Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, everyone here is concerned about helping people who are suffering, including New York firefighters and policemen and emergency rescue workers and others affected by this, but I want to point out what Ken Feinberg, the special master of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund said in an op-ed piece in The Washington Post entitled, ``9/11 fund. Once was enough.''

He said, ``Despite its success, the fund has not set a precedent. Congress has not authorized similar compensation for the thousands of victims of Hurricane Katrina, for those injured by other natural disasters, or for the families of those killed in such tragedies. Nor has Congress exhibited such generosity toward U.S. soldiers wounded or the families of those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

``The same is true of victims of terrorist attacks that took place before September 11, 2001. The Navy personnel who died in the suicide attack on the USS Cole and the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing received no such public compensation. Even the victims of the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 were denied.''

Feinberg said, ``Bad things happen to good people every day; Congress does not come to their financial rescue with generous, tax-free checks. In our free society, based on notions of limited government and equal protection of the laws, we simply do not expect the government to step in whenever misfortune strikes.''

When firefighters all across this country enter burning buildings, when rescue workers clean up toxic spills, people are injured, people are killed all the time. We do not have compensation funds for them. We have normal procedures, normal processes through which people receive assistance. Even the most recent compensation funds for the gulf oil spill and for the victims of the shooting at Virginia Tech were privately funded compensation funds. This is not the correct way to proceed.

And this fund, in particular, is bloated. It includes funding for more than 20 years, until 2031. It includes far more money than Ken Feinberg said was necessary.

I urge my colleagues to not support this approach to solving this problem.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5566, the Prevention of Interstate Commerce in Animal Crush Videos Act.

Crush videos are videotapes depicting small animals, including cats, dogs, and even monkeys, being slowly crushed to death. Many of these videos feature women inflicting the torture with their bare feet or while wearing high heeled shoes. These videos capture the cries and squeals of the animals, obviously in great pain.

In 1999, Congress enacted H.R. 1887 to criminalize the commercial creation, sale, or possession of these heinous videos. However, in April of this year, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional this Federal statute. The court held that the language of the statute was overly broad and would have extended to legitimate activities.

In response, Congressman Gallegly introduced and I cosponsored The Prevention of Interstate Commerce in Animal Crush Videos Act. This legislation amends the Federal criminal code to cure the defects in the Federal statute. The bill prohibits a person from knowingly selling or distributing an animal crush video in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of commercial advantage of private financial gain. This legislation also excludes from its scope the sale or distribution of any visual depiction of hunting, trapping, fishing, or customary and normal veterinary or agricultural husbandry practices.

In addition, the bill narrows the definition of ``Animal Crush Video'' to make clear that it is not targeting legitimate products and to tie the activity to the violation of a state or Federal law.

I believe it is important to stop these heinous activities, and I support this legislation that more effectively targets these crimes without affecting other, legitimate activities like hunting and fishing videos.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Cell Phone Contraband Act.

The illegal use of wireless phones in prisons is a serious problem. Smuggled cell phones are used by prisoners to maintain connections with their criminal enterprises beyond prison walls and even to commit crimes from within prison.

A recent Washington Post article reported the following incidents:

A drug dealer behind bars in Maryland used a phone to arrange to have a witness assassinated outside his home last summer.

In Kansas, a convicted killer sneaked out of prison after planning the 2006 escape using a cell phone smuggled by an accomplice. The following year, two inmates escaped another Kansas prison with the help of a former guard and a smuggled cell phone.

California prison officials confiscated about 2,800 cell phones statewide in 2008, double the number discovered the year before.

The Cell Phone Contraband Act makes it a crime for Federal prisoners to possess cell phones while incarcerated. The bill also directs the GAO to study the cost and use of landlines and smuggled cell phones in Federal and selected State prisons and jails. The study will additionally examine selected State and Federal efforts to prevent the smuggling of cell phones and other wireless devices into prisons, including efforts made to minimize trafficking of cell phones by prison guards and other officials.

This is a commonsense bill to ensure that when criminals are locked up, their ability to harm citizens is completely cut off. This legislation will send a strong signal to those that either smuggle or receive contraband cell phones that they will be held accountable.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule on this legislation that's coming forward. But before we get to the vote on the rule, we're going to have a vote on ordering the previous question, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on ordering the previous question because that is the way to show your support for today's spending cut reduction under the YouCut program that millions of Americans have participated in.

