Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for yielding me time.

Only in this Chamber over the last few months could we have written $2 trillion out of our tax system irresponsibly over the next decade and then say that the cost of Medicare is unsustainable. Only in this Chamber could we have this debate from a political party who says, let us not take a truncated quotation. Let us not take a scare tactic. But you know what? You cannot truncate history.

When I came to this House 15 years ago, the Republican leader in the Senate, Bob Dole, had voted against the establishment of Medicare. The Republican leader in this House, Bob Michel, wonderful human being, had voted against the establishment of Medicare. And they say, do not use these quotes because they are not true. They are not for real.

Speaker Gingrich said, in time we would let Medicare wither on the vine. The third ranking Republican in the United States in the other body down the hallway, said recently, I believe the

standard benefit, the traditional Medicare program, has to be phased out. And they say, but trust us on Medicare. Do not be skeptical of our intentions. We have come to love Medicare.

There is not anybody on that side of the aisle that believes that tonight and there certainly is not anybody on this side of the aisle that believes that tonight as well. And then they argue, well, we have improved Medicare. Think of what we might have done without those tax cuts over the last 2 years.

A predictable, carefully defined benefit would have been in place for Medicare recipients. It is the closest thing, Medicare, that this Nation has ever had to universal health care. It is an extraordinary achievement for those who turn 65 years old, and they refer to it as old-fashioned Medicare and we are to trust them. But let us talk about Medicare+Choice where I live in Massachusetts, the private sector's answer to the problems of Medicare.

Well, they are all gone and the ones that are not gone have jacked premiums through the roof. They do not want to take care of the most vulnerable and whether we have a debate about government tonight and its role or not, that in the end is what government does. It takes care of those who are outside the mainstream of this economic life. Not the top 1 percent of the wage earners in this country, not those who benefit from the repeal of an estate tax. It is government that does that.

Medicare is a legacy and an amendment to the Social Security program, the greatest achievement domestically in this Nation's history. And that amendment in Medicare is a greatchild and a success of a determined Congress and an enlightened President, Lyndon Johnson. Tonight let us stand with history, stand with Roosevelt and stand with Lyndon Johnson on what Medicare has done to make us a much more equitable society. What a great achievement it is.

Reject the notion tonight of where they are going to take us, and that is down the road to privatization of Medicare.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, for the better part of 2 years now we have been promised a vote on closing the Bermuda loophole, an effort to amend this process on the floor where the Republican leadership has accepted by a margin so lopsided that it rivals any vote that we will take in any given legislative year. I believe 318 members of this House voted to do something about these corporate expatriates who not only leave the United States to avoid paying taxes but then have the unmitigated gall to bid on defense work in homeland security legislation. Ingersoll Rand, TYCO, these companies are avoiding billions of dollars in taxes, joint taxes estimated that we would garner, an additional $5 billion if we would simply close the Bermuda tax loophole.

Now, I know what the talking points of the Republican Party are on this. It is the corporate tax structure that is at fault. Well, if that is the case after 9 years why have not we done something about it? It is unbelievable where we had a chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means who used to say he was going to pull the Tax Code up by its roots. Well, America tonight knows that that tax system is more complicated and more unfair than ever.

We were going to drive a stake through the heart of the Tax Code. We were going to have tax simplicity. You know what we have had? We have had the rewarding of rich friends by our failure to address this issue.

For the Americans that are viewing this evening, I would ask you what would happen if you moved to Bermuda and declared that by renting a post office box you had taken citizenship on that island nation.

The IRS would be after you the next day. There would be no avenue of retreat, no opportunity to do what these corporations are doing. We have got 150,000 troops in Iraq tonight; and we talk about patriotism, while these guys renounce their citizenship and everybody knows that they continue to do substantial business and have their real corporate addresses here in the United States? And yet we cannot get a vote in this House of Representatives on that matter.

