAs, and other pension vehicles to allow people to save more tax-free money for their own retirement. These are very important measures that will help millions of Americans keep more of their hard-earned money for their own needs and for their families' needs rather than relying on the government. Unfortunately, President Clinton chose to veto that tax legislation last year. This year we are back again. Congress has continued the fight to give taxpayers in this country a break. We have already passed in the last month here in Congress tax relief again focusing on the marriage penalty, to get rid of this unfair penalty on marriage. We have also passed our retirement security reforms, again to expand 401(k) coverage for every American. And we have also passed some estate tax relief as part of the small business tax package we passed a few weeks ago. Again, these are part of our effort not only to return a substantial part of that nonSocial Security surplus back to the people who earned it, but also to make the Tax Code work better, to make it fairer, to correct some of the basic flaws we see in our Tax Code. Ultimately, of course, we need to take steps to fundamentally simplify and reform the Tax Code. The current income Tax Code and its associated regulations now contain 5.6 million words, seven times as many words as the Bible, and it is not nearly as interesting. Taxpayers now spend about 5.4 billion hours a year trying to comply with the 2,500 pages in the Tax Code and the 6,500 pages of tax rules and 8 billion pages of tax forms. The cost of complying with the Federal income tax in this country is now believed to be in excess of $200 billion a year. That is more than 25 percent of the revenue of all the taxes collected. What a waste of money. And it hurts the economy, it hurts job growth, it hurts investment, and it means less economic opportunity for all of us. I learned firsthand from spending a couple of years working intensively on IRS reform just how many problems our Tax Code causes not just for taxpayers, which is evident to many of us as taxpayers, but also for the IRS itself. It is very difficult to have an IRS that works well given the complexity of the Tax Code. It makes the IRS bigger and more intrusive than any of us would like it to be, and it makes the IRS more costly and less efficient than it could be with real tax reform. That is why, for example, the new IRS reform law does contain some long overdue tax simplification encouragement. These measures are designed to force Congress prospectively, with new tax legislation, to come up with simpler ways to achieve the same results. There is now a tax complexity analysis that every new piece of legislation has to go through as it works its way through Congress. It will help Members of Congress consider for the first time the additional complexity caused by what might be otherwise good, sound and well-intentioned tax legislation. So tax relief and tax simplification and reform to correct the problems with the current code are very important steps we can and should take together. But it is time for us to take that next step to replace the current Tax Code with something that is simpler, fairer and less intrusive for all Americans. Again, there are a lot of good ideas out there for doing that. We will hear about some tonight. Some have proposed a flat tax on income. Others have proposed a fairer tax, a national sales tax, in place of an income tax. Other proposals out there as well are a value added tax, or more selective simplification of major parts of our current Tax Code. We need to get the public attention focused on this need for fundamental tax reform, and to encourage that, the Committee on Ways and Means here in the House of Representatives, next week, will host the first ever congressional tax reform summit. It will be an opportunity for all the Members of Congress and the public to come forward and to talk about tax reform issues and to examine the range of alternatives to our current tax system. For the past few years we have come to the floor close to April 15 with another interesting piece of legislation, it is called the Sunset the Code Bill. It eliminates the current Tax Code by a date certain, forcing Congress and the administration to work together in that interim period to come up with an alternative. That legislation has passed the House in the past. I hope it will pass the House again this year. It has never been enacted into law, of course, because it has not gotten through the process or signed by the President. But next week we will try that again. This time under the leadership of our colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent). We are going to try to bring a new Sunset the Code Bill to the floor that will, in addition to sunsetting the code, establish a new bipartisan, bicameral, the House and the Senate, congressional-presidential, meaning the House and the Senate and the administration, tax reform commission. This commission is going to have a very simple task, which is to make recommendations to Congress for fundamental tax reform and simplification. The commission is modeled on the National Commission for Restructuring the IRS that I headed up with Senator Bob Kerrey. I know commissions have a checkered past in this town, and it is easy to give problems to a commission and hope they go away, but some commissions do work. The IRS commission worked because it forced Congress to tackle that reform and to clean up the IRS. That is the hope here in having a nonpartisan panel to look at this very complicated, very contentious issue, study the issue, bring some expertise to bear, and try to take the politics out of the process and lay the foundation here in Congress for some very needed and important changes to our Tax Code. The commission will have 15 members, three appointed by the President, four each appointed by the Senate majority leader and the speaker, and two each appointed by the House and Senate minority leaders. The important thing is most members in this commission will be from outside Congress, from outside the Federal bureaucracy. They will be members on the commission from around the country with expertise to bring to bear. There will be one Member from the House that will be a Republican and one Member from the House that will be a Democrat, same on the Senate, one Democrat, one Republican. But, again, most members will be people from the outside who can bring expertise in a nonpartisan approach to this important problem. The commission will have a short timetable, 18 months, to complete its work and make a report to Congress, again on ways to fundamentally simplify and reform, fundamentally, reform the Tax Code. I would like to urge my colleagues listening tonight to support this effort and to vote for that legislation next week that is so important to move us from our current broken system to one that meets all our needs better. The tax season is a frustrating time of year for so many Americans. Many of us are doing our taxes now. The amount of taxes we have to pay, the complexity and basic unfairness of the Tax Code, makes a lot of us wonder if there is not a better way. There has got to be a better way. And Congress has heard those concerns. We are committed to changing the status quo. Let us start with meaningful tax relief and simplification where we can this year, but let us go beyond, let us also lay the foundation for the kind of long-term reforms that will give all Americans a fairer, a simpler, and a less intrusive Tax Code. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield back my time, with the understanding that my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means, along with my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), another distinguished member of the Congress who has a lot of expertise on tax issues, will have a chance to continue this dialogue.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, because of a prior commitment, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 104 today on passage of H.R. 3660, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. I am an original cosponsor of this legislation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''