This week's spending cut, developed by Congressman Phil Gingrey of Georgia, addresses one of the perpetual roadblocks to American private- sector job creation and economic recovery--Federal employee unions. The proposal would prohibit taxpayer funding for union activities, saving taxpayers $120 million a year, or $1.2 billion over the next 10 years. Federal employees' unions collect millions in revenue each year and spend significant amounts on political activities and lobbying. I do not believe that they should also be subsidized by the taxpayers for their official functions. Instead of subsidizing union activities, the Federal

Government must work to both eliminate every cent of waste and squeeze every cent of value out of each dollar our citizens entrust to it.

When we're facing gigantic deficits each year, the President's budget that he submitted earlier this year projects a 70 percent expenditure over top of what we're going to take in in revenues--$3.8 trillion in spending and $2.2 trillion in tax revenues coming in. That is completely unsustainable, and yet as far as the eye can see for the next 10 years, as far out as the Congressional Budget Office projects, we face deficits that are two and three times as large as they had ever been previously in our history, including the last time the Republicans were in the majority in this Congress.

We spent too much money in 2004 when we had a $400 billion deficit. That looks like peanuts today compared to what we're facing. Support the effort to cut our government spending. Oppose the ordering of the previous question.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 376 on H. Con. Res. 288, rollcall No. 377 on H. Res. 546, and rollcall No. 378 on H. Res. 1407, I am not recorded because I was attending the funeral service of a fallen soldier in my district, Army SPC Brian M. Anderson, who was killed in action while serving his country in Afghanistan. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on all three resolutions.

Madam Speaker, it was two decades ago that the largest privately-held, family-owned bakery in the United States decided to make its newest home in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley, just miles from the Blue Ridge Mountains. I am delighted today to help mark the 20th anniversary of the arrival of McKee Foods in Stuarts Draft, Virginia. Based in Collegedale, Tennessee the company best known in all 50 states and in Canada and Mexico for its ``Little Debbie'' brand snacks has settled into its location in the Commonwealth over the last 20 years and become an integral part of the business community in Augusta County. The bakery is considered one of the industry's most cutting- edge facilities, and more than 1,000 folks are employed in the production of what I believe are among the country's best snack goods-- they are standards in the cupboards of my home and countless others. There's nothing like their Snack Cakes, Fudge Rounds, Swiss Cake Rolls, Oatmeal Creme Pies--and more than 70 other Little Debbie products made from the highest quality ingredients. The enjoyment that accompanies eating these goodies is endless.

In addition to marking the company's 20 years in Stuarts Draft, we're also noting a half-century of the Little Debbie brand. It was 50 years ago that the company's founders--O.D. and Ruth McKee--decided to use a likeness of their young granddaughter Debbie to mark the brand. All these years later, ``Little Debbie'' is the unmistakable trademark of a company that has been profitable every year since. That's quite a tribute for a company whose commitment to ``total quality'' is a daily endeavor. Having met hundreds of McKee employees over the years, I can attest that they constantly strive for integrity and to be innovative in their business.

McKee Foods is now one of the foundations of a region of my Congressional district that's long been known for its strong work ethic. The McKee family clearly recognized that attribute when it chose Stuarts Draft for its newest operation 20 years ago. I commend President and CEO Mike McKee and Vice President of Stuarts Draft Operations Randy Smith for making the Stuarts Draft facility a great place to continue the company's guiding values. It's been a true recipe for success since 1990 in Virginia. The Sixth District looks forward to much continued success for McKee Foods and ``Little Debbie'' for many decades to come.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague Rep. Holden in introducing the Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization and Improvement Act.

The Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the U.S., is an incredibly complex ecosystem that includes important habitats and is a cherished part of our American heritage. The Bay Watershed includes all types of land uses, from intensely urban areas, spread out suburban development and diverse agricultural practices. But unquestionably the Bay is in need and worthy of our attention and concern and I believe everyone has a role to play in restoring it.

I have long worked with my colleagues here in Congress to find ways to protect and restore the Bay. In fact, Mr. Holden and I worked very hard with the other members of the Agriculture Committee to establish a mechanism and a funding source in the 2008 farm bill for addressing issues related to protecting the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The farm bill provided unprecedented incentive-based funding to help farmers and ranchers improve management practices, which would directly result in improving water quality in the Bay. We must now continue in our efforts to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay by reauthorizing the Chesapeake Bay Program.