Two years ago, David Rogers in the Wall Street Journal was promised by the leadership of this House ``there would have to be a vote on the Bermuda tax loophole.'' We are no closer to doing that this evening than we were 2 years ago; and that argument, again it galls everybody. It is the corporate tax structure that is at fault, not these folks moving offshore to avoid their responsibilities to live in this great Nation. That is patriotic, to pay our taxes and the $82 billion that Iraq is costing and $42 billion for homeland security.

We define patriotism by allowing these guys to move their corporate address to Bermuda for one exclusive purpose, to avoid taxes. What does that say about this great Nation and our principles? Yet the intransigence of the leadership on the majority side month after month after month is to do nothing about it. Put that question on the floor here about whether or not these folks should pay their taxes and I tell my colleagues what we would get, 350 votes for it and everybody knows it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

The American people are hearing the phrase ``mission accomplished'' a lot

these days. However, they are not hearing it much from this Republican Congress. Today we debate a bill which could have passed with more than 400 votes on taxpayer rights. And then we could have proclaimed, mission accomplished.

However, for some unknown reason, this bill now says the consumers need to waive basic protections in order to get health insurance. That means that these employees who have lost their health insurance and lost their jobs must now accept insurance, but only if they waive coverage for preexisting conditions. Worsening basic health protections, for this Congress, once again: mission accomplished.

There are many things in this underlying bill that I supported before this killer provision was added. One of my constituents has even been a victim of these nonsensical IRS problems. Her retirement account was wrongfully levied by the IRS, but now the IRS cannot return it. It defies logic, could and should be fixed today. However, now that this basic IRS bill has been hobbled by an anticonsumer provision, unfortunately, we cannot say ``mission accomplished.''

The substitute we are considering today would provide for all of these basic taxpayer rights without harming consumer health protections. Further, the substitute includes the Senate-passed child tax credit, which millions of lower-income families are counting on. The substitute also includes the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act, yet another bill that this House leadership has been sitting on.

If we pass this substitute today, then we can leave and honestly tell the American people, ``mission accomplished.'' Relief for working families: mission accomplished. We could tell those fighting soldiers and their families: mission accomplished.

Support the substitute and vote down the short-sighted Republican bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to yet another budget-busting bill. The Republican estate tax repeal that we are considering today will cost $1 trillion over the next two decades, and will kick into high gear just at the time the baby boomers retire.

The Democratic substitute, however, provides immediate and greater estate tax relief to more families this decade than the Republican bill. And, the Democratic substitute would have no effect on the Federal budget, had the Republican leadership not refused the revenue offsets in the substitute.

Our Republican colleagues say this substitute doesn't do enough, but the substitute would provide that 99.65 percent of decedents would not have to pay estate taxes. Who is in this less-than-one-percent group that the Republican majority is so intent on protecting?

Well, the Washington Post today reports about some of these wealthy patrons in the shadows: ``So some of the affluent families who have bankrolled the repeal movement,'' including the heirs of the Hallmark greeting card company and the candy-making Mars family, ``are exploring estate tax changes short of repeal that could be implemented sooner.'' In fact, the Post reports, the heirs of Hallmark spent $60,000 while the Mars' heirs spent $1 million on professional Washington lobbyists to push their views on estate tax relief. That may be money well spent, considering the reckless drive to repeal in the face of exploding deficits.

But, as one of the lobbyists in Washington argues to the Post, don't let exploding deficits dissuade you. It is not certain to happen, she argues, so feel free voting for $1 trillion in estate tax relief to that half-of-one-percent group. While the heirs are ready to cut a deal, the lobbyists hold strong.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote down this irresponsible Republican bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) here that I am a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and we did not have any markup. We did not have any opportunity to debate this bill in committee.

We call it the All-American Tax Relief Act. It is red, white and blue. And you say to yourself, who could possibly object? I object. And I object on behalf of those 200,000 military families who are ineligible for this enhanced child tax credit, even though they served honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan and other combat zones. They apparently are not all-American enough to qualify for this bill. That provision is missing from the House All-American Tax Relief Act.

