[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 96 (Thursday, July 1, 1999)]
[House]
[Page H5328]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, we often hear people stand up in front of 
this microphone and start out by saying, ``It is about,'' when they are 
going to talk about what it is about. Well, in fact in this body it is 
about taxes. No matter what else we say, no matter what else we do 
here, it is about taxes. It is the life blood that drives every other 
thing we do in this body, and the extent to which we can defend our 
country and incarcerate criminals and carry out all the other essential 
functions of government depends upon our ability to extract money from 
the population and pay for those services.
  But when is enough enough? Is it enough, Mr. Speaker, to take 40 
percent of the income of the average family in America today for taxes? 
Is it enough to take 20 percent of the gross domestic product of this 
country every year now in taxes? Is that enough, Mr. Speaker? I suggest 
it is not only enough, I suggest it is far too much. That is why today 
I have introduced the bill that we refer to here as the 10 top terrible 
tax act. This is a bill to actually eliminate, not just reduce certain 
taxes, but actually eliminate certain taxes so that they cannot grow 
back again. We want to pull them up by their roots.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the only way that we can actually begin to 
reduce the size and scope of government. We talk about that here on 
this floor, and we talk about it in legislative bodies all over this 
country, reducing the size and scope of government. How many times have 
we heard that phrase? And yet nothing seems to actually accomplish the 
task of reducing the size and scope of government. There seems to be a 
commitment to that philosophy, but it does not work.
  Mr. Speaker, one reason it does not work is because we do not put a 
constraint on the life blood of these legislative bodies, and that life 
blood, I repeat, are the tax dollars that we extract in the population. 
Well, this does begin to put that constraint on that life blood flow, 
and it does begin to reduce the size and scope of government and its 
intervention into our lives which has grown far too great.
  Mr. Speaker, at 40 percent of the income of a family, I repeat 40 
percent, and 20 percent of our gross domestic product it is too much. 
Something has to give, and if we just simply reduce the rate of 
taxation, it is far too easy to come back within a year or 2 years and 
simply increase it again. That is easy to do. But it is very difficult 
to actually come back and replace a tax that has been eliminated.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why we have identified 10 taxes that are 
legitimate targets for us to attack as being able to be eliminated, 
gone, erased from the books, not there any more:
  The estate tax, estate and gift tax, more commonly and appropriately 
referred to as the death tax; it is currently as high as 55 percent, 
and we want to phase that out over a 10 year period and completely 
repeal it by December 1, 2099. The E-rate universal tax; that is a 
euphemism, E-rate is a euphemism, for a tax. It is a tax that has been 
put on phone bills that did not even come through this body as an 
actual tax bill. It is a special friend, a special sort of tax of the 
Vice President. It is oftentimes referred to as the Gore tax, and 
appropriately so.
  Next is the excise tax on telephones and other communication 
services. My friends, this is the 3 percent tax that was put on 
telephones when they were a luxury item in 1898 in order to fund the 
Spanish-American war. Let me tell my colleagues it is over, the war is 
over, and we do not need this tax any more.
  The marriage penalty tax discrepancy in the Tax Code that results in 
a higher tax burden for married couples; let us get rid of it.
  The capital gains tax, currently up to 20 percent of gain would be 
phased out over a 10 year period. Let us get rid of it.
  The excise tax on vaccines, on vaccines. Do you hear me? Seventy-five 
cents per dose imposed on certain vaccines sold in the United States; 
this should be repealed by January 1, 2000. Why are we taxing vaccines, 
let me ask.
  Excise tax on sport fishing equipment.
  The 1993 income tax increase on Social Security benefits.
  The double tax on interest and dividends.
  The 1993 increase in motor fuels tax.
  Mr. Speaker, all these should be gone, and they can be. We can live 
without it, believe it or not. We can live without this.
  I want to enter into the Record, if I could, Mr. Speaker, the 
comments here from the Americans for Tax Reform and other organizations 
that have supported the bill, and I ask my colleagues to do so. It is 
enough.


                                     Americans For Tax Reform,

                                     Washington, DC, July 1, 1999.
     Hon. Tom Tancredo,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Tancredo: On behalf of its 90,000 
     members and its 3,000 state and local taxpayer groups across 
     the nation, Americans for Tax Reform strongly supports your 
     ``Top Ten Terrible Tax Act of 1999.''
       As you already know, American families already pay on 
     average almost forty percent of their income on taxes, be it 
     federal, state, or local. That is more than food, shelter, 
     and clothing combined.
       The Top Ten Terrible Tax Act of 1999 would eliminate 
     excessive taxes and provide every American with tangible tax 
     relief. By uprooting the death and gift taxes, the telephone 
     universal service charge, the 3% telephone excise tax, the 
     marriage penalty tax, the capital gains tax, the excise tax 
     on vaccines, the excise tax on sport fishing equipment, the 
     1993 income tax increase on social security benefits, the 
     double taxation on interest and dividends, and the 1993 motor 
     fuel tax increase, taxpayers will be able to improve their 
     quality of life and save more for education and retirement.
       I thank you for your leadership in taking a step in the 
     right direction to providing fundamental tax reform.
           Sincerely,
     Grover G. Norquist.
                                  ____


                   Congress Should Reform Death Taxes

       At a Denver Business Journal Family Business conference 
     earlier this year, Coors Brewing President Peter Coors made 
     an interesting point about estate taxes.
       These so-called death taxes make it much harder for 
     corporations to pass ownership down from one generation to 
     the next. They speed the demise of local businesses and the 
     rise of cookie-cutter consolidations because the 
     consolidators are able to use stock and cash to buy out 
     family businesses and address the inheritance tax issue.
       Congress is likely to take up the inheritance tax issue in 
     the next session. Maybe they should hear from Peter Coors and 
     people like him.

                          ____________________