There are other proposals to reauthorize the Bay Program. The goal of all involved is the same, the continued health and vitality of the Bay, but the map to that health and vitality is being strongly debated. Unfortunately, proposals like the Presidential Executive Order, and legislation that would codify this order, would force more mandates and overzealous regulations on all of those who live, work, and farm in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. This strategy will limit economic growth and unfairly overregulate our local economies. My colleagues and I recognized that we must form a proposal that does not pit the health of the bay against the strength and vitality of our local communities and that is why we rise today to introduce the Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization and Improvement Act.

Instead of overregulation and intrusion into the lives and livelihoods of those who choose to make the Bay Watershed their home, our legislation allows States and communities more flexibility in meeting water quality goals so that we can help restore and protect our natural resources. Our bill sets up new programs to give farmers, homebuilders, and localities new ways to meet their water quality goals. This includes preserving current intrastate nutrient trading programs that many Bay states already have in place, while also creating a voluntary interstate nutrient trading program. Additionally, this bill creates a voluntary assurance program for farmers. The program will deem farmers to be fully in compliance with their water quality requirements as long as they have undertaken appropriate conservation activities to comply with State and federal water quality standards.

Also, our bill makes sure that the agencies are using common sense when regulating water quality goals for localities. Our legislation requires the regulators to take into account the availability, cost, effectiveness, and appropriateness of practices, techniques, or methods in meeting water quality goals. This will ensure that localities are not being mandated to achieve a reduction in nutrient levels by a prescribed date, when no technology exists to achieve that reduction within that timeline.

While our bill does a lot to improve water quality, we also call for more oversight over the Chesapeake Bay Program. For over 3 decades Congress has been working to preserve and protect the Chesapeake Bay. Despite the efforts of the federal, State, and local governments, the health of the Bay is still in peril. The participants in restoring the Bay include 10 federal agencies, six states and the District of Columbia, over one thousand localities and multiple nongovernmental organizations. This legislation would fully implement two cutting-edge management techniques, crosscut budgeting and adaptive management, to enhance coordination, flexibility and efficiency of restoration efforts. Neither technique is currently required or fully utilized in the Bay restoration efforts, where results have lagged far behind the billions of dollars spent. Further, this bill calls for a review of the EPA's Bay model. We often hear complaints from those who make good faith efforts to restore the Bay that their efforts are not being recognized by EPA's Bay model. EPA's model does not account for any voluntary measures being undertaken on farms to control nitrogen and phosphorous nor does it even account for some of the nitrogen and phosphorous reductions that are being achieved through government programs like USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives Program. Effectively, EPA is ignoring nutrient reductions that have already been achieved. Our legislation requires that an independent evaluator assess and make recommendations to alter EPA's Bay model, so that we can develop a model that will capture all of the nutrient reductions that are happening in the Bay.

Madam Speaker, the people who call the Bay Watershed home are the ones who are the most concerned about protecting and restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Unfortunately, too often these hardworking individuals are cast as villains and placed in a position where restoring the Bay is pitted against the economic livelihoods of their communities. We can restore the Bay while also maintaining the economic livelihood of these communities. The Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization and Improvement Act is the way we can do both. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress, so that we can pass this important legislation and work to restore the Chesapeake Bay.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation to strengthen the federal criminal laws punishing identity theft.

Identity theft is a serious and growing threat. The Federal Trade Commission estimates that as many as 9 million Americans have their identities stolen each year.

Identity thieves use identifying information such as a consumer's Social Security number, credit card numbers, or other financial account information in order to conduct such fraud as opening up new credit cards and gaining access to bank accounts. The ramifications can be financially disastrous for citizens and can be extremely difficult to resolve. We must crack down hard on these criminals.

The fear of identity theft is also consistently cited as a reason many Americans are cautious about engaging in more transactions online. This is unfortunate because of the multitude of ways the Internet can help consumers shop, do business and communicate efficiently and at low cost.

The United States has many federal statutes targeting identity theft. However, some of these laws were weakened by a recent Supreme Court case.

18 USC 1028 and 1028A contain criminal punishments for certain identity theft violations when those violations are in connection with other federal crimes and state felonies. In 2009, the Supreme Court ruled that the language of those federal statutes require not only that the criminal use the identification documents of another person, but also that the criminal knew the documents were those of another actual person.

The context of that case was that an illegal alien had given an employer counterfeit social security and alien registration cards containing his name but the identification numbers of other individuals. He was charged with two immigration offenses as well as aggravated identity theft. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction on the aggravated identity theft count explaining that the language of the relevant statutes required prosecutors to prove not only that the defendant used identity documents that were not his own, but also that the defendant knew the identity documents were those of another actual person.