You might have noticed that the refundable tax credit has no revenue impact this year under the House bill but does so under the Senate bill. How could it be that the stars-and-stripes House bill provides no relief this year? That is because the all-American bill rejects the notion that low-income families deserve immediate relief as every other American family will get in the next 6 weeks.

Low-income families must wait for their checks until next year, and, of course, those serving in a combat zone, they can wait forever. Reject this bill. It is unpatriotic.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Dr. Daniel W. Ivascyn, a constituent of the second district of Massachusetts, for his countless years of dedication to the town of Oxford and Oxford public school system.

Dr. Ivascyn is retiring this year after 34 years of devoted employment.

Dr. Ivascyn began his extraordinary career in September 1969 when he became Business Manager of Oxford. He was later on promoted in 1975 to become Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs. He continued his steady climb up the chain of command in 1996 where

he was appointed to the prestigious position of Superintendent of schools.

Dr. Ivascyn used his leadership role as a way to further escalate the growth and success of the Oxford public school system. Some recent notable accomplishments include assisting in the construction of a new Oxford High School in 2002, and the newly renovation of Barton and Chaffee Elementary Schools.

Dr. lvascyn's dedication and desire to better the Oxford community serves as an admirable example to all American citizens. I am delighted to honor Dr. lvascyn's accomplishments and service to the second district of Massachusetts. His hard work and dedication will be greatly missed.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to acknowledge the passing of Committee on Ways and Means' staff member Al Davis who died on May 30. Like so many of his staffers that I hope are watching today, the regard that we as Members of this House hold for you is unparalleled. You are the ones who genuinely make the trains run on time.

In the case of Al Davis, the information he provided to members of the Committee on Ways and Means as our economist were not only quality statistics but they were always reliable, a fact that the media and our critics often missed. It is people like this who day in and day out provide us with legendary support, and I particularly will miss the volumes of data he provided to me on the issue of alternative minimum tax.

He was a political warrior, like so many who staff this Congress; but he was also an individual who held great regard for this institution and was never disdainful of any of its Members. Even those who opposed his ideas respected him.

If we were offering a sitcom on the life of Al Davis, we would have called it ``Humble Al.'' I never heard anybody who did not find a compliment for Al Davis, and those of us who would acknowledge what he did when he whispered in our ear vital statistics are forever grateful for the service he rendered. We all will miss Al Davis.

Mr. Speaker, today, we have two million American families struggling with persistent unemployment, we have a Treasury which has asked to increase its debt by an amount bigger than the entire federal debt of 1980, and a central bank desiring yet another interest rate slash to ward off deflation. In the eye of this perfect storm, this fiscal catastrophe, we have the Republican answer to everything: cut more taxes.

This $350 billion bill is rife with uncertainty, as the individual and family tax breaks are afflicted with two-year expirations. While the bill won't inspire much confidence in our economy, it will inspire confidence and certainty that our war on tax code complexity has officially been lost.

Along with fiscal sanity, middle-income families have been tossed overboard in this Republican tax bill as relief from the alternative minimum tax was cut to less than the puny amount either chamber originally provided. Hard as it is to believe--the conference agreement before us today provides even less relief for middle-income taxpayers from the AMT than either the House or Senate bill provided, and for a shorter period of time!

When this bill was originally before the House, the Republican Majority bragged about the 10 million American families saved from higher taxes by their temporary AMT fix. But under the deal we are voting on today, 2005 will bring a tax increase for those 10 million families. Let me repeat that, at the end of next year, 10 million more American families will actually see a tax increase under this bill.

