THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
When I was elected to represent the second district of Nebraska, I maintained two priorities: one, was to fight any and all attempts by the Federal Government to take more money away from Nebraskans; and two, let Nebraskans keep more of their hard-earned dollars in their paychecks. Nearly 40 percent of the average American family's income goes toward taxes. We need to give Americans a tax break. Now is the time to eliminate the telephone excise tax . I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. President, I rise to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. PORTMAN, and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. ARCHER, for bringing H.R. 3916, the Telephone Excise Tax Repeal Act, to the floor today.
On February 16, 1898, the Federal Government enacted a temporary excise tax on telephone service to fund the Spanish American War. Although the war lasted just under 6 months, the Federal excise tax created to fund it, is still in effect over 100 years later, forcing consumers to continue to pay this tax on all their telephone services.
The Federal excise tax on phone service has long outlived its purpose and relevance. It is a regressive tax that is inappropriate in today's world where the telephone is not a luxury but a practical necessity. The Federal excise tax is a tax that discourages communications in a world that is becoming more and more dependent upon technology and communications. It disproportionately hurts the indigent, particularly those households on either fixed or limited incomes, and rural customers, because they have higher phone bills on average, due to comparatively more long distance calling. The Federal excise tax is essentially a tax that discourages communications.
H.R. 3916, the Telephone Excise Tax Repeal Act, would eliminate the 3-percent Federal excise tax on telecommunications services phasing in a complete repeal of the tax over the next 3 years. A 1-percent reduction will occur each year for the next 3 years, allowing the tax to be fully repealed by October 1, 2002.
The removal of the Federal excise tax on consumers phone bills will immediately lower consumer phone bills, saving American consumers over $5 billion a year. Accordingly, I
[Page: H3851] GPO's PDF
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues, Mr. PORTMAN and Mr. MATSUI, and support H.R. 3916, the Phone Tax Repeal Act. In 1898, Congress approved a ``temporary'' tax of one cent on long distance phone calls, as a way of funding the Spanish-American War. When this tax was implemented, there were only about 1,300 phones in America. Today, more than 94 percent of American households have at least one phone, not to mention multiple phone lines or celluar phones.
The Spanish-American War ended that same year, but the ``temporary'' tax still exists. Currently, anyone who makes a phone call or uses a phone line to dial up to the Internet pays a 3-percent Federal excise tax on that call. Low-income families, senior citizens, and anyone else on a fixed income are especially burdened by this tax . They should not have to spend their hard-earned money on a useless and outdated tax .
Telephones, and other telecommunication technologies, have become a necessity in today's world. They are no longer a luxury enjoyed only by a privileged few. To tax necessities such as these, especially when we have a surplus, is unfair, repressive, and senseless.
This legislation would have a real and beneficial effect. Families would see an immediate reduction in their phone bill once the tax is repealed, giving them more money to spend as they, and not the Federal Government, see fit.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Americans have put up with this outdated tax for too long. It is time to permanently repeal this not-so-temporary tax .
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in strong support of repealing the grossly outdated Spanish-American War phone tax . The 3-percent Federal excise tax on phone calls that was created in 1898 to pay for the Spanish-American War. At that time, it was called a ``temporary'' tax .
Parents have to pay the tax every time their child calls home collect from college; grandparents pay it when they call their grandchildren; and sons and daughters pay it every time they call their mom on Mother's Day.
This ``tax on talking,'' is a regressive tax , that unfairly adds to the tax burden of hard-working Americans.
It also demonstrates how hard it is for the government to end a tax . Even though the Spanish-American War has been over for a century, and I have been assured that the Spanish threat has ended, the Federal Government has continued to collect this tax .
President Ronald Reagan said, ``Government does not tax to get the money it needs; government always finds a need for the money it gets.''
It has taken a Republican Congress to find the courage to curb the growth of spending, balance the budget, and to continue to reduce the tax -bite on hard working American families. The Republican House is poised to repeal this unfair, regressive tax , but the latest reports from the Clinton-Gore administration indicate that they want to continue to make Americans pay it.