Identity theft occurs when someone intentionally and unlawfully uses identity documents that are not his own. Our federal statutes should reflect this reality.

Today, I am introducing legislation to amend these federal statutes to make clear that when an identity thief intentionally and unlawfully uses identity documents that are not his own, prosecutors do not need to show that the criminal also knew that the identity documents were those of another actual person.

This clarification will help prosecutors put identity thieves behind bars and will help safeguard American citizens from identity-related crimes. I urge the Members of the House to support this bipartisan legislation.

Madam Speaker, since we just commemorated National Nurses Week 2010, I rise today to call attention to the important and essential role that nurses play in providing quality health care across our Nation. Nurses are the largest group of health professionals involved on the front lines of caring for Americans. Our Nation's health care system is complex and every day people with many different health needs are served by legions of caring, qualified, and professional nurses, who are integral to our Nation's health care delivery system.

I believe every person can remember an experience when someone they loved needed health care and a nurse was the first person by their side providing care and comfort. We all know someone who works in the field of nursing and the commitment they make to their profession, despite extraordinary challenges every day.

The Nurse in Washington Internship program recently brought representatives of this noble field to our Nation's capital to give a voice to their needs and experience. I was pleased to meet with my constituent Jennifer Vaugh (RN, BSN) from Forest, Virginia.

An adequate supply of nurses is essential to ensuring that all people receive quality care and that our Nation's public health infrastructure is strong. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there is currently a nursing shortage of 2.5 million registered nurses in the United States. This figure is expected to grow to 41 percent by 2020.

Additional Congressional leadership is necessary to ensure that the Nation has an adequate supply of nurses to care for the patients of today and tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, we have been asking all afternoon, where's the budget? We have even sent out bloodhounds trying to find this budget.

Mr. Speaker, in 2006, Congressman Steny Hoyer, who is now the House Majority Leader, was quoted as saying enacting a budget was ``the most basic responsibility of governing.'' And Congressman John Spratt, who is now the chairman of the House Budget Committee said, ``If you can't budget, you can't govern.''

Now, we are a month past the deadline and Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership are showing no signs of complying with the law and coming forward with a budget for fiscal year 2011. Without a budget, there is no procedural enforcement mechanism to constrain spending. With the administration increasing nondefense discretionary spending by 84 percent since taking office, I fear that without a budget our national debt will continue to spiral out of control.

Mr. Speaker, this will be first time since the Budget Act was enacted that the House will not have passed a budget. We want to know, Mr. Speaker, where is the budget?

Madam Speaker, where is the budget? Congress is expected to agree on a budget for the upcoming fiscal year by April 15. The budget process at the beginning of each year sets the goals regarding total Federal spending for the year. It is the budget that sets the stage for how fiscally responsible government spending will be.

Since the passage of the Budget Act of 1974, the House of Representatives has never failed to pass an initial budget to set the spending priorities for the following fiscal year. Not this year. We are now a month past the deadline, and Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership are showing no signs of complying with the law and coming forward with a budget for fiscal year 2011. In 2006, Congressman Steny Hoyer, who is now the House majority leader, was quoted as saying, Enacting a budget was ``the most basic responsibility of governing,'' and Congressman John Spratt, who is now the chairman of the House Budget Committee said, ``If you can't budget, you can't govern.''

While I understand that the Congress has the power to name public buildings and post offices, I believe that setting a budget, allowing the government to live within its means, is more important than passing ceremonial resolutions. With total public debt rising to nearly $13 trillion, according to the Bureau of Public Debt, Congress' priority should remain focused on getting our fiscal house in order. Families and small businesses all across our Nation understand what it means to make tough decisions each day about what they can and cannot afford. They understand the importance of creating and living by a budget. Unfortunately, instead of making the tough choices necessary to reduce spending, the majority in Congress has decided to forgo a budget altogether. Just 4 years ago, the same leaders who are now shirking their responsibility and choosing to move forward without a budget were very clear on how important the budget process is to the operation of the Federal Government.

