Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. If it is produced in England and shipped to America, the value-added taxes that would be imposed in England are exempted. They are actually rebated back to the producer, and that box of cereal enters America without the value-added tax on it, and it sits on the shelf right next to the box of cereal that was produced in America with all of those income taxes on it. So one has a 14- to 15-percent disadvantage. Which one is it? The American product. The same thing is true when we send that box of cereal to England. It carries that 14 and 15 percent IRS tax on its back, and it gets the English value-added tax on it, and it sits on the shelf next to the English product that only has a value-added tax. Guess who suffers a disadvantage? The American product again. So when Pat Buchanan was running around complaining about how free trade was damaging American workers and sending jobs overseas, he was right, but the real culprit is not the GATT Treaty, the real culprit is our tax laws which penalize every worker in this country, every American product, whether it is sold domestically or in foreign lands.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is exactly right. The gentleman is exactly right. Under the current Income Tax Code, when we manufacture any product, let us take that box of cereal, all the way from the farmer all the way to the retailer, when that product is sold in foreign commerce today, it bears all the costs of the IRS in its price. That is why it fails to compete when it gets overseas, because guess what happens if you ship it to England? In England they put another tax on it, so it is taxed in England and it is taxed in America. When England sends a box of cereal to America, they exempt that box of cereal from their value-added tax. We do not tax it when it gets here, so it comes in tax-free. In short, our products are at a great disadvantage with our Income Tax Code, and, in short, if we changed it to what the gentleman from Colorado, [Mr. Dan Schaefer] and I have recommended, that box of cereal would enter the market in Great Britain, let us say, without a single IRS tax on its back. It would get the VAT tax when it got there, but it would compete fairly against the English box of cereal that also had a VAT tax on it. In short, we would equalize our products in the marketplace, establish a fair playing field in exports, and we would create American jobs the likes of which we have not seen in decades.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia is accurate. So what the gentleman from Georgia is explaining is the alternative to the income tax, what we describe in the Schaefer-Tauzin bill as a national retail consumption tax. The gentleman is correct. Under our concept, there is no tax on the income earned by the individual or by the business. There is no tax on any of the processes that produce a product in America. The only time there is a tax is when the product is eventually sold for consumption, and it does not matter whether that product is made in America or imported into this country from foreign lands. When it is bought for consumption in America, our bill would provide a 15-percent retail consumption tax in the place of all those other taxes that currently burden us so badly.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank my friend. Let me point out that the IRS tax code, according to editorial IRS, the problem is power of Investors Business Daily, April 11, 1997. The IRS contains now in its code and regulations 5.5 million words, 17,000 pages. It was a pretty hefty chest we throw over into Boston Harbor today. It is so complex that it is a wonder anybody understands it. In fact in 1986, if you recall, Ronald Reagan offered us a plan called simplified income taxes, and that plan was passed. It reduced the rates of taxation from 14 down to about 2. Well, guess what has happened since 1986 again? Since 1986 this Congress made 4,000 individual changes in that income tax code of 1986. It is now up to five rates and growing daily, and today we are told that Americans have to work on average until May 9 just to pay taxes in America--if they can figure them out and file their forms correctly. And if the tax, if the tax forms are filed, and the IRS decides that you did something wrong, guess what happens in America? Unlike a Federal court, where you might be indicted and yet presumed innocent until a jury finds you guilty, with the IRS we created, you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. It is the most un-American system I think we could ever devise in a country that was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom, as our forefathers who gathered in Boston Harbor thought about a country all those years back to 1773. In short, what we are saying is that the Income Tax Code is not only incomprehensible to most of us and to experts, it has become a burden on our society. In fact, in America, we spend nearly 300 billion of manhours preparing those tax forms. In the Kemp Commission report filed just recently, last year I think it was, the Kemp Commission reported that the small businesses in America, they will spend $4 for every $1 they send the Government tonight, just doing the paperwork, just doing the records and the procedures that lead to the filing of that tax form. In short, we have a system that is out of control; we have an agency that is un-American. It is time to seriously consider replacing it with a better system. I yield to my friend from Colorado.

Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to my friend from Georgia.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman, and let me first announce that what we started today was most importantly a debate on the current tax system. Most importantly what we did today was to say to all Americans that you ought to seriously consider and not trivialize, seriously consider whether or not the income tax system that we in this Congress vote on yearly and change every other Congress, the income tax system which is the basic funding mechanism for this government in Washington is a good system for this country or whether it is a bad one; and if it is a bad one, to seriously consider with us a national grassroots effort to educate America and, more importantly, the Members of this Congress and the Senate who are going to make the difference if they vote correctly to one day consider abolishing this system in favor of a better one. That is the first decision we have to talk about: Is the current income tax system good for this country or is it bad for this country? So I suggest we do that first. Let us have a discussion, if you will, about why the current income tax system is a bad tax system for a country in this century, about to enter a new century in an increasingly globally free trade economy. Is this a good tax system for citizens who are filling out those forms tonight? Is it a good tax system for workers who are out there struggling to feed their families, educate their kids and leave something for their grandchildren and others to enjoy when they pass away? Is this a good system or is this a bad one? I yield to my friend from Colorado.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, tonight we gather in a special order on a special day. Today is of course April 15, the day the tax man cometh, and as I speak Americans across this land are scrambling to reach the post office by midnight tonight, scrambling to fill out those last forms and read those last instructions and those complicated booklets, trying to fulfill their duty as an American and to file their income taxes as required by law. Tonight I am joined in this special order by my dear friend and colleague from Colorado Dan Schaefer. Dan Schaefer and I just came back from Boston, MA earlier today. We traveled to Boston, MA, the site of this Nation's birth of freedom for a very special reason on this April 15. Today in Boston Harbor Dan Schaefer and I were joined by three of our colleagues who came to Boston and have joined us in support of a very important idea that we wanted the Nation to begin thinking about and to begin debating this year. We journeyed to Boston, to Boston Harbor, in commemoration of an event that occurred on December 16, 1773 in that very same harbor, and we gathered at the site at Boston Harbor where in fact the birth of liberty, the birth of freedom, the idea of America first came to reality. In that harbor in Boston, Congressman Dan Schaefer and our colleagues literally reenacted that event of December 16, 1773. We got aboard the brig, the Beaver, which is a replica of the original brig, the Beaver, that was there along with two other ships, the Dartmouth and the Endeavor, both of which were there to--I am sorry, the Eleanor, the Dartmouth and the Eleanor, both of which were there docked at the harbor along with the brig, the Beaver, filled in tea shipped in by companies in Great Britain under a monopoly arrangement and subject to a tax on tea that the colonists found great fault with. As you know, on that fateful evening about 50 colonists, led in part by young Sam Adams and many other patriots including John Hancock and the likes of Paul Revere, gathered together as sons and daughters of liberty meeting at the Green Dragon there in Boston Harbor and determined to resist this foreign taxing power and determined to assert their rights as citizens of this country, citizens of colonial America then to determine their own destiny apart from this power in Great Britain that was determined to tax them without representation. On that fateful evening, dressed as Mohawk Indians, they docked those ships, boarded those ships rather, and tossed the tea into the harbor in an event that clearly led to Lexington, clearly led to Concord, clearly led to American independence, clearly began the process by which this great Nation was founded, founded on those principles of liberty and freedom and the fact that citizens of this country were indeed masters of their fate, that government would always be their servant. And so today we gathered in Boston Harbor, new sons and daughters of liberty, gathered there with citizens from across America to declare that on this day we begin the process of debating here in this country, here in this Congress, whether it is time indeed to take on the taxing power of this Government and declare our personal freedom again. Today we dumped the U.S. Tax Code in a tea box into Boston Harbor in a deliberate protest announcing our decision today to file the Schaefer-Tauzin bill which is the first bill filed along with the one we filed last year to repeal the income tax of America, to abolish the IRS, to repeal in fact all income taxes in this country, including gift and inheritance taxes, and replace them all with simple, straightforward national retail consumption tax. I am pleased to yield to my friend, the principal sponsor of the legislation, who joined me and our colleagues in Boston Harbor for this demonstration of citizen protest against the U.S. tax system and its taxing agency, Congressman Dan Schaefer.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend. Also joining us tonight for this special order is another gentleman who joined us in Boston. In fact he preceded us. He went the night before, he was so excited to be a part of this event, the honorable Congressman from the great State of Georgia, Charlie Norwood.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I want to congratulate her for this special order and associate myself with her wonderful comments tonight. You spoke of the extraordinary person that Jackie Robinson was and what an extraordinary contribution he made to our country and to the more open society that we enjoy today. That legacy continues, as you know, in the beautiful performance just this weekend of a young man named Tiger Woods. The Masters is another great example of breakthroughs in our society. That young man took a moment to think about those who preceded him and opened doors for him and the grace and skill that he exhibited at the Masters Tournament I think is also a part of that legacy you talked about tonight. I just want to congratulate you because an extraordinary tribute to an extraordinary man was delivered tonight by an extraordinary woman, and I think this House is grateful for your special order tonight.