Reagan was right, ``government always finds a need for the money it gets.''
Vote ``yes'' on this bill. The Spanish-American War is over.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LATOURETTE). All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 511, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. DOGGETT. I am, Mr. Speaker, in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. DOGGETT moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3916 to the Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
Page 6, after line 11 (at the end of section 1(d)), add the following new paragraph:
(3) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to bills rendered to an organization described in section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 unless that organization elects to make the disclosures within the reporting requirements in the Internal Revenue Code contemplated by the bill H.R. 4168 of the 106th Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DOGGETT) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. STENHOLM), who has been a part of the effort to get a discharge petition so that we can take up, through regular order but has thus far been blocked, this whole issue of the 527 stealth PACs.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and as I have been listening to the debate, I have found it interesting that people would be talking about why are we mucking up this bill with this nonrelated issue. There is a pretty simple answer to that question.
If we only allowed the regular legislative process to work, we would not have to do this. But remember, when we had the Shays-Meehan bill on the floor, opponent after opponent after opponent of the bill came forward and said, all we really need to do is to have disclosure. That is what this is all about.
I would hope that the majority would finally agree to allow a simple disclosure bill, the bill of the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. MOORE). All we are trying to say is, the 527s should not promote secrecy. Money is going to be spent in politics. What we are saying is it should not be spent in secrecy. We ought to shine the good sunshine and let the people know who is spending how much money in political races.
This being our only opportunity, I commend the gentleman from Austin for coming up with a very innovative amendment today. This will give us a clear up or down vote on whether we are for it or whether we are against it.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. MEEHAN), who has led this House in the effort to get campaign finance reform through a number of sessions, and who I am pleased to have support this motion to recommit.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DOGGETT) not only for his motion to recommit, but his commitment to this issue, as well as the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. MOORE), who has done great work on this.
What we are trying to do here is to get Members from both sides of the aisle to come together and at least say we are not going to give this tax break to those 527s.
Now, I do not know why anyone would be confused or puzzled or nonplussed as to why we would use any opportunity in the rules to bring this to the attention of the Members. We cannot get a vote up or down on this. This is an abuse of the campaign finance law that we are seeing every day abused. This is our opportunity to do something about it.
It is not good enough for Members to say we are all for disclosure. Talking the talk is not good enough. Walking the walk is what is required. In this instance, there are 527s that will not disclose where the money comes from, and it is our responsibility to make sure that they do, and that is why we need to pass this law and pass it now.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DOGGETT) has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. ALLEN), who has been already a victim of these 527 stealth PAC attacks.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
The gentleman from Ohio was saying earlier this is a partisan effort. Well, there is no reason why this should be a partisan effort. It is our democracy that is at stake. Republicans and Democrats have a stake in restoring some credibility to this system, and we cannot have that credibility, we will not gain that respect unless we have full disclosures for these stealth organizations, these section 527 organizations, that are out there raising unlimited amounts of money with no accountability, no disclosure.
If it is a fundamental principle on the other side that they want disclosure, this motion to recommit will give it.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. MOORE), who is a large man in stature but gentle in personality; and I
[Page: H3852] GPO's PDF
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say today that this is not a Democratic idea, this is not a Republican idea, this is an idea that is good for the American people, and this should be the law in our country, and that is full disclosure.
As the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. MEEHAN) pointed out, we are not here to try to abuse anybody; we are just asking for an opportunity for an up or down vote on this proposition of full disclosure.
The people in this country are cynical about our form of government, about our electoral laws, because they see scandal after scandal about campaign finance fund raising. We can get people enthused about our government again, we can get people excited about the opportunity to participate in our democracy if we will only go with this proposition of full disclosure and tell the people in this country who is trying to influence their votes so, again, they can make an informed decision when they cast their ballot.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is not only linked to this telephone tax ; it is linked to everything that is happening in this building and throughout this country.