Madam Speaker, where's the budget? Without the passage of a Federal budget, the reckless spending that has run rampant in Congress will only continue. We have already seen the passage--without my support--of the so-called economic stimulus legislation which was supposed to put Americans back to work. Not only did the stimulus legislation fail to create jobs, but

it is now estimated to be costing American taxpayers over $1 trillion including interest. Not only should Congress produce a budget, but I am a strong supporter of several measures that promote the establishment of a balanced budget and the elimination of wasteful government programs, including a constitutional amendment that I introduced which requires the Federal Government to balance its budget. Congress must steadfastly hold the line on government spending, which is why I have consistently voted for the tightest budgets offered each year. But maybe not this year. No budget is offered.

As elected officials and stewards of the taxpayers' money, we have a responsibility to put together a sustainable budget and stick to it. The Congress must continue to work to rein in spending and put to practice a spending approach that many Americans already live by: If you don't have it, don't spend it.

Madam Speaker, where's the budget?

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3333, the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act. This legislation contains important provisions to enhance television services in rural areas.

Consumers in rural and mountainous areas, like my congressional district, are often beyond the reach of cable lines and do not have access to the types of programming that those who live in urban areas enjoy. I believe it is crucial for consumers in rural areas to have access to local news and emergency information, as well as robust television options.

I have worked hard for years to enhance the programming options for those in rural areas, including making sure satellite companies provide local channels. In fact, I was a member of the conference committee in the 106th Congress that negotiated the final version of the law that originally permitted satellite television companies to provide local television stations, which has made satellite companies more effective competitors to cable operators. Cable had been able to provide local broadcast network stations to their subscribers for years.

While that law eliminated the legal barriers to satellite companies providing local stations, it did not assure delivery of local television via satellite to all television markets. Since then, I

have continued to work to encourage satellite companies to expand the areas where they provide local television stations, and we have had many successes.

However, there are still problems that we need to fix. For example, while everyone in my district has access to local programming from at least one satellite company, many folks still cannot receive all four network stations via satellite.

I am pleased to report that I helped insert a provision into this legislation that would change the definition of ``unserved household'' to eliminate a major impediment to satellite companies wishing to offer all four television networks to consumers in so-called short markets (those that do not have a full complement of all 4 networks locally). This provision will help ensure that all consumers in short markets have access to all four network television stations.

In addition, this legislation contains a provision that will allow DISH Network to again be permitted to offer network programming from other areas when there are no stations of the same network in the local market. DISH Network had previously been prohibited from offering these ``distant'' network television stations. Under S. 3333, DISH Network would be able to offer these distant channels only after it rolls out local television channels via satellite in all 210 television markets. This provision will inject competition into the satellite television market, especially in rural areas where often there is either one or no satellite providers.

The transition to digital television presented new issues for this reauthorization. As such, S. 3333 contains technical updates to reflect the reality that television broadcasts are now digital rather than analog.

This legislation is a big step forward in updating the laws governing satellite television in rural areas, and I urge the Members of this body to support this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1208, which expresses support for World IP Day.

April 26, 2010 was the 10th annual World IP Day. This day was designated by the member nations of the World Intellectual Property Organization in order to raise awareness of how patents, copyright, and trademarks impact daily life, to raise understanding of how protecting IP rights helps promote creativity and innovation, to celebrate the contributions of creators and innovators to societies around the world, and to encourage respect for the IP rights of others.

When the Founders of our great Nation crafted the U.S. Constitution, they saw fit to include provisions to provide for the protection of intellectual property. They believed that if authors and inventors had the exclusive ability to use and reap a return on their creations for a limited time, then those artists and inventors would have the financial incentive to create new and exciting products that would benefit society and our economy. And it worked!

Today, America is the world leader in innovation and creativity precisely because of our Founders' foresight and our Nation's exceptionally strong intellectual property laws. Furthermore, the IP industries in America are a major driving force and job-creating engine of our economy.

Recently I had the opportunity to talk with a famous American author who told a story that hammered home how much the creative ideas of one man, if properly protected by intellectual property laws, can multiply into real jobs for real people. He wrote a best-selling novel. That novel then needed to be edited, reviewed, printed, marketed and distributed. The novel then became a movie, which needed to be produced, reviewed, distributed and shown in movie theatres, then in movie rental shops all across the country. The protected idea of one man helped to create all these jobs down the line. It is stories like this that need to be told on World IP Day.

In today's digital world, the Internet's fast connections can be used to download, upload and otherwise share illegal copies of songs, movies, games, and software at unprecedented levels. As we continue our journey into the digital age, it is even more important that we continue to jealously guard creators' intellectual property rights in order to foster new content, innovative products, and American jobs.

