Dave Camp

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of H.R. 1, the Tax Reform Act of 2014. This bill--which formalizes, without modifications, the tax reform discussion draft I released publicly on February 26, 2014--reflects the years of work undertaken on this critical issue by the Committee on Ways and Means during my time as chairman. I want to thank the members of our committee, on both sides of the aisle, for their tireless efforts and for their outstanding contributions to this legislation and to the transparent, inclusive process that produced it. While I will not be returning to the House of Representatives next year, I very much look forward to watching the ongoing work of our great committee as the tax reform debate continues to unfold in the 114th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, the urgent need to fix our broken tax code--and the incredible progress we've made toward making tax reform a reality for the first time since 1986--has already been well documented, and I will not seek to recount all of that background and history here today. But I do hope that, going forward, Congress will continue to focus on the twin goals that have guided the tax reform process thus far-- strengthening the economy, and making the tax code simpler and fairer for all Americans.

When I set out to produce a comprehensive tax reform bill, I wanted to do it the right way. So, over the last four years, the Ways and Means Committee held over 30 public hearings, including the first joint hearings with the Senate Finance Committee on tax policy since World War II. Ways and Means Ranking Member Sandy Levin--my home state colleague--and I formed 11 bipartisan working groups to tackle different areas of the tax code. In that time, I also launched TaxReform.Gov, which received more than 14,000 public comments and suggestions, while Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) and I left the confines of Washington, DC to talk with taxpayers all across the country. I am proud to say that we have done this in the most open, transparent, and bipartisan way--getting input from all sides. Now, the debate about whether to do tax reform is over; the only debate now is about how.

At its core, the Tax Reform Act of 2014 is about making the tax code simpler and fairer for hardworking taxpayers. I believe every taxpayer should be able to do his or her taxes without fear that someone with better accountants or lawyers is getting a better deal. This legislation does that by ensuring that virtually all taxpayers would pay the least amount of taxes without having to keep track of every receipt and record and live in fear of an IRS audit. This legislation makes the Code more effective and efficient by getting rid of narrowly targeted provisions to lower tax rates across the board. This will enable small and large businesses alike to expand operations, hire new workers, and increase benefits and take-home pay.

The proposal flattens the rate structure by reducing rates and collapsing today's seven individual rate brackets into two brackets of 10 and 25 percent for virtually all taxable income, ensuring that over 99 percent of all taxpayers face rates no higher than 25 percent. The plan also reduces the corporate rate to 25 percent.

By making America's corporate tax rate more competitive and by modernizing our anticompetitive international tax rules, which have not been reformed since the 1960s, we would encourage companies to keep their headquarters in the United States, so they can grow, invest, and hire here, instead of moving overseas in search of a better tax environment. We need a real solution to this growing problem, and I believe a significantly lower

corporate tax rate and a more competitive tax system is just the solution we need.

Independent economists agree: Tax reform results in stronger economic growth, more jobs, and higher wages. In fact, the independent, non- partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates that this plan could increase the size of our economy by $3.4 trillion--that's equivalent to 20 percent of today's economy. Based on that stronger economic growth, we could see nearly two million new jobs created. JCT also estimates that this proposal could generate up to $700 billion in additional Federal revenues that could be used to lower tax rates even further or to reduce the debt. Indeed, based on calculations using data provided by JCT, the average middle-class family of four could, under this proposal, have an extra $1,300 per year in its pocket from the combination of lower tax rates in the plan and higher wages due to a stronger economy. This is the kind of growth America needs, and these are the kinds of policies that can produce a stronger, more robust economy that benefits all Americans.

Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the countless hours devoted to this effort by the Ways and Means Committee staff and the staffs of the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Office of Legislative Counsel. A project this large--on an issue of this magnitude--simply could not be undertaken by this institution without the dedication, the policy know-how, and the technical expertise of the professional staff. We owe all of them our sincere thanks. Indeed, their contributions to this proposal extend not just to the legislative language of the bill itself, but to a set of helpful explanatory materials as well. For those who are looking for a fuller description of the legislation I am introducing today as H.R. 1, a section-by- section summary of the proposal prepared by the Ways and Means Majority Tax Staff is available at: http://tax.house.gov/. Similarly, JCT's technical explanation of the proposal--along with JCT's revenue estimate, distributional analysis, and macro-economic analysis of the proposal--has been published as JCS-1-14, available at https:// www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4674.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I close by urging my colleagues who will be returning in January for the 114th Congress to keep pushing forward and to see this tax reform process through to a successful conclusion. It would undoubtedly be easier for Congress to hang its head and say that the problems with the current tax system are just too big, and that the work of tax reform is just too hard. But nothing worth doing is ever easy, and tax reform is even more necessary now than it was back in 1986. Indeed, today's generation of tax reformers should remember how the headline in the Washington Post captured the moment when the 1986 Act finally made it over the finish line--it called tax reform the ``impossible that became the inevitable.'' I would like to see that headline again, and with today's formal introduction of the Tax Reform Act of 2014, we take another important step down that historic path.