As the former Bush aide now heading the CBO stated, ``At the current pace, the AMT is on track to replace the ordinary income tax for many Americans. The sheer number of taxpayers who are or will be touched by the AMT speaks volumes about the pressure on lawmakers to address the problem.'' Apparently, that pressure was shrugged off by the Republican leaders, and AMT has been pushed off, yet again, to another day.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me object to House Republican leaders insistence in refusing any reasonable revenue offsets. With corporate expatriates dodging $5 billion in US taxes by running offshore, it simply defies logic not to collect this money in order to avoid digging our deficit hole deeper.

By refusing to accept the modest Senate language to close the Bermuda loophole, the House Republicans have sanctioned this corporate misbehavior of choosing profits over patriotism.

I urge my colleagues to vote down this bill.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, what was the unemployment rate there 5 years ago or 6 years ago?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for yielding me this time.

I say to the gentleman from Oregon here, I think there is a fundamental difference in the philosophy of these two parties, and it is highlighted once again this evening. We care about the entire American family. What we mean by community is a place where nobody is to be abandoned and nobody is to be left behind.

But let me give my colleagues a quote to follow up on what the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) said, where the majority leader offered another callous comment about the unemployed. But let me offer a comment from another prominent member of the Republican leadership as he said, as he often is, worked up about this or that, hey, this is not a welfare program.

Talk about callousness? Talk about indifference? We are going to vote in the wee hours of this morning to give a massive tax cut to people who, to their everlasting credit, have not even asked for it. Those are members of the American family. It has sent shudders through Wall Street what they are about to do. And every one of the Members on this side of the aisle will march in, head down, and do what they are told once again.

There are millions of Americans who are struggling today, millions of them. And I want to vote to help the people in Oregon. They deserve it, just like the people on the East Coast. Do my colleagues know what we call that in our democracy? The national principle. We come to the assistance of parts of this country who need it.

Let me give the Members some economic facts, and they are pretty bleak. U.S. unemployment, a 9-year high. It was 4.1 percent when the President

took office. Now it is 6 percent. The number of discouraged workers, and I suspect a lot of them live in the gentleman from Oregon's congressional district, who are not even looking for a job any longer are at a 20-year high, 2.3 million jobs lost since 2001. One point seven million jobs have been lost since the $1.3 trillion 2001 tax cuts took effect.

Do we have in this institution amnesia? We were told this was a jobs bill last year, and I am telling the Members watch, 2 o'clock in the morning, head down, they will all vote for it again. And do the Members know what? Not one of them even asked a question. That is the embarrassing part about it. Seventy-three thousand jobs lost per month.

Mr. Speaker, vote for the Democratic alternative on the motion to recommit. Give those people in Oregon an opportunity. Call them members of the American family.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation, along with four of my colleagues from Massachusetts, Representatives Capuano, Delahunt, Frank and Markey, to alter the federal tax treatment of real property tax reduction vouchers received by senior citizens for volunteer work.

Approximately 42 towns in Massachusetts have implemented a program to ease the problem senior citizens, who live on fixed incomes, face due to rising property taxes. These towns have allowed senior citizens to perform volunteer work for their town in exchange for a voucher that reduces their property tax by up to $500.

Specifically, my legislation would exclude from gross income vouchers issued by a government unit to offset real property taxes, and received by eligible senior citizens of 65 years of age, in exchange for volunteer work. The legislation also exempts these vouchers from employment taxes.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation enhances an important and creative program being implemented in many towns in Massachusetts. We devote a lot of effort around here to help make sure retirement does not sink senior citizens deep into poverty, and that they have basic health services. This very modest proposal takes a small step in helping seniors remain in their homes despite rising property taxes. A step, I hope, we can take this year.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today, along with my

colleagues Representatives Capuano, Delahunt, Frank and Markey, legislation to clarify that the employees of a political subdivision of a State shall not lose their exemption from the hospital insurance (HI) tax by reason of consolidation of the subdivision with the State.

This issue has arisen because in 1997 Massachusetts abolished county government in the State, assumed those few functions that counties had performed, and made certain county officials employees of the State. Specifically, the law provided that the sheriff and the sheriff's personnel ``shall be transferred to the commonwealth with no impairment of employment rights held immediately before the transfer date, without interruption of service, without impairment of seniority, retirement or other rights of employees, without reduction in compensation or salary grade and without change in union representation.''

However, the issue of whether or not these consolidated employees were required to pay the Medicare portion of the FICA tax needed to be clarified. Federal law creates an exemption from this tax for state and local employees who were employed on or before March 31, 1986, and who continue to be employed with that employer. The law is written so it is clear that consolidations between local entities, and consolidations between State agencies, do not negate the grandfather rule. However, the issue of a consolidation between a political subdivision and a State is not directly addressed and I doubt it was considered during the drafting of the federal law.

The Internal Revenue Service has taken the position that a State, and a political subdivision of a state, are separate employers for purposes of payment of the Medicare tax and therefore any grandfathered employees merged in a consolidation between a State and a political subdivision lose the benefit of the grandfather rule, even if such employees perform substantially the same work.

In a Sixth Circuit Court case, Board of Education of Muhlenberg Co. v. United States, the Court ruled on this general issue in terms of a consolidation of boards of education in Kentucky. The plaintiffs in this case argued that the consolidation of school districts did not create a new employer or terminate the employment of any teacher, and the Court agreed that Congress did not intend that exempt employees who have not been separated from previously excluded employment should lose their grandfather and be forced to pay the HI tax. While this case did not go to the issue of the consolidation between a State and a political subdivision, the logic indicates that this issue matters less than the overarching issue of whether the employees continue in the same or essentially the same positions. In Massachusetts this is clearly the case.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the Congress to enact this legislation to clarify that local employees do not lose the benefit of the grandfather rule merely because they have been consolidated with a State govermnent.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation today with my colleagues Representatives Capuano, Delahunt and Markey, to allow an exclusion from gross income of stipends received by persons over the age of 60 for volunteer services performed under a qualified State program.

The Elder Services Corps in the State of Massachusetts was created in 1973. It is composed of individuals at least 60 years of age and allows volunteers to assist in meeting the needs of the elderly population of the Commonwealth. Individuals enroll for 1 year at a time, and are required to volunteer 18 hours per week or 72 hours per month, and receive a stipend of $130 a month. The program is 100 percent State funded.

Mr. Speaker, I see no reason why the modest income received for this volunteer service should be subject to tax, especially employment taxes. I hope Congress will act on this legislation this year, and provide an additional incentive for an expansion of this program in Massachusetts, and its adoption by other States.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. Speaker, let me stand in opposition today to this Republican deficit plan and remind my colleagues of the warning that is often cited about not learned from the mistakes of history.

Let us talk about the wise reflections today of David Stockman, who essentially said that what was proposed 20 years ago was fiscal folly and suggested in his memoirs that not only was it irresponsible, it represented a threat to the long term fiscal stability of this Nation. He concluded that more debt would be rolled up than all of the debts accumulated by Reagan's 39 predecessors. And after leaving as Reagan's Budget Director he said, ``We were not headed toward a brave new world as I had thought in February. We were not headed toward a vindication of the President's half-revolution, as Don Regan and the supply-siders fatuously insisted in November. Where we were headed was toward fiscal catastrophe.''

These tax cuts are geared and aimed towards the wealthiest of Americans. Again, the argument in this Chamber essentially is this: It is okay today to have a huge deficit after this economy soared when we repaired that philosophy just a few years ago.

Fiscal catastrophe indeed, Mr. Speaker, that is where we are headed.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing ``The Individual Tax Simplification Act of 2003,'' and I invite all my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this legislation, which is identical to legislation I filed last Congress.

The tax code seems to get more and more complex each year, despite calls for simplification. Recently, the Joint Tax Committee determined that taxpayers are increasingly relying on paid return preparers, up 27 percent over a decade. Over the same period, the reliance on computer software has jumped from 16 percent of returns filed to 46 percent. Tax code complexity leads not only to taxpayer frustration and confusion, but also increased costs. Tax code complexity also leads to difficulties for the IRS in administering our tax laws fairly and consistently.

The simplification bill that I have re-introduced will eliminate hundreds of lines from tax forms, schedules and worksheets. I believe that it is possible and preferable to accomplish simplification in a revenue neutral manner, and without moving money between economic income groups. While some may argue that there is no constituency for simplification, I would say that is certainly changing. One survey found that two-thirds of taxpayers said the federal tax system is too complicated, up from barely 50 percent five years ago.

The Individual Tax Simplification Act has three parts. The first is based on legislation I introduced in the last three Congresses regarding nonrefundable personal credits. The second part simplifies the taxation of capital gains. The third part repeals two hidden marginal tax rates on high-income individuals, and repeals the individual minimum tax.

Title I--Simplification Relating to Nonrefundable Personal

Credits

In recent years, much tax relief has been given to taxpayers in the form of nonrefundable credits, like the education credits. These credits are not usable against the alternative minimum tax. That means that more and more individuals will lose all or part of these credits, and will have to fill out the extremely complicated Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) form. Congress has recognized this problem by enacting a short-term waiver of this exclusion. Congress has also permanently taken the child credit and the adoption credit out of the AMT. Now is the time to finish the job.

The other problem with nonrefundable credits is that the phase-out provisions vary from credit to credit, causing unnecessary complexity. In addition, the same additional dollar of income can result in a reduction in more than one nonrefundable credit. It is fundamentally wrong to promise the American public tax relief, then take all or part of it away in a backhanded manner. This fundamentally flawed policy, enacted in 1997, will get worse each and every year as more American families find themselves to be AMT taxpayers simply because of the impact of inflation, or because of their desire to take advantage of the tax relief we have promised them. Not only that, this situation has gotten much worse since the passage of the 2001 tax cuts.

This bill addresses both concerns. First, it permanently waives the minimum tax limitations on all nonrefundable credits. Second, the bill creates a single phase-out range for the adoption credit, the child credit, and the education credits, replacing the current three phase- out ranges.

Title II--Simplification of Capital Gains Tax

The second title of this bill substantially simplifies taxation of capital gains. Under current law, there are five different tax rates for long-term capital gains, and a complicated, 40-line tax form that must be endured. Moreover, this part of the tax code is already scheduled to get worse because additional rates will take affect under current law in 2006. The solution is clear. Replace this jumble of rates and forms with a simple 38 percent exclusion. Not only will this result in tremendous simplification, but more than 97 percent of individuals would be eligible for modest capital gains tax reductions.

Title III--Repeal of Certain Hidden Marginal Rate Increases,

and of the Individual Minimum Tax

The third title of the bill repeals the hidden marginal rate increases in current law, and repeals the individual minimum tax. For many taxpayers, discovery of the Personal Exemptions Phaseout (PEP) and the ``Pease,'' which limits itemized deductions, can be both confusing and disappointing.

Under current law, itemized deductions are gradually reduced by 3 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) above approximately $139,000, or by 80 percent of the otherwise allowable itemized deductions for individuals exceeding $139,000 AGI, whichever is lower. This is known as the Pease provision. In addition, personal exemptions are gradually phased out for incomes between approximately $139,000 and $262,000. This is known as the PEP. If we did not hide the effect of these provisions of current law, more people would know that these provisions result in hidden marginal rate increases. Current law has a hidden marginal rate increase, which gets worse as families grow larger. The 2001 tax cuts as enacted provide for gradual phase-out of both of these limitations in 2006, but then the repeal is subject to a sunset. This bill would immediately eliminate both.

The second part of this title is a complete repeal of the individual AMT. The original intent of the AMT was to make sure that wealthy individuals did not overuse certain tax benefits and unfairly reduce their tax burden. Unfortunately, it no longer accomplishes that goal. Since the AMT is not adjusted for inflation, more and more middle income taxpayers are falling into the AMT. In fact, a recent Tax Policy Center report showed that by the end of the decade, the AMT will hit 97 percent of all families with two children earning between $75,000 and $100,000. This is not what was intended, especially when you consider that what pushes taxpayers into the AMT now, more often than not, are state and local income and property taxes, personal exemptions, and the nonrefundable credits. The National Taxpayer Advocate has called for the repeal of the AMT, finding that the AMT calculation adds another 12 hours of preparation time for a taxpayer. Certainly, this is not what Congress was trying to accomplish when the AMT was passed.

My suggestion is to repeal it for individuals, and substitute a simple tax on adjusted gross income. The current hidden tax is dropped, and is paid for with an explicit tax on the same individuals. They get simplification, and we convert a deceptive practice into an open one.

This bill gives the Secretary of the Treasury the ability to set the rate so that this bill would be revenue neutral over ten years. The threshold amount, chosen to mimic the reality of current law, would be $120,000, and $150,000 in the cases of a joint return.

Conclusion

This bill provides fairly dramatic simplification of the individual tax system. It eliminates up to 200 lines on tax forms, schedules and worksheets. It is basically revenue neutral, so it can be accomplished during a year when there is no budget surplus to fund tax cuts. It does not attempt to shift money between income groups. The general philosophy behind the bill is that those who benefit from tax simplification of the current code should offset any revenue loss involved.

With only one-third of individuals actually willing to fill out their own forms, it is time for Congress to act. Unfortunately, the reality is that no one wants to pay for simplification no matter how much they support the goal. Here is my suggestion. I am introducing this legislation to continue the discussion I began during the 106th Congress. I am pleased that this Administration has talked about the need for tax simplification. I am also pleased that since I began this effort, the Joint Committee on Taxation and other Members of Congress have joined the debate. I look forward to working with all interested parties in this simplification effort.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor the 5th anniversary of NEWS40, which is currently serving Franklin, Hampden, and Hampshire counties in Massachusetts.

NEWS40 originally aired on April 14, 1953 on Channel 55 as an affiliate of CBS and Dumont Television Networks. However, in 1956 the station was reallocated to Channel 40, and in 1959 changed affiliations to join the ABC network. The Guy Gannett Publishing Company of Maine purchased the radio portion of the network in 1979, which necessitated new call letters for the television station. After an in-house contest, WHYN-TV became WGGB-TV, named after the publishing company. In April of 1999, the Sinclair Broadcast Group of Baltimore, MD purchased NEWS40 and facilitated the use of a digital transmitter while on the air. Despite a variety of administrative changes throughout its history, NEWS40 remains a dominant leader in local news.

Located in the heart of Springfield, MA, NEWS40 sets the standard in entertainment, news, and community involvement. It is the home of hits such as Nightline, 20/20, N.Y.P.D. Blue, and The Practice, as well as quality children programming. Moreover, NEWS40 is an essential participant in local community events. NEWS40 was among the earliest stations to carry the Muscular Dystrophy telethon, and has been televising the event for 35 years. Also, the station collects over 10,000 coats to distribute throughout the winter for the ``Coats for Kids'' campaign, and collaborates with the Salvation Army to provide Thanksgiving meals for over 600 families. As an active partner with Head Start, the station is a vehicle to collect toys, clothing, and housewares from viewers for the ``All I Want for Christmas'' campaign. The station's annual contribution to the community demonstrates the essential role of NEWS40 in the greater Springfield area.

As the station celebrates its 50th anniversary I would like to commend their continuous role in the community. From the days of live news broadcasts to the beginning of the digital transmitter, NEWS40 is truly coverage you can count on to be an active and essential member of the community.