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce a Resolution that expresses the will of Congress to save taxpayer money and reduce the deficit.

Madam Speaker, Thomas Jefferson once wrote: ``To preserve [the] independence [of the people,] we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.''

As my colleagues may know, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal deficit is $655 billion through the first five months of FY 2010. This is $65 billion or 11.0% above the deficit through the first five months of FY 2009--which ended up with the highest deficit in U.S. history ($1.4 trillion).

In these challenging economic times it is even more important for government to control spending. Congress must control spending, paving the way for a return to surpluses and ultimately paying down the national debt, rather than allow big spenders to lead us further down the road of chronic deficits and in doing so leave our children and grandchildren saddled with debt that is not their own.

Unfortunately, the federal budget deficit is projected to exceed $1 trillion for the next two fiscal years and hover around $800 billion annually for the foreseeable future. These current levels of spending are simply unsustainable.

That is why I am proud that the Republican Conference recently adopted a party rule that instills a year-long moratorium on Members obtaining ``earmarks'' in the FY2011 appropriations process. The earmark process is broken and is in desperate need of reform.

While I am pleased that the Republican Conference has adopted a one- year earmark moratorium, the simple fact is that our policy will not save the taxpayers a dime unless Democrats reduce spending by the amount saved by the Republican moratorium. Otherwise, they will be able to just spend the money saved by the Republican earmark ban on their own Democratic earmarks.

Madam Speaker, the American people want earmark reform because they want to rein in out-of-control spending. In order to actually help achieve this goal, I am introducing this resolution today with virtually all of my Republican colleagues. Specifically, our resolution:

``Expresses the sense of Congress that House Democrats should join House Republicans in a total ban on earmarks for one year, that total discretionary spending should be reduced by the amount saved by earmark moratoriums and that a bipartisan, bicameral committee should be created to review and overhaul the budgetary, spending and earmark processes.''

I hope that all Members of the House will join House Republicans in supporting this resolution and thus commit ourselves to the will of the American people to eliminate every cent of waste and squeeze every cent of value out of each hard-earned taxpayer dollar.

Madam Speaker, today, tax day, is the most stressful day of the year for taxpayers. April 15th is a day filled with aggravation and frustration as hard working Americans are confronted with piles of forms, confusing instructions, and the prospect of turning their hard-earned money over to the government. In 1935, the 1040 tax form contained two pages of instructions, today it is 155 pages, forcing Americans to devote a tremendous amount of resources to try to comply with this monstrosity. In fact, Americans will devote an estimated 7.7 billion hours complying with the tax code, and will spend an estimated $29.33 billion on tax software, preparers, and other expenses related to filing their taxes.

Over the past year, we have seen citizens from around the nation express their frustration about this nefarious tax code. Taxpayers have pleaded with Congress to be better stewards of their money and reform our broken tax code. The tax code Americans are forced to comply with discourages savings and investment, and is impossibly complex. It has become all too clear that the current code is broken beyond repair and cannot be fixed so we must start over.

I understand the frustrations of taxpayers and I have introduced H.R. 982, the Tax Code Termination Act, which will force Congress to finally address fundamental tax reform. This legislation, with 115 bipartisan cosponsors, will abolish the tax code by December 2012, and call on Congress to approve a new federal tax system by July of the same year.

While almost every Member of Congress would recognize that our tax code is no longer working in a fair manner for Americans, nothing has been done to create a more equitable tax code. Congress won't act on fundamental tax reform unless it is forced to do so. My bill will force Congress to finally debate and address fundamental tax reform.

Once this bill becomes law, today's oppressive tax code would survive for only three more years, at which time it would expire and be replaced with a new tax code that will be determined by Congress, the President, and the American people. This legislation will allow us, as a nation, to collectively decide what the new tax system should look like. Having a date-certain to end the current tax code will force the issue to the top of the national agenda.

Although many questions remain about the best way to reform our tax system, I am certain that if Congress is forced to address the issue we can create a tax code that is simpler, fairer, and better for our economy than the one we are forced to comply with today.

Whichever tax system is adopted, the key ingredients should be: a low rate for all Americans; tax relief for working people; protection of the rights of taxpayers and reduction in tax collection abuses; promotion of savings and investment; and encouragement of economic growth and job creation.

Taxes may be unavoidable but they don't have to be unfair and overcomplicated. I urge my colleagues to join me as a cosponsor of H.R. 982, the Tax Code Termination Act and end the broken tax system that exists today.