I thank the Speaker for reserving the bill number H.R. 1 for this legislation, and I hope that the formal introduction of this proposal in the House today will help spur further action on this critical issue in the 114th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the enormous contributions made by John M. Samuels to the development of sound U.S. tax policy over the last 40 years. John Samuels is retiring from the General Electric Company at the end of this year, where he has been the Vice President and Senior Counsel for Tax Policy and Planning since 1988. Before joining GE, John had a successful career in private practice and spent several years at the U.S. Department of Treasury, as Deputy Tax Legislative Counsel and Tax Legislative Counsel.

Most press articles about John highlight his distinguished career at GE. And while that is important, I want to acknowledge the work he has done behind the scenes to promote sound, effective, pro-growth tax policies for the benefit of the entire U.S. economy. The progress we have made in advancing the cause of comprehensive tax reform has benefited enormously from his efforts.

One example has been his support of academic research into international corporate tax issues through the founding of the International Tax Policy Forum (ITPF). John Samuels has served as the chairman of ITPF since it was founded in 1992. ITPF, which has been called the ``world's leading tax think tank,'' plays a unique and important role in sponsoring nonpartisan academic research, often by young, up-and-coming scholars, and hosting conferences at which such papers are presented, discussed, and debated. This gives tax policymakers in Washington access to a much broader body of research and thought than we would otherwise have, thus informing and elevating the policy discussions taking place in Congress, in the Administration, and at other think tanks.

In 2009, John received the Tax Foundation's Distinguished Service Award for his contributions to tax policy. In announcing the award, the President of the Tax Foundation said, ``John's leadership in facilitating a rational debate on international tax policy is without peer.''

While John is retiring from GE, he is not retiring from the world of tax policy. I know his leadership in ``facilitating a rational debate on international tax policy'' will carry on. I am confident his contributions will continue in the next chapter of his distinguished career. And I know that my colleagues who will push forward in Congress on the extremely important work we started in reforming our tax code will turn to John Samuels again and again for advice, ideas, and wise counsel.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address an important institutional issue. Under the Constitution, it is the prerogative of the House of Representatives to originate revenue measures. Article 1, section 7, clause 1 of the United States Constitution provides that ``All Bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.'' This clause is commonly known as the Origination Clause. As chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, I have a special responsibility in guarding this important House prerogative.

A recent court decision has caused me to come to this floor to re- affirm the House position on the Origination Clause. The rationale used by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in their July 29, 2014 decision in Sissel v. HHS is at odds with consistent House Origination Clause practice. Specifically, the ruling from a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit held that because the primary aim of PPACA was not to raise revenue, but rather to ``induce participation in health insurance plans,'' it was not a ``bill for raising Revenue'' within the meaning of the Origination Clause. Sissel v. HHS, Op. at 13 (July 29, 2014).

Although some courts have taken a narrower view of what constitutes a ``a bill for raising revenue,'' the ``primary purpose'' test articulated in Sissel presents heightened challenges in interpretation that not only threaten the constitutional balance in Congress but invite subjective judicial scrutiny of the legislative process. This analysis may lead to confusion between the legislative and judicial branch on measures where the primary purpose is not easily ascertainable, measures that contain multiple, competing purposes, and measures that state a purpose that is in conflict with its content.

The House's traditional provision-by-provision review of a measure and the effect of each on revenue is the more sound approach. This interpretation has served the Congress well when resolving differences between the House and Senate on the Origination Clause.

I offer H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as a recent example. H.R. 4310, as passed by the House on May 18, 2012, was a lengthy measure that addressed nearly every aspect of our national defense. The Senate amended it on December 4, 2012 with its own version of the bill. Rather than attempting to assess the purpose of this diverse, multifaceted measure, the Committee on Ways and Means reviewed both the House and Senate measures in their entirety. This review of the Senate amendment revealed a subtitle that included import restrictions on Iran. Import restrictions invoke the revenue jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means and have been the subject of Origination Clause action in the past. In response to this institutional infringement, I offered House Resolution 829, a measure returning H.R. 4310 and the offending amendment to the Senate. House Resolution 829 was adopted by the House unanimously on December 12, 2012. In response to the House action, the Senate, also by unanimous consent, stripped the Iran sanctions content from its amendment, and the measure proceeded to conference. The bill was enacted into law on January 2, 2013.

As chair of the oldest committee in the House, I have strived to protect this venerable institutional prerogative and clarify its application when needed. I am especially grateful to the majority and minority staff of the committee for their vigilance in this area. I hope these remarks will clarify the House position on this important constitutional issue.