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I think it will surprise the American public to learn that since 1986, when we adopted in this Congress tax simplification, a flatter tax base, that not only have the rates now continued to go up, we have five different rates today again, but since 1986 this Congress has made 4,000 individual changes in the Tax Code. It just does not stop. Flat taxes become fat taxes. We are suggesting it is time to get rid of the entire income Tax Code and go to a simple retail sales tax, and we are asking sons and daughters of liberty to join us in Boston Harbor, not only Members of this Congress but citizens of this country, to come meet us in Boston Harbor on April 15 and join us in the beginning of this great national debate. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. TAUZIN. I think our time is about up, Mr. Speaker, and I simply wanted, in the short time we have left, to again invite Americans to begin this debate. The debate will be whether to keep the current system, with all its problems, with all its costs. It costs American citizens $4 for every dollar they send to the Federal Government in taxes. Do we keep this awful system that taxes Americans twice, three times, and four times on the same money; that only taxes American products and jobs and not foreign products. Do we want to keep this system or do we want to go to a flat tax system, which is a better alternative or, better yet, pull this system out by its roots and replace it with a simple straightforward sales tax, that taxes for the first time foreign products and American products on the same basis and taxes American income only once, when you spend money, not when you earn it. If that national debate is not worth having, then I will be greatly surprised. Join us on April 15 as we begin this debate in this historic reenactment of the Boston Tea Party, when we will dump the U.S. Tax Code into that harbor as new sons and daughters of liberty who believe that liberty and freedom is so important in this country that we ought never to surrender it to an agency where we are guilty until we prove ourselves innocent. That is so un-American. Join us in this national debate.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I think it is important to point out that the IRS is the only agency of the Federal Government where we are guilty until we prove our innocence. We can get a better deal in Federal Court after indictment than we can before the IRS. It is time for us to consider whether this agency, this structure of taxation, this agency that has such power over our lives ought to be abolished in favor of a simple sales tax collection system where we decide how much taxes we pay by deciding how much we spend or how much instead that we save and invest in our society and in American jobs.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am also joined today by a friend of mine, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Dan Schaefer], who will interact with me in this 5 minutes and perhaps even ask unanimous consent for his own time. We are pleased today to announce to the House and to the American public that as tax day approaches, as April 15 bears down upon us as the date upon which the tax man cometh again into our lives, we are preparing to begin the national debate on the issue of whether or not it is time for us in America to consider ripping the income Tax Code out by its roots, repealing the U.S. income Tax Code in its entirety, along with the IRS, and replacing the entire thing with a simple, straightforward national retail consumption tax. On April 15, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Dan Schaefer] and I will be joined by other Members of this body, not necessarily as Members of Congress but as citizens of this country, and we will be joined by many other citizens who will join with us in Boston Harbor for a symbolic reenactment of the Boston Tea Party. We will be in that harbor on an 18th-century style ship, and we will symbolically put the U.S. income Tax Code into a beautiful box labeled ``Boston tea.'' And we will ceremoniously dump it into that harbor. We are doing it, by the way, with the proper permitting authority, because to leave that income Tax Code in the harbor would surely be a bad example of pollution. But we are going to do this demonstration along with many other Americans to begin this debate. Is it time to get rid of this income Tax Code that is hurting Americans and hurting American jobs and debilitating the U.S. economy and replacing it with a simple straightforward consumption tax? The debate will begin on April 15. The ceremony we have in Boston Harbor will hopefully be the start of that debate. What essentially is wrong with the U.S. income Tax Code? The stories of IRS agents snooping into private businesses, the stories of 4 billion dollars' worth of computers that do not work are just the beginning. The IRS code punishes you for earning income, punishes you for saving money, punishes you for investing money, punishes you for leaving money to your children, whether you are alive or in death, through inheritance taxes, punishes you when you buy anything made in America, because everything made in America carries an IRS tax on it of about 14 to 15 percent, and rewards you only for doing one thing, for buying foreign products. What kind of a Tax Code is that? I suggest that a Tax Code replacing the income tax that would once and for all put an end to inheritance taxes, put an end to taxes on investments and earnings and income and replace it with a simple one-time tax on consumption of both foreign and domestic products, equalizing for the first time since 1913 the taxes on foreign products with American products, is the right way to go. We will begin this debate historically in Boston Harbor. My colleague and friend, who I am pleased to yield to at this time, Dan Schaefer, and I will be leading the charge. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Dan Schaefer].