The gentleman challenged me to look into my heart, and I will do that. I look into my heart, and I think of the seniors who are out there who are forced to choose between getting a prescription and buying food. I see a pharmaceutical company that can dump unlimited amounts--millions of dollars--into attack ads, as they have done against the gentleman from Maine (Mr. ALLEN) and other Members of this body.
I look into my heart, and I see the problems of public health; and yet I know the tobacco companies are dumping millions of dollars of undisclosed money to assassinate the character of those who would do something about it.
I look into my heart, and I think about those who are getting managed right out of their health care and cannot get the health care they need, and I know the managed care companies are dumping millions of dollars into these campaigns to be sure this Congress does nothing about that or any of the other issues I have mentioned.
And perhaps even more importantly, I think of the schoolchildren of this country. They cannot even get their agenda up in the Congress because they do not have a 527. That is what I see when I look into my heart.
Mr. Speaker, I would just say this: I am tired of people coming to this Congress and being hammered into giving money to secret stealth organizations and then having their cohorts come out and say, we will duck, dodge, twist, and turn, but just do not make us do anything about it this year. Wait until we have left the House. Then, maybe 100 years from now, like this tax we are repealing, we will get around to doing something about it.
The American people demand reform now and this is our one opportunity. I challenge my Republican colleagues to buck their leadership. They know we are right; that is why they have not been out here speaking against it. They know the American people deserve full disclosure for a complete democracy. Mr. Speaker, I move adoption of the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. HOUGHTON) oppose the motion to recommit?
Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. HOUGHTON) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to crank this thing down to a little lower level of intensity. I do not know why we are having this discussion, anyway. We all want illumination. We do not want to have people hiding behind 527s or 501(c)3s, or 4s or 5s or 6s. No one wants that. It is just the process we are going through. And we want to do it right, so it is right by not only us but also the American people.
Two years ago in the IRS reform bill we directed the Joint Committee on Taxation and also the Treasury Department to report to the Congress by January. The joint committee report was completed on time, the treasury report was not. At the request of my boss, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. ARCHER), I have been working for several weeks to develop a meaningful, sound and responsive package of proposals to expand the disclosure by tax exempt organizations, and work on that package is well underway.
[Time: 15:00]
I hope we will complete it relatively soon. We have been working all day on this thing. We worked yesterday. We will be working tomorrow on into next week. I would like to feel that when this is completed it will satisfy many of the things which the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DOGGETT) is interested in.
But the point is we are still hearing, and we are waiting to hear from the Treasury Department. Earlier today, the Treasury passed on the opportunity to tell the Committee on Ways and Means when we are going to hear from them. It is really unfortunate that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DOGGETT) continues to insist on consideration of the limited aspect of political activities by tax exempt without insisting on guidance of from the administration.
Let me be clear. The administration's report was mandated by law. We do not have it. We are waiting for it. We do not have it. My friend accuses us of stalling, and I wonder whether this is not the pyromaniac posing as the firefighter.
Today we are considering repeal of the telephone tax , which was enacted even before I was born, which is a long time ago. That proposal has broad bipartisan support and has been fully considered. The same cannot be said, I am afraid, of the proposal of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DOGGETT).
Today I have got to say in my heart, he talks about his heart, I will talk about my heart, is not the time and not the place for this debate. I wish to assure my colleagues on the other side and on this side that there will be an opportunity for full consideration of the important issues raised by my colleague from Texas. We are getting at it. We are trying to do it. We are trying to get that report out of the Treasury. And as soon as it comes, maybe even before it comes, we are going to have a suggestion here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. PORTMAN).
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. HOUGHTON), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight, for yielding me the time; and I appreciate his words as to his commitment to doing a thorough investigation of the issue of disclosure, not just 527s but all of the tax -related committees, including the 501s.
I do have a copy of the motion to recommit now. I appreciate, with all the talk about disclosure, that it was disclosed to us several minutes ago. I have looked at it. I would just make two very simple points.
One is, it has nothing to do with the bill before us, which is repeal of a 102-year-old telephone excise tax . That is what is before this Congress.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents