On the recordApril 25, 2012
I thank you so much, my colleague from Kansas, for coming down this evening to talk about this issue. You are exactly right. When I listened to the comments you had to offer, and as we go into this debate about comprehensive tax reform, I think there is somewhat of an agreement on both sides of the aisle that tax reform needs to be done because our Tax Code is way too complicated--70,000 pages of tax regulation and statutory language, legislation on top of legislation. We need to firmly attack that Tax Code in a way that focuses on the primary goal of what our Tax Code was originally enacted for, to raise revenue, not to engage in policy determination or picking winners or losers through the Tax Code and advancing social policy through the Tax Code, but focusing on a Tax Code that raises revenue to cover our lawful, legitimate government expense as put forth in the United States Constitution of a limited Federal Government. If we adhere to that principle and that goal, I am confident that both sides of this aisle will come together and achieve what could be one of those historical moments in this Chamber again where we set the country on a path to a more competitive and prosperous future moving forward. With that, does the gentleman from Kansas seek recognition?