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also commend him for even beginning this great national debate on whether or not we ought to replace an income tax in America with a fairer, flatter, more reasonable proposal for the country. I want to let him know that on April 15 a great many Democrats and Republicans are going to be together in Boston Harbor. We are going to have an historic reenactment of the Boston Tea Party. We are going to dump the United States tax code into the harbor in a symbolic gesture to begin this debate. It starts with recognizing we have a code out of control, 4,000 changes since 1986 alone. Maybe it is time for us to really debate whether a better system is right for the country, not Democrat or Republican but a better system for America.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, let me say no one needs to be beamed up on this vote. This is a vote to confirm not only the appointment of Charlene Barshefsky, who is now our Deputy Trade Representative, to the Trade Representative, but also to pass a waiver that is necessary for that confirmation to be complete. I want to first congratulate her on a near unanimous confirmation in the Senate and the near unanimous vote in the Senate on behalf of this resolution. Let me point out that Charlene Barshefsky was already at USTR as Deputy Trade Representative when the law in question was passed last year. So this grandfathering is in fact a recognition of her already and continuous service at the USTR. Let me also state that as chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Trade of the Committee on Commerce, we have all been extraordinarily impressed with the caliber of service that this ambassador has already provided to this country. She has worked cooperatively with our committee in keeping us informed and interacting with us throughout all the WTO negotiations in Geneva that led to the successful passage of the recent agreement in Geneva on telecommunications and opening up those markets all over the world to U.S. investment. That action alone is going to create opportunities for American jobs and businesses throughout the world in telecommunications. It is patterned very much after the 1996 Telecommunications Act that this House and the Senate so unanimously joined in just 1996 to create an open market for the United States in telecommunications. I look forward as chairman of the subcommittee very soon to receiving the testimony of Ms. Barshefsky before our subcommittee, in not only reporting on that successful negotiation of which we are all so proud, but on the continuing efforts to bring other countries in with new and improved offers so that we can continue to open up markets for telecommunications services throughout the world for American businesses and American jobs. I urge the adoption of this resolution.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 624, the Armored Car Reciprocity Amendments. All we need to do is watch the evening news to be aware of the problems faced by the Nation's law enforcement and security personnel. We live in increasingly dangerous times, where a badge is now a target and the lives of people wearing those badges are placed in grave danger on a daily basis. Those who guard armored cars are no exception. Both the FBI and the armored car industry agree that there are more than 6 robbery attempts against armored cars every month. Sometimes these attempts result in the injury or death of the guard. There is no question there is a strong need for these individuals to be armed. When this committee reported the Armored Car Industry Reciprocity Act in the 103d Congress, it recognized that fact. However, it also recognized that we need to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the untrained. While most States require substantial training in the safe and legal use of their weapons before they issue crew members weapons permits, we reiterated that sentiment when we required regular training and criminal background checks before a State's weapons permit could be entitled to reciprocity under our act. The legislation of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield], H.R. 624, the Armored Car Reciprocity Amendments of 1997, simply makes some technical changes in the original statute to better conform its requirements to the procedures in place in the majority of the States today. It still requires regular training and criminal background checks for armored car crew members, but allows States the necessary flexibility to issue permits according to their own procedures and their own timetables. In fact, it differs from the House-passed bill in only one substantive respect, and that was in response to criticisms leveled by some Members of the other body who failed to pass this legislation during the last Congress. It is a little known fact that the single largest interstate customer of the armored car industry is the Federal Government. Private companies annually transport billions of dollars in currency, coin, food stamps, and other negotiable documents. Because we entrust these companies with the Nation's valuables, we have an obligation to ensure that their job in protecting these valuables is as easy as possible. Mr. Speaker, that is why we need to enact H.R. 624. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield] should be commended for his hard work in seeing this bill through. I would also like to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Manton], the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley] for their support in bringing this legislation to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I commend the author of the legislation and now yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], who, by the way, is the only serving former member of the FBI. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns]. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume merely to again thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Manton] for his extraordinary help and cooperation in moving this bill forward, and all the members of our subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce who participated in this effort, and I urge final passage of the bill.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield], the author of the legislation.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 624) to amend the Armored Car Industry Reciprocity Act of 1993 to clarify certain requirements and to improve the flow of interstate commerce.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.